Delineating the discursive (de) legitimation strategies outlined by Spanish politicians in their no-confidence motion speeches

IF 2.1 2区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Discourse & Communication Pub Date : 2024-05-06 DOI:10.1177/17504813241246059
Mª Milagros del Saz-Rubio
{"title":"Delineating the discursive (de) legitimation strategies outlined by Spanish politicians in their no-confidence motion speeches","authors":"Mª Milagros del Saz-Rubio","doi":"10.1177/17504813241246059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present study explores the discursive (de)legitimation strategies enacted by three Spanish politicians, viz., Pablo Iglesias, Pedro Sánchez, and Santiago Abascal, within the context of a no-confidence motion speech against the governing parties in the Spanish Congress in 2017 (Popular Party), 2018 (Popular Party), and 2020 (Partido Socialista Obrero Español). Using the output of a keyword search, a qualitative analysis of the concordances where these words are used is conducted to unveil the appeals most frequently employed to justify the need to file the motion and provide reasons to evict the incumbent party. Findings point to interindividual differences regarding the appeals used. Iglesias heavily relies on altruism to present his group’s project as an alternative and on implicit authorization via referencing sources that support his claims to gain the audience’s credibility. Sánchez legitimizes his actions by rationalizing his reasons for filing the motion and conveying – via implicit authorization – that the motion is triggered by the need to uphold constitutional principles. Abascal, on his part, relies on the negative association of the out-group with lexis of a moralizing nature that challenges their credibility and reputation via direct appeals to Sánchez and Iglesias while appealing to emotions and the rationalization of the motion in terms of freedom.","PeriodicalId":46726,"journal":{"name":"Discourse & Communication","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse & Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813241246059","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present study explores the discursive (de)legitimation strategies enacted by three Spanish politicians, viz., Pablo Iglesias, Pedro Sánchez, and Santiago Abascal, within the context of a no-confidence motion speech against the governing parties in the Spanish Congress in 2017 (Popular Party), 2018 (Popular Party), and 2020 (Partido Socialista Obrero Español). Using the output of a keyword search, a qualitative analysis of the concordances where these words are used is conducted to unveil the appeals most frequently employed to justify the need to file the motion and provide reasons to evict the incumbent party. Findings point to interindividual differences regarding the appeals used. Iglesias heavily relies on altruism to present his group’s project as an alternative and on implicit authorization via referencing sources that support his claims to gain the audience’s credibility. Sánchez legitimizes his actions by rationalizing his reasons for filing the motion and conveying – via implicit authorization – that the motion is triggered by the need to uphold constitutional principles. Abascal, on his part, relies on the negative association of the out-group with lexis of a moralizing nature that challenges their credibility and reputation via direct appeals to Sánchez and Iglesias while appealing to emotions and the rationalization of the motion in terms of freedom.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
西班牙政治家在不信任动议演说中概述的话语(去)合法化策略的划分
本研究探讨了三位西班牙政治家,即巴勃罗-伊格莱西亚斯(Pablo Iglesias)、佩德罗-桑切斯(Pedro Sánchez)和圣地亚哥-阿瓦斯卡尔(Santiago Abascal),在 2017 年(人民党)、2018 年(人民党)和 2020 年(西班牙社会党)针对西班牙国会执政党的不信任动议演讲中制定的话语(去)合法化策略。利用关键词搜索的输出结果,对使用这些词语的连词进行了定性分析,以揭示为证明提出动议的必要性和提供驱逐执政党的理由而最常使用的诉求。研究结果表明,所使用的诉求存在个体差异。伊格莱西亚斯(Iglesias)在很大程度上依赖利他主义,将其团体的项目作为一种替代方案,并通过引用支持其主张的资料来源来获得受众的信任。桑切斯(Sánchez)则通过合理化其提出动议的理由,并通过隐性授权传达动议是出于维护宪法原则的需要,从而使其行为合法化。而阿瓦斯卡尔则通过对桑切斯和伊格莱西亚斯的直接诉求,利用道德化性质的词汇对外群体进行负面联想,挑战他们的可信度和声誉,同时诉诸情感并从自由的角度对动议进行合理化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Discourse & Communication
Discourse & Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Discourse & Communication is an international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes articles that pay specific attention to the qualitative, discourse analytical approach to issues in communication research. Besides the classical social scientific methods in communication research, such as content analysis and frame analysis, a more explicit study of the structures of discourse (text, talk, images or multimedia messages) allows unprecedented empirical insights into the many phenomena of communication. Since contemporary discourse study is not limited to the account of "texts" or "conversation" alone, but has extended its field to the study of the cognitive, interactional, social, cultural.
期刊最新文献
Interactive probes: Towards action-level evaluation for dialogue systems Book review: Hiroki Nomoto and Elin McCready, Discourse Particles in Asian Languages Volume II ‘Have you insured yourself in any way?’ Salespersons’ mapping questions and their follow-ups in insurance sales negotiations Book review: Zsófia Demjén, Sarah Atkins and Elena Semino, Researching Language and Health: A Student Guide Book review: Claudio Scarvaglieri, Eva-Maria Graf, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds), Relationships in Organized Helping: Analyzing Interaction in Psychotherapy, Medical Encounters, Coaching and in Social Media
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1