Vol. 22:1 (2017) ► pp.27–56
Tracing facework over time using semi-automated methods
Impolite behaviour tends to attract more evaluative comment than other facework, making it easier to investigate synchronically and diachronically. A reliance on metapragmatic commentary is not optimum for UK parliamentary studies, however, as MPs cannot use “insulting or rude language” that breaks the chamber’s “rules of politeness” (www.parliament.uk). The work reported here thus offers three innovative methods of tracing MPs’ facework as they negotiated the “unparliamentary language” prohibition, and the results gleaned when the methods were applied to Hansard records (1812–2004). Method 1 prioritises portmanteau tags made up of USAS semtags. Method 2 prioritises themes derived from the HTOED. Method 3 draws on ‘meaning constellations’ (i.e. simultaneous searches of multiple tags). The UK parliamentary website highlights the “considerable ingenuity” displayed by MPs in order to circumvent their unparliamentary language prohibition. All methods have found examples of such ingenuity, many of which are characterized by multiple facework intentions (Archer 2015).
- 1.1Using semantic fields to identify pragmatic spaces over time
- 1.2Methodological aims of this paper
- 2.Facework from the nineteenth century onwards
- 3.Explanation of Hansard datasets
- 4.Identifying Potential Facework Indicators within the HTST
- 4.1Portmanteau tag searches
- 4.2(Single) HT codes
- 4.3Utilising meaning constellations
- 4.3.1(Bad Behaviour), Accusation, (Spitefulness), Speech Act
- 4.3.2Respect + Commendation, praise + Speech Act
- 4.3.3Respect + Contempt + Speech Act
- 5.Main insights
- 6.Future work
This article is currently available as a sample article.
Cited by 5 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 february 2023. 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.