Search results

La presente comunicación se centrará en el discurso de investidura de Pedro Sánchez (PSOE), actual presidente de gobierno español, y el debate en torno a este discurso, al iniciarse el Segundo Gobierno Sánchez. Este gobierno tiene la particularidad de ser el primer gobierno nacional de coalición en la democracia española moderna. Por ende, este discurso es histórico y que, al tratarse de un gobierno de coalición, el presidente de gobierno lidera por primera vez en la historia reciente un gobierno que incluye otros partidos que el suyo y tiene que (re)presentar no solo a su partido sino también a la coalición entera en su discurso de investidura. Esta comunicación propondrá un análisis discursivo de cómo tanto el candidato a la presidencia del gobierno como los diputados construyen esta coalición respectivamente en el discurso de la investidura y el debate que lo sigue. Por un lado, se mostrará cómo Pedro Sánchez construye la coalición como una coalición progresista, apoyándose tanto en el número de votos como en la larga historia del PSOE para subrayar la legitimidad de la coalición y de su candidatura a la presidencia del gobierno. Se analizará además cómo construye la imagen de una coalición unida, lo que requiere especial esfuerzo tras las elecciones anteriores en las cuales los mismos partidos no llegaron a formar una coalición. Por otro lado, se analizará cómo representantes de los demás partidos bien apoyan la coalición retomando la calificación de progresista bien la atacan. En el último caso, se tilda a menudo la coalición de populista y, en menor medida, de nacionalista, separatista o comunista. Mediante esta construcción discursiva, que se apoya a menudo en la coordinación de varios adjetivos calificativos, se intenta descalificar la coalición – y la decisión del PSOE de liderarla – centrándose más bien en otros partidos de la coalición que el PSOE. Este análisis mostrará entonces cómo los discursos en torno a la coalición en el gobierno nacional, una realidad nueva para la España contemporánea, procuran contribuir a representarla como legítima o, al contrario, intentan atacarla enfatizando su carácter múltiple y enfocándose en miembros específicos.

La presente comunicación se centrará en el discurso de investidura de Pedro Sánchez (PSOE), actual presidente de gobierno español, y el debate en torno a este discurso, al iniciarse el Segundo Gobierno Sánchez. Este gobierno tiene la particularidad de ser el primer gobierno nacional de coalición en la democracia española moderna. Por ende, este discurso es histórico y que, al tratarse de un gobierno de coalición, el presidente de gobierno lidera por primera vez en la historia reciente un gobierno que incluye otros partidos que el suyo y tiene que (re)presentar no solo a su partido sino también a la coalición entera en su discurso de investidura. Esta comunicación propondrá un análisis discursivo de cómo tanto el candidato a la presidencia del gobierno como los diputados construyen esta coalición respectivamente en el discurso de la investidura y el debate que lo sigue. Por un lado, se mostrará cómo Pedro Sánchez construye la coalición como una coalición progresista, apoyándose tanto en el número de votos como en la larga historia del PSOE para subrayar la legitimidad de la coalición y de su candidatura a la presidencia del gobierno. Se analizará además cómo construye la imagen de una coalición unida, lo que requiere especial esfuerzo tras las elecciones anteriores en las cuales los mismos partidos no llegaron a formar una coalición. Por otro lado, se analizará cómo representantes de los demás partidos bien apoyan la coalición retomando la calificación de progresista bien la atacan. En el último caso, se tilda a menudo la coalición de populista y, en menor medida, de nacionalista, separatista o comunista. Mediante esta construcción discursiva, que se apoya a menudo en la coordinación de varios adjetivos calificativos, se intenta descalificar la coalición – y la decisión del PSOE de liderarla – centrándose más bien en otros partidos de la coalición que el PSOE. Este análisis mostrará entonces cómo los discursos en torno a la coalición en el gobierno nacional, una realidad nueva para la España contemporánea, procuran contribuir a representarla como legítima o, al contrario, intentan atacarla enfatizando su carácter múltiple y enfocándose en miembros específicos.

