1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics and Society
  4. Volume 9, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 9, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates the reference statements and rhetorical functions of politicians’ reactive (“uptaking”) statements in parliamentary debates as well as their self-positioning effects. Uptaking moves may be used by speakers for pursuing strategic, global discourse aims. The specific properties of such ‘uptaking’ utterances and their sequential embedding in the unfolding discourse provide analysts with cues of speakers’ global interactional goals. Results indeed show how global and local pragmatic factors impact content, form, and rhetorical function of MPs’ uptaking statements. The data comprises four Austrian parliamentary sessions, which follow the inaugural speech each newly appointed Austrian chancellor has to deliver in the Austrian national assembly at the beginning of a legislative term. Overall, four fifths of the uptaking discourse units (consisting of ‘reference to previous statement plus comment’) refer to the government program, the inaugural speech or a previous MPs’ statement. Whereas a closer investigation of the reference statements seems to indicate a left wing vs. right wing rhetorical pattern (with left wing and center parties referring to ‘official’ sources, while right wing parties set their own topical agenda), investigating the rhetorical functions of the uptaking discourse units reveals a clear government vs. opposition (but no party-specific) rhetoric: Government party MPs praise the government program (or the inaugural speech), opposition party speakers criticize it. Both groups thus focus on the interpersonal plain of interaction. In contrast, argumentative (or counter-argumentative) uptaking discourse units which would indicate speakers’ willingness to enter into a rational discourse (in a Habermasian sense) with their political opponents are extremely rare. Through their rhetorical activities, the vast majority of government and opposition speakers thus reinforce and perpetuate already known political stances and affiliations in front of a third party (i.e. the general public watching the debates via TV or Internet livestream) rather than presenting themselves as rational, problem-focused politicians.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16021.gru
2019-01-10
2024-10-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ps.16021.gru
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bayley, Paul
    2004 Introduction: The whys and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse. InCross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourseed. byPaul Bayley, 1–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Berlin, Lawrence, Elda Weizman, and Anita Fetzer
    2015 Introduction. InThe Dynamics of Political Discourse. Forms and functions of follow-upsed. byAnita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence Berlin, 1–17. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.259
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boyd, Michael
    2013 Reframing the American dream. InAnalyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practiceed. byPiotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 297–319. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.12boy
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.12boy [Google Scholar]
  4. Bull, Peter, and Kate Mayer
    1993 How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology14: 651–666. 10.2307/3791379
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3791379 [Google Scholar]
  5. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2014 Analysing Political Speeches. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑36833‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-36833-1 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chilton, Paul A.
    2004 Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chovanec, Jan, and Marta Dynel
    2015 Researching interactional forms and participant structures in public and social media. InParticipation in Public and Social Media Interactionsed. byMarta Dynel and Jan Chovanec, 1–27. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.256.01cho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.256.01cho [Google Scholar]
  8. Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage
    2002 The News Interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  9. Drew, Paul
    1992 Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape. InTalk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 470–521. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Dynel, Marta
    2014a ‘On the Part of Ratified Participants: Ratified Listeners in Multi-Party Interactions’. Brno Studies in English40 (1): 27–44. 10.5817/BSE2014‑1‑2
     https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2014-1-2 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2014b ‘Participation Framework Underlying YouTube Interaction’. Journal of Pragmatics73 (11): 37–52. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fairclough, Norman, and Isabella Fairclough
    2012 Political Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fetzer, Anita
    2006 ‘“Minister, we will see how the public judges you.”’Journal of Pragmatics38 (2): 180–195. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goffman, Erving
    1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday/Anchor Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
    1990 He-Said-She-Said. Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gruber, Helmut
    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]
  17. 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]
  18. 2001 Questions and strategic orientation in verbal conflict sequences. Journal of Pragmatics33 (12): 1815–1857. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00083‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00083-7 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2013 Genres in Political Discourse: The case of the Parliamentary ‘Inaugural Speech’ of Austrian Chancellors. InAnalyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practiceed. byPiotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 29–73. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.03gru
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.03gru [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. 2015b Policy-oriented argumentation or ironic evaluation: A study of verbal quoting and positioning in Austrian politicians’ parliamentary debate contributions. Discourse Studies, 17 (6): 682–702. 10.1177/1461445615602377
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615602377 [Google Scholar]
  22. Harris, Sandra
    1991 Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. InBroadcast Talk, ed. byPaddy Scannell, 76–99. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Heritage, John
    1985 Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. InHandbook of Discourse analysis, ed. byTeun van Dijk, vol.1, 95–117. London: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, John, and David Greatbatch
    1986 Generating Applause: A Study of Rhetoric and Response at Party Political Conferences. American Journal of Sociology92 (1): 110–157. 10.2307/2779719
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2779719 [Google Scholar]
  25. Heritage, John, and David Watson
    1979 Formulations as conversational objects. InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. byGeorge Psathas, 123–163. New York: Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 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]
  27. Hutchby, Ian
    1996 Power in discourse: The case of arguments on a British talk radio show. Discourse & Society7 (4): 481–497. 10.1177/0957926596007004003
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926596007004003 [Google Scholar]
  28. Klein, Josef
    2000 Textsorten im Bereich politischer Institutionen. InHandbuch der Text- und Gesprächsanalyse, ed. byGerd Antos, Klaus Brinker, and Sven F. Sager, vol.2, 1589–1605. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1992 Activity types and language. InTalk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Martin, James R.
    1992 English Text. System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.59
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  31. Martin, James R., and Peter White
    2007 Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Maynard, Donald W.
    1985 How children start arguments. Language in Society14 (1): 1–29. 10.1017/S0047404500010915
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010915 [Google Scholar]
  33. Mey, Jacob L.
    2015 Sequentiality and follow-ups. InThe Dynamics of Political Discourse. Forms and functions of follow-ups, ed. byAnita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence Berlin, 17–33. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.259.01mey
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259.01mey [Google Scholar]
  34. Myers, Greg
    2008 Analyzing Interaction in Broadcast Debates. InQualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciencesed. byRuth Wodak and Michał Krzyzanowski, 121–145. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑04798‑4_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-04798-4_6 [Google Scholar]
  35. Reisigl, Martin
    2007 Nationale Rhetorik in Fest- und Gedenkreden. Eine diskursanalytische Studie zum ‘österreichischen Millennium’ in den Jahren 1946 und 1996. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Reynolds, Edward
    2011 Enticing a Challengeable in Arguments: Sequence, Epistemics and Preference Organisation. Pragmatics21 (3): 411–430. 10.1075/prag.21.3.06rey
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.3.06rey [Google Scholar]
  37. Sbisà, Marina
    2009 Uptake and conventionality in illocution. Lódz Papers in Pragmatics5 (1): 33–52. 10.2478/v10016‑009‑0003‑0
     https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-009-0003-0 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stokoe, Elizabeth, and Derek Edwards
    2008 ‘Did you have permission to smash your neighbour’s door?’ Silly questions and their answers in police–suspect interrogations. Discourse Studies10 (1): 89–111. 10.1177/1461445607085592
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085592 [Google Scholar]
  39. Van der Houwen, Fleur and Keun Young Sliedrecht
    (eds) 2016 The form and function of formulations: co-constructing narratives in institutional settings. Special section of Journal of Pragmatics105: 55–129. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1997 What is political discourse analysis?InPolitical Linguisticsed. byJan Blommaert and Chris Bulcaen, 53–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bjl.11.03dij
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.03dij [Google Scholar]
  41. Weizman, Elda
    2008 Positioning in Media Dialogue: Negotiating Roles in the News Interview. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.3 [Google Scholar]
  42. Weizman, Elda, and Anita Fetzer
    (eds) 2015 Follow-ups in Political Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.60
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60 [Google Scholar]
  43. Wodak, Ruth
    2000 From Conflict to Consensus? The co-construction of a policy paper. InEuropean Union Discourses on Un/employmented. byPeter Muntigl, Gilbert Weiss, and Ruth Wodak, 73–115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dowi.12.05wod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dowi.12.05wod [Google Scholar]
  44. 2009 The Discourse of Politics in Action. Politics as Usual. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16021.gru
Loading
Debating or displaying political positions?
Pragmatics and Society 9, 571 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.16021.gru
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16021.gru
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16021.gru
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): parliamentary debates; political rhetoric; second position moves; uptake

Most Cited

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