Journal of Language and Social Psychology-2012-Bull-30-48.pdf

8/10/2019 Journal of Language and Social Psychology-2012-Bull-30-48.pdf

1/20

http://jls.sagepub.com/Psychology

Journal of Language and Social

http://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/1/30The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0261927X11425034October 2011

2012 31: 30 originally published online 3Journal of Language and Social PsychologyPeter Bull and Pam Wells

Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister's Questions

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/31/1/30.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Oct 3, 2011OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Feb 6, 2012Version 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/31/1/30http://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/1/30http://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/31/1/30.refs.htmlhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/1/30.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/10/01/0261927X11425034.full.pdfhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/10/01/0261927X11425034.full.pdfhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/1/30.full.pdfhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/1/30.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/2011/10/01/0261927X11425034.full.pdfhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/1/30.full.pdfhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/1/30.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/31/1/30http://jls.sagepub.com/


2/20

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

31(1) 3048

2012 SAGE Publications

DOI: 10.1177/0261927X11425034http://jls.sagepub.com

425034JLS31110.1177/0261927X11425034Bull andWellsJournal of Languageand Social Psychology

1University of York, York, UK

Corresponding Author:

Peter Bull, Department of Psychology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK

Email: [email protected]

Adversarial Discourse

in Prime Ministers

Questions

Peter Bull1and Pam Wells1

Abstract

In the United Kingdom, Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs) are a weekly 30-minuteparliamentary session, in which the prime minister (PM) responds to questions fromboth government and opposition members of parliament (MPs). In this study, 18PMQs (April-November, 2007) were analysed, 9 with Labour PM Tony Blair, 9 withhis successor Gordon Brown; in all 18 sessions, their opponent was ConservativeParty leader David Cameron. In PMQs, MPs are expected to converse throughquestions and replies, while refraining from unparliamentary language (e.g., directinsults to another MP). However, within these constraints, PMQs are notorious foradversarial discourse, analysed in this study through the concept of face-threatening

acts (FTAs). Six distinctive ways in which FTAs are performed by the leader of theopposition in questions and five distinctive ways in which the PM may counter FTAsin replies were identified. Overall, it is proposed that face aggravation in PMQs isnot just an acceptable form of parliamentary discourse, it is both sanctioned andrewarded, a means whereby MPs may enhance their own status through aggressivefacework.

Keywords

Prime Ministers Questions, face aggravation, verbal aggression, politeness theory,questions, adversarialism

Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs) are a constitutional convention in the United

Kingdom whereby every Wednesday during parliamentary sittings, the prime minister

(PM) responds to questions that may be posed by any member of parliament (MP).

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


3/20

Bull and Wells 31

PMQs are sometimes likened to the knockabout comedy of the traditional popular

British puppet show Punch and Judy, which features domestic strife and violence

between the two central characters, Mr. Punch and his wife Judy. Notably, David

Cameron (current British PM since 11 May, 2010) pledged to put an end to the Punchand Judy politics of Westminster, the name calling, backbiting, point scoring, finger

pointing, after his election as Conservative Party leader (6 December, 2005). Subse-

quently (29 April, 2008), he admitted that he had not kept this pledge, blaming the

adversarial nature of PMQs. Investigating the adversarial discourse of PMQs was the

purpose of this study.

The Social Frame of Prime Ministers Questions

The tradition of PMQs dates right back to the 18th century, to the era of the firstBritish prime minister, Sir Robert Walpole (1721-1742). In its present form, PMQs

are a relatively recent innovation, dating from 1961, when Harold Macmillan was the

Conservative PM (Harris, 2001). The procedure was changed in 1997 by Tony Blair

(Labour PM, 1997-2007) from twice a week to just one weekly session every

Wednesday, lasting for 30 minutes. Notably, the tradition of question time is not con-

fined to the United Kingdom. In Canada, this convention is known as Question

Period, in Australia and New Zealand as Question Time, in India as Question Hour.

However, the ensuing discussion is based on British parliamentary procedure.

In the United Kingdom, backbench MPs who wish to ask a question to the PM mustenter their names on the Order Paper. The names of entrants are then randomised in a

ballot to produce a list in which they will be called by the Speaker of the House of

Commons. (The Speaker presides over the Houses debates, determining which mem-

bers may speak. The Speaker is also responsible for maintaining order during debate,

and may punish members who break the rules of the House.)

PMQs always begin with the same tabled question to the PM, asking if he or she will

list his or her official engagements for the day. At this point, the called member can put

as a supplementary question (termed asupplementary) almost any question that relates

to the PMs general responsibilities or to some aspect of government policy. The MP islimited to this one supplementary and cannot follow up the PMs response with any

further utterance (Harris, 2001). However, this is permissible for the leader of the oppo-

sition (LO; currently the leader of the Labour Party), who is allowed up to six questions.

These questions may be posed all in one bloc, or in more than one bloc (e.g., in two

groups of three questions). Only the initial question regarding the PMs engagements is

tabled. Because MPs have the advantage of putting supplementaries to the PM without

notice, PMQs have the important elements of unpredictability and surprise.

QuestionResponse Patterns

Like a broadcast political interview, PMQs take the form of questionresponse

sequences. The principal difference is that the questions in PMQs are posed by opposing



4/20

32 Journal of Language and Social Psychology31(1)

politicians, not by a professional political interviewer. As journalists, interviewers are

expected to be impartial. For example, according to the editorial guidelines of the BBC,

impartiality lies at the heart of the BBCs commitment to its audiences. In contrast,

politicians are restricted by no such constraints. They can be as partial and as unasham-edly partisan as they choose. Criticisms and accusations are permitted in the House.

