1887
Volume 14 Number 6
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper investigates the effect of an upcoming election on disorderly behaviour in two Houses of Representatives: that of the Australian Federal Parliament and that of the New Zealand Parliament. Two hypotheses are tested. The first hypothesis is that, notwithstanding their common origins in the Westminster parliamentary tradition, there are significant genrelectal differences in the way the two Houses respond to the impending election. The second hypothesis is that both will respond by becoming increasingly disorderly. The locus for measuring disorderly conduct is taken from the Wednesday parliamentary Question Time for the year 2007 in the case of Australia and 2008 in the case of New Zealand. All instances of disorderly conduct were tracked and a month-by-month measure was made of each kind of disorder as indicated by Standing Orders. All responses of the Speaker to disorder were also logged. The research shows that both hypotheses are corroborated.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.14.6.04log
2015-12-30
2019-08-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. [Google Scholar]
  2. 2010Standing and Sessional Orders. Australian Federal House of Representatives. Retrieved from: www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/standos/sosfeb2003.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin, John Langshaw
    1975How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bayley, Paul
    2004 “Introduction: The Ways and Wherefores of Analysing Parliamentary ­Discourse.” InCross-cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, ed. by Paul Bayley , 1–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.10.01bay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.01bay [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergmann, Jörg R. , and Thomas Luckmann
    1995 “Drama and Narration.” InAspects of Oral Communication, ed. by Uta Quasthoff , 289–304. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bloch, Maurice
    (ed.) 1975Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society. London: ­Academic Press Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Briggs, Charles L
    (ed.) 1996Narrative Resources for the Creation and Mediation of Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Butler, David
    1974The Canberra Model: Essays on Australian Government. London: MacMillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chambers, Jack K
    1993 “Sociolinguistic Dialectology.” InAmerican Dialect Research, ed. by Dennis R. Preston , 133–164. Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.68.07cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.68.07cha [Google Scholar]
  10. Cheshire, Jenny
    2002 “Sex and Gender in Variationist Research.” InThe Handbook of Language Variation and Change, ed. by J. K. Chambers , Peter Trudgill , and Natalie Schilling-Estes , 423–443. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. De Ayala, Soledad Perez
    2001 “FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting Needs? – Politeness in Question Time.” Journal of Pragmatics33: 143–169. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00002‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00002-3 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fenton-Smith, Ben
    2008 “Discourse Structure and Political Performance in Adversarial Parliamentary Questioning.” Journal of Language and Politics7 (1): 98–120. doi: 10.1075/jlp.7.1.05smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.7.1.05smi [Google Scholar]
  13. Goffman, Erving
    1980The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. England: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Harris, Sandra
    2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society12 (4): 451–472. doi: 10.1177/0957926501012004003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012004003 [Google Scholar]
  15. Holmes, Janet
    1995Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hymes, Dell
    1973 “Speech and Language: On the Origins and Foundations of Inequality among Speakers.” Daedalus. Language as a Human Problem102 (3): 59–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 1974Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jackson, Keith
    1987The Dilemma of Parliament. Wellington: Allen & Unwin New Zealand Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kaiser, André
    2008 “Parliamentary Opposition in Westminster Democracies: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.” The Journal of Legislative Studies14 (1/2): 20–45. doi: 10.1080/13572330801920887
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13572330801920887 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kitson, Jill
    2007 “Tony Smith of Sydney University’s Department of Government”. www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/s28631.htm. Retrieved15.04.2010.
  21. Lave, Jean , and Etienne Wenger
    1991Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  22. Little, Miles , Christopher F. C. Jordens , and Emma-Jane Sayers
    2003 “Discourse Communities and the Discourse of Experience.” Health (London)7 (1): 73–86. doi: 10.1177/1363459303007001619
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459303007001619 [Google Scholar]
  23. McAllister, Patrick A
    2006Xhosa Beer Drinking Rituals: Power, Practice, and Performance in the South African Rural Periphery. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2012National Days and the Politics of Indigenous and Local Identities in Australia and New Zealand. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. McGee, David G
    2005Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand. Wellington: Dunmore Publishing Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Moore, Sally F. , and Barbara Myerhoff
    1977 “Secular Ritual: Forms and Meanings.” InSecular Ritual, ed. by Sally F. Moore and Barbara Myerhoff , 3–24. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum, Assen.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Paré, Anthony , and Graham Smart
    1994 “Observing Genres in Action: Towards a Research Methodology.” InGenre and the New Rhetoric, ed. by Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway , 146–154. London: Taylor and Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Rasiah, Parameshwary
    2007Evasion in Australia’a Parliamentary Question Time: The Case of the Iraq War. Perth: Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Saville-Troike, Muriel
    1989The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. Worcester: Billing and Son Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Schechner, Richard
    1977Essays on Performance Theory, 1970–1976. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203426630
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203426630 [Google Scholar]
  31. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1984 “Jewish Argument as Sociability.” Language in Society13 (3): 311–335. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500010526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010526 [Google Scholar]
  32. Searle, John R
    1969Speech Acts – An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  33. 1975 “A Taxonomy of Illocutionay Acts.” InLanguage, Mind, and Knowledge, ed. by Keith Günderson , 344–369. Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Archive Editors.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1979Indirect Speech Acts, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  35. Solomon, David
    1986The People’s Palace: Parliament in Modern Australia. Melbourne: ­Melbourne University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Swales, John M
    1990Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Turner, Victor , and Richard Schechner
    1986 “Images and Reflections: Ritual, Drama, Carnival, Film, and Spectacle in Cultural Performance.” InThe Anthropology of Performance. New York: PAJ Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Wenger, Etienne
    1998Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803932
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wenger, Etienne , Richard McDermott , and William M. Snyder
    2002Cultivating Communities of Practice: a Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Young, Sally
    2007 “Political and Parliamentary Speech in Australia.” Parliamentary Affairs60 (2): 234–225. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsm004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsm004 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.14.6.04log
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): discourse community , disorder , elections , genrelect , Parliament , Question Time and unparliamentary language
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