Journal of Language and Social Psychology-2008-Sivenkova-359-71.pdf

8/10/2019 Journal of Language and Social Psychology-2008-Sivenkova-359-71.pdf

1/14

http://jls.sagepub.com/Psychology

Journal of Language and Social

http://jls.sagepub.com/content/27/4/359Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0261927X08322478

September 20082008 27: 359 originally published online 10Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Maria SivenkovaRussian ParallelsParliamentary Debates: English

Expressing Commitment When Asking Multiunit Questions in

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

at:can be foundJournal of Language and Social PsychologyAdditional services and information for

http://jls.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jls.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jls.sagepub.com/content/27/4/359.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 10, 2008OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Nov 10, 2008Version of Record>>

at Jazan University on July 24, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Jazan University on July 24, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jls.sagepub.com/http://jls.sagepub.com/http://jls.sagepub.com/http://jls.sagepub.com/content/27/4/359http://jls.sagepub.com/content/27/4/359http://jls.sagepub.com/content/27/4/359http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jls.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jls.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jls.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/27/4/359.refs.htmlhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/27/4/359.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/09/10/0261927X08322478.full.pdfhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/09/10/0261927X08322478.full.pdfhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/27/4/359.full.pdfhttp://jls.sagepub.com/http://jls.sagepub.com/http://jls.sagepub.com/http://jls.sagepub.com/http://jls.sagepub.com/http://jls.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/09/10/0261927X08322478.full.pdfhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/27/4/359.full.pdfhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/27/4/359.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jls.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jls.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://jls.sagepub.com/content/27/4/359http://jls.sagepub.com/


2/14

359

Journal of Language

and Social Psychology

Volume 27 Number 4

December 2008 359-371

2008 Sage Publications

10.1177/0261927X08322478

http://jls.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Expressing Commitment When

Asking Multiunit Questions inParliamentary Debates

EnglishRussian Parallels

Maria SivenkovaMinsk State Linguistic University, Belarus

The present study investigates the expression of commitment in multiunit questions

(MUQs), that is, questions consisting of several structural components, asked during

British and Russian parliamentary debates. The discursive manifestations of two com-

mitment types in the sequential organization of parliamentary questions are analyzed.

First, institutional commitment is verbalized by means of several types of structural

components employed by questioners to promote convincing legislative proposals and

expose inefficient ones: backgrounders (e.g., opinions), metacomponents (e.g., sign-

posting), intensifiers, and other types of components. Second, ingroup commitment is

related to various components helping to promote members of Parliaments (MPs)

party interests and discredit adversaries: evaluative turns (e.g., praises, reproaches),metacomponents (e.g., criticisms of answers), and other types of structural elements. In

addition, some qualitative and quantitative differences in the expression of commitment

in English and Russian are analyzed.

Keywords: commitment; cross-cultural debates; institutional discourse; multiunit

questions; parliamentary debates; sequential organization

Questions in parliament have been examined by political scientists and linguists

from a variety of perspectivessocial, discursive, rhetorical, and gender. Toillustrate, Franklin and Norton (1993) provided an account of the evolution of par-

liamentary questions, Walton (1991) examined question fallacies in Canadian par-

liamentary debates, Chilton (2004) analyzed the institutionalized turn-taking system

regulating the questionanswer interactions in the British parliament, Prez de Ayala

Authors Note: Maria Sivenkova would like to express her deep gratitude to Anita Fetzer, Marjut

Johansson, and Peter Bull for their outstanding work, continuous support, and intellectual stimulation.

The authors heart-felt appreciation also goes to the reviewers, whose insightful comments and sugges-

tions proved very helpful. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maria

Sivenkova, the School of Intercultural Communication, Department of Communication Studies, Zaharova

Street 21, Minsk 220034, Belarus; e-mail: [email protected].

at Jazan University on July 24, 2014jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jls.sagepub.com/http://jls.sagepub.com/http://jls.sagepub.com/http://jls.sagepub.com/


3/14

(2001) investigated the linkage between parliamentary rules and politeness strategies

in Question Time, Bird (2005) focused on the gender aspect of representations of

womanhood or manhood in British parliamentary questions. However, the sequen-tial organization of questions asked during parliamentary debates still presents a

research desideratum.

Several studies have highlighted methodological and practical advantages offered

by the analysis of correlations between the structural complexity of activity types

and the presence of multiple tasks their participants have to handle (e.g., Johansson,

2002; Meierkord & Fetzer, 2002). As Meierkord and Fetzer (2002) pointed out, The

coherent structuring of sequenced utterances is the fundamental premise of any

theory which investigates combinations with regard to the configuration of parts and

the configuration of a whole (p. 4). According to Edwards (1997), sequentiality isthe heart of talks capacity for performing social actions (p. 100).

Why study sequentiality in parliamentary questions? In the authors view, the

interplay between various structural components of multiunit questions (MUQs)

sheds light on how members of Parliament (MPs) express their multiple commit-

ments in what is often believed to be the most adversarial of parliamentary genres

(Prez de Ayala, 2001). Furthermore, MPscommitments arguably have a significant

impact on the social life of many countries, with parliamentary questionanswer ses-

sions being a powerful tool enabling their vigorous public scrutiny.

The idea that multifunctionality of MUQs is achieved by incorporating special-ized components into their sequential structure draws on several studies of MUQs in

a variety of institutional settings. They have demonstrated that MUQs structure

depends heavily on the requirements of activity types. For instance, in focus groups,

moderators ask MUQs to guide the respondents understanding of unusual market

research questions, secure participation by providing candidate answers, and man-

age opinion production (Puchta & Potter, 1999). In police interrogations and court

trials, MUQs are often asked to address the activity-specific dilemma of securing

precise answers without constraining (or leading) the witness unnecessarily (Linell,

Hofvendahl, & Lindholm, 2003, p. 547).The present analysis also draws on a number of compelling contrastive studies of

political and media discourse exploring a variety of linkages between political interac-

tion and culture (Bayley, 2004; Fetzer & Lauerbach, 2007). As this article maintains, the

expression of commitment is among the important culture- and/or institution-bound

variables whose analysis extends our understanding of parliamentary MUQs.

Method and Data

The corpus consists of 9 transcripts of debates in the House of Commons and 15

transcripts of plenary sessions that took place in the State Duma in 2002-2007. The

transcripts were randomly selected from the Hansard records, the official record of

the British Parliament, and Stenogrammy zasedanij Gosudarstvennoj Dumy (records

360 Journal of Language and Social Psychology



4/14

of the State Dumas sittings), the Russian counterpart. In total, 150 Russian MUQs

and 150 English MUQs were analyzed.

Parliamentary MUQs are stretches of talk consisting of two or more structuralcomponents delivered together by the questioner. They are mostly asked during

Question Time in the British parliament and Government Hour in the Duma, when

time is specifically allocated for question asking (although MUQs are occasionally

posed at other points in parliamentary sitting, for example, when an issue is being

debated). As the data show, MUQs represent the most promising type of questions

in terms of commitment-expressing devices and constitute the majority of all ques-

tions asked in the two Parliaments (approximately 90% of all single- and MUQs in

the Russian data and approximately 70% in the English data).

It should be noted that the term question is used in the study in its functional,rather than syntactic, interpretation and refers to multiunit sequences aimed at elic-

iting some information (e.g., How does he intend to resolve it [the situation]?April

6, 2005) or explanation from the respondent (Will the secretary of state explain that

vast disparity? December 18, 2007). To select functionally coherent data, only

MUQs containing at least one information- or explanation-seeking component (both

in the interrogative and declarative form) were chosen. Interrogatives conveying crit-

icism or opinions and other types of questions in the formal sense were only

included in the samples as part of MUQs centered on requests for information or

explanation (on various types of questions; see, for example, Bull, Elliott, Palmer, &Walker, 1996; Heritage & Roth, 1995; Ilie, 1999; Walton, 1991).

Single-unit parliamentary questions, that is, questions whose sequential structure

consists of an information- or explanation-eliciting component only (e.g., What

progress has been made in ensuring that schools are offering extended activities?

February 8, 2007) and clusters of such questions were not included in the samples.

In other words, the presence of requests for information and the multiplicity of

components are two necessary conditions for MUQs in this study. To illustrate,

Excerpt 1 was selected for analysis because it contains a request for information (in

this case, two requests expressed in Components 2 and 4) and has a multiunitsequential structure, in which the information-seeking components are supported by

one evaluative turn (Component 1) and one intensifier (Component 3).

1) I also applaud the work of the Secretary of State and the progress that has been made

in the Democratic Republic of Congo (1). Will he tell us a bit more about what President

Kabila said . . . about providing space for the Opposition (2)? We have met Opposition

politicians here who have been concerned about that (3). What support can we continue to

give via EUSEC . . . in particular in relation to the crucial issue of the security forces and

their integration (4)? (Hansard records, House of Commons, May 9, 2007)

Furthermore, seven categories of question components were identified based on

the functions they perform (see the overview of structural components below). These

Sivenkova / Commitment in Parliamentary Questions 361



5/14

categories were applied to analyze the sequential structure of each MUQ and various

commitment-expressing tactics.

Sequential Organization of ParliamentaryMUQ and Commitment

As the study showed, while posing questions, MPs typically incorporate seven

types of elements to satisfy their informational needs and express their multiple

commitments.

Overview of Structural Components

Requests for information/explanation. As mentioned above, all MUQs selected

for the present study contain at least one request for information or explanation

around which other question components are grouped. The distinction between

information and explanation is introduced because many parliamentary questions are

rather motivated by the questioners desire to hear the respondents argumentation

behind a decision, than to receive new information.

Backgrounders. This structural component typically includes a brief description ofthe current state of affairs, statistics, instances of represented discourse (Johansson,

2006), an argumentative/explanatory sequences contextualizing the request for infor-

mation/explanation.

Metacomponents. This group serves to orientate the respondent toward the forth-

coming series of turns by making known their sequential structure (I have one fur-

ther question for the Minister May 10, 2007), reasons for asking the question (I

have not heard a single policy proposal from the Conservative party, February 8,

2007), and other relevant pieces of metacommunicative information.

Evaluative components. Unlike the above types of question components that

often convey implicit assessments of proposed legislation and political opponents,

these elements specialize in expressing direct positive or negative evaluations (The

right hon. Gentlemans point . . . is well made, May 10, 2007; So the chancellors

announcement in his budget was absolutely worthless, April 6, 2005).

Etiquette-related components. This group includes various turns allowing the

questioner to be conventionally polite: gratitudes (I thank the minister for listeningto the debate on this issue, May 10, 2007), interruption clichs (I hesitate to inter-

rupt the hon. Gentleman, February 10, 2003), apologies (I hope that the secretary

of state will forgive me if I missed the answer to my question in an earlier exchange,

December 18, 2007).




6/14

Intensifiers. To attract public attention to controversial issues, MPs may choose to

stress the topicality/gravity/appropriateness of the problems under discussion (In the

current climate, is it not vitally important that the government be open about what hasbeen said . . . on various issues, not least the war in Iraq? February 8, 2007).

Requests for action. Similar to the information-seeking component, requests for

action are considered a basic function of Question Time (Parliamentary Questions,

2007, p. 2). In the data, requests for action vary in the degree of imposition, ranging

from tentative suggestions (Ne imeet li smysla rassmotret dale i, skazem, podu-

mat o sozdanii rekreacionnyx zon dlja igrovogo biznesa?Would it make sense

to consider further and perhaps think about setting up recreational areas for the game

business? April 21, 2006) to rather insistent requests (Will my hon. Friend pleasesort out the situation immediately? February 8, 2007).

Commitment in MUQs

As a complex phenomenon that requires multidisciplinary scrutiny, commitment

has sparked the interest of many researchers and practitioners in the field of organi-

zational behavior. In particular, management scientists, industrial and organizational

psychologists, sociologists, and economists explore various commitment forms,

ways to measure it, the links between commitment levels and organizational vari-ables, the consequences of commitment, and its cross-cultural aspects (e.g., Cohen,

2003; Fink, 1992; Guest, 1998). In this strand of research, commitment is usually

defined as the relative strength of an individuals identification with and involve-

ment in a particular organization (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982, p. 27).

At the same time, philosophers of language and linguists focus on various com-

mitment-expressing devicesgrammatical and lexical markers as well as discursive

strategies that reflect speakers involvement in the discourse. In this sense, the phe-

nomenon is conceptualized as an attitudinal notion related to evidentiality and epis-

temological stance (e.g., Brandom, 1994; Krkkinen, 2003).In the present study, both approaches are combined to trace how work-related

attitudes are made manifest through the complex sequential structure of parliamen-

tary MUQs. The author argues that commitment in parliamentary MUQs can be ana-

lyzed from three different perspectives: institutional, ingroup and personal, and

various structural components are instrumental in expressing them.

Institutional commitment refers to MPs professional responsibility. As van Dijk

(2004) aptly put it, Whatever MPs are actually doing in a parliamentary session,

such as giving speeches, criticizing the government, or asking questions, all these

actions are defined . . . as engaging in the global acts of legislation or governing thecountry (p. 356). This appears to suggest that MPs main institutional commitment

is to articulate, argue for, and eventually ratify useful legislative incentives.

Ingroup commitment is made manifest through the discursive processes respon-

sible for the upholding of MPs party interests and discrediting of opponents. As the




7/14

present study illustrates, institutionalized parliamentary question asking is regarded

by many MPs as a legitimate arena for expressing their political engagements.

Personal commitment is related to the aspect of MPs identity responsible fortheir positive self-presentation and face management. This commitment type is dis-

cursively realized through a number of etiquette-related components presenting

questioners as polite and considerate (e.g., gratitudes, interruption-clichs) and dis-

claimers enabling questioners to mitigate the face-damaging remarks they incorpo-

rate in MUQs. Due to space consideration, this article will only consider institutional

and ingroup commitment types (for a detailed analysis of self-presentation and face

management in political discourse see, for example, Bull, 2003).

It should be noted that two of the three commitment types are related to the influ-

ential face model of political interviews proposed by Bull et al. (1996). The authorsdistinguish between three categories of face which politicians must defend: their

own personal face, the face of the party which they represent, and face in relation to

endorsing or not-endorsing influential others. The first and second categories corre-

spond to the personal and ingroup commitment types differentiated in the present

article. Institutional commitment, however, is different from Bull et al.s third face

category and reflects MPs key institutional role as legislators.

Institutional Commitment: We Need to Have That Point Clarified in

the House Today

According to the data, discursive representations of institutional commitment pre-

vail over the other two commitment types. In fact, 96% of Russian and 80% of

English MUQs contain structural elements expressing institutional commitment.

Although all the seven categories of components can convey MPs institutional com-

mitment, it is through the extensive use of backgrounders, metacomponents, and

evaluative turns that this commitment type is verbalized.

Backgrounders play a significant role in the expression of MPs professional

commitment. First, they contextualize the information- or explanation-seeking com-ponent, thus making the whole MUQ easier to understand and respond to. Second,

they help to highlight sound proposals, expose inefficient ones, and draw attention

to topical issues.

In the data, backgrounders often explicate MPs institutional commitment in tandem

with metacomponents and intensifiers, as Excerpt 2 illustrates (the questioner is a

member of the ruling party, the respondent is the minister for regional development):

2) Spasibo, Oleg Viktorovic [predsedatelstvujucij] (1). Ja, cestno govorja, uze slyal

nekij otvet na postavlennyj vopros (2). No tem ne menee, Vladimir Anatolevic, ja

znaju, c to nekij novyj impuls s vaej storony pridan rabote po obmanutym dolcikam

(3). I xocu poprosit vas: v tecenie otvedennogo vremeni kratko (4) oxarakterizujte,

pozalujsta, sostojanie del v tom voprose (5). Obojti etot vopros my segodnja ne imeem

prava (6; October 11, 2006).




8/14

2) Thank you, Oleg Viktorovich [Chairman] (1). Frankly, I have already heard a certain

answer to the question posed (2). But nevertheless, Vladimir Anatolievich, I know that

a certain new impetus on your part has been given to the work on deceived mortgage

lendees (3). And Id like to ask you, within the time allocated, could you briefly

(4) characterize the state regarding this issue (5). We have no right to evade the matter

today (6).

