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 (43)
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 (9)

Cited by nine 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
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
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
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
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 september 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.