Furthermore, MPs are protected by parliamentary privilege, which allows them to

speak freely in the House of Commons without fear of legal action on grounds of slan-

der. However, they are expected to observe certain traditions and conventions regard-

ing what is termed unparliamentary language. Specifically, they should not be abusive

or insulting, call another member a liar, suggest another MP has false motives, or

misrepresent another MP. These conventions are enforced by the Speaker of the House,

who may ask a member to withdraw an objectionable utterance. Over the years,

Speakers have objected to the use of abusive epithets such as blackguard, coward, git,guttersnipe, hooligan, rat, swine, traitor, and stoolpigeon (House of Commons Information

Office, 2004). A member who refuses to comply with the Speaker may be suspended

from the House (referred to in parliamentary procedure as naming).

Thus, in PMQs, MPs must orient both to the expectation that the dialogue should

follow a questionresponse pattern and refrain from unacceptable unparliamentary

language. Within these constraints, they are still allowed a great deal of scope to attack

and criticize their fellow MPs. In doing so, they may use considerable ingenuity to

remain within the conventions of acceptable parliamentary language. For example,

Winston Churchill once famously substituted the phrase terminological inexactitudefor the unacceptable term lie(House of Commons Information Office, 2004).

Face and Face Management

In this article, the discourse of PMQs is considered in terms of face and face manage-

ment. Most research on face takes as its starting point Brown and Levinsons (1978,

1987) highly influential theory of politeness. According to Brown and Levinson, face

is important in all cultures; it can be lost, maintained, or enhanced. Thus, face preser-

vation is a primary constraint on the achievement of goals in social interaction. Someacts are intrinsically threatening to face and thus require softening (Brown &

Levinson, 1987, p. 24). Communicative actions such as commands or complaints may

be performed in such a way as to minimise the threat to positive and negative face,

where positive face is defined as the want of every member that his wants be desir-

able to at least some others, and negative face is defined as the want of every com-

petent adult member that his actions be unimpeded by others (Brown & Levinson,

1987, p. 62). So, for example, a request to do something may threaten someones

negative face (by restricting their freedom of action), whereas disagreements may

threaten positive face (by showing a lack of approval).Politeness theory itself was based on a highly influential article On Face-Work

by Goffman (1955/1967a). According to Goffman (1955/1967a, p. 5), face is the

positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume



5/20

Bull and Wells 33

he has taken during a particular contact. From this perspective, face can be seen as the

successful presentation of identity (Holtgraves, 2002):

To fail to have ones identity ratified is to lose face in an encounter, to haveones identity ratified is to have face, to maintain an identity that has been chal-

lenged is to save face. Face, then, is something that resides not within an indi-

vidual but rather within the flow of events in an encounter. (p. 39)

Goffman regarded face as salient in virtually all social encounters, and facework as the

means whereby threats to face could be minimised. He specified three kinds of face-

work: an avoidance process (avoiding potentially face-threatening acts), a corrective

process (performing a variety of redressive acts), and also what he called making

points (the aggressive use of facework). The latter is elaborated in Goffmans (1967b)extended essay: Where the Action Is, in which he discussed incidents in which

adversaries deliberately antagonize one another; the focus is on who will back down

in such situations, and on what counts as backing down.

Rudeness

Interestingly, although Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) were indebted to Goffmans

(1955/1967a) analysis, they overlooked such instances of deliberate face aggravation.

Within the framework of politeness theory, rudeness is envisaged simply as a devia-tion from or violation of rules of cooperative/polite communication. In fact, rudeness

can be deliberate and motivated, if not calculated and strategic (Kienpointer, 1997).

Lakoff (1989), in her article on the limits of politeness, observed that politeness is

primarily associated with ordinary conversation. She proposed that theories of lin-

guistic politeness must be extended to discourse in professional and institutional

contexts. She further proposed that linguistic behaviour can be subdivided into three

rather than two types (polite, nonpolite, and rude), and that this subdivision becomes

much more visible in institutional settings. Similarly, Kasper (1990) distinguished

between motivated and unmotivated rudeness. Whereas unmotivated rudeness refersto violations of the norms of polite behaviour because of ignorance, motivated rude-

ness refers to deliberate norm violationin the sense that the speaker intends to be

heard as rude, and to hurt the other person. Culpeper (1996) has argued that in some

contexts (e.g., army training and literary drama) impoliteness is not a marginal activ-

ity, but central to the interaction that takes place, which he represents in his model of

impoliteness (Culpeper, 1996, 2005; Culpeper, Bousfield, & Wichmann, 2003).

Face-Threatening Act Tactics

In the context of political discourse, Ilie (2001, 2004) has studied rudeness by focus-

sing on the use of insults in parliamentary debates in both the United Kingdom

and Sweden. In the context specifically of PMQs, a study of adversarial discourse

was conducted by Harris (2001), titled, Being politically impolite. She analysed 12



6/20


sessions of PMQs, recorded between March and November 2000. Harris argued

that much of the discourse of PMQs is composed of intentional and explicitly face-

threatening acts (FTAs). She further argued that systematic impoliteness is not only

sanctioned in PMQs but also rewarded in accordance with expectations of the mem-bers of the House of Commons, through an adversarial and confrontational political

process. Hence, even the most serious FTAs rarely, if ever, result in a breakdown in

interpersonal relationships; nor are they intended to. MPs clearly perceive that the

main role of the political opposition is to oppose, that is, to criticize, challenge, sub-

vert, and ridicule the policies and positions of the government. Nowhere is this more

evident than in these weekly exchanges between the PM and the LO. Indeed, the latter

is likely to regard his or her reputation as a skilful and effective adversary as a sig-

nificant measure of his or her success as a leader, whereby he or she can best enhance

his or her own face by undermining that of the PM. Arguably, this adversarial andconfrontational process has only been heightened by the televising of the House of

Commons (since November 1989).

Harris (2001) identifies a number of techniques whereby FTAs may be performed.

For example, one strategy is to ask a question that contains a request for highly specific

information, which the PM may not have to hand, or may not wish to publicize. If the

PM declines or fails to answer the question, the LO may then subsequently provide the

information in order to embarrass or attack the PM. Also common are questions that

build in presuppositions or construct implicatures that are face-threatening to the PM.

The question Doesnt he find it deeply disturbing that the Trade Secretary is a classicexample of this all mouth and no delivery Government presupposes that the govern-

ment is all mouth and no delivery. Again, the question, Will the PM promise straight-

forwardness and honesty in future health announcements carries the implicature that

past announcements have not been honest and straightforward. Harris observes that the

latter example is particularly interesting, since conventions regarding unparliamentary

language prohibit MPs from explicitly accusing each other of lying. A direct accusation

will result in severe sanctions, with the MP being expelled from the Chamber by the

Speaker unless she or he immediately retracts the accusation.

Thus, in contrast to Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), who were principally con-cerned with the avoidance or mitigation of FTAs, Harris (2001) argues that in the

discourse of PMQs, face threats are intentionally intensified. At the same time, Harris

also notes other discursive features that may co-occur with FTAs, and may be used to

soften the full force of FTAs. For example, MPs use distancing strategies, such as

addressing their remarks to the Speaker of the House rather than directly to the PM,

referring to MPs in the third person (rather than as you), and using formal and hon-

orific titles (e.g., the Right Honourable Gentleman, the Foreign Secretary). Although

in other situational contexts, such practices might suggest a high degree of formality

and deference, in PMQ discourse Harris observes that they are often combined withintentional FTAs. In this context, they arguably serve to mitigate FTAs, thereby keeping

the discourse within the bounds of acceptable parliamentary language.

Whereas Harriss (2001) article was based on the use of illustrative examples, the

aim of this study was to conduct a more systematic investigation of PMQs. Specifically,



7/20

Bull and Wells 35

the aim was to develop a conceptual framework for analysing PMQs by identifying

specific techniques for posing and countering face-threatening questions in this con-

text. Attention was also given to Harriss concept of mitigating techniques. As noted

above, MPs are expected to observe a questionresponse dialogue in PMQs, whilerefraining from unparliamentary language. Thus, although MPs may not directly

insult one another, if the insult is couched in the form of a question or included within

a response, it may be regarded as acceptable.

Sequential Interaction

In practice, however, it is not questions and responses that form the interactional units

of PMQs but speaking turns (Harris, 2001). Prototypically, these take the form of a

series of propositions followed by an interrogative (e.g., is the PM aware that, will heassure the House that), plus a final information-seeking or action-seeking summaris-

ing proposition (Harris, 2001). However, Harris also observes a number of variations

on this basic prototypical theme. For example, MPs may ask more than one question,

in the form of either several coordinating or independent interrogative clauses. Again,

they may preface their questions with one or more propositions, or with attacks on

other politicians. They may also make jokes or asides. Notably, through these kinds

of discursive action, FTAs may be performed, which are part of the wider speaking

turn but do not necessarily constitute interrogatives as such.

Overall, this study focuses specifically on interchanges between the LO and thePM. Given that the LO is allowed to ask up to six questions, these interchanges have

the advantage for the analyst that it is possible to focus on sequential interchanges. For

example, if the PM equivocates in response to a question, the LO has the opportunity

to pose the question again, or to pose it in a slightly different form, or to draw attention

to the PMs equivocation through various forms of FTA.

Eighteen PMQ sessions were analysed from 2007, when the Labour government

was still in power. It was during this year that Tony Blair resigned as PM (27 June), so

that it was possible to sample PMQ performance from two different PMs. Accordingly,

the study focussed on the last nine sessions leading up to Tony Blairs resignation (18April to 27 June) and the first nine sessions of Gordon Browns premiership (4 July to

21 November). In summary, the main aim of the study was to identify different tech-

niques whereby questioning turns are used by the LO to attack the PM, and how the

PM uses his response turns to counter these attacks, while both politicians orient to the

conventions of acceptable parliamentary language. Techniques for mitigating FTAs

were also identified.

Method

Participants

The participants in this study were PMs Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and the leader

of the Conservative opposition, David Cameron. An analysis of 18 sessions of PMQs

from 2007 was conducted. Nine featured Tony Blair, the last nine PMQs before his



8/20


resignation as PM on 27 June (18, 25 April; 2, 9, 23 May; 6, 13, 20, 27 June, 2007).

The other nine featured Gordon Brown, his first nine PMQs as PM (4, 11, 18, 25 July;

10, 17, 24 October; 14, 21 November, 2007). During all 18 sessions, they responded

to questions from David Cameron (LO).

Apparatus

Video recordings of PMQs are available from the Downing Street website (Number10.gov.

uk logo: The official site of the PMs Office; http://www.number10.gov.uk/). Transcripts

are available from Hansard, the written record of parliamentary debates in the House of

Commons (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm).

Hansard, it should be noted, is not a full verbatim record of parliamentary proceed-

ings. It is intended to be substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redun-dancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand

leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument

(May, 2004, p. 260). Hence, in this study, verbatim transcripts were made directly

from the video recordings, not from Hansard. Using this procedure, all the questions

from David Cameron to both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were transcribed, as were

the responses from both PMs.

Procedure

The verbatim transcripts were then used as the basis for identifying FTAs in question-

ing turns, techniques whereby the PM countered FTAs in his response turns, and

mitigating techniques. Transcripts were analysed by the first and second author inde-

pendently, who then met on a regular basis to discuss their analyses. Disagreements

were resolved by discussion.

