Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the UK House of Commons is a ritual event, governed by a cluster of conventions. Members of Parliament (MPs) must address their remarks to the Prime Minister (PM) through the medium of the Speaker of the House, who is responsible for maintaining order during debates, and determining which MP may speak next. Due to the sacred role of the Speaker and the prevalence of conventionalised conflict avoidance between the PM and those who ask challenging questions, PMQs resembles archaic tribal councils, in which rights and obligations prevail. Yet, the importance of conventionalised indirectness and the sacred role of the Speaker do not correlate with a lack of face-threats and challenges. PMQs represents an aggressive ritual setting in which the ritual roles and rules only offer a façade to package aggression, and indeed may operate as interactional resources whereby participants can even increase the efficiency of their verbal attacks. Thus, PMQs embodies a scene that ritual experts define as ‘anti-structural’ in character: in this setting, the normative expectation in daily life to avoid conflict is temporarily suspended, to such an extent that conflict has become the ritual norm and is regarded as quintessential to this parliamentary institution.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Archer, Dawn
    2008 “Verbal Aggression and Impoliteness: Related Or Synonymous?” InImpoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. byD. Bousfield and M. A. Locher, 181–207. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates, Stephen R., Peter Kerr, Christopher Byrne, and Liam Stanley
    2014 “Questions to the Prime Minister: A Comparative Study of PMQs from Thatcher to Cameron.” Parliamentary Affairs67 (2): 253–280. 10.1093/pa/gss044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gss044 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blair, Tony
    2010A Journey. London: Hutchinson.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bull, Peter, Judy Elliott, Derrol Palmer, and Libby Walker
    1996 “Why Politicians Are Three-Faced: The Face Model of Political Interviews.” British Journal of Social Psychology35 (2): 267–284. 10.1111/j.2044‑8309.1996.tb01097.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01097.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Bull, Peter, and Will Strawson
    2019 “Can’t Answer? Won’t Answer? An Analysis of Equivocal Responses by Theresa May in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Parliamentary Affairs. 6February. doi:  10.1093/pa/gsz003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsz003 [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. 10.1177/0261927X11425034
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11425034 [Google Scholar]
  8. Collins, Randall
    2004Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400851744
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400851744 [Google Scholar]
  9. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics25: 349–367. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Durkheim, Émile
    1912 [1954]The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans. byCarol Cosman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fetzer, Anita
    1999 “Challenging the Unspoken: Exploiting The Ideology in and of Political Interviews.” InLanguage and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference. Vol.1, ed. byJ. Verschueren, 98–113. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2000 “Negotiating Validity Claims in Political Interviews.” Text20 (4): 1–46. 10.1515/text.1.2000.20.4.415
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.4.415 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2002 “Negotiating Rejections: A Socio-cultural Analysis.” Multilingua21 (4): 399–422. 10.1515/mult.2002.017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2002.017 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2006 “‘Minister, we will see how the public judges you’. Media References in Political Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics38 (2): 180–195. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2007 “‘Well if that had been true that would have been perfectly reasonable’: Appeals to Reasonableness in Political Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics39 (8): 1342–1359. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2009 “Challenges in Contrast.” Languages in Contrast9 (1): 73–97. 10.1075/lic.9.1.05fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.9.1.05fet [Google Scholar]
  17. Fetzer, Anita, and Elda Weizman
    2018 “‘What I would say to John and everyone like John is …’: The Construction of Ordinariness through Quotations in Mediated Political Discourse. Discourse & Society29 (5): 1–19. 10.1177/0957926518770259
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518770259 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fetzer, Anita, and Peter Bull
    2019 “Quoting Ordinary People in Prime Minister’s Questions.” InThe Construction of ‘Ordinariness’ across Media Genres, ed. byA. Fetzer and E. Weizman, 73–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.307.04ani
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.307.04ani [Google Scholar]
  19. Gal, Susan
    1989 “Language and Political Economy.” Annual Review of Anthropology18: 345–367. 10.1146/annurev.an.18.100189.002021
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.18.100189.002021 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goffman, Erving
    1967 “Where the Action Is.” InInteraction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour by Erving Goffman, 149–270. Chicago: Aldine.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1974Frame Analysis. Boston, MA: North Eastern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hansard (House of Commons Daily Debates)
    Hansard (House of Commons Daily Debates). Accessed atwww.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm
  23. Harris, Sandra
    2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society12: 451–472. 10.1177/0957926501012004003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012004003 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hoggart, Simon
    2011 “Prime Minister’s Questions – or an Unpleasant Football Match.” The Guardian, 14December. Retrieved fromwww.theguardian.com/politics/2011/dec/14/prime-ministers-questions-football-match
    [Google Scholar]
  25. House of Commons Information Office
    House of Commons Information Office 2010Some Traditions and Customs of the House (Factsheet G7, General Series), accessed atwww.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/g07.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ilie, Cornelia
    2010 Strategic uses of parliamentary forms of address: The case of the UK Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag. Journal of Pragmatics42: 885–911. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.017 [Google Scholar]
  27. Johnson, Jay
    2011 “Through the Liminal: A Comparative Analysis of Communitas and Rites of Passage in Sports Hazing and Initiations.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology36 (3): 199–227. 10.29173/cjs8650
    https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs8650 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kádár, Dániel Z.
