Cover not available
Part of
Political Discourse in Central, Eastern and Balkan Europe
Edited by Martina Berrocal and Aleksandra Salamurović
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 84] 2019
► pp. 119–146

Chapter 6
Delegitimization strategies in Czech parliamentary discourse

Parliamentary debates are characterized by constant conflict of opposing discourses in the struggle for positions, resources and political power. This rhetorical conflict, which is often more performed than real, aims, among others, to undermine the image of the political rivals and to question their professional, political and moral legitimation.
From the theoretical perspective, the questioning of identities and the face-threats are essential to this practice. They concern not only the individual face-threats, but the verbal attacks target frequently qualities related to the group-face (Spencer-Oatey 2009). However, these face threats form part of the parliamentary performance (staging) and the political rivals, unlike in the everyday interaction, seldom take a real offence which could seriously harm the interpersonal or intergroup relations (cf. Harris 2001: 468).
The research is conducted applying the pragma-rhetorical approach to parliamentary discourse which have proved useful in several studies of parliamentary discourse (Ilie 2003, 2010a, b, Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu 2010, 2012). However, some structual levels had to be added to Ilie’s approach in order to use its whole potential and convey the interplay of the different discourse levels in the parliamentary talk. By this endeavour, the approaches of Klein (1998) und Blas-Arroyo (Blas-Arroyo 2011) were also helpful.
This article aims to list delegitimization strategies used in the Czech Parliament. The main focus is on the strategies by which the fellow MPs are accused of lying, clientelismus or by which their moral and intelectual capabilities are put in question.
Keywords: delegitimization, rapport management, parliamentary discourse, discourse strategy, Czech
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Theoretical framework
    • Legitimisation and delegitimization
  • Method
  • Material
    • Material processing
  • Quantitative evaluation
  • Qualitative evaluation
    • First strategy: Accuse your political opponent of a fact that challenges his/her political legitimisation (e.g. lies, clientelism, lack of moral integrity).
    • Second strategy: Negative positioning / criticism: Depict your opponent’s political action in a negative manner. Criticise his/her political actions
    • Third strategy: Challenge/appeal: Voice a challenge/make an appeal that is connected to the political position (action, abilities, and legitimation) of the political opponent
    • Fourth strategy: Quoting the opponent: Quote/paraphrase utterances of your political opponent which weaken his/her position
    • Fifth strategy: Amusing/witty comments: Utter an amusing or witty comment that mocks the political action or personal attributes of the political opponent or group
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.84.06ber
References (67)
References
Alagappa, Muthiah. 1995. Political Legitimacy in Southeast Asia: The Quest for Moral Authority. Standford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Berger, Tilman. 2001. “Semantik der nominalen Anrede im Polnischen und Tschechischen.” [Semantics of Nominal Address in Polish and Czech]. In Studies on the Syntax and Semantics of Slavonic Languages, Papers in Honour of Andrzej Bogusławski on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, ed. by Viktor S. Chrakovskij, Maciej Grochowski, and Gerd Hentschel, 39–50. Oldenburg: Bibliotheks-und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.Google Scholar
Bitzer, Lloyd. 1992. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 25 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Blas-Arroyo, José Luis. 2011. Políticos en conflicto: una aproximación prágmatico-discursiva al debate electoral cara a cara. [Politicians in Conflict: a Pragmatic-Discursive Approximation of the electoral Face-to-Face Debate]. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boswell, Christina. 2009. “Knowledge, Legitimation and the Politics of Risk: The Functions of Research in Public Debates on Migration.” Political Studies 57 (1): 165–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cap, Piotr. 2010. Legitimisation in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner. 1997. “Discourse and Politics.” In Discourse as Social Interaction, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 206–230. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Chovanec, Jan. 2010. “Legitimation through differentiation: Discursive construction of Jacques Le Worm Chirac as an opponent to military action“ In Perspectives in Politics and Discourse, ed. by Urszula Okulska, and Piotr Cap, 61–81. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Constantinescu, Mihaela V. 2012. “The Use of Quotations in the Romanian Parliamentary Discourse.” In Parliamentary Discourses across Cultures: Interdisciplinary Approaches, ed. by Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Melania Roibu, and Mihaela. V. Constantinescu, 263–282. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2012. “Quotations in Monologic and Dialogic Political Discourse”. In Follow-ups across Discourse Domains: a Cross-Cultural Exploration of their Forms and Functions, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber, 72–86. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1964. “On Face-Work. An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” In Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays and Readings on Human Interaction, ed. by Warren G. Bennis et al., 226–249 Homewood/Ill: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
. 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behaviour. Chicago: Aldine Publications Co.Google Scholar
Gruber, Helmut. 2012. “Intertextual References in Austrian Parliamentary Debates. A Pilot Study”. In Follow-ups across Discourse Domains: a Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions. ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber, 87–106. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1982. Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. [Theory of Communicative Action]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 2001. “Being Politically Impolite: Extending the Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society 12 (4): 451–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodges, Adam. 2008. “The Dialogic Emergence of ‘Truth’ in Politics: Reproduction and Subversion of the ‘War on Terror’ Discourse.” Colorado Research in Linguistics 21: 1–12.Google Scholar
Hoffmannová, Jana. 2003. “Veřejné mluvené projevy v Poslanecké sněmovně: humorný konflikt a konfliktní humor.” [Public Speeches in the Czech Lower Parliamentary Chamber: Humorous Conflict and Conflict Humour] In Jazyk, média, politika [Language, Media and Politics], ed. by Jana Hoffmannová, and Světla Čmejrková, 40–79. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
Horan, Geraldine. 2012. “‘Ihre beispiele hinken nicht nur, sie sind sogar amputiert!’ Bonding, Bounding and Biting Humour in German Political Discourse.” Oxford German Studies 41 (2): 254–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2003. “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language and Politics 1 (2): 269–291.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Towards a Pragma-Rhetorical Approach: From Rhetoric to Pragmatics and Beyond.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Ashok Thorat, 16–37. Aundh (Pune): Institute of Advanced Studies in English.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Strategies of Refutation by Definition: a Pragma-Rhetorical Approach to Refutations in a Public Speech.” In Pondering on Problems of Argumentation: Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues, ed. by Frans H. Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Scott Jacobs, Erik C. W. Krabbe, and John Woods, 35–51. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. “Identity Co-construction in Parliamentary Discourse Practices.” In European Parliaments under Scrutiny. Discourse Strategies and Interaction Practices, ed. by Cornelia Ilie, 57–78. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. “Speech Acts and Rhetorical Practices in Parliamentary Question Time.” Revue Roumaine De Linguistique-Romanian Review of Linguistics 5: 333–342.Google Scholar
. 2010c. “Speech Acts and Rhetorical Practices in Parliamentary Question Time.” Revue Roumaine De Linguistique-Romanian Review of Linguistics 55 (4): 333–342.Google Scholar
Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana. 2010. “The Romanian Parliamentary Discourse: Tradition and Modernity. A Pragma-Rhetorical Approach.” Revue Roumaine De Linguistique-Romanian Review of Linguistics 55 (4): 327–332.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Introduction.” In Parliamentary Discourses across Cultures: Interdisciplinary Approaches, ed. by Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Melania Roibu, and Mihaela V. Constantinescu, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana, Melania Roibu, and Mihaela V. Constantinescu (eds). 2012. Parliamentary Discourses across Cultures: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott. 2009. “Nonfallacious Rhetorical Design in Argumentation“ In Pondering on Problems of Argumentation : Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues, ed. by Frans H. Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Scott Jacobs, Erik C. W. Krabbe, and John Woods, 55–78. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarren, Otfried, Ulrich Sarcinelli, and Ulrich Saxer. 1998. Politische Kommunikation in demokratischer Gesellschaft: Ein Handbuch mit Lexikonteil [Political Communicaton in the Democtratic Society: a Handbook with Glossary.] Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Josef. 2001. “Gespräche in politischen Institutionen.” [Conversations in Political Institutions.] In Text- und Gesprächslinguistik [Text Linguistics and Conversational Analysis], ed. by Klaus Brinker, Gerd Antos, Wolfgang Heinemann, and Sven F. Sager, 1568–1606. Berlin: Walter de Gruyer.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Politische Kommunikation als Sprachstrategie.” [Political Communication as a Language Strategy]. In Politische Kommunikation in der demokratischen Gesellschaft [Political Communication in a Democratic Society], ed. by Otfried Jarren, Ulrich Sarcinelli, and Ulrich Saxer, 376–395. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klokočka, Vladimír. 2006. Ústavní systémy evropských států [Constitutional System of European Countries]. Praha: Linde.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics, Longman linguistics Library. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ljung, Magnus. 2011. Swearing: A Cross-Cultural Linguistic Study. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lotko, Edvard. 2009. Kapitoly ze současné rétoriky [Chapters on Contemporary Rhetorics]. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého.Google Scholar
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1532 [2007]. Vladař [The Prince]. Praha: Nakladatelství XYZ.Google Scholar
