Journal of Language and Social Psychology-2012-Bull-30-48 PDF

Journal of Language and Social
Psychology
http://jls.sagepub.com/
Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister's Questions

Peter Bull and Pam Wells
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2012 31: 30 originally published online 3
October 2011
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X11425034
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/1/30
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Language and Social Psychology can be found
at:
Email Alerts: http://jls.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jls.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jls.sagepub.com/content/31/1/30.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Feb 6, 2012

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Oct 3, 2011
What is This?
Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014
425034
WellsJournal of Language and Social Psychology
JLS31110.1177/0261927X11425034Bull and
Adversarial Discourse
in Prime Ministers
Questions
Journal of Language and Social Psychology

31(1) 3048
2012 SAGE Publications
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X11425034
http://jls.sagepub.com
Peter Bull1 and Pam Wells1
Abstract
In the United Kingdom, Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs) are a weekly 30-minute
parliamentary session, in which the prime minister (PM) responds to questions from
both government and opposition members of parliament (MPs). In this study, 18
PMQs (April-November, 2007) were analysed, 9 with Labour PM Tony Blair, 9 with
his successor Gordon Brown; in all 18 sessions, their opponent was Conservative
Party leader David Cameron. In PMQs, MPs are expected to converse through
questions and replies, while refraining from unparliamentary language (e.g., direct
insults to another MP). However, within these constraints, PMQs are notorious for
adversarial 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 the
opposition in questions and five distinctive ways in which the PM may counter FTAs
in replies were identified. Overall, it is proposed that face aggravation in PMQs is
not just an acceptable form of parliamentary discourse, it is both sanctioned and
rewarded, a means whereby MPs may enhance their own status through aggressive
facework.
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).
1
University of York, York, UK
Corresponding Author:
Peter Bull, Department of Psychology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK
Email: peter.bull@york.ac.uk
31
Bull and Wells
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 Punch
and Judy politics of Westminster, the name calling, backbiting, point scoring, finger
pointing, after his election as Conservative Party leader (6 December, 2005). Subsequently (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 first
British 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 confined 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 must
enter 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 members 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 a supplementary) almost any question that relates
to the PMs general responsibilities or to some aspect of government policy. The MP is
limited 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 opposition (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
32
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31(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 unashamedly 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 slander. However, they are expected to observe certain traditions and conventions regarding 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 inexactitude
for 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 management. 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 preservation is a primary constraint on the achievement of goals in social interaction. Some
acts 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 desirable to at least some others, and negative face is defined as the want of every competent 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
33
Bull and Wells
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 have
ones identity ratified is to have face, to maintain an identity that has been challenged is to save face. Face, then, is something that resides not within an individual 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 facework: 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 deviation 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 linguistic 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 refers
to violations of the norms of polite behaviour because of ignorance, motivated rudeness 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 activity, 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 focussing 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
34
sessions of PMQs, recorded between March and November 2000. Harris argued
that much of the discourse of PMQs is composed of intentional and explicitly facethreatening acts (FTAs). She further argued that systematic impoliteness is not only
sanctioned in PMQs but also rewarded in accordance with expectations of the members 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, subvert, 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 significant 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 and
confrontational 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 classic
example of this all mouth and no delivery Government presupposes that the government is all mouth and no delivery. Again, the question, Will the PM promise straightforwardness 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 concerned 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 honorific 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 with
intentional 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,
35
Bull and Wells
the aim was to develop a conceptual framework for analysing PMQs by identifying
specific techniques for posing and countering face-threatening questions in this context. Attention was also given to Harriss concept of mitigating techniques. As noted
above, MPs are expected to observe a questionresponse dialogue in PMQs, while
refraining 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 he
assure the House that), plus a final information-seeking or action-seeking summarising 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 the
PM. 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 (18
April 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 techniques 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
36
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 proceedings. It is intended to be substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies 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 questioning turns, techniques whereby the PM countered FTAs in his response turns, and
mitigating techniques. Transcripts were analysed by the first and second author independently, 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 techniques 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
37
Bull and Wells
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 the
Exchequer) 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 system 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 question, 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, opening
the 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 this
year 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, David
Cameron made this face-threat explicit, by specifically asking, Why did the government so comprehensively fail to act in response to that warning?
38
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 interviews, Harris (1986) pointed out that interviewers by no means confine themselves to
presuppositions that contain shared or given knowledge; they may indeed be highly
controversial or open to dispute. Similarly in PMQs, questions may be based on presuppositions that are in themselves highly face-threatening (Harris, 2001). A particularly 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, David
Cameron 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 nevertheless 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 response
is to equivocate. Thus, conflictual questions create pressures towards equivocation,
which in itself can also be face-damaging, because it makes the politician look evasive. 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 personal 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
39
Bull and Wells
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), Gordon
Brown 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 to
apologise 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 completing 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 presupposition: The use of the term just this once implied 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 government 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 release
scheme 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
regret does 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 PM
look 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
40
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 perform an FDR were also to create a CC, this would put pressure on the PM to perform
the 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 discipline. 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 a
difficulty 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 Secretary [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 Service (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?
41
Bull and Wells

The PM (Gordon Brown): Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because I have been listening 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 who
comes 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, following Gordon Browns appointment as PM (27 June, 2007), there was intense speculation that he would call a general election. Gordon Brown failed to rule out the
possibility of a general election until Saturday, 6 October, following a surge in Conservative 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 you
still 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 opposition. 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
42
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, we
would 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 amending 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, the
highest employment, the lowest unemployment for years and rising living standards. [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 the
Exchequer, Norman Lamont).
43
Bull and Wells
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; no
vision, 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 . . . you have lost your political authority,
and this week you are losing your moral authority), it would make the attack much
more personal, and might be regarded as beyond the bounds of acceptable parliamentary language. Certainly, he would be corrected for not addressing his remarks to the
Speaker. 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 actionfilm icon, Austrian American bodybuilder, and former governor of the state of California). In this way, Gordon Brown could imply that David Cameron has ridiculous
delusions 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 interview with David Cameron to ridicule him. Quotations are another technique used in
44
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 can
use 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 cancelling 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 voted
against a referendum on Maastricht. (The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 led to the creation 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 government. (Subsequently, William Hague was appointed Foreign Secretary by David Cameron 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 by
Brown 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
45
Bull and Wells
only are FTAs not avoided, face threats are also intentionally intensified. Indeed, systematic 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 face
and 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 politicians, 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, politicians 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 from
opposing 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 reported
here. 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 an
alarming 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 selfdeprecatory, in order to win public sympathy (Ashley, 2010). The conceptualisation
46
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 PM
but 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 investigate how the mitigating techniques (described in the Mitigating Techniques subsection) 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 important 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 distasteful, perhaps because it is such a blatant violation of the rules of cooperative/polite
communication described by Brown and Levinson (1978/1987). It may be that face
aggravation is systemic and unavoidable in PMQs, and that alternative forms of discourse 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 unparliamentary language. But from the analysis presented here, it can be seen how participants actively use those constraints and conventions to perform acts of face aggravation.
Whereas facework is typically conceptualised as form of politeness, this analysis shows
how 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
47
Bull and Wells
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 from
http://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: The
face 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 reference 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 from Psychiatry (1955) 18, 213-231)
48
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 in
internationally recognised academic journals; he has also written five books, as well as numerous 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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Language and Social Psychology-2012-Bull-30-48 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Language and Social

Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister's Questions

>> Version of Record - Feb 6, 2012

Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com at Jazan University on July 24, 2014