Debating or displaying political positions?
MPs’ reactive statements during the inaugural speech debates in the Austrian parliament
This paper investigates the reference statements and rhetorical functions of politicians’ reactive (“uptaking”) statements in
parliamentary debates as well as their self-positioning effects. Uptaking moves may be used by speakers for pursuing strategic,
global discourse aims. The specific properties of such ‘uptaking’ utterances and their sequential embedding in the unfolding
discourse provide analysts with cues of speakers’ global interactional goals. Results indeed show how global and local pragmatic
factors impact content, form, and rhetorical function of MPs’ uptaking statements. The data comprises four Austrian parliamentary
sessions, which follow the inaugural speech each newly appointed Austrian chancellor has to deliver in the Austrian national
assembly at the beginning of a legislative term. Overall, four fifths of the uptaking discourse units (consisting
of ‘reference to previous statement plus comment’) refer to the government program, the inaugural speech or a previous MPs’
statement. Whereas a closer investigation of the reference statements seems to indicate a left wing vs.
right wing rhetorical pattern (with left wing and center parties referring to ‘official’ sources, while right wing parties set
their own topical agenda), investigating the rhetorical functions of the uptaking discourse units reveals a clear
government vs. opposition (but no party-specific) rhetoric: Government party MPs praise the government program (or the inaugural
speech), opposition party speakers criticize it. Both groups thus focus on the interpersonal plain of interaction. In contrast,
argumentative (or counter-argumentative) uptaking discourse units which would indicate speakers’ willingness to enter into a
rational discourse (in a Habermasian sense) with their political opponents are extremely rare. Through their rhetorical
activities, the vast majority of government and opposition speakers thus reinforce and perpetuate already known political
stances and affiliations in front of a third party (i.e. the general public watching the debates via TV or Internet livestream)
rather than presenting themselves as rational, problem-focused politicians.
Article outline
- 1.
Introduction
- 2.Parliamentary debates between dialogue and monologue
- 2.1Parliamentary debates as front-stage political discourse
- 2.2Sequential aspects of parliamentary debates
- 3.Data & methodology
- 4.Results
- 4.1Sources of reference in the inaugural speech debates
- 4.2Rhetorical functions of uptaking FDUs
- 4.3Typical combinations of rhetorical functions and reference sources in the MPs’ debate contributions
- 4.3.1Government party MPs
- 4.3.2Opposition party MPs
- 5.Discussion
- Notes
-
References
References (44)
References
Berlin, Lawrence, Elda Weizman, and Anita Fetzer. 2015. Introduction. In The Dynamics of Political Discourse. Forms and functions of follow-ups ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence Berlin, 1–17. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

Boyd, Michael. 2013. Reframing the American dream. In Analyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice ed. by Piotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 297–319. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 

Bull, Peter, and Kate Mayer. 1993. How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology 141: 651–666. 

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2014. Analysing Political Speeches. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Chilton, Paul A. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 

Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage. 2002. The News Interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Drew, Paul. 1992. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape. In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 470–521. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dynel, Marta. 2014a. ‘On the Part of Ratified Participants: Ratified Listeners in Multi-Party Interactions’. Brno Studies in English 40 (1): 27–44. 

Dynel, Marta. 2014b. ‘Participation Framework Underlying YouTube Interaction’. Journal of Pragmatics 73 (11): 37–52. 

Fairclough, Norman, and Isabella Fairclough. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Fetzer, Anita. 2006. ‘“Minister, we will see how the public judges you.”’ Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2): 180–195. 

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday/Anchor Books.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1990. He-Said-She-Said. Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Gruber, Helmut. 1998. Disagreeing: Sequential placement and internal structure of disagreements in conflict episodes. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 18 (4): 467–504. 

Gruber, Helmut. 2001. Questions and strategic orientation in verbal conflict sequences. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (12): 1815–1857. 

Gruber, Helmut. 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. 

Harris, Sandra. 1991. Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In Broadcast Talk, ed. by Paddy Scannell, 76–99. London: Sage.
Heritage, John. 1985. Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In Handbook of Discourse analysis, ed. by Teun van Dijk, vol. 11, 95–117. London: Academic Press.
Heritage, John, and David Greatbatch. 1986. Generating Applause: A Study of Rhetoric and Response at Party Political Conferences. American Journal of Sociology 92 (1): 110–157. 

Heritage, John, and David Watson. 1979. Formulations as conversational objects. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 123–163. New York: Irvington.
Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B. 2007. (Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV-debates. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (8): 1360–1370. 

Hutchby, Ian. 1996. Power in discourse: The case of arguments on a British talk radio show. Discourse & Society 7 (4): 481–497. 

Klein, Josef. 2000. Textsorten im Bereich politischer Institutionen. In Handbuch der Text- und Gesprächsanalyse, ed. by Gerd Antos, Klaus Brinker, and Sven F. Sager, vol. 21, 1589–1605. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. Activity types and language. In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, James R., and Peter White. 2007. Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maynard, Donald W. 1985. How children start arguments. Language in Society 14 (1): 1–29. 

Mey, Jacob L. 2015. Sequentiality and follow-ups. In The Dynamics of Political Discourse. Forms and functions of follow-ups, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence Berlin, 17–33. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

Myers, Greg. 2008. Analyzing Interaction in Broadcast Debates. In Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michał Krzyzanowski, 121–145. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Reisigl, Martin. 2007. Nationale Rhetorik in Fest- und Gedenkreden. Eine diskursanalytische Studie zum ‘österreichischen Millennium’ in den Jahren 1946 und 1996. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Sbisà, Marina. 2009. Uptake and conventionality in illocution. Lódz Papers in Pragmatics 5 (1): 33–52. 

Stokoe, Elizabeth, and Derek Edwards. 2008. ‘Did you have permission to smash your neighbour’s door?’ Silly questions and their answers in police–suspect interrogations. Discourse Studies 10 (1): 89–111. 

Van der Houwen, Fleur and Keun Young Sliedrecht (eds). 2016. The form and function of formulations: co-constructing narratives in institutional settings. Special section of Journal of Pragmatics 1051: 55–129. 

Wodak, Ruth. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action. Politics as Usual. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Gruber, Helmut
2022.
“Secret Service Plot” or “Drunken Night”? Accounting Strategies in a Resignation Speech and Their Uptake in Media Reports in Three Countries.
Contrastive Pragmatics 3:3
► pp. 397 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.