Cover not available

Article published In: Language and Dialogue
Vol. 5:3 (2015) ► pp.430–448

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

Split voices in political discourse

 | Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania
Published online: 17 December 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.3.04saf
In this paper, I consider dialogue in Parliament as central, because it is the dialogic instances that bring to the fore the multivocality of political discourse, and I will show there are “other voices [speaking] through the speaking voice” (Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu 2012, 152). I also start from the premise that, although restrictive and context dependent, in political discourse one may identify instances of the self. Politicians exploit language use with the purpose of creating emotions in their audience and their aim is to influence public opinion, to make voters think he/ she is “the right man at the right time”. Using extracts from the speeches delivered by a controversial Romanian politician, Corneliu Vadim Tudor, I will dwell upon the active management of voices in discourse as well as on projection of self into discourse with a view to discussing them as strategies used to construct a politician’s professional identity.
References (40)
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1982. Probleme de literatură şi estetică. Bucureşti: Univers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed. and trans. Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berlin, Lawrence N., and Anita Fetzer. 2012. Dialogue in Politics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Billig, Michael. 2005. Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cap, Piotr. 2005. “Language and Legitimization: Developments on the Proximization Model of Political Discourse Analysis”. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics I1: 7–36.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London, New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Constantinescu, Mihaela. 2012. “The Use of Quotations in the Romanian Parliamentary Discourse”. In Parliamentary Dicourses across Cultures: Interdisciplinary Approaches, ed. by Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, 263–282, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Bronwyn, and Rom Harré. 1990. “Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 20 (1): 43–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. “Positioning and Personhood”. In Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of Intentional Action, ed. by Rom Harré and L. van Lagenhove, 32–51. Oxford: Blackwell.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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duda, Gabriela. 2009. “Limbajul politicienilor: între violenţă şi deriziune”. In Limbajul politic românesc actual, ed. by Domniţa Tomescu, 17–44. Ploieşti: Editura Universităţii Petrol-Gaze din Ploieşti.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2005. “Neo-liberalism – A Discourse-Analytical Perspective”. Polifonia 101: 21–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2014. “‘Judge Us on What We Do’: The Strategic Use of Collective we in Political Discourse”. In Constructing Collectivity: ‘We’ across Languages and Contexts, ed. by Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou, 331–350. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gelsumini, Alberto. 2007. “Comunicazione politica contro postmodernità”. In Semiotica della comunicazione politica, ed. by Giovanna Cosenza, 17–36. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graumann, Carl, and Werner Kallmeyer. 2002. Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2003. “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates”, Journal of Language and Politics 1 (2): 269–291.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. “Politeness in Sweden: Parliamentary Forms of Address”. In Politeness in Europe, ed. by Leo Hickey and Miranda Stewart, 174–188. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “Parliamentary Discourses”. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Second edition, Vol. 91, ed. by Keith Brown, 188–197. Oxford: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 2010. European Parliaments under Scrutiny. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana. 2012. “Perspectivation in the Romanian Parliamentary Discourse”. In Dialogue in Politics, ed. by Lawrence N. Berlin and Anita Fetzer, 151–165. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga. 2002. “Irony, Quotation, and Other Forms of Staged Intertextuality: Double or Contrastive Perspectivation in Conversation”. In Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse, ed. by Carl Graumann and Werner Kallmeyer, 201–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulkay, Michael. 1988. On Humour: Its Nature and Its Place in Society. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Niculescu-Gorpin, Anabella-Gloria. 2003. “Modalităţi de persuadare şi efectul perlocuţionar în discursul politic”. In Aspecte ale dinamicii limbii române actuale, ed. by Gabriela Pană-Dindelegan. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita, and Jenny Mandelbaum. 2005. “Conversation Analytic Approaches to the Relevance and Uses of Relationship Categories in Interaction”. In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Kristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders, 149–171. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Psathas, George. 1999. “Studying the Organization in Action: Membership Categorization and Interaction Analysis.” Human Studies 22 (2-4): 139–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1974. “On the Analyzability of Stories by Children”. In Ethnomethodology, ed. by R. Turner, 216–232. Penguin: Harmondsworth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Săftoiu, Răzvan, and Carmen Popescu. 2012. “Brands in Post-communist Romanian Political Arena”. Word and Text. A Journal of Literary Studies and Linguistics II (1): June 2012, 177–192.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Humor as a Branding Strategy in Political Discourse. A Case Study from Romania”. Revista Signos 47 (85): 293–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Săftoiu, Răzvan. 2013. “The Discursive Practice of Addressing in the Romanian Parliament”. In The Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across Cultures, ed. by Anita Fetzer, 47–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shukrun-Nagar, Pnina. 2009. “Quotation Markers as Intertextual Codes in Electoral Propaganda”. Text & Talk – An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies 291: 459–480. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun. 1997. “Discourse as Interaction in Society”. In Discourse as Social Interaction, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 1–37. London: SAGE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vasilescu, Andra. 2010. “Metastance in the Romanian Parliamentary Discourse: Case Studies”. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique LV (4): 365–380.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2011. “Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquotations.” Informal Logic 311: 27–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2010. Dialogue – The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Power in Dialogic Interaction”. Language and Dialogue 1 (2): 233–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Gubitosi, Patricia & Irina Lifszyc
2022. Lunfardo and political (dis)agreements in the public space. Language and Dialogue 12:1 ► pp. 12 ff. DOI logo
Hoinărescu, Liliana
2018. Definition as an argumentative strategy in parliamentary discourse. Language and Dialogue 8:2 ► pp. 209 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