Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict
Vol. 5:1 (2017) ► pp.81–107

‘Victim playing’ as a form of verbal aggression in the Czech parliament

| Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Germany
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.
Keywords: parliamentary discourse, verbal aggression, conflict, manipulation, positioning, victim playing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Pragma-rhetorical approach
    • 2.2Politics and conflict
    • 2.3Victim discourse
  • 3.The political situation in the Czech Republic (2010–2013)
    • 3.1Studies of the Czech parliamentary discourse
    • 3.2The institutional context of the Czech parliament: Immunity and extradition procedures
  • 4.Analysis of the data
    • 4.1Positioning as a victim
      • 4.1.1Strategic macro-level
      • 4.1.2Linguistic realization
    • 4.2Attacking the enemies
      • 4.2.1Strategic macro-level
      • 4.2.2Linguistic realization
    • 4.3Inversion – from victim to prosecutor
      • 4.3.1Strategic macro-level
      • 4.3.2Linguistic realization
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 16 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.5.1.04ber
References (46)
References
Baly, Andrew R. 2010. “Leaving Abusive Relationships: Constructions of Self and Situation by Abused Women.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25(12):2297–2315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berns, Nancy. 2001. “Degendering the Problem and Degendering the Blame: Political Discourse on Women and Violence.” Gender & Society 15(2):262–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitzer, Lloyd. F. 1992. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 251:1–14.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, Armin. 2003. “Verunklärungsarbeit. Sprachliche Techniken der Schuldverschleicherung im Rahmen des CDU- Parteispendenskandals.” In Politik, Sprache und Glaubwürdigkeit, edited by Armin Burkhardt and Kornelia Pape, 104–119. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Buttny, Richard, and George H. Morris. 2001. “Accounting.” In The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, edited by William Peter Robinson, and Howard Giles, 285–302. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Constantinescu, Mihaela V. 2012. “The Use of Quotations in the Romanian Parliamentary Discourse.” In Parliamentary Discourses across Cultures: Interdisciplinary Approaches, edited by Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Melania Roibu, and Mihaela. V. Constantinescu, 263–282. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Damer, Edward T. 2009. Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments. Belmont, CA: Wadworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1978. “Further Notes on Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol.9 Pragmatics, edited by Peter Cole, 113–127. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harré, Rom, and Luk van Langenhove. 1991. “Varieties of Positioning.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 21(4):393–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, eds. 1999. Positoning Theory: Moral Context of Intentional Action. Oxford/Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Hoffmannová, Jana. 2003. “Veřejné mluvené projevy v Poslanecké sněmovně.” In Jazyk, média, politika, edited by Jana Hoffmannová and Světla Čmejrková, 40–79. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 1999. “Question-Response Argumentation in Talk Shows.” Journal of Pragmatics 31(8):975–999. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language and Politics 1(2):269–291.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, edited 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 edited by Cornelia Ilie, 57–78. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. “Introduction.” In European Parliaments under Scrutiny. Discourse Strategies and Interaction Practices, edited by Cornelia Ilie, 1–25. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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, edited by Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Melania Roibu, and Mihaela V. Constantinescu, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Jacquemet, Marco. 1999. “Conflict.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(1–2):42–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kallmeyer, Werner. 1996. “Forcieren oder: Die verschärfte Gangart.” In Gesprächsrhetorik : rhetorische Verfahren im Gesprächsprozeß, edited by Werner Kallmeyer, 19–118. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Karlík, Petr, Marek Nekula, and Zdenka Rousínová. 1995. Příruční mluvnice češtiny. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.Google Scholar
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 Women 19(2):222–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolář, Petr, Jindříška Syllová, and Štěpán Pecháček. 2002. Parlament České republika, 1993–2001 Praha: Linde.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lucius-Hoene, G., and A. Deppermann. 2004. “Narrative Identität und Positionierung.” Gesprächsforschung (5):166–183.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, edited 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 Interacton Practices, edited by Cornelia Ilie, 265–303. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, Alaistar. 1994. “The Politics of Pronouns.” ELT Journal 48(2):173–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reschová, Janica, and Jindřiška Syllová. 1996. “The Legislature of the Czech Republic.” In The New Parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe, edited by David. M. Olson, and Norton Philip, 82–107. London Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Radefeldt, Jürgen. 1977. “So-Called Rhetorical Questions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1(4):375–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwitalla, Johannes. 1996. “Beziehungsdynamik. Kategorien für die Beschreibung der Beziehungsgestaltung sowie der Selbst- and Fremddarstellung in einem Streit- und Schlichtungsgespräch.” In Gesprächsrhetorik. Rhetorische Verfahren im Gesprächsprozeß., edited by Werner Kallmeyer, 279–349. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1976. “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 51:1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sgall, Peter, Jiří Hronek, Alexander Stich, and Ján Horecký. 1992. Variation in Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Syllová, Jindříška, Petr Kolář, Jan Kysela, Jiří Georgiev, and Štěpán Pecháček. 2008. Parlament České republiky 2ed. Praha: Linde.Google Scholar
Tedeschi, James T., and Richard B. Felson. 1994. Violence, Aggression and Coersive Actions. Washington DC: American Psychology Association DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Jenny. 1997. Meaning in Interation: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 2007. Racismo y Discurso en América Latina. Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2001. “Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquotations.” Informal Logic 31(1):27–55.Google Scholar
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 Discourse 191.-20.10.2013, Universtität Zürich, Zürich.Google Scholar
Wenger, Etienne. 2010. “Communities of Practice.” Last Modified August 16, 2014. [URL].
Wintr, Jan. 2010. Česká parlamentní kultura. Praha: Auditorium.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Teun A. van Dijk, eds. 2000. Racism at the Top. Parliamentary Discourses on Ethnic Issues in Six European States. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava Verlag.Google Scholar
Zarefsky, David. 2008. “Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.” Argumentation 22(3):317–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

El-Astal, Mohammed & Abdulaziz Al-Mutawa
2024. Online Pravda’s Communicative Intentions Regarding the War in Ukraine: A CDA-Based Study of the Website’s Opinion Articles. Journal of Intercultural Communication ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo
Tyrkkö, Jukka & Haidee Kotze
2023. Perspectives on parliamentary discourse. In Exploring Language and Society with Big Data [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 111], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Badarneh, Muhammad A
2020. Discourses of defense: Self and other positioning in public responses to accusations of corruption in Jordan. Discourse Studies 22:4 ► pp. 399 ff. DOI logo
Breeze, Ruth
2020. Angry tweets. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 8:1 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo
Potapova, Rodmonga, Liliya Komalova & Vsevolod Potapov
2018. Perceptual-Auditory Evaluation of the Aggressive Speech Behavior: Gender Aspect (on the Basis of Russian and Spanish Languages). In Speech and Computer [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11096], ► pp. 532 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.