Abstract
This article examines the use and functions of questions in Latvian and Polish parliamentary debates from the perspective of comparative pragmatics. The research is based on a corpus of 200 utterances excerpted from transcripts of Latvian and Polish parliaments’ sittings from 2009. It uses the typology of questions in interaction developed by ILIE (1999). The paper suggests that differences in the frequency and functions of questions reflect different degrees of interactionality of a debate, which is a genre that combines monologic and dialogic features. On this basis, the discourse of Polish parliamentary debates is recognized as more interactional than its Latvian counterpart.
References
Bryant Gregory A., Fox Tree Jean E. 2002. “Recognizing Verbal Irony in Spontaneous Speech.” Metaphor and Symbol 17(2), 99-117.
Bybee Joan, Fleischman Susanne (eds.). 1995. Modality and Grammar in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Camiciottoli Crawford B. 2008. “Interaction in Academic Lectures vs. Written Text Materials: The Case of Questions.” Journal of Pragmatics 40, 1216-1231.
Chojnicka Joanna. 2012. Linguistic Markers of Stance in Latvian Parliamentary Debates. PhD thesis. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Coulmas Florian (ed.). 1986. Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin-New York-Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Frajzyngier Zygmunt. 1995. “A Functional Theory of Complementizers.” In: Bybee & Fleischman 1995: 472502.
Goefman Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual. New York: Pantheon.
Horn Laurence R., Ward Gregory L. 2006. Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Ilie Cornelia. 1999. “Question-response Argumentation in Talk Shows.” Journal of Pragmatics 31, 975-999.
Ilie Cornelia. 2010. “Strategic Uses of Parliamentary Forms of Address: The Case of the U.K. Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag.” Journal of Pragmatics 42, 885-911.
Jaefe Alexandra (ed.). 2009. Stance. SociolinguisticPerspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnstone Barbara. 2009. “Stance, Style, and the Linguistic Individual.” In: Jaefe 2009: 29-52.
Koester Almut. 2006. Investigating Workplace Discourse. Domains of Discourse Series. London-New York: Routledge.
Kreuz Roger J. 2000. “The Production and Processing of Verbal Irony.” Metaphor and Symbol 15(1-2), 99-107.
Rexach Javier G. 1998. “Rhetorical Questions, Relevance and Scales.” Revista Alicantina de EstudiosIngleses 11: 139-155.
Schiffrin Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tannen Deborah. 1986. “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narrative.” In: Coulmas 1986: 311-332.
License
Copyright (c) 2013 Joanna Chojnicka
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.