Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time

Accusation of inconsistency in response to criticism

Author

Dima Mohammed | Universidade Nova de Lisboa

Hardbound – Available

ISBN 9789027201744 | EUR 90.00 | USD 135.00

e-Book –

ISBN 9789027263278 | EUR 90.00 | USD 135.00

When political actors respond to criticism by pointing at an inconsistency in the critic’s position, a tricky political practice emerges. Turning the criticism back to the critic can be a constructive move that restores coherence, but it may also be a disruptive move that silences the critical voice and obstructs accountability. What distinguishes constructive cases from disruptive ones? This is the question this book sets out to answer.
The question is addressed by adopting an argumentative perspective. Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time focuses on the turnabout employed by the British Prime Minister in response to the Leader of the Opposition. The turnabout is characterised as a particular way of strategic manoeuvring. The manoeuvring is analysed and evaluated by combining pragmatic, dialectical and rhetorical insights with considerations from the realm of politics. The outcome is an account of the turnabout’s strategic functions and an assessment guide for evaluating its reasonableness.
The book will be of interest to advanced students and researchers of argumentation, discourse analysis, communication and rhetoric.

[Argumentation in Context, 15] 2018. xi, 162 pp.

Publishing status: Available

https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.15

Table of Contents

Preface | pp. ix–xi

Chapter 1. Tricky turnabouts: The puzzle | pp. 1–24

Chapter 2. Confrontational manoeuvring with accusations of inconsistency | pp. 25–51

Chapter 3. Prime Minister’s Question Time | pp. 53–78

Chapter 4. The strategic function of accusations of inconsistency | pp. 79–103

Chapter 5. The reasonableness of accusations of inconsistency | pp. 105–133

Chapter 6. Conclusion: Insights, limitations and challenges | pp. 135–152

References | pp. 153–159

Index | pp. 161–162

“This sophisticated study shows that holding politicians accountable for their words and deeds is as much about how people argue as it is about what they argue. Mohammed focuses on charges of inconsistency in response to criticism as an especially problematic class of maneuvers in political debate: On the one hand, these charges may disarm inauthentic behavior by one's critics, and on the other, these same charges may be used (as "tricky turnabouts") to evade answering unwelcome questions. They may uphold important discourse norms, but they may also be misused to escape one's own accountability. Mohammed argues that not all inconsistency charges are fallacious: She shows that it is possible to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate charges of inconsistency, using concepts and methods from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. A broader (and incredibly timely) lesson is that politicians, like all who argue in good faith, should take care to enact and uphold norms of reasonableness even as they strive to advance their own positions.”

Sally Jackson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

“A tension exists at the heart of contemporary political discourse, wherein the public are encouraged to judge a politician’s credibility as intimately related to their political consistency, and yet, when opponents point out inconsistencies between the words and deeds of a politician they have traditionally been accused of committing the tu quoque ad hominem fallacy. How to square this circle? When (if at all) is it reasonable to accuse a politician of inconsistency?
In this fascinating and erudite book, Dima Mohammed analyses the argumentative interactions of Prime Minister’s Question Time using the Pragma-Dialectical approach to argumentation. With a shrewd understanding of argumentative structure and texture, and contextualised with a thorough understanding of this argumentative activity type, the result is an analytically insightful and critically significant text. Thoroughly recommended for scholars of argumentation studies, discourse analysis and political science.”

John E. Richardson, Loughborough University

Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Order by:

Greco, Sara

2021. Review of Brambilla (2020): The quest for argumentative equivalence. Argumentative patterns in political interpreting contexts. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3 ► pp. 418 ff.

Jacobs, Scott, Sally Jackson & Xiaoqi Zhang

2022. What Was the President’s Standpoint and When Did He Take It? A Normative Pragmatic Study of Standpoint Emergence in a Presidential Press Conference. Languages 7:2 ► pp. 153 ff.

Laar, Jan Albert van & Erik C. W. Krabbe

2019. Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 91 ff.

Lewiński, Marcin & Dima Mohammed

2019. The 2015 Paris Climate Conference. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 65 ff.

Mohammed, Dima

2019. Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What is at Stake in a Public Political Argument?. Argumentation 33:3 ► pp. 307 ff.

Mohammed, Dima

2022. Negative campaigning. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:1 ► pp. 88 ff.

Shaw, Sylvia

2020. Women, Language and Politics,

Svačinová, Iva

2021. Demosthenes’ strategic maneuvering in theFirst Olynthiac. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3 ► pp. 315 ff.

[no author supplied]

2021. An Argumentative Analysis of the Emergence ofIssuesin Adult-Children Discussions [Argumentation in Context, 19],

[no author supplied]

2023. Responding to Questions at Press Conferences [Argumentation in Context, 21],

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects