Cover not available
Part of
It’s not all about you: New perspectives on address research
Edited by Bettina Kluge and María Irene Moyna
[Topics in Address Research 1] 2019
► pp. 305–332

Pragmatic and grammatical categories for the analysis of forms of address in presidential election debates

This chapter presents grammatical and pragmatic criteria for the linguistic description of forms of address in televised presidential election debates, considered as a sub-genre of political discourse. It argues that a detailed linguistic description of the data is necessary before embarking on the interpretive phase of the strategic use of forms of address in this type of verbal interaction. The linguistic criteria proposed are (1) grammatical: parts of speech categories for forms of address, syntactic function, and word order; and (2) pragmatic: debate format, turn position, participant roles, discursive acts exhibiting forms of address, the appellative function of forms of address, and reference. These criteria are applied to Spanish language data taken from the televised 1994 and 2012 Mexican presidential election debates.
Keywords: forms of address, social deixis, appellative function, Mexican Spanish, televised presidential election debates, descriptive linguistics methodology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology, data, and the polyfunctionality of forms of address in political discourse
  • 3.Grammatical and syntactic categories of forms of address
    • 3.1Grammatical categories
    • 3.2Syntactic function and word order of forms of address
  • 4.Pragmatic categories
    • 4.1Debate format
    • 4.2Position in the turn where address items occur
    • 4.3Participant roles
    • 4.4Appellative function
    • 4.5Discursive acts where forms of address occur
    • 4.6Reference
  • 5.Data on forms of address in two Mexican televised presidential election debates
    • 5.1Forms of address by grammatical category and syntactic function
    • 5.2Forms of address by appellative function and addresser
    • 5.3Forms of address by sections of the debate and discursive act
  • 6.Discussion: Assessing the applicability of grammatical and pragmatic criteria
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tar.1.12las
References (55)
References
Benoit, William L. 2007. Communication in political campaigns. Franfurt (Main): Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Blas Arroyo, José Luis. 1998. Funciones y estructuras discursivas del moderador en el debate político. Langues et Linguistique 24. 1–45.Google Scholar
. 2000. ‘Mire usted Sr. González…’ Personal deixis in Spanish political-electoral debate. Journal of Pragmatics 32. 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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 & Society 14 (4). 395–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Políticos en conflicto: una aproximación pragmático-discursiva al debate electoral cara a cara (Fondo Hispánico de Lingüística y Filología 7). Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1982 [1934]. Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart & New York: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
Bull, Peter & Annita Fetzer. 2006. Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews. Text & Talk 26 (1). 3–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charaudeau, Patrick. 2005. Le discours politique. Les masques du pouvoir. Paris: Vuibert.Google Scholar
Chihu Amparán, Aquiles. 2008. El framing de los debates presidenciales en México (1994–2006). Mexico City: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología & Miguel Ángel Porrúa.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2012. Address terms in the organization of turns at talk: The case of pivotal turn extensions. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 1853–1867. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1973. Sincronía, diacronía e historia. El problema del cambio lingüístico. 3rd rev. ed. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
De Cock, Barbara. 2009. Funciones pragmáticas de la referencia de persona en el lenguaje coloquial y en el discurso político. Oralia 12. 247–266.Google Scholar
. 2014. Profiling discourse participants. Forms and functions in Spanish conversation and debates. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2015. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and non-subjectivity across spoken language genres. Spanish in Context 12 (1). 10–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Fina, Anna. 1995. Pronominal choice, identity, and solidarity in political discourse. Text 15 (3). 379–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Oliveira, Sandi Michelle. 2010. La integración de la teoría y la metodología como desencadenante de un nuevo modelo de formas y fórmulas del tratamiento. In Martin Hummel, Bettina Kluge & María Eugenia Vázquez Laslop (eds.), Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico, 57–77. Mexico City/Graz: El Colegio de México/Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fernández García, Francisco. 2008. Los debates Zapatero /vs/ Rajoy de 2008. Claves discursivas de una victoria. LinRed 6. [URL]. (5 March, 2016.)
. 2014. Impoliteness, pseudo-politeness, strategic politeness? On the nature of communicative behaviour in electoral debates. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 58. 60–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
First Kennedy-Nixon Debate, 26 September 1960. © CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System). Sponsored and presented by © ABC, © CBS, © NBC Television Networks and Their Affiliated Stations. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Accession number: TNC 72. [URL]. (22 February 2016.)
