Pseudo-desemantisation

As mentioned above, lexical ritualisation is determined by membership of the gov-ernment’s parliamentary group or that of the opposition, regardless of ideological factors. Thus, the government provides aclaraciones [clarifications] while the op-position generally demands explicaciones [explanations]. Furthermore, pseudo-desemantisation – besides the aforesaid collocational scope – is a fact concerning the utilisation of governmental vocabulary (which, as has already been said, can be easily interchanged according to the regional and national political situation).

If aclarar [clarify] means ‘to dispel, to remove what hinders clarity or transpar-ency’, it would be appropriate to ask ourselves whether the Member of Parliament who uses the word really carries out that task. This is because he only uses his turn of intervention without necessarily entering into the details required. It is worth mentioning that this is precisely what could be expected, as the opposite would represent an unprecedented consensus in the context of parliament. Clarifying simply means to hold the floor. Hence, lexical ritualisation leads to the pseudo-desemantisation of prototypical words from the field of politics.

The adjective decepcionante [disappointing] rather eloquently exemplifies what is being analysed here. For example, when a President or a Minister inter-venes, the opposition members describe their speech or intervention as disap-pointing; in other words, it does not meet their expectations. The addressee of the message becomes disillusioned, which implies that hopes were previously present in the proposals. Did the Member of Parliament who belongs to the opposition group really have any hopes? Is he speaking on behalf of the voters whom he does not represent, because it is assumed that his voters had no hopes concerning the intervention of a person on whom they have not put their confidence? This is a pre-established structure. Any speech made by a political adversary is disappoint-ing in advance, yet another example of pseudo-desemantisation.

Finally, demagogia [demagogy], a particularly frequent word, is used as a wild-card-type of dysphemistic mechanism to avoid certain attacks (Castillo Carballo and García Platero, 2012). One should wonder whether, when Members of Parliament behave demagogically, they really ‘flatter the elementary feelings of citizens in order to try and achieve or keep power’. This would imply a degenera-tion of democracy, as indicated by the DRAE (Dicdegenera-tionary of the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language). This is a strong accusation if interpreted in its whole semic range. However, when it is too often repeated – as actually happens in this context – it could be understood that the criticism only refers to certain political actions. The adjectivised noun demagogo [demagogue/demagogic] alternates with irresponsable [irresponsible]. In other words, another example of semantic neu-tralisation is perceived. An irresponsible person ‘adopts measures or performs acts

without any foresight’. There is only one truth, which does not fall within people’s elementary demands and is sufficiently thought-out: that of the rulers – regardless of political beliefs. It is all about forgetting the alternatives, one of the fallacies of the discourse analysed (Sánchez García, 2012):

(12) Presentaron una ley de calidad de la enseñanza para todo el Estado sin memoria económica ninguna. Tan válida es esa ley como esta que hoy presentamos. Por eso le digo que sus argumentos son pura demagogia, y además falsos, porque esta ley sí cuenta con recursos.

(DSPA 111, VIII Legislature, 14, Sr. Sicilia Alférez, PSOE).

[You presented a law on teaching quality for the whole nation with no economic report whatsoever. That law is as valid as the one we are presenting now. That is why I am telling you that your arguments are pure demagogy, and false too, because there are resources allocated for this law.]

(13) Y, además, como ya anticipó la portavoz popular en esta materia, también dentro de un contexto real, del contexto real de unas circunstancias concretas, las que suponen en Andalucía un millón doscientos treinta mil parados, unas tasas de desempleo que rondan ya el 31%, toda una catástrofe de la que a ustedes no les gusta hablar, de la que a ustedes no les gusta oír ni nombrar, pero que nosotros – y les digo nosotros – no hacemos demagogia con los parados, ni mucho menos un uso indigno de esa desgraciada cifra.

Nosotros lo que hacemos es tener muy presentes los índices de desempleo de nuestra tierra y el drama familiar que eso supone.

(DSPA 141, VIII Legislature, 5, Sra. Reyes Ruiz, PP) [And, besides, as was already anticipated by the Popular (Party)

spokeswoman in this matter, also within a real context, the real context shaped by specific circumstances, the ones which mean one million two-hundred thousand unemployed persons, with an unemployment rate that is already hovering around 31% in Andalusia, an absolute catastrophe that you don’t like to talk about, that you don’t like to hear of or refer to, but which we – and I am telling you, we – don’t indulge in demagogy with the unemployed, and even less carry out an unworthy utilisation of that unfortunate figure. What we do is taking very much into account the unemployment rates in our land and the family drama that they entail.]

4. Conclusions

Our study has focused on a lexical subgroup within a social variation that tends to ideological unification. This is why it depends highly on the status of Members of Parliament: government or opposition. These ritualised uses are characterised

by their formal politeness or a reduction of the impolite content, and prevail over gender-based distinctions. We have focused mainly on the analysis of collocation-al schemes. Besides the prototypicity links, which are so common among these combinations of units that co-occur in the discourse, it is worth highlighting the pseudo-compositional nature – considering the hierarchical imbalance between the collocated formants. Indeed, it is necessary to emphasise the relative semantic opacity that derives from a figurative or delexicalised collocative. Delexicalisation results in the discursive use of highly intensifying pleonastic constructions, used as a discursive strategy of intensification.

Special attention has been given to the collocation hacer un esfuerzo [make an effort] because it illustrates how the discourse analysed works. Any political action stems from an energetic use of vigour, from spirit to courage, although, in many instances, it hides bureaucratic action. That is where the emphasis lies. In this re-gard, a distinction has been drawn between explicit and implicit combinations, depending on whether the collocative is present or not. Cases of double emphasis are not unusual, though, insofar as there is a growing interest to highlight the posi-tive aspects of certain actions.

There are neither political allegiance differences nor gender-based distinc-tions. The only aspect that becomes visible is a number of lexical clichés among those dealing with public affairs, which politicians take up without much diffi-culty. The use of those lexical clichés results either in a euphemistic discourse or in an emphasising and intensifying discourse whose function is to give an image of strength (‘make an effort’). Meanwhile, the politician uses lexical terms that take on different values depending on who uses them (clarifications – explanations), and which become desemantised. This case is exemplified in the use of the ad-jective decepcionante [disappointing] or the noun demagogia [populist rhetoric], which are frequently present in the discourse of MPs. In summary, the lexicon is strategically used and its meaning or semanticism is directed and manipulated ac-cording to ideological functions.

References

Casas Gómez, M. (2009) “Hacia una nueva perspectiva en la definición lingüística del eufemi-smo” in C. Fuentes-Rodríguez and E. R. Alcaide Lara (eds.) Manifestaciones textuales de la descortesía y agresividad verbal en diversos ámbitos comunicativos. Sevilla: Universidad Internacional de Andalucía, 11–29.

Castillo Carballo, M.ª A. and J. M. García Platero (2012) “Peculiaridades léxicas y recurrencias semánticas en el discurso parlamentario” in Discurso y Sociedad 6 (1): 115–126.

Castillo Carballo, M.ª A. (2005) “Colocaciones léxicas y medios de comunicación” in S. Guerrero Salazar and A. M.ª Medina Guerra (coord.) Lengua española y medios de comunicación:

norma y uso. Málaga: VG Ediciones, 11–28.

García Platero, J. M. (2002) “Aspectos semánticos de las colocaciones” in LEA XXIV: 25–34.

Núñez Cabeza, E. A. and G. Guerrero Salazar (2002) El lenguaje político español. Madrid:

Cátedra.

Sánchez García, F. J. (2012) Retórica parlamentaria actual. Madrid: Síntesis.

doi 10.1075/dapsac.68.07san

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company

Lexical colloquialisation in commissions