Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 9:4 (2018) ► pp.571–597

Debating or displaying political positions?

MPs’ reactive statements during the inaugural speech debates in the Austrian parliament

 | Vienna University
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.
Keywords: parliamentary debates, uptake, second position moves, political rhetoric
Article outline
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2.Parliamentary debates between dialogue and monologue
    • 2.1Parliamentary debates as front-stage political discourse
    • 2.2Sequential aspects of parliamentary debates
  • 3.Data & methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Sources of reference in the inaugural speech debates
    • 4.2Rhetorical functions of uptaking FDUs
    • 4.3Typical combinations of rhetorical functions and reference sources in the MPs’ debate contributions
      • 4.3.1Government party MPs
      • 4.3.2Opposition party MPs
  • 5.Discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.16021.gru
References (44)
References
Bayley, Paul. 2004. Introduction: The whys and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse. In Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse ed. by Paul Bayley, 1–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Lawrence, Elda Weizman, and Anita Fetzer. 2015. Introduction. In The Dynamics of Political Discourse. Forms and functions of follow-ups ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence Berlin, 1–17. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Michael. 2013. Reframing the American dream. In Analyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice ed. by Piotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 297–319. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter, and Kate Mayer. 1993. How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology 141: 651–666. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2014. Analysing Political Speeches. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul A. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chovanec, Jan, and Marta Dynel. 2015. Researching interactional forms and participant structures in public and social media. In Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions ed. by Marta Dynel and Jan Chovanec, 1–27. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage. 2002. The News Interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1992. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape. In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 470–521. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2014a. ‘On the Part of Ratified Participants: Ratified Listeners in Multi-Party Interactions’. Brno Studies in English 40 (1): 27–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. ‘Participation Framework Underlying YouTube Interaction’. Journal of Pragmatics 73 (11): 37–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman, and Isabella Fairclough. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2006. ‘“Minister, we will see how the public judges you.”’ Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2): 180–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday/Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1990. He-Said-She-Said. Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Helmut. 1993. Political language and textual vagueness. Pragmatics 3 (1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Disagreeing: Sequential placement and internal structure of disagreements in conflict episodes. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 18 (4): 467–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Questions and strategic orientation in verbal conflict sequences. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (12): 1815–1857. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Genres in Political Discourse: The case of the Parliamentary ‘Inaugural Speech’ of Austrian Chancellors. In Analyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice ed. by Piotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 29–73. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015a. Establishing intertextual references in Austrian parliamentary debates. A pilot study. In Follow-ups in Political Discourse. Explorations across contexts and discourse domains, ed. by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer, 15–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 1991. Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In Broadcast Talk, ed. by Paddy Scannell, 76–99. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1985. Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In Handbook of Discourse analysis, ed. by Teun van Dijk, vol. 11, 95–117. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and David Greatbatch. 1986. Generating Applause: A Study of Rhetoric and Response at Party Political Conferences. American Journal of Sociology 92 (1): 110–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and David Watson. 1979. Formulations as conversational objects. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 123–163. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B. 2007. (Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV-debates. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (8): 1360–1370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 1996. Power in discourse: The case of arguments on a British talk radio show. Discourse & Society 7 (4): 481–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Josef. 2000. Textsorten im Bereich politischer Institutionen. In Handbuch der Text- und Gesprächsanalyse, ed. by Gerd Antos, Klaus Brinker, and Sven F. Sager, vol. 21, 1589–1605. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. Activity types and language. In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 1992. English Text. System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James R., and Peter White. 2007. Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Maynard, Donald W. 1985. How children start arguments. Language in Society 14 (1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 2015. Sequentiality and follow-ups. In The Dynamics of Political Discourse. Forms and functions of follow-ups, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence Berlin, 17–33. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Greg. 2008. Analyzing Interaction in Broadcast Debates. In Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michał Krzyzanowski, 121–145. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Sbisà, Marina. 2009. Uptake and conventionality in illocution. Lódz Papers in Pragmatics 5 (1): 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Studies 10 (1): 89–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Pragmatics 1051: 55–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1997. What is political discourse analysis? In Political Linguistics ed. by Jan Blommaert and Chris Bulcaen, 53–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda. 2008. Positioning in Media Dialogue: Negotiating Roles in the News Interview. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda, and Anita Fetzer (eds). 2015. Follow-ups in Political Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2000. From Conflict to Consensus? The co-construction of a policy paper. In European Union Discourses on Un/employment ed. by Peter Muntigl, Gilbert Weiss, and Ruth Wodak, 73–115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action. Politics as Usual. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Gruber, Helmut
2019. Staged conflicts in Austrian parliamentary debates. Language and Dialogue 9:1 ► pp. 42 ff. DOI logo
Gruber, Helmut
2022. When invoked voices blame real politicians. Pragmatics and Society 13:5 ► pp. 793 ff. DOI logo
Gruber, Helmut
2022. “Secret Service Plot” or “Drunken Night”? Accounting Strategies in a Resignation Speech and Their Uptake in Media Reports in Three Countries. Contrastive Pragmatics 3:3 ► pp. 397 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.