Results

The results are presented in the form of three subsections: (a) questioning turns, (b)response turns, and (c) mitigating techniques. Questioning turns identify different

techniques whereby the LO performs FTAs. Response turns identify different tech-

niques whereby the PM counters FTAs in questioning turns. Mitigating techniques

identify means whereby the participants soften the full force of FTAs. Notably,

whereas questionresponse sequences form the basic interactional units of PMQs,

mitigating techniques may occur in both question and response turns. An illustrative

example is presented for each category.

Questioning Turns

Preface. According to Harris (2001), questions prototypically take the form of a

series of propositions followed by an interrogative (e.g., is the PM aware that, will he



9/20

Bull and Wells 37

assure the House that). These propositions which preface the interrogative may be

used to perform FTAs.

For example, the following extract (18 April) comes after a previous question to

Tony Blair in which he was asked to endorse Gordon Brown (the then Chancellor of theExchequer) as his successor, but he declined to do so. David Cameron commented on

this: The interesting thing is that the Prime Minister will not endorse the Chancellor.

David Cameron then launched a wholesale attack on Gordon Brown:

We know why we do not want the Chancellorhe has complicated the tax sys-

tem and virtually bankrupted the pensions system, he is impossible to work with

and he never says sorry. That is why we dont want the Chancellor.

Finally, David Cameron posed his next question: What does he [i.e., Tony Blair]think is wrong with him [i.e., Gordon Brown]?

Detailed question. According to Harris (2001), one strategy is to ask a question

which contains a request for highly specific information, which the PM may not have

to hand, or may not wish to publicize. If the PM declines or fails to answer the ques-

tion, the LO may then subsequently provide the information in order to embarrass or

attack the PM. For example, David Cameron posed the following question to Tony

Blair regarding the size of the prison population (20 June):

This week we have the scandal of the PM, in his last few days in office, openingthe prison gates and releasing 25,000 prisoners on to our streets. Can he tell us

when he was first warned that the prison population would go over 80,000?

Tony Blair equivocated at length in response to David Camerons question, who then

in his next turn supplied the answer to his own question:

I asked the PM a very simple question: When did he first know that the prison

population would exceed 80,000? The truth is that the PM was told by the Home

Office in 2002, five years ago, by the Home Office that the prison population thisyear was projected to be not 80,000 but 88,000. That was five years ago. Why did

the Government so comprehensively fail to act in response to that warning?

Overcrowding in British prisons has long been recognised as a serious problem. David

Camerons question regarding the size of the prison population was clearly disingenuous,

given that in his next turn, he answered his own question. The first question implicitly

threatened the face of both Tony Blair and his government, because if Tony Blair had

known about the projected rise in the prison population 5 years previously, then the

government should have taken action earlier. In his follow-up question, DavidCameron made this face-threat explicit, by specifically asking, Why did the govern-

ment so comprehensively fail to act in response to that warning?

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


10/20


Contentious presupposition. Presuppositions are often considered as involving some

notion of what is given in an utterance, the assumed knowledge a speaker takes for

granted which she or he shares with the addressee. In the context of broadcast inter-

views, Harris (1986) pointed out that interviewers by no means confine themselves topresuppositions that contain shared or given knowledge; they may indeed be highly

controversial or open to dispute. Similarly in PMQs, questions may be based on pre-

suppositions that are in themselves highly face-threatening (Harris, 2001). A particu-

larly striking example of this is the use of insults. To directly insult another member of

the House of Commons is not acceptable, it is regarded as a form of unparliamentary

language. However, this convention may be circumvented by embedding insults in

the presuppositional content of the question.

In the following example (2 May), David Cameron asked Tony Blair for further

information about his successor as PM, Gordon Brown:

David Cameron: Why is the PM so coy? Why will he not tell us a bit about the

man who will be our PM and how he managed to get the better of him? Given

that the PM said that he would serve a full third term, does that mean that when

he walks out of No. 10 Downing Street, this Parliament is at an end, or was that

the last of his broken promises?

Thus, rather than explicitly accusing Tony Blair of breaking promises, for which

David Cameron would almost certainly have been pulled up by the Speaker, DavidCameron presupposed that Tony Blair breaks promises by asking . . . was that the last

of his broken promises?

Conflictual question. According to Bavelas, Black, Chovil, and Mullett (1990),

equivocation occurs in response to questions that create a communicative conflict

(CC), where all the possible replies have potentially negative consequences, but nev-

ertheless a reply is still expected. In the context of broadcast political interviews, Bull,

Elliott, Palmer, and Walker (1996) argued that a prime cause of such conflicts is

threat to face. If all the possible replies to a question will make the politician look

bad and/or constrain his or her future freedom of action, then the most likely responseis to equivocate. Thus, conflictual questions create pressures towards equivocation,

which in itself can also be face-damaging, because it makes the politician look eva-

sive. However, it is typically less face-damaging than 18 other forms of face-threat,

specified in a typology of questions devised by the senior author and his colleagues

(Bull et al., 1996).

The following example refers to the loss of two computer discs holding the per-

sonal details of all families in the United Kingdom with a child 16 years and younger

(announced by the government, 20 November, 2007). The Child Benefit data on them

included name, address, date of birth, National Insurance number and, where relevant,bank details of 25 million people. This was the latest in a series of such data losses. At

PMQs the next day (21 November), David Cameron asked Gordon Brown, Does the

government accept systemic failure in this department? (i.e., of Revenue and



11/20

Bull and Wells 39

Customs). Thereby, David Cameron created a classic CC. A reply in the affirmative

would be openly to acknowledge government incompetence. A denial of any failure

would lack all credibility, given the magnitude of the loss of sensitive data. Just as

equivocation theory would predict (Bavelas et al., 1990; Bull et al., 1996), GordonBrown failed to reply to David Camerons question, avoiding any mention of the

phrase systemic failure, proposing instead to conduct a review of procedures at

Revenue and Customs.

Invitation to perform a face-damaging response (FDR). Another way of using questions

to perform FTAs is to invite the respondent to perform some kind of face-damaging

act (e.g., by apologising, by criticising a member of his or her own party, by admitting

that a particular policy has been a complete failure, or that a government department

has been incompetent). Thus, in a further question about prisoner releases (20 June,

see Detailed Question subsection above), David Cameron invited Tony Blair toapologise for the early release of prisoners:

Ten years ago, he told us that he would be tough on crime; now he is releasing

25,000 criminals on to our streets. Shouldnt he, just this once, apologise for

what can only be described as an abject failure to deliver?

The early release scheme (whereby prisoners were released from prison before com-

pleting their sentence in full) was announced on 20 June, 2007 by Lord Falconer (the

then Secretary of State for Justice) as a means of reducing prison overcrowding.Arguably, this scheme was tantamount to a government admission that it had failed to

make adequate provision for the increase in the prison population. Notably, David

Cameron combined his invitation to perform an FDR with a contentious presupposi-

tion: The use of the termjust this onceimplied that Tony Blair never apologises.

Another important feature of David Camerons question is that it creates a CC.

Thus, whatever response Tony Blair chose is potentially face-damaging. If on the one

hand, he had apologised, it would have been tantamount to an admission that govern-

ment policy on the prison population had been a failure. If on the other hand, he

refused to apologise, it might make him sound arrogant, given that the early releasescheme could be readily understood as a failure by the government to make adequate

provision for the increase in the prison population. In fact, as equivocation theory

(Bavelas et al., 1990; Bull et al., 1996) would predict, Tony Blair avoided this dilemma

by not directly addressing David Camerons question as to whether he should or

should not apologise. Instead, he stated, I entirely regret, as I have said, I regret very

much having to take the measures on early release. Arguably, the use of the term

regretdoes not have the full pragmatic force of an apology (e.g., Kampf, 2009), in that

it attenuates any sense of government responsibility for prison overcrowding. This

equivocal response may also be regarded as face-damaging, since it makes the PMlook evasive.

Arguably, it is not merely the invitation to perform an FDR that is face-threatening.

For example, if the PM were asked to apologise for some action for which no apology



12/20


seems necessary, the question could easily be refuted with a refusal to apologise, or

simply ignored. Indeed, if the demand for an apology is patently absurd or ridiculous,

it will be face-damaging to the questioner, not to the PM. But if the invitation to per-

form an FDR were also to create a CC, this would put pressure on the PM to performthe FDR, to refute the need to perform it, or to equivocate. Any of these responses

would be potentially face-threatening.

Aside. Speakers may depart from the question format to make asides, which may be

used to perform FTAs. Asides may occur in either the preface or the interrogative. In

the following example (17 October), David Cameron used an interruption from a

Labour MP to make an aside attacking the Labour government for its lack of disci-

pline. In attempting to put his question, David Cameron was interrupted twice by

shouting; the Speaker then reprimanded the Labour MP: Order order. I hope the

Honourable Gentleman Mr. Austin youre not going to keep shouting again. Youre adifficulty in PMs questions because you keep shouting. You shouldnt do it. David

Cameron then used this reprimand to quip in an aside: It comes to something when

you have to tick off the PMs own PPS (Ian Austin was Parliamentary Private Secre-

tary [PPS] to Gordon Brown). David Camerons aside was greeted by laughter, before

he continued with the main body of his question concerning the National Health Ser-

vice (NHS).

Responses

A number of different ways are distinguished, whereby the PM can respond to FTAs

in questioning turns: talk up positive face (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987), rebut,

attack, ignore, and self-justify. These different tactics are not necessarily alternatives:

They may be used singly or in any combination.

Talk up positive face. Shortly before Tony Blairs retirement, David Cameron attacked

him by saying, This is the Government of the living dead. Why do we have to put up

with even more paralysis? (9 May). Tony Blair made no attempt directly to answer the

question, but responded by talking up the positive face of the government:

The government have run the strongest economy that the country has seen in 10

years. Just last week, health service waiting lists again down. The best school

results that the country has ever seen, and living standards for every section of

the population are up.

Rebut. In a rebuttal, the PM explicitly refutes the FTA performed by the questioner.

For example, in the following sequence (17 October), Gordon Brown extensively

rebuts David Camerons charge that he is not listening to people in the NHS in the

context of hospital-acquired infections (MRSA and C difficile):

David Cameron: . . . If were going to deal with hospital acquired infections,

doesnt the Prime Minister understand, he has got to listen to the people who

work in the NHS?



13/20

Bull and Wells 41

The PM (Gordon Brown): Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because I have been lis-

tening to the British people [shouting], that weve put an extra 100 million

into tackling MRSA and C. difficile. It is precisely because we are listening

that, since I took over this job, we are now insisting that every patient whocomes to hospital is going to be screened against the possibility of MRSA.

It is precisely because were listening that were going to do a deep clean of

hospital wards. And it is precisely because Im listening that were going to

double the number of matrons. Now, none of that extra expenditure would be

possible if we accepted the Conservative Party plans on spending.

Attack. A third way of responding to an FTA is to attack. In September 2007, fol-

lowing Gordon Browns appointment as PM (27 June, 2007), there was intense specu-

lation that he would call a general election. Gordon Brown failed to rule out thepossibility of a general election until Saturday, 6 October, following a surge in Con-

servative Party support in the opinion polls after their annual conference that week

(Webster & Riddell, 2007). David Cameron took the opportunity at the next PMQs (10

October) to pose the following question, to which Gordon Brown notably made no

attempt to reply; he simply launched into an attack on David Cameron:

David Cameron: The big question this week is: can we believe what the PM

says? So let us start with his credibility gulf over the election. The PM was

asked, Hand on heart, if the polls showed a 100-seat majority, would youstill have called off the election? and he said yes. Does he expect anyone to

believe that?

