Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 5:3 (2015) ► pp.430–448

Split voices in political discourse

| Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania

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.

Keywords: multivocality, political discourse, identity, quotation, pronominal reference
Published online: 17 December 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.3.04saf
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail
1982 Probleme de literatură şi estetică. Bucureşti: Univers.Google Scholar
1984 Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed. and trans. Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Lawrence N., and Anita Fetzer
2012 Dialogue in Politics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Billig, Michael
2005 Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Chilton, Paul
2004 Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London, New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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
Davies, Bronwyn, and Rom Harré
1990 “Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 20 (1): 43–63. DOI logoGoogle 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
Du Bois, John W
2007 “The Stance Triangle”. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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
Englebretson, Robert
2007 Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
2005 “Neo-liberalism – A Discourse-Analytical Perspective”. Polifonia 101: 21–52.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelsumini, Alberto
2007 “Comunicazione politica contro postmodernità”. In Semiotica della comunicazione politica, ed. by Giovanna Cosenza, 17–36. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Graumann, Carl, and Werner Kallmeyer
2002 Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia
2003 “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates”, Journal of Language and Politics 1 (2): 269–291.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Parliamentary Discourses”. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Second edition, Vol. 91, ed. by Keith Brown, 188–197. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2010 European Parliaments under Scrutiny. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulkay, Michael
1988 On Humour: Its Nature and Its Place in Society. London: Polity Press.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
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
Psathas, George
1999 “Studying the Organization in Action: Membership Categorization and Interaction Analysis.” Human Studies 22 (2-4): 139–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1974 “On the Analyzability of Stories by Children”. In Ethnomethodology, ed. by R. Turner, 216–232. Penguin: Harmondsworth.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
2014 “Humor as a Branding Strategy in Political Discourse. A Case Study from Romania”. Revista Signos 47 (85): 293–320. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Vasilescu, Andra
2010 “Metastance in the Romanian Parliamentary Discourse: Case Studies”. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique LV (4): 365–380.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno
2011 “Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquotations.” Informal Logic 311: 27–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda
2010 Dialogue – The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Power in Dialogic Interaction”. Language and Dialogue 1 (2): 233–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda
2008 Positioning in Media Dialogue: Negotiating Roles in the News Interview. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 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 28 september 2023. 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.