1887
image of Discussion, dispute or controversy?
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

As parliamentary debates increasingly display rising levels of political conflict, the polarized and aggressive polemical exchanges in Prime Minister’s Questions are impacting the current agenda-setting and consequently public perceptions and assessments. To get a deeper understanding of the discourse strategies and argumentation practices used in the conflict-driven interaction between opposition MPs (particularly the Leader of the Opposition) and the Prime Minister, the present investigation has been carried out at macro- and micro-levels in an interdisciplinary perspective integrating Dascal’s ( ) typology of polemical exchanges and Ilie’s ( ) pragma-rhetorical approach. At the macro-level, the aim is to account for the context-specific functions of three main types of polemical exchanges, i.e. (focused on establishing the truth), (focused on winning the argument) and (focused on persuading the adversary/audience). At the micro-level, the aim is to examine the interplay and the extent to which the three polemical exchanges crisscross, overlap and/or complement each other through the use of three recurring metadiscourse strategies, i.e. and .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00047.ili
2020-10-29
2020-11-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amossy, Ruth
    2014Apologie de la Polémique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, coll. L’Interrogation Philosophique. 10.3917/puf.amos.2014.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.amos.2014.01 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arendholz, Jenny, Wolfram Bublitz, and Monika Kirner-Ludwig
    (eds.) 2015The Pragmatics of Quoting Now and Then. Berlin & Boston: Walter De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110427561
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110427561 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
    1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited byMichael Holquist. Translated byCaryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, Stephen R., Peter Kerr, Christopher Byrne, and Liam Stanley
    2012 “Questions to the Prime Minister: A Comparative Study of PMQs from Thatcher to Cameron.” Parliamentary Affairs67(2): 253–280. doi:  10.1093/pa/gss044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gss044 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bayley, Paul
    (ed.) 2004Cross-cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bevan, Shaun, and Peter John
    2016 “Policy Representation by Party Leaders and Followers: What Drives UK Prime Minister’s Questions?” Government and Opposition, 51(1): 59–83. doi:  10.1017/gov.2015.16
    https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2015.16 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bull, Peter and Pam Wells
    2012 “Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology31(1): 30–48. doi:  10.1177/0261927X11425034
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11425034 [Google Scholar]
  8. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    [2005] 2011Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Reprint, Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230501706
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706 [Google Scholar]
  9. Crosswhite, James
    1996Rhetoric of Reason: Writing and the Attractions of Argument. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dascal, Marcelo
    1998 “Types of Polemics and Types of Polemical Moves.” InDialoganalyse VI, vol. 1, edited bySvětla Čmejrková, Jana Hoffmannová, Olga Müllerová, and Jindra Světlá, 15–33. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2008 “Dichotomies and Types of Debate.” InControversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory, edited byFrans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 27–49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.6.03das
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.6.03das [Google Scholar]
  12. Fritz, Gerd
    2005 “On Answering Accusations in Controversies.” Studies in Communication Sciences5: 151–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goldsworthy, Jeffrey
    2001The Sovereignty of Parliament: History and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248087.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248087.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Govier, Trudy
    2010A Practical Study of Argument. 7th ed.Boston: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hammer, Olav, and Kocku von Stuckrad
    (eds.) 2007Polemical Encounters: Esoteric Discourse and Its Others. Leiden & Boston: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004162570.i‑326
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004162570.i-326 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hartwick, Jon, and Henri Barki
    2002 “Conceptualizing the Construct of Interpersonal Conflict.” Cahier du GReSI2(4): 3–17. doi:  10.1108/eb022913
    https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022913 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ihalainen, Pasi, Cornelia Ilie, and Kari Palonen
    (eds) 2016Parliament and Parliamentarism: A Comparative History of Disputes about a European Concept. Oxford and New York: Berghahn Books. 10.2307/j.ctvgs0b7n
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvgs0b7n [Google Scholar]
  18. Ilie, Cornelia
    2001 “Unparliamentary Language: Insults as Cognitive Forms of Confrontation.” InLanguage and Ideology, Vol. II: Descriptive Cognitive Approaches, edited byRené Dirven, Rosalyn Frank and Cornelia Ilie, 235–263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.205.14ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.205.14ili [Google Scholar]
  19. 2003a “Parenthetically Speaking: Parliamentary Parentheticals as Rhetorical Strategies.” InDialogue Analysis 2000: Selected Papers from the 10th IADA Anniversary Conference, edited byMarina Bondi and Sorin Stati, 253–264. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110933253.253
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110933253.253 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2003b “Histrionic and Agonistic Features of Parliamentary Discourse.” Studies in Communication Sciences3(1): 25–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2004 “Insulting as (Un)parliamentary Practice in the British and Swedish Parliaments: A Rhetorical Approach.” InCross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, edited byPaul Bayley, 45–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.10.02ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.02ili [Google Scholar]
  22. 2007 “British ‘Consensus’ versus Swedish ‘Samförstånd’ in Parliamentary Debates.” InThe Use of English in Institutional and Business Settings: An Intercultural Perspective, edited byGiuliana Garzone and Cornelia Ilie, 101–125. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2009a “Ideologically Biased Definitions as Institutionally Legitimating Arguments.” InPerspectives on Language Use and Pragmatics, edited byAlessandro Capone, 116–144. München: Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2009b “Argumentative Functions of Parentheticals in Parliamentary Debates.” InDiscourse and Politics, edited byGloria Álvarez-Benito; Gabriela Fernández-Díaz; and Isabel Íñigo-Mora, 61–79. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (ed.) 2010European Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse Strategies and Interaction Practices. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.38
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2015a “Metadiscursive Strategies in Dialogue: Legitimising Confrontational Rhetoric.” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, edited byAlessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey, 601–613. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2015b “Follow-ups as Multifunctional Questioning and Answering Strategies in Prime Minister’s Questions.” InThe Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-ups, edited byAnita Fetzer, Elda Weizman and Lawrence N. Berlin, 195–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.259.08ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259.08ili [Google Scholar]
  28. 2016 “Parliamentary Discourse and Deliberative Rhetoric.” InParliaments and Parliamentarism: A Comparative History of Disputes about a European Concept, edited byPasi Ihalainen, Cornelia Ilie, and Kari Palonen, 133–145. Oxford and New York: Berghahn Books. 10.2307/j.ctvgs0b7n.13
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvgs0b7n.13 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2018 “Pragmatics vs Rhetoric: Political Discourse at the Pragmatics-Rhetoric Interface.” InPragmatics and Its Interfaces, edited byCornelia Ilie and Neal Norrick, 85–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.294.05ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.294.05ili [Google Scholar]
  30. Jacquemet, Marco
    2005 “Verbal Conflict.” InEncyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, edited byAlex Barber, 400–406. London: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kelly, Richard
    2015Prime Minister’s Questions. London: House of Commons Library.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lovenduski, Joni
    2012 “Prime Minister’s Questions as Political Ritual.” British Politics7(4): 314–340. doi:  10.1057/bp.2012.13
    https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2012.13 [Google Scholar]
  33. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton
    2008 “The Argumentative Structure of Persuasive Definitions.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice11(5): 525–549. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1744718
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mazeland, Harrie
    2007 “Parenthetical Sequences.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 1816–1869. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mollin, Sandra
    2018 “The Use of Face-Threatening Acts in the Construction of In- and Out-Group Identities in British Parliamentary Debates.” InThe Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline: Personal – Group – Collective, edited byBirte Bös, Sonja Kleinke, Sandra Mollin and Nuria Hernández, 205–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.78.09mol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.78.09mol [Google Scholar]
  36. Palonen, Kari, José María Rosales, and Tapani Turkka
    (eds.) 2014The Politics of Dissensus: Parliament in Debate. Santander: Cantabria University Press and Madrid: McGraw-Hill Interamericana de España. 10.22429/Euc2016.005
    https://doi.org/10.22429/Euc2016.005 [Google Scholar]
  37. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rogers, Robert, and Rhodri Walters
    2006How Parliament Works. 6th ed.Oxford: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  40. Schiappa, Edward
    2003Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sère, Bénédicte
    2019Les Régimes de Polemicité au Moyen Âge. Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Skoog, Louise
    2019 “Political Conflicts: Dissent and Antagonism among Political Parties in Local Government”. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Gothenburg.
  43. Stevenson, Charles Leslie
    1938 “Persuasive Definitions.” Mind47: 331–350. 10.1093/mind/XLVII.187.331
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XLVII.187.331 [Google Scholar]
  44. 1944Ethics and Language. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Suerbaum, Almut, George Southcombe, and Benjamin Thompson
    (eds.) 2015Polemic: Language as Violence in Medieval and Early Modern Discourse. Farnham: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Waddle, Maurice, Peter Bull and Jan R. Böhnke
    2019 “He Is Just the Nowhere Man of British Politics”: Personal Attacks in Prime Minister’s Questions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology38(1): 61–84. 10.1177/0261927X18767472
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X18767472 [Google Scholar]
  47. Walton, Douglas
    2009Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Walton, Douglas, and Erik C. W. Krabbe
    1995Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany (NY): State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2010 “Wrenching from Context: The Manipulation of Commitments.” Argumentation24: 283–317. 10.1007/s10503‑009‑9157‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9157-8 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2011 “Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquotations.” Informal Logic31(1): 27–55. 10.22329/il.v31i1.657
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v31i1.657 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00047.ili
Loading
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