The PM (Gordon Brown): I will take no lectures from the leader of the opposi-

tion. This summer he was for grammar schools, against them and then for

them again. He was for VAT on air fares and then against it. He was for

parking charges and then against it. He was for museum charges and then

against it. I will take no lectures from the leader of the opposition about that

[VATValue Added Tax, an indirect tax on goods and services].

Ignore. Another way of dealing with an FTA is simply to ignore it. In the previous

example, Gordon Brown ignores the attack on his credibility by David Cameron, and

responds with an attack of his own. In the following example (17 October), David

Cameron challenged Gordon Brown to hold a referendum on the amending treaty to

the European Union (EU) which David Cameron claimed fundamentally changed the

constitutional position of the United Kingdom in the EU. Gordon Brown ignored

David Camerons accusation of cowardice, and the charge that no one will trust him

ever again, arguing that the amending treaty is not a fundamental change to United

Kingdoms position in the EU, and therefore did not require a referendum:

David Cameron: People, people will look at him and just say, here is a man who

breaks his promise [cheering]. Why doesnt he admit the reason he wont



14/20


have a referendum is that hes scared of losing it? [cheering] And doesnt

he understand that if he breaks his promise on this, no one will trust him on

anything else [cheering and shouting].

The PM (Gordon Brown): Mr. Speaker, if we were deciding to join the euro, wewould have a referendum. If it was the old constitutional treaty, we would

have a referendum. Because it is an amending treaty that is not fundamental

change, we have managed to negotiate red lines in Europe which mean that

the national interests is protected, and Britain will decide on justice and home

affairs, Britain will decide on foreign policy, where its multilateral, Britain

will decide on social security, and Britain will decide on national security.

And we will, at all times, stand up for the British national interests [cheering

and shouting].

Self-justify. A fifth strategy for dealing with an FTA is that of self-justification,

whereby the PM offers reason, explanations, or excuses for the actions he has taken.

In the example above (17 October), the whole of Gordon Browns turn can be seen

as elaborate justification for his decision not to call a referendum on the EU amend-

ing treaty.

Notably, all these strategies can be used in combination. In the example quoted

above (Preface subsection), in which David Cameron asked what did Tony Blair

think was wrong with Gordon Brown, Tony Blair used four identifiable strategies in

his response:

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what is right with the Chancellor [Ignore

(does not say what is wrong with Gordon Brown); positive face (talks up the

Chancellor)] The right honourable Gentleman has some experience of the

economy, has he not? He had something to do with the British economy once

hasnt he? Back in 1992, did he not? He was the special adviser to the Chancellor

of the timewe remember Black Wednesday. [Attack] The Chancellor has

delivered the strongest economic growth that this country has ever seen, interest

rates half what they were under the previous Conservative Government, thehighest employment, the lowest unemployment for years and rising living stan-

dards. [Talk up positive face & rebut] Whats he delivered for the British

economy? A bit part on Black Wednesday [Attack using a joke at David Camerons

expense].

(It should be noted that Black Wednesday refers to the events of 16 September, 1992

when the Conservative government was forced to withdraw the pound sterling from

the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. In 2005, under the Freedom of Information

Act, the loss to the United Kingdom Treasury was revealed as 3.3 billion. David

Cameron was working at that time as special adviser to the then Chancellor of theExchequer, Norman Lamont).



15/20

Bull and Wells 43

Mitigating Techniques

Third party language. Harris (2001) notes the use of distancing strategies, such as

addressing remarks to the Speaker of the House rather than directly to the PM, and

referring to MPs in the third person (rather than as you). In the following example(10 October), David Cameron launched a wholesale attack on Gordon Brown, while

still addressing his remarks to Mr. Speaker, and referring to the PM as he:

What we wont forgetand what the British people will not forgetis that the

PM made a promise and he has broken it. We have a PM who will not talk

straight about the election, who will not own up on inheritance tax and who will

not keep his promises on an EU referendum. Never have the British people been

treated with such cynicism. Mr. Speaker, for 10 years the PM plotted and

schemed to have this joband for what? No conviction, just calculation; novision, just a vacuum. Last week he lost his political authority, and this week he

is losing his moral authority. How long are we going to have to wait before the

past makes way for the future?

If David Camerons comments were addressed more directly to the PM (e.g., you

have plotted and schemed to have this job . . .youhave lostyourpolitical authority,

and this weekyouare losingyourmoral authority), it would make the attack much

more personal, and might be regarded as beyond the bounds of acceptable parliamen-

tary language. Certainly, he would be corrected for not addressing his remarks to theSpeaker. The use of third party language arguably softens the force of the attack, and

indeed is a requirement according to the conventions of parliamentary discourse

(although of course politicians do not always follow the rules).

Humorous discourse. Humorous discourse is another way of mitigating the full force

of an FTA. In the following example (17 October), Gordon Brown mocked David

Camerons pretensions by using one of his own quotes against him, in which David

Cameron had compared himself to Arnold Schwarzenegger (the Hollywood action-

film icon, Austrian American bodybuilder, and former governor of the state of Califor-

nia). In this way, Gordon Brown could imply that David Cameron has ridiculousdelusions of grandeur without ever explicitly saying so:

. . . I know that the leader of the opposition likes pre-rehearsed soundbites. I

know that I know that he is good at PR. I acknowledge that the leader of the

opposition is good at PR, but did he not go too far last weekend when he went

to California and said in a newspaper interview: Look at me he said, look at

me he said and think of Arnold Schwarzenegger? That is the last thing on

anybodys mind [Laughter].

