Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions

Abstract

In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) are a weekly 30-minute parliamentary session, in which the prime minister (PM) responds to questions from both government and opposition members of parliament (MPs). In this study, 18 PMQs (April-November, 2007) were analysed, 9 with Labour PM Tony Blair, 9 with his successor Gordon Brown; in all 18 sessions, their opponent was Conservative Party leader David Cameron. In PMQs, MPs are expected to converse through questions and replies, while refraining from “unparliamentary language” (e.g., direct insults to another MP). However, within these constraints, PMQs are notorious for adversarial discourse, analysed in this study through the concept of face-threatening acts (FTAs). Six distinctive ways in which FTAs are performed by the leader of the opposition in questions and five distinctive ways in which the PM may counter FTAs in replies were identified. Overall, it is proposed that face aggravation in PMQs is not just an acceptable form of parliamentary discourse, it is both sanctioned and rewarded, a means whereby MPs may enhance their own status through aggressive facework.

Keywords

Prime Minister’s Questions face aggravation verbal aggression politeness theory questions adversarialism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashley

(2010, April 7). Final PMQs for Gordon Brown’s clunking intellect? Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/07/gordon-brown-pmqs

Bavelas

J. B.

Black

Chovil

Mullett

(1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Brown

Levinson

S. C.

(1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody

(Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56-310). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Brown

Levinson

S. C.

(1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bull

P. E.

Elliott

Palmer

Walker

(1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 267-284.

Bull

Fetzer

(2010). Face, facework and political discourse. International Review of Social Psychology, 23, 155-185.

Culpeper

(1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349-367.

Culpeper

(2005). Impoliteness and “the weakest link”. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 35-72.

Culpeper

Bousfield

Wichmann

(2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545-1579.

10.

Goffman

(1967a). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In Goffman

(Ed.), Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behaviour (pp. 5-45). Garden City, NY: Anchor. (Reprinted from Psychiatry (1955) 18, 213-231)

11.

Goffman

(1967b). Where the action is. In Goffman

(Ed.), Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behaviour (pp. 149-270). Garden City, NY: Anchor.

12.

Harris

(1986). Interviewers’ questions in broadcast interviews. Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, 8, 50-85.

13.

Harris

(2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse & Society, 12, 451-472.

14.

Holtgraves

(2002). Language as social action: Social psychology and language use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

House of Commons Information Office. (2004). Factsheet G7: Some traditions and customs of the House.

16.

Ilie

(2001). Unparliamentary language: Insults as cognitive forms of confrontation. In Dirven

Frank

Ilie

(Eds.), Language and ideology. Vol. II: Descriptive cognitive approaches (pp. 235-263). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

17.

Ilie

(2004). Insulting as (un)parliamentary practice in the British and Swedish Parliaments: A rhetorical approach. In Bayley

(Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 45-86). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

18.

Kampf

(2009). Public (non-)apologies: The discourse of minimizing responsibility. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2257-2270.

19.

Kasper

(1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 193-218.

20.

Kienpointner

(1997). Varieties of rudeness: Types and functions of impolite utterances. Functions of Language, 4, 251-287.

21.

Lakoff

(1989). The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua, 8, 101-129.

22.

May

T. E.

(2004). Parliamentary practice (23rd ed.). London, England: LexisNexis.

23.

Webster

Riddell

(2007, October 5). David Cameron surge puts the heat on labour. Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2592161.ece