Cover not available
Article published In:
Dialogicity in Political Discourse
Edited by Elda Weizman and Zohar Livnat
[Pragmatics and Society 13:5] 2022
► pp. 793–814

When invoked voices blame real politicians

Confrontational blaming in a speech from Austria’s “commemorative year” 2018

 | Vienna University
This case study analyses the socio-pragmatic effects of invoked multiple voices in a commemorative speech delivered by Austrian writer Michael Köhlmeier on the occasion of the 2018 Austrian commemoration day against violence and fascism. Köhlmeier uses different forms of discourse representation to blame politicians of the then Austrian government for their political statements and actions. The focus of this article is on the speaker’s combination of (imagined and real) sources and forms of discourse representation, resulting in strategically deployed perspective shifts to express opposition and blame. Furthermore, the sociopragmatic functions of these rhetorical and textual strategies in the context of situation, as well as in the wider context of the Austrian culture of collective remembrance are explored, in particular by showing that by blaming actual Austrian politicians for their political statements and actions, the traditional consensual commemorative discourse is breached. This latter effect is probably responsible for the huge public attention the speech attracted in 2018.
Keywords: discourse representation, dialogism, textual voices, commemorative speech, Austrian commemorative culture, perspective shift, political speech, confrontational blaming
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Political genres and their dialogicity
  • 3.The commemoration day against violence and fascism on May, 4 2018
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Invoking the situational relevance of Köhlmeier’s speech
    • 4.2Unfolding the confrontational blaming
  • Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21021.gru
References (34)
References
Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles, and Ivan Leudar. 2001. ‘Recruiting the Record: Using Opponents’ Exact Words in Parliamentary Argumentation’. Text 21 (4): 467–88.Google Scholar
Aprent, Patrick. 2019. ‘Prägende Diskurse im Gedenkjahr 2018. Vergangenheit im Fokus öffentlicher Kommunikation (= Zeitgeschichte 46), ed. by Dirk Rupnow and Heidemarie Uhl, 501–535. Göttingen: Vienna University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Max. 1984. Our Masters’ Voices: The Language and Body-Language of Politics. (New Ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Edited by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika, and Helen Caple. 2019. News Discourse. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Bevitori, Cinzia. 2006. ‘Speech Representation in Parliamentary Discourse. Rhetorical Strategies in a Heteroglossic Perspective: A Corpus-Based Study.’ In Studies in Specialized Discourse, edited by John Flowerdew and Maurizio Gotti, 155–179. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cap, Piotr. 2015. ‘Follow-Ups in the US Anti-Terrorist Discourse: Proposal for a Macro-Discursive Approach to Monologic Follow-Up Sequences.’ Discourse & Society 26 (5): 543–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Fina, Anna, and Alexandra Georgakopoulou. 2012. Analyzing Narrative: Discourse and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2014. ‘On the Part of Ratified Participants: Ratified Listeners in Multi-Party Interactions’. Brno Studies in English 40 (1): 27–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2020. ‘And I Quote: Forms and Functions of Quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions’. Journal of Pragmatics 1571: 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1969. The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1991. ‘Logic and Conversation’. In Pragmatics. A Reader, edited by Steven Davis, 305–15. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Helmut. 1991. Antisemitismus im Mediendiskurs: Die Affäre Waldheim in der Tagespresse. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. ‘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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. ‘Staged Conflicts in Austrian Parliamentary Debates’. Language and Dialogue 9 (1): 42–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 2001. ‘Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse’. Discourse & Society 12 (4): 451–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodges, Adam. 2008. ‘The Politics of Recontextualization: Discursive Competition over Claims of Iranian Involvement in Iraq’. Discourse & Society 191 (4): 483–505 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Josef. 2000. ‘Textsorten im Bereich Politischer Institutionen’. In Handbuch der Text- und Gesprächsanalyse 2 1, edited by Gerd Antos, Klaus Brinker, and Sven F. Sager, 1589–1605. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuo, Sai-Hua. 2001. ‘Reported Speech in Chinese Political Discourse.’ Discourse Studies 3 (2): 181–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis. 1996. ‘The White House Speeches: Semantic and Paralinguistic Strategies for Eliciting Applause’. Text & Talk 16 (2): 199–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Obermayer, Bastian, and Frederik Obermaier. 2019. Die Ibiza-Affäre: Innenansichten eines Skandals. 5th ed. KiWi-Paperback.Google Scholar
Reber, Elisabeth. 2014. ‘Obama Said It: Quoting as an Evidential Strategy in Online Discussion Forums’. Language and Dialogue 4 (1): 76–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reisigl, Martin. 2007. Nationale Rhetorik in Fest- und Gedenkreden: Eine Diskursanalytische Studie zum ‘Österreichischen Millennium’ in den Jahren 1946 und 1996. Stauffenburg Aktuell, Bd. 7. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Rupnow, Dirk, and Heidemarie Uhl, eds. 2019. ‘Gedenkjahr 2018: Vergangenheit im Fokus öffentlicher Kommunikation’. Zeitgeschichte 461.Google Scholar
Sivenkova, Maria A. 2016. ‘Intertextual References in British, German and Russian Political Interviews and Blogs’. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 61 (1): 161–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suleiman, Camelia, Daniel C. O’Connell, and Sabine Kowal. 2002. ‘“If You and I, If We, in This Later Day, Lose That Sacred Fire …”: Perspective in Political Interviews’. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31 (3): 269–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2019. ‘Changing Perspectives. Something Old, Something New’. Pragmatics 29 (2): 170–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiss, Daniel. 2020. ‘Analogical Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse’. Journal of Pragmatics 1551: 101–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wieczorek, Anna E. 2010. ‘“And I Quote”: Direct and Indirect Point-of-View Switches in Clusivity-Oriented Discourse’. Lódz Papers in Pragmatics 6 (1): 229–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action. Politics as Usual. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Brusenbauch Meislová, Monika
2024. Othering through blame: The EU as the blame target in the UK government’s post-Brexit rhetoric. Discourse, Context & Media 58 ► pp. 100773 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 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.