Cover not available

Article published In: Dialogue in institutional settings
Edited by Franca Orletti and Letizia Caronia
[Language and Dialogue 9:1] 2019
► pp. 42–64

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Staged conflicts in Austrian parliamentary debates

 | University of Vienna (Austria)
Published online: 5 July 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00031.gru
Abstract
This paper analyzes the rhetorical formats used by Austrian members of parliament (MPs) to express disagreement with previous speakers during the so-called ‘inaugural speech debates’. During these debates, MPs position themselves publicly as either government or opposition party representatives. Disagreeing with previous debate contributions represents a positioning practice that focuses on the interpersonal plane of interaction. The strict procedural rules of the debates, however, prevent MPs from engaging in genuine conflict talk. MPs rather use four rhetorical formats for signalling conflict with a previous speaker. This paper analyzes these strategies as well as their use by different groups of MPs and discusses their face aggravating/ impoliteness potential. Finally, it relates the results to previous studies of face work in political discourse.
Article outline
  • 1.An exceptional case: A genuine interpersonal conflict during a parliamentary debate
  • 2.Interactional features of parliamentary debates
    • 2.1Participation framework and face work aspects of parliamentary debates
    • 2.2Institutional framework for Austrian parliamentary debates
    • 2.3Consequences of situational factors for conflict communication during parliamentary debates
  • 3.Data and methods
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Categories of analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Quantitative results
    • 4.2Metapragmatic contrast
    • 4.3Norm related metapragmatic critique
    • 4.4Interpersonal metapragmatic critique
    • 4.5Metapragmatic style critique
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (30)
References
Bull, Peter, Judy Elliot, Derrol Palmer and Libby Walker. 1996. “Why Politicians Are Three-Faced: The Face Model of Political Interviews”. British Journal of Social Psychology 351: 267–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2013. Analysing Political Speeches. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul Anthony. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practics. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. “The Stance Triangle”. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [URL].
Dynel, Marta. 2011. “Revisiting Goffman’s Postulates on Participant Statuses in Verbal Interaction: Goffman on Participants in Verbal Interaction.” Language and Linguistics Compass 5(7): 454–465. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2006. “Minister, We Will See How the Public Judges You.’” Journal of Pragmatics 38(2): 180–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie-Harness. 1990. He-Said-She-Said. Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gruber, Helmut. 1990. “Ein Gespenst geht um in Osterreich”. Textlinguistische Untersuchungen zum Populistischen Diskurs J. Haiders. In Sprache in der Politik – Politik in der Sprache. Analysen zum Öffentlichen Sprachgebrauch, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Florian Menz, 191–208. Klagenfurt: Drava.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. Streitgespräche: Zur Pragmatik einer Diskursform. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Genres in Political Discourse: The Case of the “Inaugural Speech” of Austrian Chancellors”. In Analyzing Genre in Political Communication: Theory and Practice, ed. by Piotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 29–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 2001. “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse”. Discourse and Society 12 (4): 451–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B. 2007. “(Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV-Debates”. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (8): 1360–1370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kadar, Daniel Z. and Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga. 1993. “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the Context Sensitivity of Preference Structures”. Language in Society 22 (2): 193–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey Neil and Mick Short. 2007. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. 1985. “How Children Start Arguments”. Language in Society 14 (1): 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muntigl, Peter and William Turnbull. 1998. “Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing”. Journal of Pragmatics 29 (3): 225–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stopfner, Maria. 2013. Streitkultur Im Parlament. Linguistische Analyse Der Zwischenruf im Österreichischen Nationalrat. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1988. International News Reporting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action. Politics as Usual. Houndsmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zima, Elisabeth, Geert Brone and Kurt Feyaerts. 2010. “Patterns of Interaction in Austrian Parliamentary Debates”. In European Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse Strategies and Interaction Practices, ed. by Cornelia Ilie, 135–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gruber, Helmut
2022. When invoked voices blame real politicians. Pragmatics and Society 13:5 ► pp. 793 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue