Prospektives versus retrospektives Argumentieren. Redebeiträge vor und nach einer parlamentarischen Abstimmung
Fuente:
Redalyc
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo científico |
| Language: | de |
| Published: |
Universität Bern
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1876429549528416256 |
|---|---|
| author | Irene Kunert |
| author_facet | Irene Kunert |
| contents | Prospektives versus retrospektives Argumentieren. Redebeiträge vor und nach einer parlamentarischen Abstimmung Irene Kunert Lengua y Literatura This study aims to investigate the linguistic differences between an argumentation referring to a potential future action (prospective argumentation) and one justifying a past action (retro-spective argumentation) in the parliamentary arena. It is based on the analysis of German and French speeches taken from the protocols of the plenary sessions of the European Parliament.In a plenary session, parliamentary votes are preceded by a general debate. During this de-bate, speakers may give reasons supporting their own choice in an upcoming vote, but they may also try to persuade other Members of Parliament to vote the same way. This argumenta-tion is prospective. After the vote, Members may give an oral or written explanation of vote designed to justify their decision. The argumentative orientation in this case is retrospective. In an exemplary approach, 50 speeches per language (German/French) and communication situation (prospective/retrospective) will be analyzed. The study argues that the macrostruc-ture of the speeches is influenced by the orientation of the conclusion: In a prospective argu-mentation, speakers tend to first present their arguments before coming up with their conclu-sion, the conclusion being a declaration of one’s own intent to vote or a recommendation for other Members of Parliament. In a prototypical explanation of vote, the conclusion precedes the arguments. Special attention is given to the analysis of argument and conclusion markers. The study tries to show that conclusion markers are relatively more frequent in prospective argumentation, while retrospective argumentation makes broader use of argument markers. 2019 artículo científico 1615-3014 https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=664573420004 http://dx.doi.org/10.13092/lo.97.5595 de http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=6645 Linguistik online application/pdf Universität Bern Linguistik online (Suiza) Num.4 Vol.97 |
| format | Artículo científico |
| id | redalyc_664573420004 |
| institution | Redalyc |
| language | de |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publisher | Universität Bern |
| spellingShingle | Prospektives versus retrospektives Argumentieren. Redebeiträge vor und nach einer parlamentarischen Abstimmung Irene Kunert Lengua y Literatura Prospektives versus retrospektives Argumentieren. Redebeiträge vor und nach einer parlamentarischen Abstimmung Irene Kunert Lengua y Literatura This study aims to investigate the linguistic differences between an argumentation referring to a potential future action (prospective argumentation) and one justifying a past action (retro-spective argumentation) in the parliamentary arena. It is based on the analysis of German and French speeches taken from the protocols of the plenary sessions of the European Parliament.In a plenary session, parliamentary votes are preceded by a general debate. During this de-bate, speakers may give reasons supporting their own choice in an upcoming vote, but they may also try to persuade other Members of Parliament to vote the same way. This argumenta-tion is prospective. After the vote, Members may give an oral or written explanation of vote designed to justify their decision. The argumentative orientation in this case is retrospective. In an exemplary approach, 50 speeches per language (German/French) and communication situation (prospective/retrospective) will be analyzed. The study argues that the macrostruc-ture of the speeches is influenced by the orientation of the conclusion: In a prospective argu-mentation, speakers tend to first present their arguments before coming up with their conclu-sion, the conclusion being a declaration of one’s own intent to vote or a recommendation for other Members of Parliament. In a prototypical explanation of vote, the conclusion precedes the arguments. Special attention is given to the analysis of argument and conclusion markers. The study tries to show that conclusion markers are relatively more frequent in prospective argumentation, while retrospective argumentation makes broader use of argument markers. 2019 artículo científico 1615-3014 https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=664573420004 http://dx.doi.org/10.13092/lo.97.5595 de http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=6645 Linguistik online application/pdf Universität Bern Linguistik online (Suiza) Num.4 Vol.97 |
| title | Prospektives versus retrospektives Argumentieren. Redebeiträge vor und nach einer parlamentarischen Abstimmung |
| topic | Lengua y Literatura |
| url | https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=664573420004 http://dx.doi.org/10.13092/lo.97.5595 |