Page 78 - 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. 78
What Do We Know about the World?
(II) Noi non facciamo della violenza una scuola, un sistema o, peggio ancora,
una estetica. Noi siamo violenti tutte le volte che è necessario esserlo. Ma vi
dico subito che bisogna conservare alla violenza necessaria del fascismo una
linea, uno stile nettamente aristocratico o, se meglio vi piace, nettamente
chirurgico. (Mussolini, 1921: 241)
We (ourselves) don’t make a school out of violence, a system or, even worse,
some kind of aesthetics. We (ourselves) are violent any time it is necessary
to be so. But let me tell you right now: it is indispensable to stick to a line, a
clear, aristocratic style or, if you prefer, a clear, surgical line, for the violence
necessary for fascism.
In Italian as in the other Romance languages which are pro-drop
languages the first argument of the verb doesn’t have to be realized if the
referent can be gathered from the context which is the case in quotation
number II. The unmarked and neutral realization would be non faccia-
mo della violenza una scuola and siamo violenti tutte le volte che è necessa-
rio, we don’t make … we are violent, without realizing the first argument
of fare/to make and essere/to be which in this case is the first person plu-
ral noi/we. By morphologically realizing it Mussolini skilfully starts his
argumentation from a supposed preliminary agreement with the audi-
ence which he even points out by the marked realization of the first ar-
gument. It is as if he acted and spoke in the name of the audience. The
preliminary agreement won’t even be questioned as it is not the topic
of the discussion and Mussolini will therefore get away with it. What
is more, when saying we (ourselves) don’t make a school out of violence, it
is as if his spontaneous and natural reaction to violence were negative.
The morphosyntactic negation entails a negative orientation. The result-
ing peace-loving image remains to a certain extent even though he after-
wards says point-blank we (ourselves) are violent any time it is necessary
to be so. Concerning the creation of ethos it is as if the speaker identi-
fied himself with the audience and as if he were speaking in their name.
He portrays himself as a non-violent person in principle, full of sympa-
thy and empathy.
In number III Mussolini uses a passive construction which allows
him not to specify the agent:
(III) La disciplina deve essere accettata. Quando non è accettata, deve essere impos-
ta. Noi respingiamo il dogma democratico che si debba procedere eterna-
mente per sermoni, per prediche e predicozzi di natura più o meno libera-
le. (Mussolini, 1922: 413)
(II) Noi non facciamo della violenza una scuola, un sistema o, peggio ancora,
una estetica. Noi siamo violenti tutte le volte che è necessario esserlo. Ma vi
dico subito che bisogna conservare alla violenza necessaria del fascismo una
linea, uno stile nettamente aristocratico o, se meglio vi piace, nettamente
chirurgico. (Mussolini, 1921: 241)
We (ourselves) don’t make a school out of violence, a system or, even worse,
some kind of aesthetics. We (ourselves) are violent any time it is necessary
to be so. But let me tell you right now: it is indispensable to stick to a line, a
clear, aristocratic style or, if you prefer, a clear, surgical line, for the violence
necessary for fascism.
In Italian as in the other Romance languages which are pro-drop
languages the first argument of the verb doesn’t have to be realized if the
referent can be gathered from the context which is the case in quotation
number II. The unmarked and neutral realization would be non faccia-
mo della violenza una scuola and siamo violenti tutte le volte che è necessa-
rio, we don’t make … we are violent, without realizing the first argument
of fare/to make and essere/to be which in this case is the first person plu-
ral noi/we. By morphologically realizing it Mussolini skilfully starts his
argumentation from a supposed preliminary agreement with the audi-
ence which he even points out by the marked realization of the first ar-
gument. It is as if he acted and spoke in the name of the audience. The
preliminary agreement won’t even be questioned as it is not the topic
of the discussion and Mussolini will therefore get away with it. What
is more, when saying we (ourselves) don’t make a school out of violence, it
is as if his spontaneous and natural reaction to violence were negative.
The morphosyntactic negation entails a negative orientation. The result-
ing peace-loving image remains to a certain extent even though he after-
wards says point-blank we (ourselves) are violent any time it is necessary
to be so. Concerning the creation of ethos it is as if the speaker identi-
fied himself with the audience and as if he were speaking in their name.
He portrays himself as a non-violent person in principle, full of sympa-
thy and empathy.
In number III Mussolini uses a passive construction which allows
him not to specify the agent:
(III) La disciplina deve essere accettata. Quando non è accettata, deve essere impos-
ta. Noi respingiamo il dogma democratico che si debba procedere eterna-
mente per sermoni, per prediche e predicozzi di natura più o meno libera-
le. (Mussolini, 1922: 413)
