Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-3770
  • E-ISSN: 2211-3789
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In June and July 2013, the UK House of Lords debated, and ultimately accepted, a Bill to legalise same-sex marriage. Following the model of Baker’s (2004) work on a set of earlier Lords debates relating to homosexuality, this study uses a corpus-based keywords analysis to assess the main lexical differences between those arguing in favour and those arguing against a change to the marriage laws. In so doing, it sheds light on the ways in which discourses relating to homosexuality are constructed and accessed by the Lords. In general, it is shown that supporters of reform take advantage of their hegemonic liberal position to construct a simple line of argument in contrast to the opponents, who are forced to use more subtle and elaborate lines of reasoning by the limited discursive space available to those espousing anti-LGBT sentiments.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Local Government Act
    Local Government Act 1988, Chapter 9. Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/9/contents
  2. Gender Recognition Act
    Gender Recognition Act 2004, Chapter 7. Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents
  3. Civil Partnership Act
    Civil Partnership Act 2004, Chapter 33. Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/contents
  4. Equality Act
    Equality Act 2006, Chapter 3. Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/3/contents
  5. Equality Act
    Equality Act 2010, Chapter 15. Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
  6. Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act
    Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013, Chapter 30. Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/contents/enacted/data.htm
  7. Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act
    Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, asp 5. Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/5/pdfs/asp_20140005_en.pdf
  8. Anthony, Laurence
    2011 AntConc (Version 3.2.4) [computer software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp
  9. Aston, Guy & Burnard, Lou
    1998The BNC Handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Austin, John L.
    1962How to Do Things With Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bachmann, Ingo
    2011 Civil partnership – “gay marriage in all but name”: A corpus-driven analysis of discourses of same-sex relationships in the UK Parliament. Corpora6(1): 77–105. doi: 10.3366/cor.2011.0005
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2011.0005 [Google Scholar]
  12. Baker, Paul
    2004 ‘Unnatural acts’: Discourses of homosexuality within the House of Lords debates on gay male law reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics8(1): 88–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2004.00252.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00252.x [Google Scholar]
  13. 2008Sexed Texts. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Barker, Chris
    2003Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed.London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Baunach, Dawn Michelle
    2011 Decomposing trends in attitudes toward gay marriage, 1988–2006. Social Science Quarterly92(2): 346–363. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑6237.2011.00772.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00772.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Bloor, Michael & Wood, Fiona
    2006Keywords in Qualitative Methods. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Burr, Vivien
    1995An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203299968
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203299968 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cameron, Deborah
    2001Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2003 Narrow Church?Critical Quarterly45(4): 109–112. doi: 10.1046/j.0011‑1562.2003.00540.x
    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0011-1562.2003.00540.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Davies, Mark
    2004BYU-BNC. corpus.byu.edu/bnc
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Eckert, Penelope & McConnell-Ginet, Sally
    1992 Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology21: 461–490. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333 [Google Scholar]
  22. Foucault, Michel
    1972 [1969]The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1979 [1976]The History of Sexuality: Volume 1. London: Allen Lane.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. InSyntax and Semantics: Volume 3, Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. House of Commons
    House of Commons 2013Making Laws. Guides to Parliament: People, Events and Places. London: Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons. www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/Making-Laws.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  26. House of Lords
    House of Lords 2011Role and Work. House of Lords Briefing. London: Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords. www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/lords-briefing-papers/15595HoLBriefing-work-role-function.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lave, Jean & Wenger, Etienne
    1991Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  28. Louw, Bill
    1993 Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. InText and Technology, Mona Baker , Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.64.11lou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.11lou [Google Scholar]
  29. Love, Robbie & Baker, Paul
    2015 The hate that dare not speak its name?Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict3(1): 57–86. doi: 10.1075/jlac.3.1.03lov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.3.1.03lov [Google Scholar]
  30. McConnell-Ginet, Sally
    2006 Why defining is seldom ‘just semantics’: Marriage and marriage . InDrawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn, Betty Birner & Gregory Ward (eds), 217–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.80.13mcc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.80.13mcc [Google Scholar]
  31. Mill, John Stuart
    1859On Liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Moscowitz, Leigh M.
    2010 Gay marriage in television news: Voice and visual representation in the same-sex marriage debate. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media54(1): 24–39. doi: 10.1080/08838150903550360
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150903550360 [Google Scholar]
  33. Peterson, David
    2011 Neoliberal homophobic discourse: Heteronormative human capital and the exclusion of queer citizens. Journal of Homosexuality58: 742–757. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2011.581918
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.581918 [Google Scholar]
  34. Potter, Jonathan
    1997 Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally-occurring talk. InQualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, David Silverman (ed), 144–160. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rogers, Robert & Walters, Rhodri
    2006How Parliament Works. 6th ed.Harlow: Pearson Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Scott, Mike
    1999WordSmith Tools Help Version 3.10.425. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Shell, Donald
    2007The House of Lords. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sinclair, John
    1991Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Stubbs, Michael
    2001Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sunderland, Jane
    2004Gendered Discourses. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230505582
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505582 [Google Scholar]
  42. Talbot, Mary
    2010Language and Gender: An Introduction. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Tatchell, Peter
    2009 Gordon’s sexual apartheid. The Guardian (guardian.co.uk). www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jul/02/gay-same-sex-marriage-gordon-brown (August 31, 2016)
    [Google Scholar]
  44. van der Bom, Isabelle , Coffey-Glover, Laura , Jones, Lucy , Mills, Sara & Paterson, Laura L.
    2015 Implicit homophobic argument structure: Equal-marriage discourse in The Moral Maze . Journal of Language and Sexuality4(1): 102–137. doi: 10.1075/jls.4.1.04mil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.4.1.04mil [Google Scholar]
  45. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
    2012Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus linguistics; discourse analysis; homosexuality; marriage; politics
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