Fontanella de Weinberg, María Beatriz. 1999. Sistemas pronominales de tratamiento usados en el mundo hispánico. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 1, 1399–1426. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Fracchiolla, Béatrice. 2011. Politeness as a strategy of attack in a gendered political debate – The Royal-Sarkozy debate. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 2480–2488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.Google Scholar
. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hammermüller, Gunther. 2010. Evolución de las formas de tratamiento del español medieval hasta el siglo XVI. In Martin Hummel, Bettina Kluge & María Eugenia Vázquez Laslop (eds.), Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico, 507–529. Mexico City/Graz: El Colegio de México/ Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2015. A typology of non-prototypical uses of personal pronouns: Synchrony and diachrony. Journal of Pragmatics 88. 176–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrero, Julio César & William L. Benoit. 2009. A functional analysis of the 2008 Spanish presidential debates. zer 14 (27). 61–81.Google Scholar
Hidalgo Downing, Raquel. 2015. Mecanismos interpersonales de actitud y alineación en un debate. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 64. 84–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971 (1957). Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In Roman Jakobson, Selected writings, vol. 2: Word and language, 130–147. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jaworski, Adam & Dariusz Galasiński. 2000. Vocative forms of address and ideological legitimization in political debates. Discourse Studies 2 (1). 35–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnen, Thomas. 2012. ‘Don’t expect me to repair in four years what you have destroyed in four hundred years’: On the ethos in (inter)action of Lula and Alckmin in an election TV debate. Stockholm Review of Latin American Studies 8. 83–99. [URL]. (5 March, 2016.)
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1997. A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics 7 (1). 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics 36. 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. (Im)politesse et gestion des faces dans deux types de situations communicatives: petits commerces et débats électoraux. Sociocultural Pragmatics 2 (2). 293–326.Google Scholar
. 2017. Les débats de l’entre-deux-tours des élections présidentielles françaises. Constantes et évolutions d’un genre. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine & Hugues Constantin de Chanay. 2007. 100 minutes pour convaincre: l’ethos en action de Nicolas Sarkozy. In Mathias Broth, Mats Forsgren, Coco Norén & Françoise Sullet-Nylander (eds.), Le français parlé des médias: Actes du Colloque de Stockholm, 8–12 juin 2005, 309–329. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter. 1997. Diskurstraditionen: zu ihrem sprachtheoretischen Status und ihrer Dynamik. In Barbara Frank, Thomas Haye & Doris Tophinke (eds.), Gattungen mittelalterlicher Schriftlichkeit, 43–79. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
Kuo, Sai-Hua. 2002. From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text 22 (1). 29–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otálora Malassis, Janine Madeline. 2014. Debates políticos y medios de comunicación. Mexico City: Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación.Google Scholar
Proctor, Katarzyna & Lilly I-Wen Su. 2011. The 1st person plural in political discourse: American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 3251–3266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roitman, Malin. 2014. Presidential candidates’ ethos of credibility: The case of the presidential pronoun I in the 2012 Hollande-Sarkozy debate. Discourse & Society 25 (6). 741–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4). 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte. 1983. Traditionen des Sprechens. Elemente einer pragmatischen Sprachgeschichtsschreibung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1979. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In John Searle, Expression and meaning; Studies in the theory of speech acts, 1–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibamoto-Smith, Janet S. 2011. Honorifics, ‘politeness,’ and power in Japanese political debate. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 3707–3719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vázquez Laslop, María Eugenia. 2010a. Formas de tratamiento parlamentario entre el Poder Legislativo y el Poder Ejecutivo en México (1862–2005). In Martin Hummel, Bettina Kluge & María Eugenia Vázquez Laslop (eds.), Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico, 619–648. Mexico City/Graz: El Colegio de México/Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz.Google Scholar
. 2010b. Tratamientos directos e indirectos entre los Poderes Legislativo y Ejecutivo en México (1821–1862). In Franca Orletti & Laura Mariottini (eds.), (Des)cortesía en español: espacios teóricos y metodológicos para su estudio, 575–597. Roma: Università degli Studi Roma Tre & Programa EDICE.Google Scholar
. 2012. Evolución de los tratamientos directo e indirecto entre los poderes Legislativo y Ejecutivo en México (1821–2005). In Emilio Montero Cartelle (ed.), Actas del VIII Congreso internacional de historia de la lengua española (Santiago de Compostela, 14–18 de septiembre de 2009), vol. 1, 1981–1992. Santiago de Compostela: Meubook.Google Scholar
. 2014. El discurso político en México (1968–1994): la emergencia del diálogo. In Rebeca Barriga Villanueva & Pedro Martín Butragueño (eds.), Historia sociolingüística de México. Espacio, contacto y discurso político, vol. 3, 1783–1895. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Wilson, John. 1990. Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language (Language in Society 15.) Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zupnik, Yael-Janette. 1994. A pragmatic analysis of the use of person deixis in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 21. 339–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1971. Hey, Whatsyourname! In Michael W. Le Galy, Robert A. Fox & Anthony Bruck (eds.), Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society, 787–801. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar