La interrupción desde el eje diacrónico: análisis de dos debates legislativos sobre educación (el Decreto de Romanones de 1902 y la Ley Celaá de 2020)

IF 0.2 4区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Juan Carlos Tordera Yllescas, María José García Folgado
{"title":"La interrupción desde el eje diacrónico: análisis de dos debates legislativos sobre educación (el Decreto de Romanones de 1902 y la Ley Celaá de 2020)","authors":"Juan Carlos Tordera Yllescas, María José García Folgado","doi":"10.1515/zrp-2023-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The objective of this paper is to determine the existing differences in the number and typology of conversational interruptions that have been found in two legislative debates from 1902 and 2020. To this end, a theoretical proposal will be used which assumes that the type of interruption is linked to the sociocultural context of the time (reflected, for example, in the historical press) and that the intent of the interruption is inseparable from that context. Under this theoretical perspective, two parliamentary debates are analysed which discuss the Decreto de Romanones (1902) and the Ley Celaá (2020), two educational legislative texts. Our findings show that there are more cases of interruptions in the 1902 debate than in the 2020 debate. However, the interruptions tend to be less disruptive and are usually addressed by the interlocutor (compared to the 2020 texts). Therefore, we understand that there is a greater “dialoguing” character in the 1902 debates, because “the other” is listened to.","PeriodicalId":44119,"journal":{"name":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ROMANISCHE PHILOLOGIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ROMANISCHE PHILOLOGIE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zrp-2023-0005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The objective of this paper is to determine the existing differences in the number and typology of conversational interruptions that have been found in two legislative debates from 1902 and 2020. To this end, a theoretical proposal will be used which assumes that the type of interruption is linked to the sociocultural context of the time (reflected, for example, in the historical press) and that the intent of the interruption is inseparable from that context. Under this theoretical perspective, two parliamentary debates are analysed which discuss the Decreto de Romanones (1902) and the Ley Celaá (2020), two educational legislative texts. Our findings show that there are more cases of interruptions in the 1902 debate than in the 2020 debate. However, the interruptions tend to be less disruptive and are usually addressed by the interlocutor (compared to the 2020 texts). Therefore, we understand that there is a greater “dialoguing” character in the 1902 debates, because “the other” is listened to.
从历时轴的中断:对两次教育立法辩论的分析(1902年《罗马法令》和2020年《塞拉法》)
摘要本文的目的是确定在1902年和2020年的两次立法辩论中发现的会话中断的数量和类型上存在的差异。为此,将使用一种理论建议,假设中断的类型与当时的社会文化背景有关(例如,反映在历史媒体上),并且中断的意图与该背景密不可分。在这一理论视角下,分析了两次议会辩论,讨论了《罗马法令》(1902年)和《Ley Celaá》(2020年)这两部教育立法文本。我们的调查结果显示,1902年的辩论中出现的中断案例比2020年的辩论更多。然而,中断往往破坏性较小,通常由对话者处理(与2020年的文本相比)。因此,我们理解1902年的辩论具有更大的“对话性”特征,因为“另一个”被倾听。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: The journal Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie (ZrP), was founded in 1877 by Gustav Gröber. In the field of literary history the subjects covered by the journal include Romance literature up to the Renaissance, as well as the entire scope of Romance language studies and related studies.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信