This presentation will present preliminary results of the broader Action de recherche concertée project Discourse, populism and democracy. Tracking the uses of populism in media and political discourse (TrUMPo). As such, it offers an interdisciplinary approach drawing on linguistics, communication science and political science to the question who is being called populist. More concretely, we will show how the label 'populist' is used in 2019 press, parliament and Twitter discourse from Belgium, France and Spain, by looking into who labels whom as populist, as well as with which aim this is being done. We will show that 'populist' is not only used to refer to persons or groups that are considered as populist in academia but is also regularly used to discredit an opponent and occasionally to (self-)enhance by claiming a stronger link with and/or representativeness of the people. Thus, in general societal debate, the term 'populist' is used in a much broader sense than in academia, leading at times to mismatches as to the discussions concerning populism and or populists. With this contribution, we aim to contribute to a clearer understanding of how the term 'populist' is used in society at large in Belgium, France and Spain.

This presentation will present preliminary results of the broader Action de recherche concertée project Discourse, populism and democracy. Tracking the uses of populism in media and political discourse (TrUMPo). As such, it offers an interdisciplinary approach drawing on linguistics, communication science and political science to the question who is being called populist. More concretely, we will show how the label 'populist' is used in 2019 press, parliament and Twitter discourse from Belgium, France and Spain, by looking into who labels whom as populist, as well as with which aim this is being done. We will show that 'populist' is not only used to refer to persons or groups that are considered as populist in academia but is also regularly used to discredit an opponent and occasionally to (self-)enhance by claiming a stronger link with and/or representativeness of the people. Thus, in general societal debate, the term 'populist' is used in a much broader sense than in academia, leading at times to mismatches as to the discussions concerning populism and or populists. With this contribution, we aim to contribute to a clearer understanding of how the term 'populist' is used in society at large in Belgium, France and Spain.

In this paper, I will look into how politicians adapt their strategies of persuasion according to the context in which they communicate. Indeed, cognitive corpus linguistics research has shown that considerable genre-differences can be found in the ways in which certain linguistic phenomena function (Gries 2013). It has also highlighted that, given the situatedness of cognition (Mandelblit & Zachar 1998: 253), we should adopt an "activity-driven" approach to language in its social context (Bernárdez 2008). More concretely, through a case study of Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (right-wing Spanish vice-president of the European Parliament), I will show how politicians adapt their use of person deixis, and generic pronouns (e.g. uno 'one') and other impersonalizing devices in order to persuade their public through identification and empathy, depending on the political discourse type they engage in and the public they interact with. The corpus consists of Vidal-Quadras' production in discourse types with different degrees and ways of interaction, namely parliamentary debate, TV- and radio-interviews, his own blog and Twitter-account. I focus on the period of September to December 2013, when Vidal-Quadras publicly attacks his own party (leading to his not being the leader of the 2014 European elections list) and considers creating a new party. He thus has to manage a shift in political identity and public (members of the own party, supporters of the idea of a new party, Spanish voters in general,…). My research questions concern (i) which variety of deictic and impersonalizing devices Vidal-Quadras uses in order to persuade through identification and empathy and (ii) how these uses vary per discourse type depending on the interactivity and public. The usage-based analysis will be both quantitative (looking into the frequencies of the phenomena) and qualitative (looking into their different uses). In the most interactive spoken genre (interview), the use of person deixis is not only more frequent, as could be expected, but also serves a specific goal, namely clearly positioning Vidal-Quadras, as in (1). In the tweets and blogs, by contrast, person deixis is limited to quotes and hedging. (1) Los dirigentes del PP se comportan como socialdemócratas, y yo no estoy afiliado desde hace 30 años a un partido socialdemócrata. (interview with PeriodistaDigital, 17/10/2013) 'The leaders of the PP behave like social democrats, and I am not affiliated since 30 years to a social democrat party.' Furthermore, persuasion is realized by means of first person plurals when addressing other party dissidents in discourses and meetings, with whom there is already a shared identity. However, when addressing a broader public in the media, Vidal-Quadras rather uses impersonalizing constructions, e.g. generic and passive se-constructions, to persuade, thereby creating empathy and identification with the public in a less direct way than with a 1st person plural group identity. All in all, the analysis shows that the discourse type and public must be taken into account in a usage-based description of persuasion in political discourses.

In this paper, I will look into how politicians adapt their strategies of persuasion according to the context in which they communicate. Indeed, cognitive corpus linguistics research has shown that considerable genre-differences can be found in the ways in which certain linguistic phenomena function (Gries 2013). It has also highlighted that, given the situatedness of cognition (Mandelblit & Zachar 1998: 253), we should adopt an "activity-driven" approach to language in its social context (Bernárdez 2008). More concretely, through a case study of Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (right-wing Spanish vice-president of the European Parliament), I will show how politicians adapt their use of person deixis, and generic pronouns (e.g. uno 'one') and other impersonalizing devices in order to persuade their public through identification and empathy, depending on the political discourse type they engage in and the public they interact with. The corpus consists of Vidal-Quadras' production in discourse types with different degrees and ways of interaction, namely parliamentary debate, TV- and radio-interviews, his own blog and Twitter-account. I focus on the period of September to December 2013, when Vidal-Quadras publicly attacks his own party (leading to his not being the leader of the 2014 European elections list) and considers creating a new party. He thus has to manage a shift in political identity and public (members of the own party, supporters of the idea of a new party, Spanish voters in general,…). My research questions concern (i) which variety of deictic and impersonalizing devices Vidal-Quadras uses in order to persuade through identification and empathy and (ii) how these uses vary per discourse type depending on the interactivity and public. The usage-based analysis will be both quantitative (looking into the frequencies of the phenomena) and qualitative (looking into their different uses). In the most interactive spoken genre (interview), the use of person deixis is not only more frequent, as could be expected, but also serves a specific goal, namely clearly positioning Vidal-Quadras, as in (1). In the tweets and blogs, by contrast, person deixis is limited to quotes and hedging. (1) Los dirigentes del PP se comportan como socialdemócratas, y yo no estoy afiliado desde hace 30 años a un partido socialdemócrata. (interview with PeriodistaDigital, 17/10/2013) 'The leaders of the PP behave like social democrats, and I am not affiliated since 30 years to a social democrat party.' Furthermore, persuasion is realized by means of first person plurals when addressing other party dissidents in discourses and meetings, with whom there is already a shared identity. However, when addressing a broader public in the media, Vidal-Quadras rather uses impersonalizing constructions, e.g. generic and passive se-constructions, to persuade, thereby creating empathy and identification with the public in a less direct way than with a 1st person plural group identity. All in all, the analysis shows that the discourse type and public must be taken into account in a usage-based description of persuasion in political discourses.

In this study we look at person reference in colloquial language and political discourse from a cognitive perspective. The quantitative analysis allows for comparing the presence of the speaker and hearer roles (enunciator and enunciatee) in both genres. The qualitative analysis is based on the concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity (Benveniste 1966, Lyons 1982, Closs Traugott 2003). The greater tendency to overtly assign states of consciousness and stances to the very enunciator evidences the subjectivity of colloquial language. Political discourse, however, contains much less (inter)subjectivity expressions. It is far less grounded in the enunciator and enunciatee roles, and their distribution is more balanced than in colloquial language, as it reflects the typical interaction between opponents in a debate. The position of the enunciator further varies depending on whether the figure of the Prime Minister is considered to be part of the own group or not. Insofar as the analysis of person reference in terms of subjectivity and intersubjectivity permits to distinguish different positions in interaction, it constitutes a contribution to discourse genre typology.

In this study we look at person reference in colloquial language and political discourse from a cognitive perspective. The quantitative analysis allows for comparing the presence of the speaker and hearer roles (enunciator and enunciatee) in both genres. The qualitative analysis is based on the concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity (Benveniste, 1966; Lyons, 1982; Closs Traugott, 2003). The greater tendency to overtly assign states of consciousness and stances to the very enunciator evidences the subjectivity of colloquial language. Political discourse, however, contains much less (inter)subjectivity expressions. It is far less grounded in the enunciator and enunciatee roles, and their distribution is more balanced than in colloquial language, as it reflects the typical interaction between opponents in a debate. The position of the enunciator further varies depending on whether the figure of the Prime Minister is considered to be part of the own group or not. Insofar as the analysis of person reference in terms of subjectivity and intersubjectivity permits to distinguish different positions in interaction, it constitutes a contribution to discourse genre typology. ; En este estudio analizamos la referencia de persona en el lenguaje coloquial y el discurso político desde un enfoque cognitivo. El análisis cuantitativo permite comparar en qué medida el enunciador y el enunciatario se manifiestan en ambos géneros. Para el análisis cualitativo, nos basamos en las nociones de subjetividad e intersubjetividad lingüística (Benveniste, 1966; Lyons, 1982; Closs Traugott, 2003). La mayor subjetividad del lenguaje coloquial se perfila en una mayor tendencia a asignar abiertamente estados de conciencia y tomas de posición del propio enunciador. El discurso político, en cambio, presenta mucho menos expresiones de subjetividad e intersubjetividad. Está menos anclado en los papeles de enunciador y enunciatario y el reparto entre ambos resulta ser más equitativo que en el lenguaje coloquial, reflejando la típica interacción entre oponentes en un debate. La posición del enunciador varía, además, según que se considere la figura del Presidente del Gobierno como ajena o como parte del propio grupo. En la medida que el análisis de la referencia de persona en términos de subjetividad e intersubjetividad permite distinguir diferentes posiciones en la interacción, constituye una contribución a la tipología de los géneros discursivos.

In this study we look at person reference in colloquial language and political discourse from a cognitive perspective. The quantitative analysis allows for comparing the presence of the speaker and hearer roles (enunciator and enunciatee) in both genres. The qualitative analysis is based on the concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity (Benveniste 1966, Lyons 1982, Closs Traugott 2003). The greater tendency to overtly assign states of consciousness and stances to the very enunciator evidences the subjectivity of colloquial language. Political discourse, however, contains much less (inter)subjectivity expressions. It is far less grounded in the enunciator and enunciatee roles, and their distribution is more balanced than in colloquial language, as it reflects the typical interaction between opponents in a debate. The position of the enunciator further varies depending on whether the figure of the Prime Minister is considered to be part of the own group or not. Insofar as the analysis of person reference in terms of subjectivity and intersubjectivity permits to distinguish different positions in interaction, it constitutes a contribution to discourse genre typology.

Dans cette étude, nous présentons un cadre théorique pour l'étude de la politique de diffusion linguistique à l'étranger, par opposition à la politique linguistique qui est du ressort de la législation (sub)nationale. Nous décrivons d'abord la politique de diffusion linguistique espagnole entre 1978 et 1991. Ensuite, nous appliquons le cadre théorique aux politiques de diffusion linguistique menées à partir de 1991, en nous centrant sur l'Instituto Cervantes et la Consejería de Educación y Ciencia. Après une présentation générale de ces organisations, nous nous penchons sur leur structure et sur les objectifs linguistiques, culturels et politiques qu'elles poursuivent, en nous appuyant sur une étude comparée des activités qu'elles déploient en Belgique, aux États-Unis et au Canada. Ces pays ont été choisis en raison de leur situation linguistique particulière : elles présentent des différences permettant de prendre en compte un nombre de variables susceptibles d'influencer la politique de diffusion de la langue espagnole. ; En este estudio, presentamos un marco teórico para el estudio de la política de difusión lingüística en el extranjero, en contraste con la política lingüística al nivel de la legislación (sub)nacional. Nos detendremos primero en la política de difusión lingüística española entre 1978 y 1991. Luego, aplicamos el marco teórico a las políticas de difusión lingüística seguidas a partir de 1991, centrándonos más en particular en el Instituto Cervantes y la Consejería de Educación y Ciencia. Tras una presentación general de estas organizaciones, nos detenemos en su estructura y analizamos sus objetivos lingüísticos, culturales y políticos a través de un estudio comparado de las actividades que desarrollan en Bélgica, Estados Unidos y Canadá. Estos países han sido seleccionados por su situación lingüística particular: por las diferencias que presentan, resulta posible tomar en consideración una serie de variables susceptibles de incidir en la política de difusión de la lengua española.

