Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Impolite behaviour tends to attract more evaluative comment than other facework, making it easier to investigate synchronically and diachronically. A reliance on metapragmatic commentary is not optimum for UK parliamentary studies, however, as MPs cannot use “insulting or rude language” that breaks the chamber’s “rules of politeness” (www.parliament.uk). The work reported here thus offers three innovative methods of tracing MPs’ facework as they negotiated the “unparliamentary language” prohibition, and the results gleaned when the methods were applied to Hansard records (1812–2004). Method 1 prioritises portmanteau tags made up of USAS semtags. Method 2 prioritises themes derived from the HTOED. Method 3 draws on ‘meaning constellations’ (i.e. simultaneous searches of multiple tags). The UK parliamentary website highlights the “considerable ingenuity” displayed by MPs in order to circumvent their unparliamentary language prohibition. All methods have found examples of such ingenuity, many of which are characterized by multiple facework intentions ( Archer 2015 ).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Archer, D.
    (2014) Exploring verbal aggression in English historical texts using USAS: The possibilities, the problems and potential solutions. In I. Taavitsainen , A. H. Jucker & J. Tuominen (Eds.), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics, (pp.277–301). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.243.17arc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.243.17arc [Google Scholar]
  2. (2015) Slurs, insults, (backhanded) compliments and other strategic facework moves. Language Sciences52, 82–97. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2015.03.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baron, A. , & Rayson, P.
    (2008, May). VARD 2: A tool for dealing with spelling variation in historical corpora. Paper presented at thePostgraduate Conference in Corpus Linguistics, Birmingham, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baumeister, R. F.
    (1987) How the self became a problem: A psychological review of historical research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 163–76. doi: 10.1037/0022‑3514.52.1.163
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.163 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, P. , & Levinson, S. C.
    (1987) Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chilton, P.
    (2004) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cockcroft, R. , & Cockcroft, S.
    (2005) Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric (2nd. ed.). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Crewe, E.
    (2005) Lords of Parliament: Manners, Rituals and Politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Culpeper, J.
    (2011) Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  10. Culpeper, J. , & Demmen, J.
    (2011) Nineteenth-century English politeness: Negative politeness, conventional indirect requests and the rise of the individual self. In M. Bax & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), Understanding Historical (Im)politeness (pp.49–80). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0025‑9
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0025-9 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dunning, T.
    (1993) Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Eelen, G.
    (2001) A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome’s Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Farrelly, M. , & Seoane, E.
    (2012) Democratization. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of The History of English (pp.392–401). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fetzer, A. , & Bull, P.
    (2012) Doing leadership in political speech: Semantic processes and pragmatic inferences. Discourse & Society, 23(2), 127–144. doi: 10.1177/0957926511431510
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431510 [Google Scholar]
  15. Finch, E. , & Fafinski, S.
    (2015) Legal Skills. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/he/9780198718840.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198718840.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goffman, E.
    (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Harris, S.
    (2001) Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse & Society, 12(4), 451–472. doi: 10.1177/0957926501012004003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012004003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Johnson, A. , & Clifford, R.
    (2011) Polite incivility in defensive attack: Strategic politeness and impoliteness in cross-examination in the David Irving vs. Penguin Books Ltd and Deborah Lipstadt trial. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, 7(1), 43–71. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2011.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2011.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jones, E. E. , & Pittman, T. S.
    (1982) Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. M. Suls (Eds.), Psychological Perspectives of the Self (pp.231–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jucker, A. H.
    (2012) Changes in politeness cultures. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of The History of English (pp.422–433). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jucker, A. & Taavitsainen, I.
    (2000) Diachronic speech act analysis: Insults from flyting to flaming. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(1), 67–95. doi: 10.1075/jhp.1.1.07juc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.1.1.07juc [Google Scholar]
  23. Kopytko, R.
    (1995) Against rationalistic pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 475–91. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00004‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00004-X [Google Scholar]
  24. Leech, G. N. , Hundt, M. , Mair, C. , & Smith, N.
    (2009) Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511642210
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511642210 [Google Scholar]
  25. Levinson, S. C.
    (1992) Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp.66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Locher, M. , & Watts, R.
    (2008) Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In D. Bousfield & M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.77–100). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110208344
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344 [Google Scholar]
  27. May, E. , & Sweetman, J. F.
    (Eds.) (1989) Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (21st ed.) London: Butterworths.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Penman, R.
    (1990) Facework & politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1/2), 15–38. doi: 10.1177/0261927X9091002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X9091002 [Google Scholar]
  29. Rayson, P.
    (2008) Wmatrix: A Web-based Corpus Processing Environment [Computer software]. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Available atucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/(last accessedMay 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Reid, C.
    (2012) Imprison’d Wranglers: The Rhetorical Culture of the House of Commons 1760–1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199581092.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199581092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Smiles, S.
    (1859) Self-Help; with Illustrations of Character and Conduct. London: John Murray.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Trilling, L.
    (1967) Beyond Culture: Essays on Literature and Learning. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ward, J.
    (1980) The Hansard Chronicles. Toronto: Deneau and Greenberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Watts, R. J.
    (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  35. Wenger, E.
    (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803932
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932 [Google Scholar]
  36. Wierzbicka, A.
    (2006) Anglo scripts against “putting pressure” on other people and their linguistic manifestations. In C. Goddard (Ed.), Ethnopragmatics. Understanding Discourse in Cultural Context (pp.31–63). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110911114.31
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110911114.31 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): facework; Hansard; HTOED; meaning constellations; USAS
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error