Dosadašnja istraživanja pokazala su razlike u političkoj retorici i diskursu muškaraca i žena. Različite retoričke i diskursne strategije odražavaju razlike u percepciji muškaraca i žena na položaju moći. Ovaj se rad fokusira na politički diskurs u dijaloškoj retoričkoj vrsti intervju i to u hrvatskom i britanskom kontekstu. U radu se analiziraju retorička obilježja i diskursne strategije političkoga govora, ali i diskursne strategije koje koriste voditelji intervjua. Navedeno je obrađeno kvalitativnom i kvantitativnom komparativnom analizom sa svrhom da se ustanove trendovi i preferencije u korištenju retoričkih obilježja i diskursnih strategija u odnosu na rod i nacionalnost političara. Prvi je cilj rada bio ispitati retorička i diskursna obilježja u političkoj retorici. Ispitivano je korištenje argumentacijskih pogrešaka, humora kao retoričkoga sredstva manipulacije i diskursnih obilježja nesigurnosti i subjektivnosti (modali subjektivnosti, modali ublažavanja i pojačivači). Pretpostavilo se da će varijabla roda i nacionalnosti utjecati na količinu i vrstu argumentacijskih pogrešaka, humora i diskursnih obilježja nesigurnosti i subjektivnosti. Drugi je cilj bio ispitati diskursne strategije koje voditelji intervjua koriste u razgovoru s visokopozicioniranim političarima. Fokus je bio na diskursnoj strategiji prekidanja i preklapanja te na diskursnoj strategiji razvijanja teme. Pretpostavilo se da će broj prekidanja i preklapanja političara kao i izbor osobnih tema koje se razvijaju tijekom intervjua ovisiti o varijabli roda i nacionalnosti. Kvantitativna analiza provedena je u odnosu na svih pet ispitivanih retoričkih i diskursnih obilježja. Statistički značajna razlika pokazana je kod ispitivanja humora kao retoričkog sredstva manipulacije i kod diskursne strategije prekidanja i preklapanja. Kvantitativnom analizom pokazano je da muškarci značajno više koriste humor od svojih kolegica te da voditelji intervjua značajno više prekidaju i preklapaju političare nego političarke na visokom položaju moći. Kvalitativnom analizom ustanovljene su razlike s obzirom na izbor argumentacijskih pogrešaka i diskursnu strategiju razvijanja teme u odnosu rod i nacionalnost političara. Kod ostalih ispitivanih obilježja nisu ustanovljene razlike u odnosu na rod i nacionalnost govornika, ali su definirane glavne funkcije humora, najčešće korišteni modali subjektivnosti, ublažavanja i pojačivači u retorici visokopozicioniranih političara te glavne funkcije diskursne strategije prekidanja i preklapanja u političkim intervjuima.
|Sažetak (engleski)|| |
Recent researches have shown differences in male and female political rhetoric and discourse. Differences in rhetorical and discourse strategies reflect the differences in the perception of male and female politicians at the positions of power. Since the ancient times, politics has been mainly men’s area. Women entered the political scene in the 20th century. Political rhetoric is also considered dominantly men’s area as the greatest rhetoricians such as Aristotle, Quintilian and Cicero were all men. This means that, once they entered political arena, women had to adjust to a dominantly men’s field. This paper focuses on the political discourse in a dialogue rhetoric form of an interview in Croatian and British context. The paper analyses rhetorical features and discourse strategies used by politicians and interviewers. The above defined was quantitatively and qualitatively analysed in order to establish main trends and preferences in the usage of rhetorical features and discourse strategies in relation to the politicians’ gender and nationality. Numerous researches in the field of both rhetoric and discourse analysis have shown differences in the discourse of men and women. Lakoff (1975) was among pioneers to define and systematize so-called female language features (tag questions, hedges, intensifiers, euphemisms, lack of humour etc.) adding that the female language is indirect and subjective which automatically puts women in a subordinate social position. Analysing the differences between male and female discourse, Deborah Tannen (1994) concludes that women choose topics more easily, they discuss them more thoroughly and they are more likely to talk about personal topics. She defines female speech as more subjective, tactful and indirect then male. Ross and Baxter (2017) also conclude that media focus more on personal and private topics when talking to women. Discourse strategies of interruptions and overlaps were analysed by Zimmerman and West (1975) who concluded that women are more frequently interrupted than men. Shaw (2002) confirms the above mentioned in her doctoral thesis by emphasizing that men interrupt women more frequently, they are more assertive in their arguments and they tend to use humour more often, especially irony. Numerous Croatian researches have also proved the differences in the arguments used by women and men (Kišiček, 2008; RunjićStoilova and Tomelić-Ćurlin, 2016; Runjić-Stoilova and Varošanec-Škarić, 2017). All the researches indicate different argumentation strategies in male and female rhetoric which means choice of different arguments and fallacies. As per above listed researches, men and women use different linguistic, rhetorical and discourse strategies. Female rhetoric is defined as more subjective, insecure and indirect. It is characterized by solidarity and cooperation. On the other hand, male rhetoric is more objective, rational and direct. This paper questions these conclusions by focusing on the comparative analysis of male and female rhetoric in Croatia and Great Britain. The first goal of this paper was to research rhetorical and discourse features in political rhetoric. Choice of arguments and fallacies, humour as manipulation strategy and discourse features of insecurity and subjectivity were analysed. It was assumed that the parameter of gender and nationality shall impact the amount and type of used fallacies, humour, and insecurity and subjectivity features. Female politicians were expected to use the fallacies based on emotions while male politicians were expected to base their fallacies and arguments on reason and logics. Male politicians were also expected to use more humour in their discourse while the female discourse was expected to be more insecure and subjective. Second goal was to research the discourse strategies used by the interviewers in political interviews. The focus was put on the discourse strategy of interruption and overlap as well as on the discourse strategy of topic development. It was assumed that the number of interruptions and overlaps, and the choice of personal topics being developed throughout the interview shall depend on the parameter of gender and nationality. Interruptions, overlaps and personal topics were expected to be found in the interviews with female politicians. The material included television interviews with eight politicians at approximately similar position of power (presidents and prime ministers). Croatian politicians whose rhetoric was analysed are as follows: former president Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, former prime minister Jadranka Kosor, current prime minister Andrej Plenković and former prime minister and current president Zoran Milanović. British politicians included in this analysis are: former prime minister Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister Theresa May, former prime minister Tony Blair and former prime minister David Cameron. The interviews were chosen in accordance with the material suitability and availability. Total material amounts to 981 minutes of television political interviews, or when transcribed, to approximately 669 standard pages. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis was implemented for all five parts of the research. Quantitative analysis included descriptive statistics and statistical t-tests to find out whether there are any statistically relevant differences in relation to the speakers’ gender or nationality. Qualitative analysis used the existing theoretical frameworks (Škarić, 2007 and Tindale, 2011 for fallacies, Attardo, 1994 for roles of humour, Škarić, 2007 and Lakoff, 1975 for insecurity and subjectivity features, Murata (1994) and Kennedy and Cambden (1983) for interruption and overlap functions). The results show that there is a statistically relevant difference at the part focusing on humour as a rhetorical manipulation strategy and on the discourse strategy of interruptions and overlaps. Quantitative analysis showed that male politicians use humour as a manipulation strategy statistically more frequently than their female colleagues. Apart from the mentioned, it also proved that the interviewers interrupt and overlap male politicians more than the female ones. Finally, male interviewers tend to ask more personal questions than the female interviewers. The results of qualitative analysis indicate the differences considering fallacies and discourse strategy of topic development in relation to the politicians’ gender and nationality. Differences in relation to gender and nationality were not found in the other analysed rhetoric and discourse features. However, the results showed main functions of the humour, most frequently used discourse features of insecurity and subjectivity, and main functions of interruptions and overlaps in political interviews. The results of the research can contribute to the development of rhetorical education of both politicians and journalists. They can also give an insight into cultural and socially conditioned differences in speech. Finally, the results of this research present a good starting point for further research in the field of high political rhetoric, for systematization of the main features of the discourse used by leading politicians, as well as for defining the differences in relation to the politicians’ gender and nationality.