1887
Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper analyzes the rhetorical formats used by Austrian members of parliament (MPs) to express disagreement with previous speakers during the so-called ‘inaugural speech debates’. During these debates, MPs position themselves publicly as either government or opposition party representatives. Disagreeing with previous debate contributions represents a positioning practice that focuses on the interpersonal plane of interaction. The strict procedural rules of the debates, however, prevent MPs from engaging in genuine conflict talk. MPs rather use four rhetorical formats for signalling conflict with a previous speaker. This paper analyzes these strategies as well as their use by different groups of MPs and discusses their face aggravating/ impoliteness potential. Finally, it relates the results to previous studies of face work in political discourse.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00031.gru
2019-07-05
2019-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bull, Peter, Judy Elliot, Derrol Palmer and Libby Walker
    1996 “Why Politicians Are Three-Faced: The Face Model of Political Interviews”. British Journal of Social Psychology35: 267–284. 10.1111/j.2044‑8309.1996.tb01097.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01097.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2013Analysing Political Speeches. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chilton, Paul Anthony
    2004Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practics. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  4. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 “The Stance Triangle”. InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. byRobert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns.164.07du. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  5. Dynel, Marta
    2011 “Revisiting Goffman’s Postulates on Participant Statuses in Verbal Interaction: Goffman on Participants in Verbal Interaction.” Language and Linguistics Compass5(7): 454–465. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2011.00286.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00286.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Fetzer, Anita
    2006 “Minister, We Will See How the Public Judges You.’” Journal of Pragmatics38(2): 180–95. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017 [Google Scholar]
  7. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Goodwin, Marjorie-Harness
    1990He-Said-She-Said. Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gruber, Helmut
    1990 “Ein Gespenst geht um in Osterreich”. Textlinguistische Untersuchungen zum Populistischen Diskurs J. Haiders. InSprache in der Politik – Politik in der Sprache. Analysen zum Öffentlichen Sprachgebrauch, ed. byRuth Wodak and Florian Menz, 191–208. Klagenfurt: Drava.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 1993 “Political Language and Textual Vagueness”. Pragmatics3(1): 1–29. 10.1075/prag.3.1.01gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.3.1.01gru [Google Scholar]
  11. 1996Streitgespräche: Zur Pragmatik einer Diskursform. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑07738‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-07738-1 [Google Scholar]
  12. 1998 “Disagreeing: Sequential Placement and Internal Structure of Disagreements in Conflict Episodes”. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse18 (4): 467–504. 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.4.467
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.4.467 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2013 “Genres in Political Discourse: The Case of the “Inaugural Speech” of Austrian Chancellors”. InAnalyzing Genre in Political Communication: Theory and Practice, ed. byPiotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 29–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.03gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.03gru [Google Scholar]
  14. 2015a “Establishing Intertextual References in Austrian Parliamentary Debates. A Pilot Study”. InFollow-Ups in Political Discourse. Explorations across Contexts and Discourse Domains, ed. byElda Weizman and Anita Fetzer, 15–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.60.02gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.02gru [Google Scholar]
  15. 2015b “Policy-Oriented Argumentation or Ironic Evaluation: A Study of Verbal Quoting and Positioning in Austrian Politicians’ Parliamentary Debate Contributions”. Discourse Studies17 (6): 682–702. 10.1177/1461445615602377
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615602377 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2018 “Debating or Displaying Political Positions? – MPs’ Reactive Statements during the “Inaugural Speech Debates” in the Austrian Parliament”. Pragmatics and Society9 (4): 573–599. 10.1075/ps.16021.gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.16021.gru [Google Scholar]
  17. Harris, Sandra
    2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse”. Discourse and Society12 (4): 451–72. 10.1177/0957926501012004003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012004003 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B.
    2007 “(Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV-Debates”. Journal of Pragmatics39 (8): 1360–1370. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kadar, Daniel Z. and Michael Haugh
    2013Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kotthoff, Helga
    1993 “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the Context Sensitivity of Preference Structures”. Language in Society22 (2): 193–216. 10.1017/S0047404500017103
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017103 [Google Scholar]
  21. Leech, Geoffrey Neil and Mick Short
    2007Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Maynard, Douglas W.
    1985 “How Children Start Arguments”. Language in Society14 (1): 1–29. 10.1017/S0047404500010915
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010915 [Google Scholar]
  23. Muntigl, Peter and William Turnbull
    1998 “Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing”. Journal of Pragmatics29 (3): 225–256. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)00048‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00048-9 [Google Scholar]
  24. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  25. Stopfner, Maria
    2013Streitkultur Im Parlament. Linguistische Analyse Der Zwischenruf im Österreichischen Nationalrat. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Tannen, Deborah
    1989Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Verschueren, Jef
    1988International News Reporting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Wodak, Ruth
    2009The Discourse of Politics in Action. Politics as Usual. Houndsmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2017 “The “Establishment”, the “Élites”, and the “People”: Who’s Who?”. Journal of Language and Politics16 (4): 551–565. 10.1075/jlp.17030.wod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17030.wod [Google Scholar]
  30. Zima, Elisabeth, Geert Brone and Kurt Feyaerts
    2010 “Patterns of Interaction in Austrian Parliamentary Debates”. InEuropean Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse Strategies and Interaction Practices, ed. byCornelia Ilie, 135–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.38.08zim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.08zim [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00031.gru
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00031.gru
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error