    2013Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230393059
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230393059 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2014 “Heckling: A Mimetic-Interpersonal Perspective.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict2 (1): 1–35. 10.1075/jlac.2.1.01kad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.2.1.01kad [Google Scholar]
  30. Kádár, Dániel Z.
    2017Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781107280465
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107280465 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kádár, Dániel Z., and Juliane House
    . Forthcoming. “Ritual Frame Indicating Expressions across Cultures.”
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kádár, Dániel Z., and Sen Zhang
    2019 Intersubjectivity and implicitness in Chinese political discourses: A Case-Study of the 2018 Vaccine Scandal. Journal of Language and Politics18 (5). 10.1075/jlp.18053.kad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18053.kad [Google Scholar]
  33. Lees, Charles
    2015 The Saint in the Bear Pit: Reviewing Jeremy Corbyn’s First PMQs. The Conversation, 16September. theconversation.com/the-saint-in-the-bear-pit-reviewing-jeremy-corbyns-first-pmqs-47510
    [Google Scholar]
  34. May, Erskine T.
    2004Parliamentary Practice, 23rd ed.London: LexisNexis.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Murphy, James
    2014 (Im)politeness during Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK Parliament. Pragmatics and Society5: 76–104. 10.1075/ps.5.1.04mur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.5.1.04mur [Google Scholar]
  36. Roskell, John S., Linda Clark, and Carole Rawcliffe
    (eds.) 1993The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1386–1421. Stroud: Alan Sutton Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Siegel, Sidney, and N. John Castellan, Jr.
    1988Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed.Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Smith, Philip, Timothy L. Phillips, and Ryan D. King
    2010Incivility: The Rude Stranger in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511781803
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781803 [Google Scholar]
  39. Spencer-Oatey, Helen, and Dániel Z. Kádár
    2016 The Bases of (Im)politeness Evaluations: Culture, the Moral Order and the East-West Debate. East Asian Pragmatics1 (1): 73–106. 10.1558/eap.v1i1.29084
    https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.v1i1.29084 [Google Scholar]
  40. Staal, Fritz
    1979 The Meaninglessness of Ritual. Numen26 (1): 2–22. 10.1163/156852779X00244
    https://doi.org/10.1163/156852779X00244 [Google Scholar]
  41. The Guardian
    The Guardian 2017 “NHS at Breaking Point, According to British Medical Association.” 20February.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. The Independent
    The Independent 2017 “Did the Conservatives Really Cut the Police and Make Us Less Safe from Terror Attacks?” 5June.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Thomas, Graham P.
    2006 United Kingdom: The Prime Minister and Parliament. InExecutive Leadership and Legislative Assemblies, ed. byN. D. J. Baldwin, 4–37. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Turner, Victor
    1967The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Rituals. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 1992 Morality and Liminality. InBlazing the Trail: Way Marks in the Exploration of Symbols, ed. byV. Turner, 132–161. Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press.
    [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): 61–85. 10.1177/0261927X18767472
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X18767472 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media 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