Quotation. In the above example, Gordon Brown quoted from a newspaper inter-

view with David Cameron to ridicule him. Quotations are another technique used in



16/20


PMQs to mitigate FTAs. In the following extract (10 October), David Cameron

mocked Gordon Browns timidity in not calling a general election in the autumn of

2007 (see the Attack subsection above) by quoting from Gordon Browns own book

on Courage. Rather than directly calling Gordon Brown a coward, David Cameron canuse Gordon Browns own words to imply this insult:

He is the first PM in history to flunk an election because he thought that he was

going to win it. Does he, does he remember writing this? It is in his best-selling

book about Courage: As far back as I can remember, I have been fascinated

by men and women of courage. Stories of people who took brave decisions in

the service of great causes . . . especially when more comfortable and far less

dangerous alternatives were open to them. Does he realise what a phoney he

now looks? Has he found a single person who believes his excuses for cancel-ling the election?

Opponents mistake. If a speaker makes a mistake or a slip of the tongue, this may

give an opposing politician the opportunity for an FTA. As with quotations, it is a way

of using another politicians words against them, thereby mitigating the full force of

the FTA. For example, in responding to a question on the EU (17 October), Gordon

Brown mistakenly referred to William Hague, the then Shadow (opposition) Foreign

Secretary, as Foreign Secretary: In 1992, every member of that Shadow Cabinet

refused a referendum on a far more significant treaty. The Foreign Secretary votedagainst a referendum on Maastricht. (The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 led to the cre-

ation of the euro, the European common currency.) David Cameron was quick to

pounce on this mistake, observing that The PM called my Right Honourable Friend

the Member for Richmond, Yorkshire, Mr. Hague, the Foreign Secretary. I have to say

to him that it is just a matter of time. Thereby, David Cameron was able to imply that

the Labour Party would soon be out of office, and the Conservative Party in govern-

ment. (Subsequently, William Hague was appointed Foreign Secretary by David Cam-

eron in May 2010.)

Discussion

The aim of this article has been to present a conceptualisation of facework in PMQs,

based on the identification of techniques of face threat and face management used by

both the PM and LO. This analysis further substantiates Harriss (2001) proposal that

face aggravation is a salient feature of PMQ discourse. As such, PMQs may be

regarded as another exemplar of situations described by Culpeper (1996), in which

impoliteness is not a marginal activity, but central to the interaction that takes place.

Notably, adversarial discourse finds no place in the politeness theory formulated byBrown and Levinson (1978, 1987). Their focus is on the strategic avoidance of FTAs.

According to Brown and Levinson (1987, p. 60), It will in general be in the mutual

interest of two MPs (Model Persons) to maintain each others face. But in PMQs, not



17/20

Bull and Wells 45

only are FTAs not avoided, face threats are also intentionally intensified. Indeed, sys-

tematic impoliteness is not only sanctioned but also rewarded (Harris, 2001). Such

face aggravation is not just a deviation from the norms of politeness, but an active

strategy, which needs to be incorporated into any theoretical conceptualisation of faceand facework.

Face Concerns

According to Goffman (1955/1967a), concerns with face are salient in virtually all

social encounters. Arguably, face and facework are of particular importance for politi-

cians, especially in an adversarial political system such as that in the United Kingdom,

which is dominated by party politics. But the way in which face and facework function

in political discourse will vary according to genre of communication (Bull & Fetzer,2010). For example, a political speech (monologue) gives the politician the opportunity

to enhance positive face through displaying rhetorical skill, presenting new policies,

celebrating past achievements, and talking up his or her own political party. It also

gives the politician the opportunity for face aggravation, by attacking and criticising his

or her political opponents. In broadcast interviews, politicians must defend themselves

against questions which pose a threat to face (Bull et al., 1996). That is to say, politi-

cians will avoid responding to questions in ways which may make them look bad or

circumscribe their future freedom of action. Politicians also run these risks in PMQs,

but in addition, there is the further risk from insults and derogatory remarks fromopposing politicians, who use face aggravation as a deliberate strategy, as shown both

by Harris (2001) and by the results presented here.

The analysis presented in this article is intended to provide guidelines for future

research on PMQs, and an overall conceptual framework for investigating particular

communicative strategies. For example, one strategy of interest is that of inviting the

PM to perform an FDR. It has been hypothesised above that it is the packaging of an

FDR as a CC that makes it face-threatening, not just the invitation to perform an FDR

alone. This hypothesis could be investigated through the detailed analysis of a sample

of such questions, which could be drawn from further analysis of the database reportedhere. Another strategy of interest is that of asking disingenuous questions, specific

questions to which the questioner already knows the answer (Harris, 2001). Detailed

analysis of a sample of such questions might illuminate in what ways they are used to

embarrass or attack the PM, and also how they may be used to set up further attacks

on the PM in subsequent questions by the LO.

It would also be of interest to investigate different strategies for countering FTAs in

questions. Is it best to rebut such threats, or just to ignore them, to present positive face,

or to attack? Notably, Tony Blair was widely regarded as much more effective at PMQs

than Gordon Brown. Whereas Gordon Brown was described as . . . charmless, with analarming inability to come up with a witty riposte, Tony Blair was said to be . . .

master of the quick quip, which could disarm an opponent, or better still, appear self-

deprecatory, in order to win public sympathy (Ashley, 2010). The conceptualisation



18/20


presented in this article provides a means not only for a more detailed comparison of

Gordon Browns and Tony Blairs relative skills in handling PMQs but also at a more

abstract level a means for evaluating the relative effectiveness of different techniques

for responding to FTAs in questions.

