Page 241 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 241
the analysis of insulting practices – sticks and stones
in the croatian parliament 241
4.2.3. Juxtaposition of Opposite Notions: Democracy, Morality vs.
Communism, Corruption, Lying
Croatian MPs use juxtapositions of opposite notions as a possible
mitigation strategy. This is usually done by using the rhetorical figure
of antithesis which has two contrasting ideas intentionally juxtaposed.
Demetrius (Dean Anderson Jr., 2000: 21) says that “the use of antithesis
makes the speaker both gravis and ornatus“, i.e. important, serious, and
his speech elegant and ornate.
Diachronically, during the 90’s (2nd and 3rd Term), the notion that
was used as a way of mitigating an insulting strategy was democra-
cy vs. communism/old habits. In the terms that followed, these notions
were mainly used by the right-wing parties when they wanted to accuse
the Left of preferring the previous system more. Later on, morality vs.
corruption came up in face-threatening acts. It is of no surprise, since
MPs’ vulnerability can easily be enhanced by attacking the MPs’ ethos
through his/her wrongdoings, i.e. lying, cheating and corruption. These
notions at first seem different from respect vs. contempt used by British
and Swedish MPs (Ilie, 2004), but implicitly they are the same, since it
is known that people who are corrupt and lie deserve contempt, as op-
posed to those who are honourable, fair and deserve respect. The follow-
ing example shows the constant juxtaposition of these notions:
(10) C. Z. ( HDZ): Kako ćete postaviti tu moralnu dvojbu i prozivati ljude
koji nisu htjeli stati [na vašu stranu] na temelju tih vaših nemoralnih postupaka
u politici jer jedno govorite drugo radite, a s druge strane optužite Hrvatsku
demokratsku zajednicu da bi trebala biti u takvim situacijama moralna i pre-
pustiti vama političku vlast [...]. Pa prema tome, budimo realni, vi koji stva-
rate jednu areolu tobožnje demokratičnosti. Tko bi u tom slučaju trebao dobiti
mjesto predsjednika skupštine ili gradonačelnika? (3/22 5. studenoga 1997.)
C. Z. (CDU): How do you plan to set up this moral dilemma and single out
people who would not choose [your side] on the basis of these immoral ac-
tions in politics, because you say one thing and do another, and on the oth-
er hand, you accuse Croatian Democratic Union and say that in such situa-
tions it should behave morally and give you the political power [...]. Therefore,
let’s be realistic, you who try to create a halo of the so-called democracy. In that
case, who should be made a president of the assembly or a mayor? (3/22, No-
vember 5, 1997)
According to Aristotle (qtd., in Demetrius, 1902: 267) “the merit of
an antithetical style is that it brings contraries into emphatic juxtapos-
ition“. These notions are paired in order to create, in this case, an ethical
in the croatian parliament 241
4.2.3. Juxtaposition of Opposite Notions: Democracy, Morality vs.
Communism, Corruption, Lying
Croatian MPs use juxtapositions of opposite notions as a possible
mitigation strategy. This is usually done by using the rhetorical figure
of antithesis which has two contrasting ideas intentionally juxtaposed.
Demetrius (Dean Anderson Jr., 2000: 21) says that “the use of antithesis
makes the speaker both gravis and ornatus“, i.e. important, serious, and
his speech elegant and ornate.
Diachronically, during the 90’s (2nd and 3rd Term), the notion that
was used as a way of mitigating an insulting strategy was democra-
cy vs. communism/old habits. In the terms that followed, these notions
were mainly used by the right-wing parties when they wanted to accuse
the Left of preferring the previous system more. Later on, morality vs.
corruption came up in face-threatening acts. It is of no surprise, since
MPs’ vulnerability can easily be enhanced by attacking the MPs’ ethos
through his/her wrongdoings, i.e. lying, cheating and corruption. These
notions at first seem different from respect vs. contempt used by British
and Swedish MPs (Ilie, 2004), but implicitly they are the same, since it
is known that people who are corrupt and lie deserve contempt, as op-
posed to those who are honourable, fair and deserve respect. The follow-
ing example shows the constant juxtaposition of these notions:
(10) C. Z. ( HDZ): Kako ćete postaviti tu moralnu dvojbu i prozivati ljude
koji nisu htjeli stati [na vašu stranu] na temelju tih vaših nemoralnih postupaka
u politici jer jedno govorite drugo radite, a s druge strane optužite Hrvatsku
demokratsku zajednicu da bi trebala biti u takvim situacijama moralna i pre-
pustiti vama političku vlast [...]. Pa prema tome, budimo realni, vi koji stva-
rate jednu areolu tobožnje demokratičnosti. Tko bi u tom slučaju trebao dobiti
mjesto predsjednika skupštine ili gradonačelnika? (3/22 5. studenoga 1997.)
C. Z. (CDU): How do you plan to set up this moral dilemma and single out
people who would not choose [your side] on the basis of these immoral ac-
tions in politics, because you say one thing and do another, and on the oth-
er hand, you accuse Croatian Democratic Union and say that in such situa-
tions it should behave morally and give you the political power [...]. Therefore,
let’s be realistic, you who try to create a halo of the so-called democracy. In that
case, who should be made a president of the assembly or a mayor? (3/22, No-
vember 5, 1997)
According to Aristotle (qtd., in Demetrius, 1902: 267) “the merit of
an antithetical style is that it brings contraries into emphatic juxtapos-
ition“. These notions are paired in order to create, in this case, an ethical
