Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The present study investigates the expression of commitment in multiunit questions (MUQs), that is, questions consisting of several structural components, asked during British and Russian parliamentary debates. The discursive manifestations of two commitment types in the sequential organization of parliamentary questions are analyzed. First, institutional commitment is verbalized by means of several types of structural components employed by questioners to promote convincing legislative proposals and expose inefficient ones: backgrounders (e.g., opinions), metacomponents (e.g., signposting), intensifiers, and other types of components. Second, ingroup commitment is related to various components helping to promote members of Parliament's (MPs') party interests and discredit adversaries: evaluative turns (e.g., praises, reproaches), metacomponents (e.g., criticisms of answers), and other types of structural elements. In addition, some qualitative and quantitative differences in the expression of commitment in English and Russian are analyzed.

Keywords

commitment cross-cultural debates institutional discourse multiunit questions parliamentary debates sequential organization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bayley, P. (Ed.). (2004). Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bird, K. (2005). Gendering parliamentary questions. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7, 353-370.

Brandom, R.B. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bull, P.E. (2003). The microanalysis of political communication: Claptrap and ambiguity. London: Routledge.

Bull, P.E. , Elliott, J. , Palmer, D. , & Walker, L. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology , 35, 267-284.

Chilton, P.A. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice . London: Routledge.

Cohen, A. (2003). Multiple commitments at work: An integrative approach . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .

Donaldson, R.H. (2006). Russia. In N. Baldwin (Ed.), Executive leadership and legislative assemblies (pp. 230-249). London: Routledge.

Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London : Sage.

10.

Fetzer, A., & Lauerbach, E. G. (Eds.). (2007). Political discourse in the media: Cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

11.

Fink, S.L. (1992). High commitment workplaces. New York: Quorum books.

12.

Franklin, M., & Norton, P. (Eds.). (1993). Parliamentary questions . Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

13.

Guest, D. (1998). Commitment. In C. L. Cooper & C. Argyris (Eds.), The concise Blackwell encyclopedia of management (pp. 84-85). Oxford , UK: Blackwell.

14.

Heritage, J. , & Roth, A. (1995). Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 1-60.

15.

Ilie, C. (1999). Question-response argumentation in talk-shows . Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 975-999.

16.

Johansson, M. (2002). Sequential positioning of represented discourse in institutional media interaction. In A. Fetzer & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Rethinking sequentiality: Linguistics meets conversational interaction (pp. 249-272). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

17.

Johansson, M. (2006). Constructing objects of discourse in the broadcast political interview. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 216-229.

18.

Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

19.

Linell, P. , Hofvendahl, J. , & Lindholm, C. (2003). Multi-unit questions in institutional interactions: Sequential organizations and communicative functions. Text , 23, 539-571.

20.

Meierkord, C. , & Fetzer, A. (2002). Introduction. In A. Fetzer & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Rethinking sequentiality: Linguistics meets conversational interaction (pp. 1-36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

21.

Mowday, R.T. , Porter, L.W. , & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

22.

Parliamentary questions: Factsheet P1 procedure series. (2007). London: House of Commons Information Office. Retrieved January 14, 2008, from http://www.parliament.uk/factsheets

23.

Pérez de Ayala, S. (2001). FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting needs?-Politeness in question time. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 143-169.

24.

Puchta, C. , & Potter, J. (1999). Asking elaborate questions: Focus groups and the management of spontaneity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3, 314-335.

25.

Rutland, P. (2005). Britain. In J. Kopstein & M. I. Lichbach (Eds.), Comparative politics: Interests, identities, and institutions in a changing global order (2nd ed., pp. 39-79). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

26.

van Dijk, T.A. (2004). Text and context of parliamentary debates. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 340-372). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

27.

Walton, D.N. (1991). Critical faults and fallacies of questioning. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 337-366.

28.

Watts, R.J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Expressing Commitment When Asking Multiunit Questions in Parliamentary Debates

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References