“It’s not the whole truth”. The notions of truth and falsehood as persuasive devices in Polish and Swedish parliamentary talk

Main Article Content

Magdalena Domeradzka

Abstract

The article analyses references made to the notion of truth and falsehood in Swedish and Polish parliamentary talk. The results show that despite the mainstreaming of post-structuralism in contemporary society, the notion of truth – the central question of Western philosophy – is still present the parliamentary talk and in the ways in which MPs deliberate and engage in arguments. As the article argues, the MPs deploy discursive strategies exploiting mostly the classical or early modern objective theories of truth. Seeing truth as the ultimate value makes it expedient as a persuasive device and part of epideictic oratory. Apart from the similarities found in the Swedish and Polish parliamentary talk, the article shows differences mainly in how directly an accusation of lying can be voiced in the two parliaments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Domeradzka, M. (2019). “It’s not the whole truth”. The notions of truth and falsehood as persuasive devices in Polish and Swedish parliamentary talk. Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia, 25, 59-75. https://doi.org/10.2478/fsp-2018-0013
Section
Linguistics

References

  1. Allen, B. (1995). Truth in Philosophy. Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England: Harvard University Press.
  2. Allen, B. (1992). Nietzsche’s Question, "What Good Is Truth?” History of Philosophy Quarterly Vol. 9, No. 2 (Apr., 1992), p. 225–240. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27744017 (28.05.2018).
  3. Alnes, J.H. (2016). The politics of dissensus and political liberalism. Philosophy & Social Criticism Volume 43, issue 8, p. 837–854. Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0191453716658692 (28.04.2018).
  4. Antas, J. (1999). O kłamstwie i kłamaniu. Kraków. Univeritas.
  5. Aristotle. Rhetoric. Translated by W. Rhys Roberts. Retrieved from: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html (1.05.2018).
  6. Bayley, P. (ed.). (2004). Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  7. Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1, p. 1–14.
  8. Beshai, E. (2000). Gränslös retorik. Polsk och svensk parlamentsdebatt ur ett retoriskt perspektiv. Unpublished essay. Södertörns högskola: Stockholm.
  9. Beshai, E. (2001). Det retoriska klimatet i den interkulturella politiska debatten. Unpublished essay. En jämförande analys av en polsk och en svensk parlamentsdebatt.
  10. Bracciale, R. & Martella, A. (2017). Define the populist political communication style: the case of Italian political leaders on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society 20:9, p. 1310–1329. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328522 (1.05.2018).
  11. Bralczyk, J. (2007). O języku propagandy i polityki. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Trio
  12. Burda, J. (2012). Prawda i kłamstwo w wypowiedziach populistycznych. SŁOWO. Studia językoznawcze 3/2012, p. 56–62.
  13. Consigny, S. (1974). Rhetoric and its Situations. Philosophy and Rhetoric no. 3, p. 175–186.
  14. Czyżewski, M., Kowalski S., Piotrowski A. (eds.). (2010). Rytualny chaos. Studium dyskursu publicznego. Warszawa. Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.
  15. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Doubleday.
  16. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
  17. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume One: Reas- on and the Rationalisation of Society. London: Heinemann.
  18. Harris, S. (2001). Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse. Discourse & Society 12(4), p. 451–472. Google Scholar, SAGE Journals, ISI.
  19. Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, L. (2013). Introduction. In: L. Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu (ed.), Parliamentary Discourses across Cultures: Interdisciplinary Approaches (p. 1–20). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  20. Ilie, C. (ed.). (2010a). European Parliaments under Scrutiny. Discourse strategies and interaction practices. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  21. Ilie, C. (2010b). European parliaments under scrutiny – Introduction. In: C. Ilie (ed.), European Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (p. 1–25). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  22. Ilie, C. (2007) British ‘consensus’ versus Swedish ‘samförstånd’ in parliamentary debates. In: G. Garzone, C. Ilie (eds.), The use of English in institutional and business settings: An inter-cultural perspective (p. 101–125). Bern: Peter Lang.
  23. Ilie, C. (2003). Insulting as (un)parliamentary practice in the English and Swedish parliaments: A rhetorical approach. In: P. Bayley (ed.), Contrastive Studies in the Confrontational Strategies of Parliamentary Problem-solving Practices (p. 45–86). Amsterdam: John Benhjamins.
  24. Kampka, A. (2013). Rhetoric of the Crisis: Polish Parliamentarian Debates on the Future of the EU. In: G. Kišiček, I. W. Žagar (eds.), What Do We Know About The World?: Rhetorical and Argumentative Perspectives (Windsor Studies in Argumentation) (Volume 1) (p. 178–203). Retrieved from: https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/ (2018.01.20).
  25. Kampka, A. (2009). Perswazja w języku polityki. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
  26. Karwatowska, M. (2003). Językowy obraz kłamstwa. In: J. Bartmiński (ed.), Język w kręgu wartości: studia semantyczne (p. 319–337). Lublin: UMCS.
  27. Ornatowski, C. M. (2010). Parliamentary discourse and political transition: Polish Parliament after 1989. In: C. Ilie (ed.), European Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (p. 223–264). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  28. Pekonen, K. (2011). Puhe eduskunnassa [Talk in the Parliament]. Tampere: Vastapaino.
  29. Piniarski, A. (2011). Język polskiej debaty parlamentarnej. PhD thesis. Retrieved from: https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/ (12.02.2017).
  30. Ranciere, J. (1998). Disagreement : politics and philosophy. Minneapolis − London: University of Minnesota Press. Retrieved from: http://abahlali.org/files/Disagreement%20Politics%20and%20Philosophy.pdf (3.05.2018).
  31. Vatz, R. E. (1973). The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 6, (p. 154–61).
  32. Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.