This MUQ is the 11th in a series of 19 housing-related questions alternately

posed by several Duma fractions. It is asked after the respondents and two col-

leagues failure to address an important issue in their ministerial statements. It relates

to the controversial situation with home mortgages in which some 80,000 people did

not get the residential property they had been financing due to some changes in hous-

ing investment projects and is a tough topic for the minister to face. The questioner

begins his MUQ centered on a request for information on the problem-solving

progress in turn (5) with a gratitude to the chairman for the opportunity to pose the

question expressed in turn (1). He proceeds with a metacomponent in turn (2) refer-

ring to the ministers previous answer and implying the questioners discontent with

its quality (nekij otveta certain answer). In fact, the minister has mentioned the

mortgage situation, although in a different context, by way of providing illustration

of the scope of housing problems, in his response to an earlier question. It is proba-

bly this previous mentioning of the mortgage issue as part of a frightening number

of concerns that makes the questioner infer that the problem might not be addressed

in detail unless more pressure is put on the minister. The questioner continues his

multiunit sequence with a backgrounder in turn (3) referring to the respondents

work on the issue and positioning the questioner as well-informed about the minis-

ters responsibilities. The backgrounder is followed with another metacomponent

conditioning the forthcoming answer in turn (4), according to which the respondent

is expected to provide a brief answer within the time allocated. This metacomponent

probably reflects the questioners apprehension that unless specifically asked, the

addressee is likely to provide an unsatisfactory lengthy/evasive response that runs

the risk of being interrupted if the time limit is not observed. Finally, the questioner

reinforces his contribution with an intensifier highlighting the importance of an

answer in turn (6). This intensifier appears to emphasize MPs professional respon-

sibility to ensure close scrutiny of this topical social issue. It is noteworthy how the

interplay between the four elements demonstrates the questioners institutional com-

mitment and leaves the respondent with no options but to cooperate and face the con-

troversial issue.

As the data indicate, metacomponents conveying criticism of ministerial statements/

answers serve as powerful devices expressing MPs institutional commitment. In

fact, they ensure that poor performances do not pass unnoticed and high professional

standards are set and maintained (iz vaego doklada prakticeski nicego ne pon-

jatnoOne can understand next to nothing from your report, April 13, 2007).




9/14

Another noticeable subtype includes metacomponents highlighting the advantages

of having desired answers. In Excerpt 3, drawn from the same questionanswer ses-

sion as Example 2 above, a combination of criticism directed at the respondents fail-ure to answer and an allusion to the representative-constituent accountability work

together to press the minister for regional development for a precise answer on the

troubling issue of housing modernization.

3) Sluaja repliki kolleg, ja tak ponjal, cto vs ze na osnovnoj vopros, kotoryj my zdes

zadavali, my ne polucili cetkogo otveta, otveta, kotoryj nam budet neobxodim pri

rabote v okruge, pri otvetax na voprosy nayx izbiratelej (October 11, 2006)

3) While listening to the colleagues interventions, I realized that still we havent

received a clear answer to the main question weve been askingthe answer that well

need while meeting our constituents and answering their questions.

In this study, evaluative components and backgrounders demonstrate the most

salient cross-cultural differences as far as the tactics of institutional commitment

verbalization are concerned. It is by means of evaluative components that solidarity

with convincing proposals is often expressed in parliamentary MUQs. In the English

data, the most frequent tactic used to approve of a decision is to welcome it (I wel-

come the draft Bill, February 8, 2007). In the Russian data, indications of support

prevail over other forms of positive assessments ([F]rakcija Spravedlivaja Rossijatoze podderzit ratifikaciju togo soglaenija[T]he Fair Russia fraction will also

support the ratification of this agreement, June 29, 2007). The Russian tactic

arguably demonstrates a stronger degree of institutional commitment to the proposal

under parliamentary scrutiny. In fact, such declarations of support also denote the

MPs/partys agreement to vote in favor of the related piece of legislation (e.g., My,

bezuslovno, podderzivaem takoe vae predlozenie i budem golosovat za ti

popravkiWe surely support such your proposal and will vote for these amend-

ments, October 11, 2006), whereas their English counterparts only express a posi-

tive evaluation of the proposal with no explicit commitment to vote for it.

