Search

In this paper we analyze the use of the alternation attenuation/intensification as an argumentative strategy in the political discourse. We have used ten interpellations from the Journal of Sessions of the Parliament of Andalucía, belonging to the VIIIth Term (2010-2011), and six interpellations from the IXth Term (2013-2014). The distribution attenuation/intensification does not follow the pattern which is to be hoped: according to the role of the member of Parliament -according to his role of more power (Government) / less power (Opposition)-the politician should use intensification in speeches in which he shows his achievements, and he should use attenuation in his defence before accusations; whereas a member of Parliament belonging to the Opposition should preferably use intensification as an essential resource for accusation and critique. However, we can find situations in which, from positions of denouncement or critique, some members of Parliament use attenuation not only as a resource but as a constitutive principle of his entire discourse. This fact is in principle paradoxical, but it has a very clear argumentative functionality: attenuation can be used in order to intensify the argumentative strength of the discourse. The alternation attenuation/intensification focuses on the propositional content, intensifying it. The difficult equilibrium of the play attenuation/intensification shows the tension between the desire for softening, in order to protect the image, and the desire for accusing clearly, in order to discredit the adversary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the structure of the development sequence of the initial speech issued by the Spanish Prime Minister and by the leaders of the opponent parties at the State of the Nation Debate, which takes place at the Spanish Parliament every year. The development sequence stands for most of the speakers' interventions, and presents two different structures, linear or parallel, depending on the speaker's approach. According to the general structure, the mechanisms chosen by the speaker are different, and such difference is particularly evident when the President and the leaders of the opponent parties are compared. In this article we study how such mechanisms are articulated, how topics and subtopics are organized, as well as the most frequent oratorical mechanisms used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the arguments put forward by Mariano Rajoy, the leader of the Partido Popular (currently Spain's major opposition party and the principal representative of the country's right wing), in response to questions about the atmosphere of tension posed by a group of citizens during Tengo una pregunta para usted (2007), a television programme in which 100 representatives from a cross section of society quiz leading politicians on a wide range of issues. The theoretical-methodological approach is based on concepts taken from discourse analysis and a cognitive perspective, as well as from rhetoric, argumentation theory and pragmadialectics. This interdisciplinary approach enables us to better address the complexity of the various levels of discursive significance and their interrelation with ideological meaning in discourse whose persuasive intentionality targets agreement between the speaker and recipients. The analysis and interpretation of the data reveals Rajoy's general lack of attention to the citizen's point of view and his tendency to break the frameworks they activate, repeatedly replacing them with his own. This indicates his interest in presenting his political programme before the television audience, rather than offering each citizen a coherent (and well-structured within a critical argument) response. In establishing his ideological position, he frequently resorts to the use of supposedly objective data (extrinsic proof), as well as the use of argumentative places, and especially the overuse of the place of essence (which for Rajoy has an overriding argumentative value). From a pragmatic perspective, he breaks the expectations generated by the speech acts used by the citizens in their questions, thereby failing to answer what he has been asked. In addition, he fails to comply with several rules by misinterpreting the citizen's intention and digressing inappropriately. Where he does accept die approach put forward, he tends to minimise die possible threat the act represents to his party's image by using a range of attenuating elements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]