Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


As the core of political discourse is the struggle for power and scarce resources, conflict seems to be an essential component of political action and interaction. In addition, conflicts in parliament are manifested in many different ways. They range from disputes during the plenary sessions to more personal attacks in the question time. This paper, however, examines an atypical display of parliamentary discourse, namely a speech by a social democratic MP David Rath, which regarded a vote on his extradition and was delivered on 5 June 2012. This speech obviously did not fulfil the primary function of the parliamentary sessions, i.e. legislating and decision-making. Here the MP was given the opportunity to present his own version of events and ask fellow MPs to maintain his parliamentary immunity. The analysis revealed two intertwining discourse strategies. On the one hand, the MP who is charged with several criminal acts presents himself as a victim of a conspiracy. In that, he aims to divert attention from the criminal case while calling for sympathy and providing self-justification. On the other hand, he uses his time to verbally complain about his arrest, the conditions in which he is held in custody, and the people he holds responsible for his current situation; he uses verbal attacks to undermine and disqualify a number of overt and covert enemies. The key aim of the analysis is to explore how victimhood is constructed in discourse, what discourse strategies are observable at the macro-level and how they are reflected in the discourse structure and in the linguistic style.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baly, Andrew R.
    2010 “Leaving Abusive Relationships: Constructions of Self and Situation by Abused Women.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence25(12):2297–2315. doi: 10.1177/0886260509354885
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354885 [Google Scholar]
  2. Berns, Nancy
    2001 “Degendering the Problem and Degendering the Blame: Political Discourse on Women and Violence.” Gender & Society15(2):262–281. doi: 10.1177/089124301015002006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/089124301015002006 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bitzer, Lloyd. F.
    1992 “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric25:1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bourdieu, Pierre
    1991Language and Symbolic Power. Oxford: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Burkhardt, Armin
    2003 “Verunklärungsarbeit. Sprachliche Techniken der Schuldverschleicherung im Rahmen des CDU- Parteispendenskandals.” InPolitik, Sprache und Glaubwürdigkeit, edited by Armin Burkhardt and Kornelia Pape , 104–119. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Buttny, Richard , and George H. Morris
    2001 “Accounting.” InThe New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, edited by William Peter Robinson , and Howard Giles , 285–302. Chichester: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2011Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  8. Constantinescu, Mihaela V.
    2012 “The Use of Quotations in the Romanian Parliamentary Discourse.” InParliamentary Discourses across Cultures: Interdisciplinary Approaches, edited by Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu , Melania Roibu , and Mihaela. V. Constantinescu , 263–282. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Damer, Edward T.
    2009Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments. Belmont, CA: Wadworth Cengage Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Grice, H. Paul
    1978 “Further Notes on Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics. Vol.9 Pragmatics, edited by Peter Cole , 113–127. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Harré, Rom , and Luk van Langenhove
    1991 “Varieties of Positioning.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour21(4):393–407. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.1991.tb00203.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1991.tb00203.x [Google Scholar]
  12. eds. 1999Positoning Theory: Moral Context of Intentional Action. Oxford/Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoffmannová, Jana
    2003 “Veřejné mluvené projevy v Poslanecké sněmovně.” InJazyk, média, politika, edited by Jana Hoffmannová and Světla Čmejrková , 40–79. Praha: Academia.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ilie, Cornelia
    1999 “Question-Response Argumentation in Talk Shows.” Journal of Pragmatics31(8):975–999. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00056‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00056-9 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2003 “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language and Politics1(2):269–291.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2009 “Strategies of Refutation by Definition: A Pragma-Rhetorical Approach to Refutations in a Public Speech.” InPondering on Problems of Argumentation: Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues, edited by Frans H. Eemeren , Bart Garssen , Scott Jacobs , Erik C. W. Krabbe , and John Woods , 35–51. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9165‑0_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_4 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2010a “Identity Co-construction in Parliamentary Discourse Practices.” InEuropean Parliaments under Scrutiny. Discourse Strategies and Interaction Practicesedited by Cornelia Ilie , 57–78. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.38.04ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.04ili [Google Scholar]
  18. 2010b “Introduction.” InEuropean Parliaments under Scrutiny. Discourse Strategies and Interaction Practices, edited by Cornelia Ilie , 1–25. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.38.01ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.01ili [Google Scholar]
