Cover not available
Article published In:
Specialised Translation in Spain: Institutional dimensions
Edited by José Santaemilia-Ruiz and Sergio Maruenda-Bataller
[Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 30:2] 2017
► pp. 465–490

Researching the European Parliament with Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies

From the micro- and macro-levels of text to the macro-context

 | Universitat Jaume I
Parliaments are important and complex institutions. However, they are notably under-researched within linguistics and related fields. This is certainly the case with the European Parliament (EP). Drawing both on Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (CADS) and prior, manual research on parliamentary communication, this paper proposes and applies an analytical protocol to examine EP speeches. Although these are disseminated in various forms and through dissimilar means (e.g., live at the EP; the audiovisual format via streaming or recorded videos; or published as parliamentary proceedings), here we focus on proceedings – one of the EP’s main sources of official representation. Following the EP’s (unique) practice, where official proceedings do not distinguish between original and translated speeches but consider all texts of equal (legal) status, this study delves into all speech production in English, without separating source and target texts. In the most orthodox of CADS traditions, analysis proceeds from micro and macro-levels of texts into the macro-context (unlike other academic approaches, in which it proceeds in the opposite direction). This direction forces us to move from tangible, specific data to the enveloping setting in which these data are exchanged.
Keywords: political discourse, European Parliament, corpus linguistics, Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (CADS), ECPC
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (CADS)
    • 2.1Corpus tools for analysis
    • 2.2The ECPC corpus archive
    • 2.3The informing theory
      • 2.3.1The micro-level of parliamentary texts
      • 2.3.2The macro-level of parliamentary texts
      • 2.3.3The macro-level of parliamentary context
    • 2.4Proposed analytical method
  • 3.Analyzing EP_en corpus: From text to context
    • 3.1Set of analyses 1
      • 3.1.1Step 1: Out of the micro-level of text
      • 3.1.2Step 2: Into the macro-context
    • 3.2From the macro-level of text to the macro-context
      • 3.2.1Step 1: Out of the macro-level of text
      • 3.2.2Step 2: Into the macro-context
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.00003.cal
References (65)
References
Antelmi, D., & Santulli, F. (2010). The presentation of a new government to parliament from ritual to personalisation: A case study from Italy. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp. 111–134). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2010). Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyżanowski, M., McEnery, A., & Wodak, R. (2008). A useful methodological synergy?: Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 273–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, P., & McEnery, A. (2005). A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics, 4(2), 197–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayley, P. (Ed.). (2004a). Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004b). Introduction: The whys and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayley, P., Bevitori, C., & Zoni, E. (2004). Threat and fear in parliamentary debates in Britain, Germany and Italy. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 185–236). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayley, P., & San Vicente, F. (2004). Ways of talking about work in parliamentary discourse in Britain and Spain. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 237–69). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bevitori, C. (2004). Negotiating conflict: Interruptions in British and Italian parliamentary debates. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 87–109). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, England/New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Henry, E. B., & Collier, D. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S., Farrell, D., & Katz, R. (Eds.). (1999). Party discipline and parliamentary government. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Calzada-Pérez, M. (2007). Transitivity in translating: The interdependence of texture and context. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (Ed.). (2002). Journal of Language and Politics, 2(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dibattista, D. (2004). Legitimising and informative discourse in the Kosovo debates in the British House of Commons and the Italian Chamber of Deputies. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 151–84). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elpass, S. (2002). Phraseological units in parliamentary discourse. In P. A. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 81–110). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evison, J. (2010). What are the basics of analysing corpus. In A. O’Keefe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 122–135). London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2001). The dialectics of discourse. Textus, 14(2), 231–42.Google Scholar
Garzone, G., & Santulli, F. (2004). What can corpus do for critical discourse analysis? In A. Partington, J. Morley, & L. Haarman (Eds.), Corpora and discourse (pp. 351–68). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hardt-Mautner, G. (1995). ‘Only connect’: Critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics. UCREL Technical Paper 61. Lancaster: University of Lancaster. Retrieved from [URL].
Hix, S. (2001). Legislative behaviour and party competition in the European Parliament: An application of nominate to the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(4), 663–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. (1996). Rationalizing parliament: Legislative institutions and party politics in France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilie, C. (2006). Parliamentary discourses. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 188–196). Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.), (2010a). European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b). Identity co-construction in parliamentary discourse practices. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp. 57–78). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Íñigo-Mora, I. (2010). Rhetorical strategies in the British and Spanish parliaments. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp. 329–72). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koller, V., & Mautner, G. (2004). Computer applications in critical discourse analysis. In C. Coffin, A. Hewings, & K. O’Halloran (Eds.), Applying English grammar: Functional and corpus approaches (pp. 216–28). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Kopaczyk, J. (2012). Applications of the lexical bundles method in historical corpus research. In P. Cap (Ed.), Corpus data across languages and disciplines (pp. 83–95). Frankfurt Am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krzyżanowski, M. (2005). Analyzing European Union discourse: Theories and applications. In R. Wodak & P. A. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. 137–63). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Laver, M., & Shepsle, K. (1996). Making and breaking governments: Cabinets and legislatures in parliamentary democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorda Mur, C. U. (2010). The government control function of the French National Assembly in Questions Au Gouvernement . In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp. 165–89). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Madzharova Bruteig, Y. (2010). Czech parliamentary discourse: Parliamentary interactions and the construction of the addressee. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp. 265–301). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín Rojo, L., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). There was a problem, and it was solved!: Legitimising the expulsion of ‘illegal’ migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society, 8(4), 523–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus Linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H. (1997). The discourse of the illegal immigration debate: A case study in the politics of representation. Discourse & Society, 8(2), 249–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. R. (2004). ‘Truth, justice and the American way’: The appraisal system of judgment in the U.S. House debate on the impeachment of the President, 1998. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 271–300). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montesano Montessori, N. (2014). The potential of narrative strategies in the discursive construction of hegemonic positions and social change. In B. Kaal (Ed.), From text to political positions: Text analysis across disciplines (pp. 171–87). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muntigl, P. (2000). Dilemmas of individualism and social necessity. In P. Muntigl, G. Weiss, & R. Wodak (Eds.), European Union discourses on un/employment: An interdisciplinary approach to employment policy-making and organizational change (pp. 145–84). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muntigl, P., Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2000). European Union discourses on un/employment: An interdisciplinary approach to employment policy-making and organizational change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and political discourse. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oberhuber, F. (2005). Deliberation or ‘mainstreaming’?: Empirically researching the European Convention. In R. Wodak & P. A. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. 165–87). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Halloran, K., & Coffin, C. (2004). Checking overinterpretation and underinterpretation: Help from corpora in critical linguistics. In C. Coffin, A. Hewings, & K. O’Halloran (Eds.), Applying English grammar: Functional and corpus approaches (pp. 257–97). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Ornatowski, C. M. (2010). Parliamentary discourse and political transition: Polish parliament after 1989. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp. 223–64). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orpin, D. (2005). Corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis: Examining the ideology of sleaze. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(1), 37–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quintrileo, C. (2005). El debate parlamentario como género discursivo: Una primera aproximación. In América Latina en su discurso: Actas del VI congreso latinoamericano de estudios del discurso. Chile: Universidad Católica de Chile.Google Scholar
Schulz, M. (2013). Europa: La última oportunidad. Barcelona: RBA.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K., & Weingast, B. (Eds.). (1995). Positive theories of congressional institutions. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G., & Money, J. (1997). Bicameralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). On the analysis of parliamentary debates on immigration. In M. Reisigl & R. Wodak (Eds.), The semiotics of racism: Approaches to critical discourse analysis (pp. 85–103). Vienna: Passagen Verlag.Google Scholar
(2002). Political discourse and political cognition. In P. A. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 203–38). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Text and context of parliamentary debates. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 339–72). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vasta, N. (2004). Consent and dissent in British and Italian parliamentary debates on the 1998 Gulf crisis. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 111–49). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vuorikovski, A. R. (2004). A voice of its citizens or a modern Tower of Babel?: The quality of interpreting as a function of political rhetoric in the European Parliament. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
Warwick, P. (1994). Government survival in parliamentary democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (2011). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R., & Van Dijk, T. A. (Eds.). (2000). Racism at the top: Parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag.Google Scholar
Wodak, R., & Weiss, G. (2004). Visions, ideologies, and utopias in the discursive construction of European identities: Organizing, representing and legitimizing Europe. In M. Putz, J. N. Van Aertselaer, & T. A. Van Dijk (Eds.), Communicating ideologies: Multidisciplinary perspectives on language, discourse, and social practice (pp. 225–51). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Azzi, Sabrina & Stéphane Gagnon
2023. Ontology-Driven Parliamentary Analytics: Analysing Political Debates on COVID-19 Impact in Canada. In Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 14149], ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
Gagnon, Stéphane & Sabrina Azzi
2022. Semantic Annotation of Parliamentary Debates and Legislative Intelligence Enhancing Citizen Experience. In Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13429], ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo
Kocijan, Kristina & Krešimir Šojat
2021. Negation Usage in the Croatian Parliament. In Formalizing Natural Languages: Applications to Natural Language Processing and Digital Humanities [Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1520], ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo
Prieto Ramos, Fernando & Diego Guzmán
2021. Examining institutional translation through a legal lens. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 33:2 ► pp. 254 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 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.