Cover not available

In:The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline: Personal - group - collective
Edited by Birte Bös, Sonja Kleinke, Sandra Mollin and Nuria Hernández
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 78] 2018
► pp. 205–226

Get fulltext
PDF logo with download linkDownload Chapter PDF

The use of face-threatening acts in the construction of in- and out-group identities in British parliamentary debates

 | University of Heidelberg, Germany
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 23 July 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.78.09mol
Abstract
Identity construction is group membership construction in that humans bring their individual selves into being by declaring and performing their belonging to in-groups which are constructed in contrast to out-groups, as suggested in Tajfel’s theory of social identity. In parliamentary discourse, the establishment and reinforcement of in- and out-group identities is particularly important, since parliamentary discourse represents an institutionalized arguing game of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ (between political parties). One decisive way in which these group identities are construed and maintained is through the use of face-threatening acts (FTAs), analyzed here in British House of Commons debates on health policy. A taxonomy of FTAs in this context is developed, allowing for an analysis of addressers and addressees, and close interpretation of examples leads to the conclusion that FTAs are used to denigrate the out-group and strengthen in-group identification at the same time.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: In- and out-group identity construction and face
  • 2.Face-threatening acts in parliamentary discourse: A review with a focus on identity construction
  • 3.Identity construction through FTAs in House of Commons health debates
    • 3.1Categories of face-threatening acts
    • 3.2Addressers and addressees of face-threatening acts in the data
    • 3.3The effect of FTAs on face and group identity construction
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (40)
References
Bates, S. R., Kerr, P., Byrne, C., & Stanley, L. (2014). Questions to the Prime Minister: A comparative study of PMQs from Thatcher to Cameron. Parliamentary Affairs, 67(2): 253–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1): 27–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blas Arroyo, J. L. (2003). ‘Perdóneme que se lo diga, pero vuelve usted a faltar a la verdad, señor González’: Form and function of politic verbal behaviour in face-to-face Spanish political debates. Discourse and Society, 14(4): 395–423. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. (2010). Researching impoliteness and rudeness: Issues and definition. In M. A. Locher, & S. L. Graham (Eds.), Interpersonal Pragmatics (pp. 101–134). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5): 585–614. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bull, P., & Fetzer, A. (2010). Face, facework and political discourse. International Review of Social Psychology, 23(2/3): 155–185.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bull, P., & Wells, P. (2012). Adversarial discourse in Prime Minister’s questions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(1): 30–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burkhardt, A. (2003). Das Parlament und seine Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christie, C. (2002). Politeness and the linguistic construction of gender in parliament: An analysis of transgressions and apology behaviour. Working Papers on the Web, 3 (no pagination).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In D. Bousfield, & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp. 17–44). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García-Pastor, M. D. (2008). Political campaign debates as zero-sum games: Impoliteness and power in candidates’ exchanges. In D. Bousfield, & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp. 101–123). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1967). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour (pp. 5–45). Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grainger, K. (2011). ‘First order’ and ‘second order’ politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. In L. P. R. Group (Ed.), Discursive Approaches to Politeness (pp. 167–188). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society, 12(4): 451–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A. (2002). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3): 184–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddy, L. (2013). From group identity to political cohesion and commitment. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ilie, C. (2001). Unparliamentary language: Insults as cognitive forms of ideological confrontation. In R. Dirven, R. Frank, & C. Ilie (Eds.), Language and Ideology, Vol. 2, Descriptive Cognitive Approaches (pp. 235–263). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Insulting as (un)parliamentary practice in the British and Swedish parliaments: A rhetorical approach. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse (pp. 45–86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Identity co-construction in parliamentary discourse practices. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European Parliaments Under Scrutiny (pp. 57–78). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leach, R., Coxall, B., & Robins, L. (2006). British Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, M., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1): 9–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luginbühl, M. (2007). Conversational violence in political TV debates: Forms and functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(8): 1371–1387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKay, W. (Ed.) (2004). Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (23rd ed.). London: LexisNexis UK.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, P. G., & Ebeling, K. (2000). Britisches Unterhaus und deutscher Bundestag: Einige pragmalinguistische Beobachtungen. In A. Burkhardt, & K. Pape (Eds.), Sprache des Deutschen Parlamantarismus: Studien zu 150 Jahren Parlamentarischer Kommunikation (pp. 388–404). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mollin, S. (2007). The Hansard hazard: Gauging the accuracy of British parliamentary transcripts. Corpora, 2(2): 187–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez de Ayala, S. (2001). FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting needs? – Politeness in question time. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2): 143–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaw, S. (2000). Language, gender and floor apportionment in political debates. Discourse and Society, 11(3): 401–418. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (2010). Linguistic politeness: Laying the foundations. In M. A. Locher, & S. L. Graham (Eds.), Interpersonal Pragmatics (pp. 17–41). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4): 639–656. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stopfner, M. (2013). Streitkultur im Parlament: Linguistische Analyse der Zwischenrufe im Österreichischen Nationalrat. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2): 65–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. G. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (2011). Negative politeness forms and impoliteness functions in institutional discourse: A corpus-assisted approach. In B. L. Davies, M. Haugh, & A. J. Merrison (Eds.), Situated Politeness (pp. 209–231). London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, J. G., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations: Theories, themes and controversies. In R. Brown, & S. Gaertner (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes (pp. 133–152). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Røed, Maiken, Hanna Bäck & Royce Carroll
2025. Who polarizes parliament? Partisan hostility in Norwegian legislative debates. Party Politics 31:1 ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Breeze, Ruth
2022. Performing right-wing political identities on reader comments pages. Pragmatics and Society 13:1 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Kagan, Maria & Olga Solopova
2022. ‘Ideal Future’ in World War II Media Discourse: Corpus-Based Research of British, American, and French Digitalized Historical Newspapers. In Science and Global Challenges of the 21st Century - Science and Technology [Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 342], ► pp. 881 ff. DOI logo
Ilie, Cornelia
2021. Discussion, dispute or controversy?. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 9:2 ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
Musolff, Andreas
2018. Nations as persons. In The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 78], ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue