1887
Volume 30, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Parliaments are important and complex institutions. However, they are notably under-researched within linguistics and related fields. This is certainly the case with the European Parliament (EP). Drawing both on Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (CADS) and prior, manual research on parliamentary communication, this paper proposes and applies an analytical protocol to examine EP speeches. Although these are disseminated in various forms and through dissimilar means (e.g., live at the EP; the audiovisual format via streaming or recorded videos; or published as parliamentary proceedings), here we focus on proceedings – one of the EP’s main sources of official representation. Following the EP’s (unique) practice, where official proceedings do not distinguish between original and translated speeches but consider all texts of equal (legal) status, this study delves into all speech production in English, without separating source and target texts. In the most orthodox of CADS traditions, analysis proceeds from micro and macro-levels of texts into the macro-context (unlike other academic approaches, in which it proceeds in the opposite direction). This direction forces us to move from tangible, specific data to the enveloping setting in which these data are exchanged.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.00003.cal
2018-03-26
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Antelmi, D. , & Santulli, F.
    (2010) The presentation of a new government to parliament from ritual to personalisation: A case study from Italy. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp.111–134). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.38.07ant
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.07ant [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, P.
    (2006) Using corpora in discourse analysis. London/New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2010) Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, P. , Gabrielatos, C. , Khosravinik, M. , Krzyżanowski, M. , McEnery, A. , & Wodak, R.
    (2008) A useful methodological synergy?: Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 273–305. doi: 10.1177/0957926508088962
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, P. , & McEnery, A.
    (2005) A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics, 4(2), 197–226. doi: 10.1075/jlp.4.2.04bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.4.2.04bak [Google Scholar]
  6. Bayley, P.
    (Ed.) (2004a) Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2004b) Introduction: The whys and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp.1–44). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.10.01bay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.01bay [Google Scholar]
  8. Bayley, P. , Bevitori, C. , & Zoni, E.
    (2004) Threat and fear in parliamentary debates in Britain, Germany and Italy. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp.185–236). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.10.06bay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.06bay [Google Scholar]
  9. Bayley, P. , & San Vicente, F.
    (2004) Ways of talking about work in parliamentary discourse in Britain and Spain. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp.237–69). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.10.07bay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.07bay [Google Scholar]
  10. Bevitori, C.
    (2004) Negotiating conflict: Interruptions in British and Italian parliamentary debates. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp.87–109). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.10.03bev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.03bev [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D. , Conrad, S. , & Reppen, R.
    (1998) Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511804489
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804489 [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. , & Finegan, E.
    (1999) The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, England/New York: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M. , Henry, E. B. , & Collier, D.
    (Eds.) (2008) The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bowler, S. , Farrell, D. , & Katz, R.
    (Eds.) (1999) Party discipline and parliamentary government. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Calzada-Pérez, M.
    (2007) Transitivity in translating: The interdependence of texture and context. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2017) Corpus-based methods for comparative translation and interpreting studies: Mapping differences and similarities with traditional and innovative tools. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 12(2), 231–252.10.1075/tis.12.2.03cal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.12.2.03cal [Google Scholar]
  17. Chilton, P.
    (Ed.) (2002) Journal of Language and Politics, 2(1). doi: 10.1075/jlp.2.1.02chi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.2.1.02chi [Google Scholar]
  18. Dibattista, D.
    (2004) Legitimising and informative discourse in the Kosovo debates in the British House of Commons and the Italian Chamber of Deputies. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp.151–84). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.10.05dib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.05dib [Google Scholar]
  19. Elpass, S.
    (2002) Phraseological units in parliamentary discourse. In P. A. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp.81–110). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.4.06els
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.06els [Google Scholar]
  20. Evison, J.
    (2010) What are the basics of analysing corpus. In A. O’Keefe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp.122–135). London/New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203856949.ch10
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856949.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fairclough, N.
    (2001) The dialectics of discourse. Textus, 14(2), 231–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Garzone, G. , & Santulli, F.
    (2004) What can corpus do for critical discourse analysis?In A. Partington , J. Morley , & L. Haarman (Eds.), Corpora and discourse (pp.351–68). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hardt-Mautner, G.
    (1995) ‘Only connect’: Critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics. UCREL Technical Paper6. Lancaster: University of Lancaster. Retrieved fromucrel.lancs.ac.uk/tech_papers.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hix, S.
    (2001) Legislative behaviour and party competition in the European Parliament: An application of nominate to the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(4), 663–688. doi: 10.1111/1468‑5965.00326
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00326 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoey, M.
    (2005) Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London/New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203327630
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203327630 [Google Scholar]
  26. Huber, J.
    (1996) Rationalizing parliament: Legislative institutions and party politics in France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511896446
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511896446 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ilie, C.
    (2006) Parliamentary discourses. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp.188–196). Oxford: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00720‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00720-3 [Google Scholar]
  28. (Ed.) (2010a) European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.38
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2010b) Identity co-construction in parliamentary discourse practices. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp.57–78). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.38.04ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.04ili [Google Scholar]
  30. Íñigo-Mora, I.
    (2010) Rhetorical strategies in the British and Spanish parliaments. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp.329–72). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.38.16ini
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.16ini [Google Scholar]
  31. Koller, V. , & Mautner, G.
    (2004) Computer applications in critical discourse analysis. In C. Coffin , A. Hewings , & K. O’Halloran (Eds.), Applying English grammar: Functional and corpus approaches (pp.216–28). London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kopaczyk, J.
    (2012) Applications of the lexical bundles method in historical corpus research. In P. Cap (Ed.), Corpus data across languages and disciplines (pp.83–95). Frankfurt Am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Krzyżanowski, M.
    (2005) Analyzing European Union discourse: Theories and applications. In R. Wodak & P. A. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp.137–63). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.13.11krz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.13.11krz [Google Scholar]
  34. Laclau, E. , & Mouffe, C.
    (1985) Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Laver, M. , & Shepsle, K.
    (1996) Making and breaking governments: Cabinets and legislatures in parliamentary democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511625671
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625671 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lorda Mur, C. U.
    (2010) The government control function of the French National Assembly in Questions Au Gouvernement . In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp.165–89). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.38.09lor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.09lor [Google Scholar]
  37. Madzharova Bruteig, Y.
    (2010) Czech parliamentary discourse: Parliamentary interactions and the construction of the addressee. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp.265–301). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.38.13bru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.13bru [Google Scholar]
  38. Martín Rojo, L. , & Van Dijk, T. A.
    (1997) There was a problem, and it was solved!: Legitimising the expulsion of ‘illegal’ migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society, 8(4), 523–66. doi: 10.1177/0957926597008004005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008004005 [Google Scholar]
  39. McEnery, T. , & Hardie, A.
    (2011) Corpus Linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511981395
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511981395 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mehan, H.
    (1997) The discourse of the illegal immigration debate: A case study in the politics of representation. Discourse & Society, 8(2), 249–70. doi: 10.1177/0957926597008002006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008002006 [Google Scholar]
  41. Miller, D. R.
    (2004) ‘Truth, justice and the American way’: The appraisal system of judgment in the U.S. House debate on the impeachment of the President, 1998. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp.271–300). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.10.08mil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.08mil [Google Scholar]
  42. Montesano Montessori, N.
    (2014) The potential of narrative strategies in the discursive construction of hegemonic positions and social change. In B. Kaal (Ed.), From text to political positions: Text analysis across disciplines (pp.171–87). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.55.08mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.55.08mon [Google Scholar]
  43. Muntigl, P.
    (2000) Dilemmas of individualism and social necessity. In P. Muntigl , G. Weiss , & R. Wodak (Eds.), European Union discourses on un/employment: An interdisciplinary approach to employment policy-making and organizational change (pp.145–84). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dowi.12.07mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dowi.12.07mun [Google Scholar]
  44. Muntigl, P. , Weiss, G. , & Wodak, R.
    (2000) European Union discourses on un/employment: An interdisciplinary approach to employment policy-making and organizational change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dowi.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dowi.12 [Google Scholar]
  45. Musolff, A.
    (2004) Metaphor and political discourse. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230504516
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 [Google Scholar]
  46. Oberhuber, F.
    (2005) Deliberation or ‘mainstreaming’?: Empirically researching the European Convention. In R. Wodak & P. A. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp.165–87). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.13.12obe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.13.12obe [Google Scholar]
  47. O’Halloran, K. , & Coffin, C.
    (2004) Checking overinterpretation and underinterpretation: Help from corpora in critical linguistics. In C. Coffin , A. Hewings , & K. O’Halloran (Eds.), Applying English grammar: Functional and corpus approaches (pp.257–97). London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Ornatowski, C. M.
    (2010) Parliamentary discourse and political transition: Polish parliament after 1989. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp.223–64). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.38.12orn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.12orn [Google Scholar]
  49. Orpin, D.
    (2005) Corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis: Examining the ideology of sleaze. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(1), 37–61. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.10.1.03orp
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.1.03orp [Google Scholar]
  50. Quintrileo, C.
    (2005) El debate parlamentario como género discursivo: Una primera aproximación. InAmérica Latina en su discurso: Actas del VI congreso latinoamericano de estudios del discurso. Chile: Universidad Católica de Chile.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Schulz, M.
    (2013) Europa: La última oportunidad. Barcelona: RBA.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Shepsle, K. , & Weingast, B.
    (Eds.) (1995) Positive theories of congressional institutions. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.10.3998/mpub.23248
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.23248 [Google Scholar]
  53. Sinclair, J.
    (2004) Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Stubbs, M.
    (1996) Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Tsebelis, G. , & Money, J.
    (1997) Bicameralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511609350
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609350 [Google Scholar]
  56. Van Dijk, T. A.
    (2000) On the analysis of parliamentary debates on immigration. In M. Reisigl & R. Wodak (Eds.), The semiotics of racism: Approaches to critical discourse analysis (pp.85–103). Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. (2002) Political discourse and political cognition. In P. A. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp.203–38). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.4.11dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.11dij [Google Scholar]
  58. (2004) Text and context of parliamentary debates. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp.339–72). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.10.10dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.10dij [Google Scholar]
  59. (2010) Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Vasta, N.
    (2004) Consent and dissent in British and Italian parliamentary debates on the 1998 Gulf crisis. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp.111–49). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.10.04vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.04vas [Google Scholar]
  61. Vuorikovski, A. R.
    (2004) A voice of its citizens or a modern Tower of Babel?: The quality of interpreting as a function of political rhetoric in the European Parliament. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Warwick, P.
    (1994) Government survival in parliamentary democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Wodak, R.
    (2011) The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230316539
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230316539 [Google Scholar]
  64. Wodak, R. , & Van Dijk, T. A.
    (Eds.) (2000) Racism at the top: Parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wodak, R. , & Weiss, G.
    (2004) Visions, ideologies, and utopias in the discursive construction of European identities: Organizing, representing and legitimizing Europe. In M. Putz , J. N. Van Aertselaer , & T. A. Van Dijk (Eds.), Communicating ideologies: Multidisciplinary perspectives on language, discourse, and social practice (pp.225–51). New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/resla.00003.cal
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.00003.cal
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