Towards an Interpretation of Interruptions in Mexican Parliamentary Discourse (1920-60)

Abstract

This article uses a particular phenomenon of discourse, the occurrence of interruptions in Mexican parliamentary discourse over four decades, in order to raise some issues concerning discourse analysis as an interdisciplinary enterprise. Interruptions in this situation are forbidden by the rules of procedure, yet they are a regular occurrence, a systematic and rule-governed practice accepted by all participants, and this can be brought out by using a conversation analysis approach. However, in order to understand the full scope and function of the discursive rules at issue (who can interrupt whom, on what topic and with what overall effect) it is necessary to refer to the broader political and historical framework. In the case of Mexican parliamentary discourse it is argued that interruptions have a double function: to legitimate the pluralistic ideology of the Mexican regime in a strongly presidential system where one party has monopolized power throughout the period studied, and to allow and contain genuine disaffection. The article illustrates the different discursive features that typically correspond to these functions.