2004
Volume 42, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

Personal attacks abound in Dutch parliamentary history. This article considers personal insults and character attacks as an intrinsic part of parliamentary debate. But how widespread is the phenomenon? What forms of ad hominem arguments can be distinguished in the history of Dutch parliamentary debate? When and to what extent do parliamentarians deem the abusive attack acceptable? Drawing on a rich source of language ruled to be unparliamentary in Dutch parliament from 1934 until 2001, the article will reflect on the complicated nature of personal attacks within the context of parliaments: often condemned as indecent, yet appreciated as a cunning debating strategy.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2020.2.005.HOET
2020-07-01
2024-10-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/42/2/05_TVT2020.2_HOET.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2020.2.005.HOET&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bootsma, P., & Hoetink, C.(2006). Over lijken. Ontoelaatbaar taalgebruik in de Tweede Kamer. Amsterdam: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C.(2002). Introduction: themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse. In Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C. (red.), Politics as text and talk. Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 1-41). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Drees, W.(1975). Het Nederlandse parlement vroeger en nu. Naarden: Strengholt.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Eemeren, F.H. van(2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Eemeren, F.H. van & Snoeck Henkemans, A.F.(2016). Argumentatie. Inleiding in het analyseren, beoordelen en houden van betogen. Groningen/Houten: Wolters-Noordhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Graham, R.(2016). Withdraw and apologise: A diachronic study of unparliamentary language in the New Zealand Parliament, 1890-1950. Proefschrift Victoria University Wellington, Nieuw-Zeeland.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Haaften, T. van(2011). Parliamentary Debate and Political Culture: The Dutch Case. In T.van Haaften, H.Jansen, J.de Jong & W.Koetsenruijter (red.), Bending Opinion. Essays on persuasion in the public domain (pp. 349-368). Leiden: Leiden University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Haaften, T. van(2012). Norm en taal in politiek Den Haag. In M.Hildebrandt & M.Foblets (red.), Liber Amicorum René Foqué (pp. 631-645). Brussel: Groep de Boeck NV.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Haaften, T. van(2017). Strategic maneuvering with presentational choices in Dutch parliamentary debate. In F.H.van Eemeren & P.Wu (red.), Contextualizing in Pragma Dialectics (pp. 177-192). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hoetink, C., & Bootsma, P.(2006). Over lijken. Ontoelaatbaar taalgebruik in de Tweede Kamer. Amsterdam: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hoetink, C.(2015). Tussen traditie en modernisering. De Tweede Kamer op het breukvlak van de eenentwintigste eeuw. 1983-2015. In R.Aertset al. (red.), In dit Huis. Twee eeuwen Tweede Kamer (pp. 409-436). Amsterdam: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hoetink, C.(2018). Macht der gewoonte. Regels en rituelen in de Tweede Kamer na 1945.Nijmegen: Vantilt.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ilie, C.(2001). Unparliamentary Language: Insults as Cognitive Forms of Ideological Confrontation. In R.Dirven, R.Frank & C.Ilie (red.), Language and Ideology. Volume II: Descriptive Cognitive Approaches (pp. 236-262). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ilie, C.(2004). Insulting as (un)parliamentary practice in the British and Swedish parliaments. A rhetorical approach. In P.Bayley (red.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 45-86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ilie, C. (2010a). Introduction. In C.Ilie (red.), European parliaments under scrutiny. Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp. 1-25). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ilie, C. (2010b). Strategic uses of parliamentary forms of address: The case of the U.K. Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag. Journal of pragmatics, 42, 885-911.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ilie, C.(2016). Parliamentary Discourse and Deliberative Rhetoric. In P.Ilhalainen, C.Ilie & K.Palonen (red.), Parliament and Parliamentarism. A Comparative History of a European Concept (pp. 133-146). New York/Oxford: Berghahn.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kuitenbrouwer, J.(2010). De woorden van Wilders en hoe ze werken. Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lauret, L.(2018). Respecting the Order and Liberty of Deliberations. Continuity of meeting practices in the Dutch States General (c. 1750-1830). BMGN – Low Countries Historical Review, 133, 122-145.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Leeuwen, M. van(2015). Stijl en politiek. Een taalkundig-stilistische benadering van Nederlandse parlementaire toespraken. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Mergel, T.(2002). Parlamentarische Kultur in der Weimarer Republik. Politische Kommunikation, symbolische Politik und Öffentlichkeit im Reichstag. Düsseldorf: Droste.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Mouffe, C.(2005). On the political. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Oddens, J.(2012). Pioniers in schaduwbeeld. Het eerste parlement van Nederland 1796-1798. Nijmegen: Vantilt.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Parlementsredacteur. (23 juli 1953). CPN-ers krijgen kous op de kop. Humor niet hunsterkste zijde…Het Vrije Volk, p. 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Pippel, J.G.(1950). Het Reglement van Orde van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. Zijn geschiedenis en zijn toepassing. Den Haag: Staatsdrukkerij.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Plug, J.(2010). Ad-hominem arguments in the Dutch and the European Parliaments. Strategic manoeuvring in an institutional context. In C.Ilie (red.), European Parliaments under Scrutiny (pp. 305-328). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Schulz, A.(2012). Vom Volksredner zum Berufsagitator. Rednerideal und parlamentarische Redepraxis im 19. Jahrhundert. In A.Schulz & A.Wirsching (red.), Parlamentarische Kulturen in Europa. Das Parlement als Kommunikationsraum (pp. 247-267). Düsseldorf: Droste.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Schulz, A. & Wirsching, A.(2002). Parlamentarische Kulturen in Europa. Das Parlament als Kommunikationsraum. Düsseldorf: Droste.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Steinmetz, W.(1993). Das Sagbare und das Machbare. Zum Wandel politischer Handlungsspielräume – England 1789-1867 (Sprache und Geschichte, Bd. 21). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Tanja, E.(2010). Goede politiek: de parlementaire cultuur van de Tweede Kamer, 1866-1940. Amsterdam: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Turpijn, J.(2005). Het gezag van ‘mijnheer de voorzitter’ in de parlementaire cultuur van de negentiende eeuw. BMGN – Low Countries Historical Review, 120, 417-434.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Turpijn, J.(2008). Mannen van gezag: de uitvinding van de Tweede Kamer 1848-1888. Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Velde, H. te (2015a). Sprekende politiek. Redenaars en hun publiek in de parlementaire gouden eeuw. Amsterdam: Prometheus.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Velde, H. te (2015b). Staten-Generaal en parlement. De welsprekendheid van de Tweede Kamer. In R.Aerts, C.van Baalen, J.Oddens, D.Smit & H.te Velde (red.), In dit huis. Twee eeuwen Tweede Kamer (pp. 167-191). Amsterdam: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. VeldeH. te(2019). De taal van Geert Wilders en de parlementaire cultuur. In: G.Voerman & K.Vossen (red.), Wilders gewogen. 15 jaar reuring in de Nederlandse politiek (pp. 231-249). Amsterdam: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2020.2.005.HOET
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error