As for backgrounders, the main difference in the two sets of data concern the

preferred ways of packaging the desired propositional content. In the English data,

backgrounders often take the form of interrogatives inquiring about the respon-

dents knowledge base (Is he aware of the rising tide of concern among those in

the film industry that this is the third Finance Bill in three years? April 6, 2005) or

asking for agreement/acceptance (Does the Minister accept that the current scien-

tific consensus is that we need a reduction in emissions of 80 per cent . . . to pre-

vent climate change raising temperatures by 2 degrees? May 8, 2007). Whereas in

the Russian data, backgrounders formulated as declaratives prevail. They generally

express stronger degrees of speaker/hearer commitment to the validity of the con-

tent expressed in comparison with interrogatives (Vy xoroo znaete, cto v svjazi s




10/14

prinjatiem trx zakonov . . . bylo ocen mnogo ostryx vystuplenijYou know

very well that there have been very many critical statements after the three laws

were passed, September 20, 2006).A similar tendency toward greater explicitness in institutional commitment

expression in the Russian data is made manifest by backgrounders conveying MPs

opinions. It is not uncommon for British MPs to attribute the opinions they wish to

express to the respondent (Does not the Minister accept that the nursery sector is

approaching crisis? February 8, 2007), or use various linguistic devices to disguise

their authorship (see Chiltons [2004, p. 56] detailed analysis of embedded clauses,

adjuncts, and presuppositions serving to make certain propositional content less

salient or more taken for granted). By contrast, Russian MPs go as far as to use

explicit opinion markers in their MUQs (Vot to, ja scitaju, meaet z

e vam, naver-

noe . . .This issue, I think, might be preventing you from. . . June 29, 2007).

Underlying the above differences, there seem to be several institutional con-

straints originating from the general prohibition on using Question Time as an

opportunity to debate. In particular, according to the rules set by the House of

Commons, a parliamentary question must not offer or seek expressions of opinion

and convey information nor advance a proposition, an argument or debate

(Parliamentary Questions, 2007, p. 3). Although Reglament Gosudarstvennoj Dumy

(The State Dumas parliamentary rules, see http://www.duma.gov.ru) does not allow

debating during Government Hour either, it provides no detailed rules regarding theexact content and format of questions, which gives Russian MPs more freedom in

the expression of their institutional commitments while posing MUQs.

Thus, the expression of institutional commitment is an intrinsic part of parlia-

mentary question asking. It is discursively realized by means of several types of

structural components and their combinations that all work together to ensure

detailed scrutiny of legislative proposals. The contrastive analysis of its discursive

manifestations reveals a number of institution- and/or culture-bound differences.

Ingroup Commitment: Is It Not True That the Government Are All

Talk and No Action?

As the data show, various combinations of backgrounders, evaluative compo-

nents, and metacomponents allow MPs to realize two major tactics of ingroup com-

mitment: positive same-party presentation and negative other-party presentation.

One typical way to manipulate public opinion is by means of choosing the right

question topic and incorporating appropriate facts in the backgrounders. In fact,

members of the opposition typically focus on the governments failures to invite

unfavorable inferences and generalizations among the general public (Recentfigures show that a record 30,000 people became insolvent in the first 3 months

of this year, May 10, 2007), whereas members of the ruling party highlight their




11/14

successes (On the question of unemployment, in my constituency it has dropped

like a stone since 1997, May 10, 2007).

However, questioners in parliament often go further and explicitly assess theiradversaries policies. As the data show, the degree of explicitness in the expression

of the opponents disapproval intensifies when party leaders are involved in the inter-

action. In Example 4 below, Mr. Osborne (then shadow chancellor) throws a series

of allegations at Mr. Brown (then chancellor of the exchequer).

4) If the right hon. Gentlemans employment policies are so popular, how come 500

Labour councillors and one First Minister are looking for jobs this week? (1) He is

responsible for the failures of this Governmentthe pensions raid, the chaotic admin-

istration of tax credits, the record stealth taxes, and the chronic waste of money. How

can he be the change that the country wants when he is responsible for the present

mess? (2) He has been in hiding for a week (3) but I ask him to answer this simple ques-

tion (4): why did Labour lose last week? (May 10, 2007).

In Example 4, the interplay of several structural components serves Mr. Osbornes

main purposeto discredit the Labor government. In fact, the backgrounders in turns

(1) and (3) bringing to light the layoffs in the Labor camp and the chancellors absen-

teeism project a negative image of the government. The same purpose is achieved by

the evaluative component in turn (2) containing four instances of negative evaluation

of the chancellors policies: the pensions raid, the chaotic administration aggressivemetaphors, the medical metaphor which connotes lingering financial disorder (the

chronic waste of money), and the mention of record high stealth taxes. They are

employed to discredit the respondent and the party he represents. In addition, the meta-

component in turn (4) containing an explicit performative (I ask him to answer)

emphasizing the speakers power to question the chancellor adds vigor to the ques-

tioners attack. Finally, the loaded request for information in turn (5) bringing to the

limelight the Labor defeat completes the face-threatening MUQ.

