INTENTOS DE SUICIDIO Y SUS DETERMINANTES EN LOS PACIENTES INGRESADOS EN EL HOSPITAL GENERAL

Within linguistics, there are a variety of studies that have analysed parliamentary discourse in relation to sexuality from an out-group perspective. Most of these studies have identified arguments, representations and discourses about gay men and,

although less frequently, lesbian women. One of these studies is by Baker (2004), who conducted a corpus-based discourse analysis of the keywords of debates about the lowering of the age of consent for gay men in the House of Lords between 1998-2000. Baker compared texts representing for and against standpoints and looked at the collocations of the keywords identified. This allowed him to ascertain that the word

homosexual(s) occurred more often than gay(s) in the language of those who opposed the reform. Additionally, Baker found that homosexual(s) tended to be associated with sexual acts, while gay(s) was more frequently related to identity. In this piece of research, Baker identified discourses of equality and tolerance in the interventions of those in favour of law reform. However, those opposing the reform tended to link homosexuality to crime and danger, portraying gay men as sexual predators who constitute a menace to boys, ‘transmitting’ homosexuality to them. Additionally, homosexuality was represented as unnatural, immoral and temporary, being an optional rather than a permanent feature of a person’s identity. Also, the debates contain links between homosexuality, promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases, as well as what Baker calls ‘the thin edge of the wedge’ discourse, where opponents of change suggested that changing this law would result in more demands for change from gay individuals in the future.31

Following on from Baker’s (2004) study, Love and Baker (2015) used corpus methods to identify how arguments against LGBTQ+ _{equality had changed in the British}

Parliament. Their study compared the language used by those opposing the equalisation of the age of consent for anal sex (1998-2000) to the oppositional language used in debates about same-sex marriage (2013). The purpose of this study was to determine if and how those against equality had changed their opposing arguments and representations of gay people over time. Using corpus linguistics methods such as keyword, collocation and concordance analyses, Love and Baker found that opposing arguments have changed, being replaced by more indirect

strategies that subtly indicate homophobic discourse. In the speeches that opposed the

31 _{This proved to be the case. After the Age of Consent was equalised in the UK, activist groups called}

for other changes including the right to adopt children, to serve in the military and to get married, to bring gay people in line with heterosexual people. At the time of writing these changes have also been implemented.

same-sex marriage law, the authors found that the words gay and homosexual were more frequently used to describe identities rather than behaviours, while there was an overall decrease in the use of the word homosexual and controversial terms such as

homosexualism. Regarding argumentation, rejection in the same-sex marriage corpus was often based on criticism of legal procedures rather than gay people or their sexuality, gay people were positively characterised, which helps to mitigate

opposition, and there was a change of focus from the benefits the law would bring to a focus on who it would supposedly discriminate against, that is heterosexual and religious people. In other words, in the same-sex marriage corpus, those against equality represented themselves as the victims of intolerance, appropriating the discourse of gay liberation. Finally, even gay people were portrayed as not wanting the law, which helps to delegitimise it.

Also looking at the British context, Bachmann (2011) analysed debates in the Houses of Parliament that allowed for the passing of the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Through the analysis of keywords, he was able to identify the different discourses that framed speakers’ arguments. Since the speeches of those in favour and against the law were part of the corpus, the findings include opposing and supporting stances. Among these findings, same-sex relationships are characterised as both the same as and different from opposite-sex ones, and as one of many disadvantaged relationships in British society. Also, some arguments portrayed the Civil Partnership Act as threatening marriage, being harmful to society, while others portrayed it as beneficial due to its similarity to marriage, thus promoting stability. Just like Baker (2004), Bachmann identified a ‘thin end of the wedge’ discourse among those opposing the passing of the Civil Partnership Act.

With a focus on disclaimers of homophobia, Burridge (2004) conducted discourse analysis on parliamentary debates about Section 28, which banned ‘the promotion of homosexuality in schools’, in the British Parliament in 2000. Burridge (2004: 333) defines disclaiming as ‘the process of discursively disavowing a possible unacceptable or disadvantageous interpretation of actions, with an agnostic stance regarding the truth status of specific instances of such disavowal’. The purpose of this study was to identify how disclaimers work and their role in the legitimisation of the arguments of those who opposed the repeal of the law. Apart from identifying a variety of

disclaiming strategies, Burridge reflects on their effectiveness and provides some insights regarding any attempts at challenging them in the debates. Also, Burridge found that the speeches of those who wanted to maintain Section 28 were influenced by a discourse of tolerance, which revealed they saw homophobia as problematic. Burridge also found that differential treatment tended to be carefully justified in the debates with reference to special reasons. Among these are references to the

avoidance of the misappropriation of tax-payers money or the harming of children. These types of justifications, Burridge notes, make it difficult for those against discrimination to identify stances as homophobic. However, the use of disclaimers of homophobia tend to be an indication that such behaviour is present. Burridge suggests that it is necessary to develop strategies that can successfully resist the effects of the subtle advocacy of discrimination. These studies collectively suggest that as a country starts to pass equality laws for LGBTQ+ _{people the opponents of change will initially} be more openly negative in their representations, although as more laws are changed, their language will appear less negative on the surface, making their position appear somewhat inconsistent with their representations of LGBTQ+ _people.

My study relates to those described in this section in that all of them consider debates about laws related to gay people that have taken place since the 2000s. However, my study broadens the context by including a country from South America, an area which has not been studied as extensively as Europe or North America (or in this case Britain). Similarly, I consider debates about a type of law that has not been dealt with in previous studies, namely the anti-discrimination law. Concerning similarities, my study more closely resembles the one by Bachmann (2011), as my parliamentary debates corpus contains debates about a civil-partnership law. Also, like Bachmann's (2011) study, I include the opposing and supporting stances of the debates (I refer to this in more detail in Chapter 4), which is likely to reveal contradictions in the representations I identify. Now let us move on to the revision of the literature concerning church discourse.