Abstract:
This study aims at examining linguistic devices in indirect attack on the government during censure debates. The data elicited includes the 2002 censure debates which took place on 22-24 May 2002. The censure debates is about 71 hours. A contextual analysis based on SPEAKING frame reveals that the discourse of Thai censure debates are strictly governed. The scene, the ends of the speech event, the roles of the participants, the instrumentalities, as well as the sequence of acts are stated in the rules of the parliamentary regulations. According to the rules of the debate, the role of the opposition party is to present cases of wrong-doing such as corruption to the public. However, the rules of the parliamentary regulations also state that while doing so, the debaters are not allowed to use verbal and non-verbal abuses. This might be a major reason why the opposition has to adopt indirect strategies in order to attack the credibility of the ruling-government. It is found that debaters from the opposition party adopt eight linguistic devices to attack government. Thoses devices are-using verbal irony, using rhethorical questions, using conditionals, using indefinite description, using metaphor, using idioms, providing examples implicating cases of wrong-doing, and using puns. In terms of function, the present study indicates that the 8 devices help achieve not only the main function -- to attack the opponents -- but also other communicative goals. Those functions are - to avoid breaching the rules of the parliamentary regulations, to disclaim responsibility, to persuade the audience, to attract the audience's attention, to provoke humor, to give a clear picture of what is described, to emphasize and to hearer get the extended meaning. Among the eight devices, verbal irony and rhethorical questions appear to be the most preferred. The findings indicate that the strategy selection depends on the regulations of the debate, the communicative goals a strategy can achieve, as well as, the debater's style