Alternatives to Face Aggravation

Although the focus of this analysis was specifically on face aggravation, this is not the

only form of facework which may occur in PMQs. The PM does not receive questions

just from opposition MPs; throughout each session, the Speaker tries to alternate

between opposition questioners and supporters of the government. Notably, MPs from

the PMs own party are notorious for asking toadying questions, which may be

totally disingenuous, intended not only to ingratiate the individual MP with the PMbut also to give him or her the opportunity to put the government in the best possible

light. Such questions can readily be understood in terms of face enhancement, and

would certainly merit detailed analysis as an example of another kind of facework in

PMQs. Again, it might be of interest to examine those rare occasions on which both

PM and LO do enhance one anothers positive face, in contrast to the incidences of

face aggravation considered above. Furthermore, it would also be of interest to inves-

tigate how the mitigating techniques (described in the Mitigating Techniques sub-

section) map on to both questioning and response turns (Questioning Turns and

Responses subsections).The analysis presented in this article shows that politicians have an extensive

armoury of devices for performing FTAs in PMQs. How well the democratic process

is served by these techniques is quite another issue. That the leader of the government

is open to question in Parliament from any MP once a week is undoubtedly an impor-

tant democratic principle. Furthermore, the entitlement of the LO to pose up to six

questions is also important; it allows him or her to challenge obvious equivocation by

the PM, to follow up particular issues, and to press home a particular point. At the

same time, there are many people who find the ensuing party political dogfight dis-

tasteful, perhaps because it is such a blatant violation of the rules of cooperative/politecommunication described by Brown and Levinson (1978/1987). It may be that face

aggravation is systemic and unavoidable in PMQs, and that alternative forms of dis-

course are also possible. In future research, this might be investigated by analysing

those questions in which politicians do not use face aggravation as a strategy.

Notionally, PMQs are constrained by conventions that dialogue should adhere to a

questionresponse pattern, and that participants should refrain from unacceptable unpar-

liamentary language. But from the analysis presented here, it can be seen how partici-

pants actively use those constraints and conventions to perform acts of face aggravation.

Whereas facework is typically conceptualised as form of politeness, this analysis showshow it may be used for discourse that is anything but polite. Figuratively, PMQs may be

likened to a form of verbal pugilism, conducted under arcane conventions resembling

the Queensbury rules of boxing (so-called because they were originally publicly endorsed



19/20

Bull and Wells 47

by the Marquess of Queensbury). As such, PMQs represent a rich data source for the

analysis of techniques of face aggravation, which we propose needs to be represented in

any comprehensive conceptualisation of verbal aggression.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Page Six Transcription Services, who

prepared the transcripts on which this analysis is based. They also gratefully acknowledge the

assistance of Hannah Law, who carried out a pilot study on adversarial discourse in Prime

Ministers Questions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and

publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/

or publication of this article: The authors gratefully acknowledge a research grant in support of

this study from the Departmental Research Committee of the Department of Psychology,

University of York, UK.

References

Ashley, J. (2010, April 7).Final PMQs for Gordon Browns clunking intellect?Retrieved fromhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/07/gordon-brown-pmqs

Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990).Equivocal communication. Newbury

Park, CA: SAGE.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In

E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness(pp. 56-310). Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987).Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Bull, P. E., Elliott, J., Palmer, D., & Walker, L. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: Theface model of political interviews.British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 267-284.

Bull, P., & Fetzer, A. (2010). Face, facework and political discourse. International Review of

Social Psychology, 23, 155-185.

Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness.Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349-367.

Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and the weakest link. Journal of Politeness Research, 1,

35-72.

Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special refer-

ence to dynamic and prosodic aspects.Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545-1579.

Goffman, E. (1967a). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In E. Goffman(Ed.),Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behaviour(pp. 5-45). Garden City, NY: Anchor.

(Reprinted fromPsychiatry(1955) 18, 213-231)



20/20


Goffman, E. (1967b). Where the action is. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Interaction ritual: Essays on

face to face behaviour(pp. 149-270). Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Harris, S. (1986). Interviewers questions in broadcast interviews. Belfast Working Papers in

Language and Linguistics, 8, 50-85.Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political

discourse.Discourse & Society, 12, 451-472.

Holtgraves, T. (2002).Language as social action: Social psychology and language use.Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

House of Commons Information Office. (2004).Factsheet G7: Some traditions and customs of

the House.

Ilie, C. (2001). Unparliamentary language: Insults as cognitive forms of confrontation. In R. Dirven,

R. Frank, & C. Ilie (Eds.),Language and ideology. Vol. II: Descriptive cognitive approaches

(pp. 235-263). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Ilie, C. (2004). Insulting as (un)parliamentary practice in the British and Swedish Parliaments:

A rhetorical approach. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary

discourse(pp. 45-86). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Kampf, Z. (2009). Public (non-)apologies: The discourse of minimizing responsibility.Journal

of Pragmatics, 41, 2257-2270.

Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14,

193-218.

Kienpointner, M. (1997). Varieties of rudeness: Types and functions of impolite utterances.

Functions of Language, 4, 251-287.Lakoff, R. (1989). The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse.Multilingua,

8, 101-129.

May, T. E. (2004).Parliamentary practice(23rd ed.). London, England: LexisNexis.

Webster, P., & Riddell, P. (2007, October 5). David Cameron surge puts the heat on labour. Times

Online.Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2592161.ece

Bios

Peter Bull (PhD, University of Exeter, UK) is a reader in the Department of Psychology at the

University of York, UK. He has 90 academic publications, principally in the form of articles ininternationally recognised academic journals; he has also written five books, as well as numer-

ous book chapters. His published output has been primarily concerned with the analysis of

interpersonal communication. He is the author of The Microanalysis of Political Communication:

Claptrap and Ambiguity(2003) and Communication Under the Microscope: The Theory and

Practice of Microanalysis(2002).

Pam Wells (PhD, University of York, UK) is an adviser at the Higher Education Academy in

York, UK. Her doctoral research was focused on techniques used in stand-up comedy. Her

research interests also include public performance, political discourse, and higher education.

Journal of Language and Social Psychology-2012-Bull-30-48.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Language and Social Psychology-2012-Bull-30-48.pdf