1887
Volume 18, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This paper combines quantitative and qualitative analyses in a corpus-based study of how and for what purposes politicians, in the context of the Spanish Parliament, use the impersonal pronoun ‘one’. I begin by contrasting how is used in parliamentary debate versus non-political language. After reviewing traditional definitions of the semantic range and general behavior of this pronoun, I argue that a more accurate account that the one provided by standard grammars is needed for us to better understand how the peculiar characteristics of a parliament affect intentionality in the use of impersonal pronouns. In particular, it is argued that is utilized by politicians to serve principally two purposes: 1) avoidance of bluntness - a means of preserving professional etiquette, and 2) avoidance of self- praise - demonstrative of humility. Both purposes serve the larger objective of preserving professional face.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18.3.03gel
2008-01-01
2019-10-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Álvarez Martínez , and María Ángeles
    (1989) El pronombre (I). Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Beard, Adrian
    (2000) The language of politics. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blas-Arroyo, José L
    (2000) Mire usted Sr. González…Personal deixis in Spanish political-electoral debate. Journal of Pragmatics32: 1-27. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00040‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00040-5 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2003) ‘Perdóneme que se lo diga, pero vuelve usted a faltar a la verdad señor González’: Form and function of politic verbal behaviour in face-to-face Spanish political debates. Discourse and Society 14.4: 395- 423. doi: 10.1177/0957926503014004001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014004001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, P. , & A. Gilman
    (1960) The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language. New York: MIT, pp. 253-76.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, P. , & S. Levinson
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bull, Peter
    (2003) The microanalysis of political communication. Claptrap and ambiguity. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Carter, R. , & M. McCarthy
    (2002) From conversation to corpus: A dual analysis of a broadcast political interview. In A. Sánchez Macarro (ed.), Windows of the world: Media discourse in English. Valencia: University of Valencia Press, pp. 15-39.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chilton, Paul A
    (2001) Analysing the language of politics: Xenophobic and racist discourse. In O. Panagl , H. Goebl and E. Brix , Der Mensch und seine Sprache(n). Vienna: Böhlau, pp. 157-190.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2004) Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. De Fina, Anna
    (1995) Pronominal choice, identity and solidarity in political discourse. Text 15.3: 379- 410.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DRAE (Diccionario de la Real Academia Española de la Lengua)
    (2001) Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
  13. Fairclough, Norman
    (2000) New labour, new language? London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fernández Ramírez, Salvador
    (1987) Gramática española3.2. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fortanet, Inmaculada
    (2004) The use of ‘we’ in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes23: 45-66. doi: 10.1016/S0889‑4906(03)00018‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00018-8 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gamson, William A
    (1992) Talking politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Geis, Michael L
    (1987) The language of politics. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑4714‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4714-2 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gervasi, Kareen
    (2007) The use of Spanish impersonal forms in monolingual and bilingual speech. Hispania90.2: 342-353.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gómez Torrego, Leonardo
    (1992) La impersonalidad gramatical. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Grice, H. Paul
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol 3: Speech acts.New York. Academic Press, pp. 41-58.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Harris, Sandra
    (1991) Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In P. Scannell (ed.), Broadcast talk. London: Sage, pp. 76-92.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ilie, Cornelia
    (2003) Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics 2.1: 71-92. doi: 10.1075/jlp.2.1.05ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.2.1.05ili [Google Scholar]
  23. Íñigo-Mora, Isabel
    (2004) On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics 3.1: 27-52. doi: 10.1075/jlp.3.1.05ini
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.1.05ini [Google Scholar]
  24. Juliver, P. , & S. Stroschein
    (1999) Missing boundaries of comparison: The political community. Political Science Quarterly114.3: 435-453. doi: 10.2307/2658205
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2658205 [Google Scholar]
  25. Maitland, K. , & J. Wilson
    (1987) Pronominal selection and ideological conflict. Journal of Pragmatics11: 495-512. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90092‑0
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90092-0 [Google Scholar]
  26. Martínez, José. A
    (1989) El pronombre (vol.2). Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Mendikoetxea, Amaya
    (1999) Construcciones con se: Medias, pasivas e impersonales. In I. Bosque and  V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española 2. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, pp. 1635- 1722.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Morales, E. , and G. Prego
    (2002) Entrevistas electorales en las campañas políticas para la presidencia del gobierno de 1996 y 2000. Oralia5. 02: 203-45.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Obeng, Samuel G
    (1997) Language and politics: Verbal indirection in political discourse. Discourse and Society8.1: 49-83. doi: 10.1177/0957926597008001004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008001004 [Google Scholar]
  30. Otaola, Concepción
    (2000) Lexicometría y enunciación en el discurso político. In Bustos, Charaudeau , Girón, Iglesias and López (eds.), Lengua, Discurso, Texto (I Simposio Internacional de Análisis del Discurso)Madrid: Visor Libros, pp. 2405-2417.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Pennycook, Alastair
    (1994) The politics of pronouns. ELTJ 48.2: 173-178. doi: 10.1093/elt/48.2.173
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/48.2.173 [Google Scholar]
  32. Scott, Michael
    (2004) Wordsmith tools. (computer software). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Tolmach-Lakoff, Robin
    (1990) The language war. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Van Dijk , Teun A
    (2000) Parliamentary debates. In R. Wodak and T.A. Van Dijk (eds.), Racism at the top. Parliamentary discourses on ethic issues in six European States. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava Verlag, pp. 45-78.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Van Dijk. Teun A
    (2005) War rhetoric of a little ally: Political implicatures and Aznar’s legitimatization of the war in Iraq. Journal of Language and Politics 4.1: 65-91. doi: 10.1075/jlp.4.1.04dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.4.1.04dij [Google Scholar]
  36. Wilson, Joseph
    (1990) Politically speaking. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Zupnik, Yael J
    (1994) A pragmatic analysis or the use of person deixis in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics21: 339-383. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90010‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90010-8 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18.3.03gel
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Corpus linguistics , Deixis , Discourse pragmatics and Parliamentary talk
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