Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 14:6 (2015) ► pp.801–829

Creating disorder

The effect of impending elections on Question Time in two Houses of Representatives

| University of Canterbury |

This paper investigates the effect of an upcoming election on disorderly behaviour in two Houses of Representatives: that of the Australian Federal Parliament and that of the New Zealand Parliament. Two hypotheses are tested. The first hypothesis is that, notwithstanding their common origins in the Westminster parliamentary tradition, there are significant genrelectal differences in the way the two Houses respond to the impending election. The second hypothesis is that both will respond by becoming increasingly disorderly. The locus for measuring disorderly conduct is taken from the Wednesday parliamentary Question Time for the year 2007 in the case of Australia and 2008 in the case of New Zealand. All instances of disorderly conduct were tracked and a month-by-month measure was made of each kind of disorder as indicated by Standing Orders. All responses of the Speaker to disorder were also logged. The research shows that both hypotheses are corroborated.

Keywords: genrelect, discourse community, Parliament, Question Time, elections, disorder, unparliamentary language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Theoretical background
    • 2.2Question Time
    • 2.3Standing (and Sessional) Orders
    • 2.4The Speaker of the House
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Disorder in the House
    • 4.1Creating disorder
      • 4.1.1Incorrect forms of address
      • 4.1.2Unparliamentary language
      • 4.1.3Telling lies
    • 4.2Drawing attention to disorder
    • 4.3Quelling disorder
      • 4.3.1Directing an MP to resume his/her seat
      • 4.3.2Requesting that MPs withdraw their comments (and apologise)
      • 4.3.3Warning MPs
      • 4.3.4Directions for MPs to leave the Chamber
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 31 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.14.6.04log
References
Standing Orders
2008 New Zealand House of Representatives. Retrieved from: [URL].Google Scholar
Standing and Sessional Orders
2010 Australian Federal House of Representatives. Retrieved from: [URL].Google Scholar
Austin, John Langshaw
1975 How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayley, Paul
2004 “Introduction: The Ways and Wherefores of Analysing Parliamentary ­Discourse.” In Cross-cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, ed. by Paul Bayley, 1–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, Jörg R., and Thomas Luckmann
1995 “Drama and Narration.” In Aspects of Oral Communication, ed. by Uta Quasthoff, 289–304. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bloch, Maurice
(ed.) 1975 Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society. London: ­Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Briggs, Charles L
(ed.) 1996 Narrative Resources for the Creation and Mediation of Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, David
1974 The Canberra Model: Essays on Australian Government. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Chambers, Jack K
1993 “Sociolinguistic Dialectology.” In American Dialect Research, ed. by Dennis R. Preston, 133–164. Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny
2002 “Sex and Gender in Variationist Research.” In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, ed. by J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes, 423–443. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
De Ayala, Soledad Perez
2001 “FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting Needs? – Politeness in Question Time.” Journal of Pragmatics 331: 143–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenton-Smith, Ben
2008 “Discourse Structure and Political Performance in Adversarial Parliamentary Questioning.” Journal of Language and Politics 7 (1): 98–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1980 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. England: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra
2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society 12 (4): 451–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet
1995 Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell
1973 “Speech and Language: On the Origins and Foundations of Inequality among Speakers.” Daedalus. Language as a Human Problem 102 (3): 59–85.Google Scholar
1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Keith
1987 The Dilemma of Parliament. Wellington: Allen & Unwin New Zealand Ltd.Google Scholar
Kaiser, André
2008 “Parliamentary Opposition in Westminster Democracies: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 14 (1/2): 20–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitson, Jill
2007 “Tony Smith of Sydney University’s Department of Government”. [URL]. Retrieved 15.04.2010.
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger
1991 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Little, Miles, Christopher F. C. Jordens, and Emma-Jane Sayers
2003 “Discourse Communities and the Discourse of Experience.” Health (London) 7 (1): 73–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McAllister, Patrick A
2006 Xhosa Beer Drinking Rituals: Power, Practice, and Performance in the South African Rural Periphery. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
2012 National Days and the Politics of Indigenous and Local Identities in Australia and New Zealand. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
McGee, David G
2005 Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand. Wellington: Dunmore Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Moore, Sally F., and Barbara Myerhoff
1977 “Secular Ritual: Forms and Meanings.” In Secular Ritual, ed. by Sally F. Moore and Barbara Myerhoff, 3–24. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum, Assen.Google Scholar
Paré, Anthony, and Graham Smart
1994 “Observing Genres in Action: Towards a Research Methodology.” In Genre and the New Rhetoric, ed. by Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway, 146–154. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Rasiah, Parameshwary
2007 Evasion in Australia’a Parliamentary Question Time: The Case of the Iraq War. Perth: Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Saville-Troike, Muriel
1989 The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. Worcester: Billing and Son Ltd.Google Scholar
Schechner, Richard
1977 Essays on Performance Theory, 1970–1976. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1984 “Jewish Argument as Sociability.” Language in Society 13 (3): 311–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R
1969 Speech Acts – An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975 “A Taxonomy of Illocutionay Acts.” In Language, Mind, and Knowledge, ed. by Keith Günderson, 344–369. Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Archive Editors.Google Scholar
1979 Indirect Speech Acts, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solomon, David
1986 The People’s Palace: Parliament in Modern Australia. Melbourne: ­Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, John M
1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, Victor, and Richard Schechner
1986 “Images and Reflections: Ritual, Drama, Carnival, Film, and Spectacle in Cultural Performance.” In The Anthropology of Performance. New York: PAJ Publications.Google Scholar
Wenger, Etienne
1998 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, Etienne, Richard McDermott, and William M. Snyder
2002 Cultivating Communities of Practice: a Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
Young, Sally
2007 “Political and Parliamentary Speech in Australia.” Parliamentary Affairs 60 (2): 234–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Graham, Ruth
2019. The users of unparliamentary language in the New Zealand House of Representatives 1890 to 1950: A community of practice perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 149 ► pp. 14 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 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.