The strong link between institutional status and answerability in parliamentary

context sheds light on how metacomponents help questioners to discredit the rivalparty, that is, express ingroup commitment. In excerpt 5 below, a member of the

opposition initiates his question by drawing attention to the officials previous fail-

ure to answer it:

5) Perhaps the chief secretary would care to answer the question that the economic sec-

retary did not answer earlier (1). According to independent experts, the abolition of div-

idend tax credits in 1997 has cost pension funds a minimum of 100 billion (2). What

assessment has the Treasury made of this? Does it disagree with that figure, and if so,

what is the figure? (May 7, 2007).

In Example 5, the metacomponent in turn (1) expresses ingroup commitment by

contributing to the party clash between Labor and Conservative MPs. In fact, it




12/14

seems to convey the sweeping generalization that since all ministerial colleagues are

bound by collective responsibility, the failure of two officials is a reflection on the

whole government.The comparison of ingroup-commitment-expressing components in the two cor-

pora shows that their frequency is significantly higher in the English set of data (42

English MUQs comprising 28% of the total number of English examples vs. 15

Russian MUQs comprising 10% of the total number of Russian examples). However,

the comparison of two basic strategiespositive same-party presentation and nega-

tive other-party presentationreveals no substantial differences in the ratios across

two samples: 74% of examples of negative other-party presentation versus 26% of

instances of positive same-party presentation in the English data; 80% of instances

of negative other-party presentation versus 20% of examples of positive same-partypresentation in the Russian data.

In sum, the presence of components expressing ingroup commitment highlights

an interesting aspect of parliamentary MUQs in terms of culture- and/or institution-

specific differences.

Conclusions

The present study has examined the role of several question components in theexpression of British and Russian MPs institutional and ingroup commitments. The

complex sequential structure of parliamentary MUQs appears to reflect the multiple

interactional tasks parliamentarians handle while participating in parliamentary

question asking. In particular, formulating, explaining, and defending sound legisla-

tive proposals and policies; highlighting and opposing unconvincing ones; and

upholding party interests tend to loom large on MPs communicative agenda in the

two parliaments.

Although most of the question component types join forces in solving the multi-

ple interactional tasks and expressing institutional and ingroup commitments, sev-eral categoriesin particular, backgrounders and metacomponentsare more

actively involved in the discursive processes described.

The results suggest that the frequency of elements expressing institutional com-

mitment in parliamentary MUQs is higher than those verbalizing ingroup commit-

ment. This finding is not surprising given that MPs primary responsibility is to do a

competent job of providing appropriate legislation, with debating and party clashes

being prohibited during questionanswer sessions in the two parliaments. This find-

ing seems to argue against a popular view of parliamentary question-asking as a

juvenile spectacle with the sole aim to score political points and make the other sidelook foolish (Rutland, 2005, p. 53). In fact, this study has shown that soliciting

information is accompanied by scoring political points in only slightly more than

one quarter of analyzed British MUQs and in only one tenth of Russian MUQs.




13/14

The contrastive analysis has revealed both similarities and differences across the

two samples. The former relate to the set of question components involved in

expressing the two commitment types. The latter concern variations in frequenciesof commitment-expressing devices and question components surface structure.

In particular, British MPs tend to express their ingroup commitments more often

than their Russian counterparts. One possible explanation may be related to the dif-

ferences in the political systems of the two countries. In fact, one important feature

of contemporary British politics is the two-party system with one party in office and

one strong opposing party, with contestation being an important dimension (Rutland,

2005). In contrast, the fourth Duma (2004-2007), whose transcripts provided the

major part of Russian MUQs in the study, was a one-party Parliament with approx-

imately 70% of seats belonging to United Russia and the remaining seats sharedbetween the other three fractionsthe Communist Party of Russian Federation, the

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, and Motherland (see Donaldson, 2006, p. 246

for details)who failed to form a strong opposing coalition to the party in office. In

this context, an emphasis on self-promotion and party clashes by the vast majority

in the Duma would have seemed contrived and redundant. In addition, lack of con-

solidation in the opposition camp may account for the low frequency of structural

components employed to express Russian ingroup commitments.

