Las preguntas orales en el Parlamento Español

Authors

  • Catalina Fuentes Rodríguez

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12795/PH.2012.v26.i01.07

Keywords:

parliamentary discourse, question time, interactive structure, pragmatics, evasion

Abstract

Question time is an unique opportunity for the members of Parlia- ment to receive a direct answer from the government. Several factors make this discourse special: time limit, fixed structure and the fact that the question sel- dom acts as an information request. Speech acts vary according to the speaker and interactive circumstances. They point to accusation and criticism. On the other hand, the government uses evasion as a defense device.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bayley, P. (2004). “The whys and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse”.

P.Bayley (ed.), 1–44.

—, (2004, ed.). Cross Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse. Amsterdam, John

Benjamins.

Borthwick, R.L., 1993. “On the floor of the house”. Parliamentary Questions,

M.Franklin-P.Norton (eds.). Oxford, Oxford University Press, 73–103.

Briz, A.- Valesco (2003). “Un sistema de unidades para el estudio del lenguaje coloquial”.

Oralia 6, 7-61.

Bull, P. y Mayer, K. (1993). “How not to answer questions in political interviews”. Political

Psychology 14 (4), 651–666.

Bull, P. (1994). “On identifying questions, replies and non-replies in political interviews”.

Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13 (2), 115–131.

—, (2003). The Microanalysis of Political Communication: Claptrap and Ambiguity. London,

Routledge.

Burguera, J. (2010). Gramática y pragmática de la interrogación retórica en español. Una

aplicación al debate parlamentario, Univ. Barcelona.

Chilton, P., (2002, ed). Politics as text and talk. Analytic approaches to political discourse.

Philadelphia, J.Benjamins.

—, (2004). Analysing Political Discourse. London, Routledge.

Chilton, P. y Schäffner, C. (2002) “Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse”, en P.Chilton (ed), 1-44.

Dillon, J. (1990). The Practice of Questioning. London, Routledge.

Emmertsen, S. (2007): “Interviewers’ challenging questions in British debate interviews”.

Journal of Pragmatics 39 (2007) 570–591

Fuentes Rodríguez, C. (2000). Lingüística Pragmática y Análisis del discurso. Madrid,

Arco Libros.

—, (2006). “Operadores de intensificación del adjetivo: los cuantificadores escalares”.

Anuario de Estudios Filológicos, XXIX, 35-53.

—, (2009a). “Parliamentary (im)politeness and argumentative force: “decirles, señorías,

que…(to say, sirs, to you, that…)”,.Actas del I Congreso Internacional de Estrategias

del Discurso Político /Proceedings of the I International Conference on Political Discourse

Strategies, G. Álvarez Benito, G. Fernández Díaz- I. Iñigo (eds.), Sevilla, Mergablum,

-80.

—, (2009b). “El debate entre Zapatero y_Rajoy: estudio textual e interactivo”. Tonos digital 18, www.tonosdigital.com

—, (2009c). Diccionario de conectores y operadores del español. Madrid, Arco Libros.

—,(en prensa a). “El debate Zapatero/Rajoy: estudio argumentativo”, Estudios Críticos

sobre la Comunicación, 1.

—, (en prensa b). “La aserción parlamentaria: de la modalidad al metadiscurso”, Oralia,

, e.p.

Fuentes Rodríguez, C. y E. Alcaide (2002). Mecanismos lingüísticos de la persuasión.

Madrid, Arco Libros.

Harris, S. (1991). “Evasive action: how politicians respond to questions in political interviews”. Broadcast Talk, P.Scannell (ed.), London, Sage, 76–99.

—, (2001). “Being politically impolite: extending politeness theory to adversarial political

discourse”. Discourse and Society 12 (4), 451–472.

Heritage, J. (2002). “The limits of questioning: negative interrogatives and hostile

question content”. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (10–11), 1427–1446.

—, (2003). “Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interview”. Studies in

Language and Social Interaction, P.Glenn et al. (eds.) Mahwah, NJ., Erlbaum.

Ilie, C. (1994). What else can I tell you? A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts, Stockholm, Almqvist &Wiksell International.

—, (2003). “Parenthetically speaking: Parliamentary parentheticals as rhetorical strategies”. Dialogue Analysis 2000: Selected Papers from the 10th IADA Anniversary Conference, M.Bondi-S.Stati (eds.), Tübingen, Niemeyer, 253–264.

—, (2004). “Insulting as (un)parliamentary practice in the British and Swedish parliaments: a rhetoric approach”. Bayley, P. (Ed.), 45–86.

Pérez de Ayala, S. (2001). “FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting needs? -Politeness in

Question Time”. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 143-169

Rasiah, P. (2010). “A framework for the systematic analysis of evasion in parliamentary

discourse”, Journal of Pragmatics 42. 664–680.

Van Dijk, T.A. (2004): “Text and context of parliamentary debates”, en Bayley, P. (ed.),

–372.

Wilson, J. (1990). Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language.

Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

Published

2012-11-15

How to Cite

Fuentes Rodríguez, C. (2012). Las preguntas orales en el Parlamento Español. Philologia Hispalensis, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.12795/PH.2012.v26.i01.07

Issue

Section

Articles
Views
  • Abstract 170
  • PDF (Español (España)) 61