Dans cette étude, nous présentons un cadre théorique pour l'étude de la politique de diffusion linguistique à l'étranger, par opposition à la politique linguistique qui est du ressort de la législation (sub)nationale. Nous décrivons d'abord la politique de diffusion linguistique espagnole entre 1978 et 1991. Ensuite, nous appliquons le cadre théorique aux politiques de diffusion linguistique menées à partir de 1991, en nous centrant sur l'Instituto Cervantes et la Consejería de Educación y Ciencia. Après une présentation générale de ces organisations, nous nous penchons sur leur structure et sur les objectifs linguistiques, culturels et politiques qu'elles poursuivent, en nous appuyant sur une étude comparée des activités qu'elles déploient en Belgique, aux États-Unis et au Canada. Ces pays ont été choisis en raison de leur situation linguistique particulière : elles présentent des différences permettant de prendre en compte un nombre de variables susceptibles d'influencer la politique de diffusion de la langue espagnole. ; En este estudio, presentamos un marco teórico para el estudio de la política de difusión lingüística en el extranjero, en contraste con la política lingüística al nivel de la legislación (sub)nacional. Nos detendremos primero en la política de difusión lingüística española entre 1978 y 1991. Luego, aplicamos el marco teórico a las políticas de difusión lingüística seguidas a partir de 1991, centrándonos más en particular en el Instituto Cervantes y la Consejería de Educación y Ciencia. Tras una presentación general de estas organizaciones, nos detenemos en su estructura y analizamos sus objetivos lingüísticos, culturales y políticos a través de un estudio comparado de las actividades que desarrollan en Bélgica, Estados Unidos y Canadá. Estos países han sido seleccionados por su situación lingüística particular: por las diferencias que presentan, resulta posible tomar en consideración una serie de variables susceptibles de incidir en la política de difusión de la lengua española.

The EU and the OIF have both developed to become international organisations that combine economic, geopolitical and cultural-linguistic policies. This article deals with the fascinating interface of such policies. The main focus resides on the discourse by which both organisations construct their linguistic and cultural diversity concept and on how they deal with language rights. The role of other divides in the debate on linguistic and cultural diversity in international cooperation is investigated. Furthermore, the analysis includes future scenarios and integrates the frequently used arguments in on-going Belgian public debates on French as an international language and in European debates on French as the legal language for the EU.

In this presentation, I will focus on how we define the concepts of oral and written language. Then I will present different moments in the production and transmission of a text, as well as prior and posterior phases, in order to show where aspects of oral and written language can intervene. I will analyse some types of discourse that are linked to political life. I will focus on the mix of characteristics of oral and written language and its influence on the linguistic production itself. More concretely, I will demonstrate how the genres of official speech, parliamentary debate, interview and political cartoon contain both oral and written characteristics, thus increasing the complexity of the linguistic analysis of these discursive genres.

The EU & the OIF have both developed to become international organisations that combine economic, geopolitical & cultural-linguistic policies. This article deals with the fascinating interface of such policies. The main focus resides on the discourse by which both organisations construct their linguistic & cultural diversity concept & on how they deal with language rights. The role of other divides in the debate on linguistic & cultural diversity in international cooperation is investigated. Furthermore, the analysis includes future scenarios & integrates the frequently used arguments in on-going Belgian public debates on French as an international language & in European debates on French as the legal language for the EU. References. Adapted from the source document.

In this presentation, I will focus on how we define the concepts of oral and written language. Then I will present different moments in the production and transmission of a text, as well as prior and posterior phases, in order to show where aspects of oral and written language can intervene. I will analyse some types of discourse that are linked to political life. I will focus on the mix of characteristics of oral and written language and its influence on the linguistic production itself. More concretely, I will demonstrate how the genres of official speech, parliamentary debate, interview and political cartoon contain both oral and written characteristics, thus increasing the complexity of the linguistic analysis of these discursive genres.