Parliamentary discourse and intensification

Parliamentary discourse¹ is highly ritualised. It is characterised by the confron-tation of ideological positions (Van Dijk, 2003) and the pursuit of brilliant and effective argumentation (Anscombre-Ducrot, 1983; Lo Cascio 1998). The aim of each participant is to defend his/her own ideological position and that of their group (endo-group) against the other (exo-group). Thus, each member of the Parliament defends a dual image (face): the group image of the party (Bravo, 1999; Fuentes-Rodríguez, 2010a) and the self-image of their role (as a member of the government or of the opposition). Meanwhile, he/she constructs an iden-tity (Simon, 2004; Joseph, 2004; Spencer-Oatey, 2007) comprising interactive and social aspects, which predominates over individual aspects (Simon, 2004; Joseph, 1. For the characteristics of parliamentary discourse, see Van Dijk (2000, 2004, 2005), Chilton-Schäffner (2002), Chilton (2004), Núñez-Guerrero (2002), Ilie (2001, 2003, 2004), Bayley (2004), Arce (2006), among others.

2004; Bucholtz-Hall, 2005; Spencer-Oatey, 2007): ‘Because these tools are put to use in interaction, the process of identity construction does not reside within the individual but in intersubjective relations of sameness and difference, realness and fakeness, power and disempowerment’ (Bucholtz-Hall, 2005:607). Language is one of those factors that serve to define and constitute this identity² (Bucholtz-Hall, 2005), especially, in public personalities (Fuentes-Rodríguez, 2013a:13–21).

However, it can also be used, an aspect that this chapter wishes to emphasise, to create a personal communicative style. The representative of the ideological group³ has recourse to this feature as a means to stand out within the endo-group, by which he/she shares objectives and social policies (Abrams, 1999; Van Dijk, 2002, 2003). It is a strategic use, planned to create a public image that defines politicians within the parliamentary setting.⁴

Among the means used for the strategic creation of this identity, this chapter focuses on the use of intensification in argumentation (i.e. the use of elements to increase the force of the argument, such as ‘a lot of’, ‘enormously’, ‘fundamen-tally’, ‘essentially’, ‘absolutely’), particularly on the use of es que [it is that…].

Intensification is a resource for expressing one’s own opinion, whose objective is the creation of the image of someone skilled in argument and capable of defeating an opponent in the dialectic and cognitive clash. The assertion in this discourse type is always categorical and delivered with a high degree of confidence on the part of the speaker, who, rather than moderating his discourse, demonstrates a maximum engagement with the discourse content. This is due either to the type of interaction (parliamentary discourse) or to the development and configuration of interactive roles.

These roles are organised in two blocks. The first block comprises the opposi-tion, whose function is to criticise the actions of the government and attack and de-stroy its image. The second block includes members of the government and PSOE, the ruling party. The socialist members support the government’s position and collaborate in arguing its case. Thus, in the following oral question, Sr. Caballos, a

2. Bucholtz-Hall (2005: 594) had already included it among its constitutive features: ‘Identity relations emerge in interaction through several related indexical processes, including: a) overt mention of identity categories and labels; b) implicatures and presuppositions regarding one’s own or others’ identity position; c) displayed evaluative and epistemic orientations to ongoing talk, as well as interactional footings and participant roles; and d) the use of linguistic structures and systems that are ideologically associated with specific personas and groups.’

3. For the concept of ideology in discourse analysis, see Van Dijk (2001, 2003).

4. For details of the same procedure used in other media formats, see Culpeper (1996, 2005), Garcés (2009), Brenes (2009), Fuentes-Brenes (2011), Fuentes (ed. 2013).

PSOE MP, in his reply thanks the Minister of Agriculture for information while at the same time providing moral support:

(1) Estos datos concretos son alentadores, son importantes, interesantes y le animamos a proseguir en ese esfuerzo por el bien de todos los andaluces y para que en el presupuesto haya más margen cada vez para mantener las políticas sociales, que es lo que más nos importa.Gracias.

(DSPA⁵ 118, 24, Sr. Caballos, PSOE) [These particular facts are encouraging, they are important and we urge

you to continue your efforts for the good of all the citizens of Andalusia and so that there is an ever greater scope in the budget for maintaining social policies, which is what matters to us most of all. Thank you.]

Compare this approach with the following intervention from Sr. Sanz, a PP MP, to the same minister, with a direct attack on her. He accuses her of lying: ‘you cannot hide behind the fact that there were no performance reports, because there could never be performance reports’:

(2) Por tanto, señora Consejera, no me saque usted las leyes. Léase… Ya ha reconocido usted que, como era tanto el carro de los helados, de tanta documentación, usted no se lo leía. Pues, era importante leérselo, porque aquí dice que el IFA incumple de manera sistemática las obligaciones de información referidas. Por tanto, se acabó la careta, ustedes no se pueden escudar en que no existieron los informes de actuación, porque jamás pudieron existir los informes de actuación porque el IFA nunca cumplió con los informes de implantación previos para desarrollar luego los informes de

actuación. (DSPA 118, 21, Sr. Sanz, PP)

[Therefore, Minister, do not wave the law in front of me. Read … You have already acknowledged that, since the trolley was loaded with such a quantity of documentation, you didn’t read it. Well, it was important to read it, because here it says that the IFA systematically flouts its obligations to inform, which we have referred to. So the game’s up, you cannot hide behind the fact that there were no performance reports, because there could never be performance reports, because the IFA never complied with the implementation reports prior to compiling the performance reports.]

This chapter aims at analysing whether interactive roles are influential in the use of intensification (with es que) as a strategy for identity construction. Therefore, it examines whether it is used to a greater extent by members of the government and the PSOE party or by the opposition. Particularly, it examines whether the use of this mechanism depends on their institutional role in the House or whether it 5. Records of Proceedings of the Andalusian Parliament, hereafter DSPA.

depends on ideology. In addition, this chapter attempts to discover whether gen-der is a relevant factor, that is, whether men and women display differences in discourse use. It examines whether what is initially a strategy of personal iden-tity ends up becoming a feature of group or gender ideniden-tity, whether the use of a linguistic feature moves from being a characteristic of personal identity to that of functional identity, i.e. a characteristic of MPs’ role in parliament.⁶ The types of corpus selected are the plenary and commission sessions of the Andalusian Parliament in the eighth legislative term.

The study of this particular tactic in a given type of discourse, such as that of parliament, has made it possible to arrive at more general conclusions concerning intensification as a pragmatic strategy and how in discourse, information, argu-mentation and text-type should be analysed together, as they interact to achieve a discourse effect (Fuentes-Rodríguez, 2015 [2000]). This represents a methodologi-cal advance requiring an integrated and multidimensional linguistic approach (Roulet, 1987; Adam, 1990).⁷