Cover not available
Part of
The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and functions of follow-ups
Edited by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman and Lawrence N. Berlin
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 259] 2015
► pp. 195–218

Follow-ups as multifunctional questioning and answering strategies in Prime Minister’s Questions

ORCID logo | Zayed University, Abu Dhabi

In parliamentary interaction, more than in other types of institutional dialogue, follow-ups indicate how UK Members of Parliament (MPs) negotiate not only the pros and cons of topic-related issues, but also their status, roles and power positions. While a follow-up is normally conditioned by preceding turns in a dialogue, and, in its turn, it helps to shape the scope, focus and/or content of subsequent uptakes and follow-ups, interactively co-constructed follow-ups during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) display recurrent argumentative or counter-argumentative strategies since they not only highlight controversial aspects of the debated issues, but they also serve (explicitly or implicitly) to successively and repeatedly call into question the position of a political adversary, thereby undermining the latter’s authority and credibility. The aim of the present investigation is to identify and examine the discursive and argumentative functions of follow-ups occurring in PMQs of the House of Commons. The main research questions to be pursued are the following: What recurrent follow-up patterns can be found in PMQs? How are follow-ups initiated and responded to in the ongoing parliamentary interaction? What impact do follow-ups have on subsequent uptakes, and on the power balance between questioning MP and responding Prime Minister?

Published online: 27 August 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259.08ili
References
Ameller, Michel
1964 Les questions, instruments de contrôle parlementaire. Paris: Montecitorio.Google Scholar
Axford, Barrie and Huggins, Richard
(eds.) 2001 New Media and Politics. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Baldwin, Nicholas J
(ed) 2005 Parliament in the 21st Century. London: Politico.Google Scholar
Brown, Peter M
1987 The Art of Questioning: Thirty Maxims of Cross-Examination. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bull, Peter and Wells, Pam
2012 “Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31(1): 30–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, Malcolm and Brazil, David
1979 “Exchange Structure”. In Studies in Discourse Analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard and Martin Montgomery, 82–106. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Parliamentary questions
2010 House of Commons Information Office Factsheet P1. UK Parliament.
Franklin, Mark and Norton, Philip
(eds.) 1993 Parliamentary Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franks, Suzanne, and Vandermark, Adam
1995 “Televising Parliament: Five years on”. Parliamentary Affairs 48(1): 57–71.Google Scholar
Freed, Alice F. and Ehrlich, Susan
(eds.) 2010 “Why do you ask?” The Functions of Questions in Institutional Discourse. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1974 Frame Analysis: An essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra
1989 “Defendant Resistance to Power and Control in Court”. In Working with Language: A Multidisciplinary Consideration of Language Use in Work Contexts, ed. by Hywel Coleman, 129–164. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse”. Discourse & Society 12(4): 451–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
2002 “The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content”. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1472–1446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia
1994 What Else can I Tell you? A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
1995 “The Validity of Rhetorical Questions as Arguments in the Courtroom”. In Special Fields and Cases. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, 73–88. Amsterdam: SICSAT.Google Scholar
1998 “Questioning is not Asking: The Discursive Functions of Rhetorical Questions in American Talk Shows”. Texas Linguistic Forum 39: 122–135.Google Scholar
1999 “Question-Response Argumentation in Talk Shows”. Journal of Pragmatics 31(8): 975–999. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “Semi-Institutional Discourse: The Case of Talk Shows”. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2): 209–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003a “Histrionic and Agonistic Features of Parliamentary Discourse”. Studies in Communication Sciences 3(1): 25–53.Google Scholar
2003b “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates”. Journal of Language and Politics 1(2): 269–291.Google Scholar
2009 “Rhetorical Questions. In The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia, ed. by Cummings, Louise. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2010 “When Speaking Means Doing: The Dynamics of Parliamentary Speech Acts”. Bolletino della Societá Filosofica Italiana 201: 50–65.Google Scholar
2012 “Metadiscourse in Follow-Ups: Crossing the Micro-Macro Divide in Political Dialogue. In Follow-Ups across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber, 134–150. [URL]Google Scholar
Forthcoming 2016 “Parliamentary Discourse and Deliberative Rhetoric”. In Pasi Ihalainen, Cornelia Ilie & Kari Palonen (eds.), Parliaments and Parliamentarism: A Comparative History of Disputes about a European Concept. Oxford & New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc
1988 “On the Pragmatics of Answers”. In Michel Meyer (ed.) Questions and Questioning, 255–278. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koshik, Irene
2003 “Wh-Questions as Challenges”. Discourse Studies 5: 51–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga
1993 “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the context Sensitivity of Preference Structures”. Language in Society 22: 193–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehan, Hugh
1979 Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg
1986 Rhetorische Fragen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mishler, Elliot
1975 “Studies in Dialogue and Discourse, II: Types of Discourse Initiated by and Sustained through Questioning”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 4(2): 98–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez de Ayala, Soledad
2001 “FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting Needs? – Politeness in Question Time”. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 143–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo and Martin Heesacker
1981 “Effects of Rhetorical Questions on Persuasion: A Cognitive Response Analysis”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 432–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan
1972 A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rogers, Robert and Walters, Rhodri
(6th ed.) 2006 How Parliament Works. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sánchez de Dios, Manuel and Wiberg, Matti
2012 “Questioning in European Parliaments”. In The Roles and Function of Parliamentary Questions, ed. by Shane Martin and Olivier Rozenberg, 96–109. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McHardy and R. Malcolm Coulthard
1975 Toward an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N
1980 “Why is the Ad Populum a Fallacy?” Philosophy and Rhetoric 13(4): 264–278.Google Scholar
1981 “The Fallacy of many Questions”. Logique et Analyse 95–96: 291–313.Google Scholar
1997 “Judging how Heavily a Question is Loaded: A Pragmatic Method”. Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines 17(2): 53–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiberg, Matti
1995 “Parliamentary Questioning. Control by Communication”. In Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, ed. by Herbert Döring, 179–222. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
Wiberg, Matti, and Antti Koura
1994 “The Logic of Parliamentary Questioning”. In Parliamentary Control in the Nordic countries, ed. by Matti Wiberg, 19–44. Tampere: Finnish Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

Gnisci, Augusto
2021. Pragmatic functions of question-answer sequences in Italian legal examinations and TV interviews with politicians. In Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 323], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Ilie, Cornelia
2017. Chapter 4. Questioning the questionable. In Argumentation across Communities of Practice [Argumentation in Context, 10], ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Ilie, Cornelia
2018. Pragmatics vs rhetoric. In Pragmatics and its Interfaces [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 294], ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Ilie, Cornelia
2021. Discussion, dispute or controversy?. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 9:2 ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
Ilie, Cornelia
2021. Evasive answers vs. aggressive questions. In Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 323], ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Ilie, Cornelia
2021. Questions we (inter)act with. In Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 323], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Kyu-hyun & Kyung-hee Suh
2021. Formulation questions and responses in Korean TV talk show interactions. In Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 323], ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo
Reber, Elisabeth
2019. ‘Punch and Judy’ Politics? Embodying Challenging Courses of Action in Parliament. In Embodied Activities in Face-to-face and Mediated Settings, ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
Tanaka, Lidia
2021. Japanese politicians’ questions in parliament. In Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 323], ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 may 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.