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.
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.
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.
Blair, Tony. 2010. A Journey. London: Hutchinson.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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. 6February.
Bull, Peter, and Pam Wells. 2012. “Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31 (1): 30–48.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 251: 349–367.
Durkheim, Émile. 1912 [1954]. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans. by Carol Cosman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Fetzer, Anita. 2000. “Negotiating Validity Claims in Political Interviews.” Text 20 (4): 1–46.
Fetzer, Anita. 2006. “‘Minister, we will see how the public judges you’. Media References in Political Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2): 180–195.
Fetzer, Anita. 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.
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.
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.
Gal, Susan. 1989. “Language and Political Economy.” Annual Review of Anthropology 181: 345–367.
Goffman, Erving. 1967. “Where the Action Is.” In Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour by Erving Goffman, 149–270. Chicago: Aldine.
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis. Boston, MA: North Eastern University Press.
Hansard (House of Commons Daily Debates). Accessed at [URL]
Harris, Sandra. 2001. “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 121: 451–472.
Hoggart, Simon. 2011. “Prime Minister’s Questions – or an Unpleasant Football Match.” The Guardian, 14December. Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons Information Office. 2010. Some Traditions and Customs of the House (Factsheet G7, General Series), accessed at [URL]
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.
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.
Kádár, Dániel Z.2013. Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kádár, Dániel Z.2017. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Juliane House. Forthcoming. “Ritual Frame Indicating Expressions across Cultures.”
Roskell, John S., Linda Clark, and Carole Rawcliffe (eds.). 1993. The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1386–1421. Stroud: Alan Sutton Publishing.
Siegel, Sidney, and N. John Castellan, Jr.1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Smith, Philip, Timothy L. Phillips, and Ryan D. King. 2010. Incivility: The Rude Stranger in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Staal, Fritz. 1979. The Meaninglessness of Ritual. Numen 26 (1): 2–22.
The Guardian. 2017. “NHS at Breaking Point, According to British Medical Association.” 20February.
The Independent. 2017. “Did the Conservatives Really Cut the Police and Make Us Less Safe from Terror Attacks?” 5June.
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.
Turner, Victor. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Rituals. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Turner, Victor. 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.
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.
Cited by (17)
Cited by 17 other publications
Bull, Peter & Maurice Waddle
2023. Adversarial interaction in Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 11:2 ► pp. 623 ff.
Georgalidou, Marianthi
2023. Greek Political Discourse, 2019–2022: Instrumentalizing Impoliteness and Aggression. In Political Debasement, ► pp. 173 ff.
Kirner-Ludwig, Monika
2023. Book review. Journal of Pragmatics 204 ► pp. 71 ff.
Reber, Elisabeth
2023. On the ritualization of commemorative practices: Paying tribute in British Prime Minister's Questions. Journal of Pragmatics 214 ► pp. 92 ff.
Zainal Abidin, Najah, Veronica Lowe & Jariah Mohd Jan
2023. Evasion in Malaysian Parliamentary Question Time. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 31:3 ► pp. 1057 ff.
2022. ‘For (…) a leader like this Prime Minister to talk about morals and morality is a disgrace’: offensive action, uptake and moral implications in the context of parliamentary debates. Language & Communication 87 ► pp. 135 ff.
Li, Shuo & Eric Rosales
2022. Digital Analysis of Non-material Cultural Heritage Under Network Information Technology. In Application of Intelligent Systems in Multi-modal Information Analytics [Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, 138], ► pp. 829 ff.
House, Juliane & Dániel Z. Kádár
2021. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics,
House, Juliane & Dániel Z. Kádár
2022. Political Language in Contrast: An Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 188 ► pp. 132 ff.
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Juliane House
2021. ‘Politeness Markers’ Revisited - A Contrastive Pragmatic Perspective. Journal of Politeness Research 17:1 ► pp. 79 ff.
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Juliane House
2022. Aggression and its (de)escalation in mediatised rites of aggression. Language & Communication 87 ► pp. 123 ff.
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.
Bull, Peter
2020. Meeting the media as a political psychologist. History & Philosophy of Psychology 21:1 ► pp. 11 ff.
Kádár, Dániel Z., Fengguang Liu & Juliane House
2020. (Im)Politeness and Chinese political discourse – An introduction. Discourse, Context & Media 35 ► pp. 100384 ff.
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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.