Page 243 - 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. 243
the analysis of insulting practices – sticks and stones
in the croatian parliament 243
5. Conclusion
The line between criticisms, accusations, and disparaging, derogato-
ry terms perceived as insults is very fuzzy and sometimes difficult to es-
tablish. Insults are achieved via both linguistic and extralingusitic cues
and are contextually defined. Most of the time, insults made by the Cro-
atian MPs serve to interact with other interlocutors and reaffirm the
party position represented by a particular MP, at the same time under-
mining the insult target and consequentially the party represented by
this particular MP. They also serve as attention-getters, in which case
the insult is “usually directed for the benefit of an on-looking audience
and with the intent to strengthen the silencer’s own position“ (Tindale,
2007: 90). The audience that the insult initiator has in mind is often
wider than the one in the session hall and we could define it as “a third
party consisting of the spectators“ (Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004:
178) i.e. reporters, journalists, and constituency members (Ilie, 2010b).
There are various cues for insult recognition, usually ad hominem/
ad personam attacks, notions such as corruption, lies, morale, irony and
sarcasm, forms of address, rhetorical questions, together with the ex-
pressive force of the insult instigator and the conception of what an in-
sult is by the MP her/himself. Many of the insults are done in the form
of rectifying the incorrect statement, when MPs have a right to correct
a statement previously discussed. Responses to insults are individual,
sometimes it is the addressee that responds and sometimes someone else
(Speaker, other MP of the same party). MPs often use the response to an
insult to make an insult themselves or shift the topic of discussion.
MPs position themselves only along the party lines. This shows
that the possible common ideology behind the same-wing parties does
not play any significant role in the Croatian Parliament. The frequency
of insult initiators is purely individual and there are certain MPs who
use unparliamentary language more often than others, which basically
serves to promote their own image in a highly competitive environment.
There is no gender–dependent difference between insult initiator/s or
target/s, which can be linked to Kišiček’s (2008) research, which showed
that there were no significant differences between female and male rhet-
oric in politics.
Preferred insulting strategies are pathos and ethos-oriented insults to
show political polarization, juxtaposition of opposite notions such as de-
mocracy vs. communism, morality vs. corruption/lies; insults as (rhetor-
in the croatian parliament 243
5. Conclusion
The line between criticisms, accusations, and disparaging, derogato-
ry terms perceived as insults is very fuzzy and sometimes difficult to es-
tablish. Insults are achieved via both linguistic and extralingusitic cues
and are contextually defined. Most of the time, insults made by the Cro-
atian MPs serve to interact with other interlocutors and reaffirm the
party position represented by a particular MP, at the same time under-
mining the insult target and consequentially the party represented by
this particular MP. They also serve as attention-getters, in which case
the insult is “usually directed for the benefit of an on-looking audience
and with the intent to strengthen the silencer’s own position“ (Tindale,
2007: 90). The audience that the insult initiator has in mind is often
wider than the one in the session hall and we could define it as “a third
party consisting of the spectators“ (Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004:
178) i.e. reporters, journalists, and constituency members (Ilie, 2010b).
There are various cues for insult recognition, usually ad hominem/
ad personam attacks, notions such as corruption, lies, morale, irony and
sarcasm, forms of address, rhetorical questions, together with the ex-
pressive force of the insult instigator and the conception of what an in-
sult is by the MP her/himself. Many of the insults are done in the form
of rectifying the incorrect statement, when MPs have a right to correct
a statement previously discussed. Responses to insults are individual,
sometimes it is the addressee that responds and sometimes someone else
(Speaker, other MP of the same party). MPs often use the response to an
insult to make an insult themselves or shift the topic of discussion.
MPs position themselves only along the party lines. This shows
that the possible common ideology behind the same-wing parties does
not play any significant role in the Croatian Parliament. The frequency
of insult initiators is purely individual and there are certain MPs who
use unparliamentary language more often than others, which basically
serves to promote their own image in a highly competitive environment.
There is no gender–dependent difference between insult initiator/s or
target/s, which can be linked to Kišiček’s (2008) research, which showed
that there were no significant differences between female and male rhet-
oric in politics.
Preferred insulting strategies are pathos and ethos-oriented insults to
show political polarization, juxtaposition of opposite notions such as de-
mocracy vs. communism, morality vs. corruption/lies; insults as (rhetor-