Madzharova Bruteig, Yordanka. 2008. “Parliamentary Genres and Political Change: Textual Developments in Debates of the Czechoslovak Parliament 1948–1953.” In Beiträge der Europäischen Slavistischen Linguistik (POLYSLAV) 11[Proceedings of European Slavonic Linguistics (POLYSLAV) 11, ed. by Nadine Thielemann, Elena Graf, and Rafał Zimny, 142–150. München: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Czech Parliamentary Discourse: Parliamentary Interactions and the Construction of the Addressee.” In European Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse Strategies and Interaction Practices, ed. by Cornelia Ilie, 265–303. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mareš, Jiří. 2013. “Užití humoru v elektronickém učení [The Use of Humour in E-learning].” Pedagogika. sk (1): 36–54.Google Scholar
Pullmann, Michal. 2011. Konec experimentu. Přestavba a pád komunismus v Československu. [The End of the Experiment. Reconstruction and the Fall of Communism in Czechoslovakia] Praha: Scriptorium.Google Scholar
Pursch, Günther (ed). 1992. Das parlamentarische Schimpf & Schmunzel Lexikon, from „Abbruchunternehmen” bis „Zynismus. [Parliamentary Dishonour and Smirk Lexicon, from A to Z]. München: Langen Müller.Google Scholar
Rehbein, Jochen. 2000. “Ausgewählte Aspekte der Pragmatik.” [Selected Aspects of Pragmatics]. In Sprachwissenschaft. Ein Reader [Linguistics. A Reader], ed. by Ludger Hoffmann, 106–131. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rogerson-Revell, Pamela. 2007. “Humour in Business: A Double-edged Sword: A Study of Humour and Style Shifting in Intercultural Business Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (1): 4–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarcinelli, Ulrich. 2011. Politische Kommunikation in Deutschland : Medien und Politikvermittlung im demokratischen System [Political Communication in Germany: Media and Political Mediation in the Democratic System]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šlosar, Dušan. 1985. Jazyčník [Language Handbook]. Praha: Nakladatelství Horizont.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. “Face, (Im)Politeness and Rapport.” In Culturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed. by Helen Spencer-Oatey, 11–47. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
(ed). 2000a. Culturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2000b. “Rapport Management: A Framework for Analysis.” In Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, ed. by Helen Spencer-Oatey, 11–46. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2005a. “(Im)Politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging their Bases and Interrelationsships.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 95–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. “Rapport Management Theory and Culture.” Intercultural Pragmatics 2 (3): 335–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Theories of Identity and the Analysis of Face.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (4): 639–656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, (ed). 2008. Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport throught Talk across Cultures. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Face, Identity and Interactional Goals.” In Face, Communication and Social Interaction, ed. by Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini and Michael Haugh, 137–154. Scheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Steffani, Winfried. 1977. “Redeparlament [Speech Parliament]” In Handbuch des deutschen Parlamentarismus [Handbook of German Parliamentarism], ed. by Hans H. Röhring and Kurt Sontheimer, 418–420. München: Piper Verlag.Google Scholar
Suchman, Mark C. 1995. “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches.” Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 571–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Syllová, Jindřiška, Petr Kolář, Jan Kysela, Jiří Georgiev, and Štěpán Pecháček. 2008. Parlament České republiky 2ed. [The Parliament of the Czech Republic] Praha: Linde.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma, Terttu Nevalainen, Päivi Pahta, Matti Rissanen (eds). 2000. Placing Middle English in Context. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaara, Eero, and Janne Tienar. 2008. “A Discursive Perspective on Legitimation Strategies in Multinational Corporations.” Academy of Management Review 33 (4): 985–993. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, Theo. 2007. “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 91–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas and Fabrizio Macagno. 2001. “Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquatotions.” Informal Logic 31 (1): 27–55.Google Scholar
Weiss, Daniel. 2014. “Another Way of Being Impolite: the Polemic Use of Quotes in the Russian State Duma.” Talk at Grana Slavic 2014. 4th International Conference. Andalusian Symposia on Slavic Studies (4–6th June, 2014), Granada.
Wintr, Jan. 2010. Česká parlamentní kultura [Czech Parliamentary Culture]. Praha: Auditorium.Google Scholar
Yoong, David. 2012. “The Case of Humor in the Malaysian House of Representatives.” Humor 25 (3): 263–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zajdman, Anat. 1995. “Humorous Face-Threatening Acts: Humor as Strategy.” Journal of Pragmatics 23 (3): 325–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lastres-López, Cristina
2023. Chapter 11. Morphosyntactic and pragmatic variation in conditional constructions in English and Spanish parliamentary discourse. In Exploring Language and Society with Big Data [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 111], ► pp. 308 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.