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?
1964Les questions, instruments de contrôle parlementaire. Paris: Montecitorio.
Axford, Barrie and Huggins, Richard
(eds.)2001New Media and Politics. London: Sage.
Baldwin, Nicholas J
(ed)2005Parliament in the 21st Century. London: Politico.
Brown, Peter M
1987The Art of Questioning: Thirty Maxims of Cross-Examination. New York: Macmillan.
Bull, Peter and Wells, Pam
2012 “Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31(1): 30–48.
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.
2010 House of Commons Information Office Factsheet P1. UK Parliament.
Franklin, Mark and Norton, Philip
(eds.)1993Parliamentary Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Franks, Suzanne, and Vandermark, Adam
1995 “Televising Parliament: Five years on”. Parliamentary Affairs 48(1): 57–71.
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.
1974Frame Analysis: An essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.
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.
2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse”. Discourse & Society 12(4): 451–472.
2002 “The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content”. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1472–1446.
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1994What Else can I Tell you? A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
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.
1998 “Questioning is not Asking: The Discursive Functions of Rhetorical Questions in American Talk Shows”. Texas Linguistic Forum 39: 122–135.
1999 “Question-Response Argumentation in Talk Shows”. Journal of Pragmatics 31(8): 975–999.
2001 “Semi-Institutional Discourse: The Case of Talk Shows”. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2): 209–254.
2003a “Histrionic and Agonistic Features of Parliamentary Discourse”. Studies in Communication Sciences 3(1): 25–53.
2003b “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates”. Journal of Language and Politics 1(2): 269–291.
2009“Rhetorical Questions. In The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia, ed. by Cummings, Louise. London: Routledge.
2010 “When Speaking Means Doing: The Dynamics of Parliamentary Speech Acts”. Bolletino della Societá Filosofica Italiana 201: 50–65.
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]
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.
1988 “On the Pragmatics of Answers”. In Michel Meyer (ed.) Questions and Questioning, 255–278. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
2003 “Wh-Questions as Challenges”. Discourse Studies 5: 51–77.
1993 “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the context Sensitivity of Preference Structures”. Language in Society 22: 193–216.
1979Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
1986Rhetorische Fragen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
1975 “Studies in Dialogue and Discourse, II: Types of Discourse Initiated by and Sustained through Questioning”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 4(2): 98–121.
Pérez de Ayala, Soledad
2001 “FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting Needs? – Politeness in Question Time”. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 143–169.
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.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan
1972A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
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.