Article published in:
The Pragmatics of Ritual
Edited by Dániel Z. Kádár and Juliane House
[Pragmatics 30:1] 2020
► pp. 64–87

Calling Mr Speaker ‘Mr Speaker’

The strategic use of ritual references to the Speaker of the UK House of Commons

| University of York
| University of Augsburg
| Dalian University of Foreign Languages | Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the UK House of Commons is a ritual event, governed by a cluster of conventions. Members of Parliament (MPs) must address their remarks to the Prime Minister (PM) through the medium of the Speaker of the House, who is responsible for maintaining order during debates, and determining which MP may speak next. Due to the sacred role of the Speaker and the prevalence of conventionalised conflict avoidance between the PM and those who ask challenging questions, PMQs resembles archaic tribal councils, in which rights and obligations prevail. Yet, the importance of conventionalised indirectness and the sacred role of the Speaker do not correlate with a lack of face-threats and challenges. PMQs represents an aggressive ritual setting in which the ritual roles and rules only offer a façade to package aggression, and indeed may operate as interactional resources whereby participants can even increase the efficiency of their verbal attacks. Thus, PMQs embodies a scene that ritual experts define as ‘anti-structural’ in character: in this setting, the normative expectation in daily life to avoid conflict is temporarily suspended, to such an extent that conflict has become the ritual norm and is regarded as quintessential to this parliamentary institution.
Keywords: Prime Ministers Questions, the Speaker, face-threats, indirectness, conflict avoidance, unparliamentary language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1PMQs: A ritual practice
    • 1.2Mediated address in PMQs
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Discourse organisation
    • 4.2Conflictual situations
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 22 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19020.bul
References
Archer, Dawn
2008 “Verbal Aggression and Impoliteness: Related Or Synonymous?” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by D. Bousfield and M. A. Locher, 181–207. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bates, Stephen R., Peter Kerr, Christopher Byrne, and Liam Stanley
2014 “Questions to the Prime Minister: A Comparative Study of PMQs from Thatcher to Cameron.” Parliamentary Affairs 67 (2): 253–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Tony
2010 A Journey. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter, Judy Elliott, Derrol Palmer, and Libby Walker
1996 “Why Politicians Are Three-Faced: The Face Model of Political Interviews.” British Journal of Social Psychology 35 (2): 267–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter, and Will Strawson
2019 “Can’t Answer? Won’t Answer? An Analysis of Equivocal Responses by Theresa May in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Parliamentary Affairs 6 February. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter, and Pam Wells
2012 “Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31 (1): 30–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Randall
2004 Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 251: 349–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Durkheim, Émile
1912 [1954] The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans. by Carol Cosman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita
1999 “Challenging the Unspoken: Exploiting The Ideology in and of Political Interviews.” In Language and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference. Vol. 11, ed. by J. Verschueren, 98–113. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar
2000 “Negotiating Validity Claims in Political Interviews.” Text 20 (4): 1–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “Negotiating Rejections: A Socio-cultural Analysis.” Multilingua 21 (4): 399–422. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “ ‘Minister, we will see how the public judges you’. Media References in Political Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2): 180–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “ ‘Well if that had been true that would have been perfectly reasonable’: Appeals to Reasonableness in Political Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (8): 1342–1359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Challenges in Contrast.” Languages in Contrast 9 (1): 73–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Elda Weizman
2018 “ ‘What I would say to John and everyone like John is …’: The Construction of Ordinariness through Quotations in Mediated Political Discourse. Discourse & Society 29 (5): 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Peter Bull
2019 “Quoting Ordinary People in Prime Minister’s Questions.” In The Construction of ‘Ordinariness’ across Media Genres, ed. by A. Fetzer and E. Weizman, 73–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gal, Susan
1989 “Language and Political Economy.” Annual Review of Anthropology 181: 345–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1967 “Where the Action Is.” In Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour by Erving Goffman, 149–270. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
1974 Frame Analysis. Boston, MA: North Eastern University Press.Google Scholar
Hansard (House of Commons Daily Debates)
Accessed at http://​www​.publications​.parliament​.uk​/pa​/cm​/cmhansrd​.htm
Harris, Sandra
2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 121: 451–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoggart, Simon
2011 “Prime Minister’s Questions – or an Unpleasant Football Match.” The Guardian 14 December. Retrieved from http://​www​.theguardian​.com​/politics​/2011​/dec​/14​/prime​-ministers​-questions​-football​-match
House of Commons Information Office
2010 Some Traditions and Customs of the House (Factsheet G7, General Series), accessed at http://​www​.parliament​.uk​/documents​/commons​-information​-office​/g07​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia
2010 Strategic uses of parliamentary forms of address: The case of the UK Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag. Journal of Pragmatics 421: 885–911. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Jay
2011 “Through the Liminal: A Comparative Analysis of Communitas and Rites of Passage in Sports Hazing and Initiations.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology 36 (3): 199–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z.
2013 Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Heckling: A Mimetic-Interpersonal Perspective.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 2 (1): 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z.
2017 Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Juliane House
Forthcoming. “Ritual Frame Indicating Expressions across Cultures.”
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Sen Zhang
2019 Intersubjectivity and implicitness in Chinese political discourses: A Case-Study of the 2018 Vaccine Scandal. Journal of Language and Politics 18 (5). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lees, Charles
2015 The Saint in the Bear Pit: Reviewing Jeremy Corbyn’s First PMQs. The Conversation 16 September. http://​theconversation​.com​/the​-saint​-in​-the​-bear​-pit​-reviewing​-jeremy​-corbyns​-first​-pmqs​-47510
May, Erskine T.
2004 Parliamentary Practice, 23rd ed. London: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Murphy, James
2014 (Im)politeness during Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK Parliament. Pragmatics and Society 51: 76–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roskell, John S., Linda Clark, and Carole Rawcliffe
(eds.) 1993 The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1386–1421. Stroud: Alan Sutton Publishing.Google Scholar
Siegel, Sidney, and N. John Castellan, Jr.
1988 Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Smith, Philip, Timothy L. Phillips, and Ryan D. King
2010 Incivility: The Rude Stranger in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, and Dániel Z. Kádár
2016 The Bases of (Im)politeness Evaluations: Culture, the Moral Order and the East-West Debate. East Asian Pragmatics 1 (1): 73–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Staal, Fritz
1979 The Meaninglessness of Ritual. Numen 26 (1): 2–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
The Guardian
2017 “NHS at Breaking Point, According to British Medical Association” 20 February.Google Scholar
The Independent
2017 “Did the Conservatives Really Cut the Police and Make Us Less Safe from Terror Attacks?” 5 June.Google Scholar
Thomas, Graham P.
2006 United Kingdom: The Prime Minister and Parliament. In Executive Leadership and Legislative Assemblies, ed. by N. D. J. Baldwin, 4–37. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Turner, Victor
1967 The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Rituals. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
1992 Morality and Liminality. In Blazing the Trail: Way Marks in the Exploration of Symbols, ed. by V. Turner, 132–161. Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Waddle, Maurice, Peter Bull, and Jan R. Böhnke
2019 “ ‘He is just the nowhere man of British politics’: Personal Attacks in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 38 (1): 61–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Full-text

Calling Mr Speaker ‘Mr Speaker’
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

House, Juliane & Dániel Z. Kádár
2021.  In Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, Crossref logo
House, Juliane & Dániel Z. Kádár
2022. Political Language in Contrast: An Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 188 ► pp. 132 ff. Crossref logo
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Juliane House
2021. ‘Politeness Markers’ Revisited - A Contrastive Pragmatic Perspective. Journal of Politeness Research 17:1 ► pp. 79 ff. Crossref logo
Kádár, Dániel Z., Juliane House, Fengguang Liu & Yulong Song
2021. Admonishing. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 31:2 ► pp. 173 ff. Crossref logo
Kádár, Dániel Z., Fengguang Liu & Juliane House
2020. (Im)Politeness and Chinese political discourse – An introduction. Discourse, Context & Media 35 ► pp. 100384 ff. Crossref logo
Kádár, Dániel Z., Fengguang Liu, Juliane House & Wenrui Shi
2020. Reporting ritual political advice in the Chinese state media: A study of the National People’s Congress. Discourse, Context & Media 35 ► pp. 100388 ff. Crossref logo
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Sen Zhang
2019. Alignment, ‘politeness’ and implicitness in Chinese political discourse. Journal of Language and Politics 18:5 ► pp. 698 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. 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.