Arguing in their own way or adapting to the masculine world? An analysis of male and female argumentative styles in the Czech Chamber of Deputies

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article is focused on the differences in argumentation of male and female MPs and the impact of parliamentary experience and party ideology. Our pragma-dialectical analysis of argumentation encompasses 150 parliamentary speeches in the Czech Chamber of Deputies (2017–2019). The results show that gender does not influence the number of concrete arguments in the speeches, but women use slightly more abstract arguments. Speeches of senior female MPs have a larger number of both, abstract and concrete arguments. Moreover, senior male MPs use a greater number of concrete arguments but a smaller number of abstract arguments. Finally, leftist female MPs create more abstract arguments and fewer concrete arguments than rightist female MPs. The findings add to the discussion about political socialisation and accommodation of female MPs in male-dominated parliaments and extend the geopolitical scope of previous research.