The contrastive results also suggest that Russian MPs tend to be more explicit while

expressing their institutional commitment. This pattern is especially evident for one sub-category of evaluative components (declarations of support as verbalizations of party

commitments), the packaging techniques emphasizing speakers/hearers epistemic

stance (formulations of backgrounders as statements referring to the speakers/hearers

knowledge base), and open expression of opinions intensified by opinion markers. This

finding is in keeping with past research describing Russian communicative culture as

more direct in contrast to British culture (e.g., Watts, 2003). But do the differences qual-

ify as culture or institution bound? More research on cross-cultural aspects of commit-

ment expression in parliamentary discourse of different cultures as well as contrastive

analysis of commitment-expressing behavior across various discursive spheres wouldhelp to answer the question.

References

Bayley, P. (Ed.). (2004). Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Bird, K. (2005). Gendering parliamentary questions. The British Journal of Politics and International

Relations, 7, 353-370.

Brandom, R. B. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bull, P. E. (2003). The microanalysis of political communication: Claptrap and ambiguity. London:

Routledge.




14/14

Bull, P. E., Elliott, J., Palmer, D., & Walker, L. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model

of political interviews.British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 267-284.

Chilton, P. A. (2004).Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.

Cohen, A. (2003). Multiple commitments at work: An integrative approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Donaldson, R. H. (2006). Russia. In N. Baldwin (Ed.),Executive leadership and legislative assemblies

(pp. 230-249). London: Routledge.

Edwards, D. (1997).Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.

Fetzer, A., & Lauerbach, E. G. (Eds.). (2007). Political discourse in the media: Cross-cultural perspec-

tives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Fink, S. L. (1992).High commitment workplaces. New York: Quorum books.

Franklin, M., & Norton, P. (Eds.). (1993). Parliamentary questions. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Guest, D. (1998). Commitment. In C. L. Cooper & C. Argyris (Eds.), The concise Blackwell encyclope-

dia of management(pp. 84-85). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Heritage, J., & Roth, A. (1995). Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the broadcast

news interview.Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 1-60.

Ilie, C. (1999). Question-response argumentation in talk-shows.Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 975-999.

Johansson, M. (2002). Sequential positioning of represented discourse in institutional media interaction.

In A. Fetzer & C. Meierkord (Eds.),Rethinking sequentiality: Linguistics meets conversational inter-

action (pp. 249-272). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Johansson, M. (2006). Constructing objects of discourse in the broadcast political interview.Journal of

Pragmatics, 38, 216-229.

Krkkinen, E. (2003).Epistemic stance in English conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Linell, P., Hofvendahl, J., & Lindholm, C. (2003). Multi-unit questions in institutional interactions:

Sequential organizations and communicative functions. Text, 23, 539-571.Meierkord, C., & Fetzer, A. (2002). Introduction. In A. Fetzer & C. Meierkord (Eds.),Rethinking sequen-

tiality: Linguistics meets conversational interaction (pp. 1-36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982).Employee-organization linkages: The psychology

of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Parliamentary questions: Factsheet P1 procedure series. (2007). London: House of Commons Information

Office. Retrieved January 14, 2008, from http://www.parliament.uk/factsheets

Prez de Ayala, S. (2001). FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting needs?Politeness in question time.

Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 143-169.

Puchta, C., & Potter, J. (1999). Asking elaborate questions: Focus groups and the management of spon-

taneity.Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3, 314-335.

Rutland, P. (2005). Britain. In J. Kopstein & M. I. Lichbach (Eds.), Comparative politics: Interests, iden-tities, and institutions in a changing global order(2nd ed., pp. 39-79). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. (2004). Text and context of parliamentary debates. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural per-

spectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 340-372). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Walton, D. N. (1991). Critical faults and fallacies of questioning.Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 337-366.

Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Maria Sivenkova, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Minsk

State Linguistic University. Her research program in contrastive pragmatics examines cross-cultural sim-

ilarities and differences in the realization of various speech acts and genres.


Journal of Language and Social Psychology-2008-Sivenkova-359-71.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Language and Social Psychology-2008-Sivenkova-359-71.pdf