  19. 2010c “Speech Acts and Rhetorical Practices in Parliamentary Question Time.” Revue Roumaine De Linguistique-Romanian Review of Linguistics55(4):333–342.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana
    2010 “The Romanian Parliamentary Discourse: Tradition and Modernity. A Pragma-Rhetorical Approach.” Revue Roumaine De Linguistique-Romanian Review of Linguistics55(4):327–332.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2012 “Introduction.” InParliamentary Discourses across Cultures: Interdisciplinary Approaches, edited by Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu , Melania Roibu , and Mihaela V. Constantinescu , 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jacquemet, Marco
    1999 “Conflict.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology9(1–2):42–45. doi: 10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1‑2.42
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1-2.42 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kallmeyer, Werner
    1996 “Forcieren oder: Die verschärfte Gangart.” InGesprächsrhetorik : rhetorische Verfahren im Gesprächsprozeß, edited by Werner Kallmeyer , 19–118. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Karlík, Petr , Marek Nekula , and Zdenka Rousínová
    1995Příruční mluvnice češtiny. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kirkland, Lane , Tara N. Richards Gillespie , Eugena M. Givens , and M. Dwayne Smith
    2013 “Framing Deadly Domestic Violence: Why the Media’s Spin Matters in Newspaper Coverage of Femicide.” Violence against Women19(2):222–245. doi: 10.1177/1077801213476457
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801213476457 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kolář, Petr , Jindříška Syllová , and Štěpán Pecháček
    2002Parlament České republika, 1993–2001Praha: Linde.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lucius-Hoene, G. , and A. Deppermann
    2004 “Narrative Identität und Positionierung.” Gesprächsforschung (5):166–183.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Madzharova Bruteig, Yordanka
    2008 “Parliamentary Genres and Political Change: Textual Developments in Debates of the Czechoslovak Parliament 1948–1953.” InBeiträge der Europäischen Slavistischen Linguistik (POLYSLAV) 11, edited by Nadine Thielemann , Elena Graf , and Rafał Zimny , 142–150. München: Otto Sagner.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2010 “Czech Parliamentary Discourse: Parliamentary Interactions and the Construction of the Addressee.” InEuropean Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse Strategies and Interacton Practices, edited by Cornelia Ilie , 265–303. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.38.13bru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.13bru [Google Scholar]
  31. Pennycook, Alaistar
    1994 “The Politics of Pronouns.” ELT Journal48(2):173–178. doi: 10.1093/elt/48.2.173
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/48.2.173 [Google Scholar]
  32. Reschová, Janica , and Jindřiška Syllová
    1996 “The Legislature of the Czech Republic.” InThe New Parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe, edited by David. M. Olson , and Norton Philip , 82–107. London Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Schmidt-Radefeldt, Jürgen
    1977 “So-Called Rhetorical Questions.” Journal of Pragmatics1(4):375–392. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(77)90029‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(77)90029-7 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schwitalla, Johannes
    1996 “Beziehungsdynamik. Kategorien für die Beschreibung der Beziehungsgestaltung sowie der Selbst- and Fremddarstellung in einem Streit- und Schlichtungsgespräch.” InGesprächsrhetorik. Rhetorische Verfahren im Gesprächsprozeß., edited by Werner Kallmeyer , 279–349. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Searle, John R.
    1976 “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society5:1–23. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006837
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sgall, Peter , Jiří Hronek , Alexander Stich , and Ján Horecký
    1992Variation in Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/llsee.39
    https://doi.org/10.1075/llsee.39 [Google Scholar]
  37. Syllová, Jindříška , Petr Kolář , Jan Kysela , Jiří Georgiev , and Štěpán Pecháček
    2008Parlament České republiky2ed.Praha: Linde.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Tedeschi, James T. , and Richard B. Felson
    1994Violence, Aggression and Coersive Actions. Washington DC: American Psychology Association doi: 10.1037/10160‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10160-000 [Google Scholar]
  39. Thomas, Jenny
    1997Meaning in Interation: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London/New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. van Dijk, Teun A.
    2007Racismo y Discurso en América Latina. Barcelona: Gedisa.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Walton, Douglas , and Fabrizio Macagno
    2001 “Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquotations.” Informal Logic31(1):27–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Weiss, Daniel
    2013 “Types and Functions of Intertextual References in the Russian State Duma.” Ain’t misbehavin’? Implicit and explicit strategies in Eastern European Political Discourse19.-20.10.2013, Universtität Zürich, Zürich.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Wenger, Etienne
    2010 “Communities of Practice.” Last ModifiedAugust 16, 2014. www.ewenger.com/theory/.
  44. Wintr, Jan
    2010Česká parlamentní kultura. Praha: Auditorium.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wodak, Ruth , and Teun A. van Dijk
    eds. 2000Racism at the Top. Parliamentary Discourses on Ethnic Issues in Six European States. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zarefsky, David
    2008 “Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.” Argumentation22(3):317–330. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9096‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9096-9 [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error