Cover not available
Part of
Let's talk politics: New essays on deliberative rhetoric
Edited by Hilde Van Belle, Kris Rutten, Paul Gillaerts, Dorien Van De Mieroop and Baldwin Van Gorp
[Argumentation in Context 6] 2014
► pp. 185–204

Learning to differ

Transforming parliament through argument and debate in Poland post-1989

The essay describes how Polish members of parliament (MPs) reinvented the institution of parliament (conceived of in its essentially discursive character as parleyment) in the course of the political transition of 1989. The reinvention of “parliamentary democracy” and deliberation in the chamber involved four interrelated developments: rearticulation of the “people” and thereby providing new basis for parliamentary “representation” and for the rhetorical agency of MPs; redefinition and rearticulation of the relationship between parliament and other organs of state power, especially government; emergence of deliberation through the dialectic between identification and division; and refunctionalization of verbal and non-verbal behaviors to enable exercise of MPs’ rhetorical agency in the plural context. The essay suggests a perspective that sees argumentation and debate as both shaped by and constitutive of “institutions,” a perspective that complements the view of argument and debate in interpersonal terms.
Published online: 30 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.6.11orn
References (32)
References
Bayley, P. (2004). Introduction. In P. Bayley(Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. N. (1997). General Editor’s Preface. In B-L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Norberg (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp. ix-xiv). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Charland, M. (2001). Constitutive rhetoric. In J. O. Sloan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of rhetoric (pp. 616–619). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
Dubinski, K. (1999). Okragly stol . Warszawa: KAP.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language . Trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Geremek, B. (2009). Trzeba bylo wygrac. In Rewolucja ‘ 89 (pp. 60–71). Warszawa: Polityka.Google Scholar
Gunn, J. A. W. (2009). When the French tried to be British: Party, opposition, and the quest for civil disagreement , 1814–1848. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s.Google Scholar
Hibbing, J. R., & Patterson, S. C. (1994). The emergence of democratic parliaments in Central and Eastern Europe. In J. R. Hibbing, & S. C. Patterson (Eds.), Parliaments in the modern world: Changing institutions (pp. 129–150). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ihalainen, P., & Palonen, K. (2009). Parliamentary sources in the comparative study of conceptual history: Methodological aspects and illustrations of a research proposal. Parliaments, Estates, & Representation , 29, 17–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackiewicz, I. (1996). Nowe role w nowym sejmie: Poslowie sejmu okresu transformacji 1989–1993. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe.Google Scholar
Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (1999). Introduction: Perspectives on discourse analysis. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 1–44) . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kozakiewicz, M. (1992). Bylem marszalkiem kontraktowego . Warszawa: BGW.Google Scholar
Kraczkowski, R. (1997). Sejm w okresie PRL. In J. Bardach(Ed.), Dzieje sejmu polskiego (pp. 265–306). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe.Google Scholar
Laclau, E. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time . London: Verso.Google Scholar
McGee, M. C. (1975). In search of ‘the people’: A rhetorical alternative. The Quarterly Journal of Speech , 61(3), 235–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1980). The ‘ideograph’: A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olson, D. M., & Norton, P. (1996). Legislatures in democratic transitions. In D. M. Olson & P. Norton (Eds.), The new parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 1–15). London & Portland, OR: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
Ornatowski, C. M. (2010). Parliamentary discourse and political transition: The case of the Polish parliament after 1989.” In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp. 223–264). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Constructing pluralism: Identification and division in the political transformation of Poland.” In A. de Velasco & M. Lehn (Eds.), Rhetoric: Concord and controversy (pp. 41–51). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
Palonen, K. (2003). Four times of politics: Policy, polity, politicking, and politicization. Alternatives 28(2), 171–186.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Towards a history of parliamentary concepts. Parliaments, Estates, & Representation , 32 (2), 123–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patterson, S. C., & Copeland, G. W. (1994). Parliaments in the Twenty-First Century. In G. W. Copeland & S. C. Patterson (Eds.), Parliaments in the modern world: Changing institutions (pp. 1–12). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Rolicki, J. (1990). Edward Gierek: Przerwana dekada . Warszawa: BGW.Google Scholar
Schmitt, C. (1985). The crisis of parliamentary democracy . Trans. E. Kennedy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Scruton, R. (Ed.). (1982). A dictionary of political thought . New York: Harper and Row.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, M. D. (1996). Institutional development of Poland’s post-communist Sejm: A comparative analysis. In D. M. Olson & P. Norton (Eds.), The new parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 60–81). London and Portland, OR: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & R. Grootendorst. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, A. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation . Mahvah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Haaften, Ton. (2011). Parliamentary debate and political culture: The Dutch case. In T. Van Haaften, H. Jansen, J. de Jong, & W. Koetsenruijter (Eds.), Bending opinion: Essays on persuasion in the public domain (pp. 349–368). Leiden, The Netherlands: Leiden University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vatz, R. E. (2009). The mythical status of situational rhetoric: Implications for rhetorical critics’ relevance in the public arena. The Review of Communication 9(1), 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Dębowska-Kozłowska, Kamila & Dale Hample
2022. “Agreement Builds and Disagreement Destroys:” How Polish Undergraduates and Graduates Understand Interpersonal Arguing. Argumentation 36:3 ► pp. 365 ff. DOI logo
Nowak, Bartholomäus
2016. Posing Questions without Asking. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 61:1 ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo
Nowak, Bartholomäus
2019. Chapter 7. Impoliteness in parliamentary questions. In Political Discourse in Central, Eastern and Balkan Europe [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 84], ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.