Cover not available

In:Political Discourse in Central, Eastern and Balkan Europe
Edited by Martina Berrocal and Aleksandra Salamurović
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 84] 2019
► pp. 147–178

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 7
Impoliteness in parliamentary questions

Published online: 23 July 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.84.07now
Abstract
This chapter aims to examine Polish parliamentary discourse by linking (im)politeness theory with approaches describing questions. To achieve this, a corpus from four Polish Question Times was created, analyzing the degree of impoliteness in all of the 336 questions contained within it. In order to minimize the uncertainty of interpretations concerning the politicians’ intentions, scholarly literature from political sciences on parliamentary questions was also applied. Overall, the quantitative analysis revealed a high occurrence of face threatening acts via questions, and a substantial difference according to the political orientation of the opposition. The use of impolite questions by the right-wing opposition far exceeds the use of similar questions by the left-wing opposition. The qualitative analysis shows the full range of impolite questions, from weakest to strongest. Even within the ruling coalition, MPs deal with face threatening questions attacking their “own” government. They mitigate the face threat by using, for example, indirect formulations or the conditional mood. Apart from that, MPs pose partisan questions which enhance the face of their party’s ministers and simultaneously damage the one of the opposition.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Parliamentary questions
    • 2.1The legislative perspective
    • 2.2From form to function
    • 2.3The use of questions – The benefit of the addressee
  • 3.The counterpart of politeness: Impoliteness
  • 4.Method and data the corpus
  • 5.Impolite questions
    • 5.1Motivated impolite questions
    • 5.2Avoiding impoliteness
    • 5.3Negative impolite questions
    • 5.4Positive impolite questions
      • 5.4.1Impoliteness in indirect questions
      • 5.4.2Impoliteness in direct questions
      • 5.4.3Indirect impoliteness in questions
  • 6.Summary
  • Notes
  • References
References (56)
References
Athanasiadou, Angeliki. 1991. “The Discourse Function of Questions.” Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 1 (1): 107–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Batko-Tokarz, Barbara. 2008. Perswazja w Dyskursie Sejmowym. [Persuasion in the Sejm Discourse]. Kraków: Scriptum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berrocal, Martina. 2014. “Political Front-Stage and Backstage in the Czech Parliament.” Zeitschrift Für Slawistik 59 (4): 584–598. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bevetori, Cinzia. 2004. “Negotiating Conflict: Interruptions in British and Italian Parliamentary Debates.” In Cross-Cultural Perspectives On Parliamentary Discourse, ed. by Paul Bayley, 87–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight LeMerton. 1957. Interrogative Structures of American English. The Direct Question. Alabama: The American Dialect Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram. 1981. “Conducive Yes-No Questions in English.” Linguistics 19(9–10): 851–870.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burkhardt, Armin. 2003. Das Parlament und Seine Sprache: Studien Zu Theorie und Geschichte Parlamentarischer Kommunikation. [The Parliament and its Language: Studies of Theory and History of Parliamentary Communication]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Zwischen Monolog und Dialog: Zur Theorie, Typologie und Geschichte des Zwischenrufs Im Deutschen Parlamentarismus. [Between Monologue and Dialogue. Theory, Typology, and History of Interjections in German Parliamentary Debates]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chester, Norman, and Nona Bowring. 1962. Questions in Parliament. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul A. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3): 349–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. “Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power (Chapter 2).” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher, 17–44. Berlin: 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
Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield, and Anne Wichmann. 2003. “Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics 35(10–11): 1545–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 2001. “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 12 (4): 451–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2002. “The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content.” Journal of Pragmatics, Negation and Disagreement, 34 (10): 1427–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
House of Commons Information Office. 2010. “Parliamentary Questions (Factsheet P1; Procedure Series).” [URL]
Ilie, Cornelia. 1994. What Else Can I Tell You? : A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. “Histrionic and Agonistic Features of Parliamentary Discourse.” Studies in Communication Sciences 3 (1): 25–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. “Insulting as (Un)Parliamentary Practice in the British and Swedish Parliaments.” In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, ed. by Paul Bayley, 45–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “Parliamentary Discourses.” In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, edited by Keith Brown, 2nd ed., 188–96. Oxford: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Managing Dissent and Interpersonal Relations in the Romanian Parliamentary Discourse.” In European Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse Strategies and Interaction Practices, ed. by Cornelia Ilie, 193–221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ionescu-Ruxandoiu, Liliana. 2010. “Straightforward vs. Mitigated Impoliteness in the Romanian Parliamentary Discourse. The Case of In Absentia Impoliteness.” Revue Roumaine de Linguistique LV (4): 343–351.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kancelaria Sejmu. 2017. “Regulamin Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej – Tekst Jednolity (The Sejm’s Authority).” [URL]
Kasper, Gabriele. 1990. “Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues.” Journal of Pragmatics, Special Issue on ‘Politeness’, 14 (2): 193–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kühn, Peter. 1995. Mehrfachadressierung: Untersuchungen Zur Adressatenspezifischen Polyvalenz Sprachlichen Handelns [Multiple Addressing: Analyses on Addressee Specific Polyvalence of Linguistic Action]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1989. “The Limits of Politeness: Therapeutic and Courtroom Discourse.” Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 8 (2–3): 101–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laskowska, Elżbieta. 2004. Dyskurs Parlamentarny w Ujęciu Komunikacyjnym [Parliamentary Discourse from the Communication Perspective]. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Akademii Bydgoskiej.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Majkowska, Aneta. 2012. Debata Sejmowa jako Gatunek Wypowiedzi [Sejm Parliamentary Deliberations as a Genre]. Opole: Wydawnictwo WCM.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Shane. 2012. “Parliamentary Questions, the Behaviour of Legislators, and the Function of Legislatures: An Introduction.” In The Roles and Function of Parliamentary Questions, ed. by Shane Martin and Olivier Rozenberg, 1–12. Hoboken: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Parliamentary Questions.” Comparative Assessments of Parliaments (CAP) Note, 1–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Shane, and Olivier Rozenberg, eds. 2012. The Roles and Function of Parliamentary Questions. Hoboken: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norton, Philip. 1993. “Introduction: Parliament since 1960.” In Parliamentary Questions, ed. by Philip Norton and Mark Franklin, 1–22. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norton, Philip, and Mark Franklin (eds). 1993a. Parliamentary Questions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993b. “Questions and Members.” In Parliamentary Questions, ed. by Philip Norton and Mark Franklin, 104–122. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nowak, Bartholomäus. 2016. “Posing Questions without Asking.” Zeitschrift Für Slawistik 61 (1): 57–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ornatowski, Cezar M. 2010. “Parliamentary Discourse and Political Transition: Polish Parliament after 1989.” In European Parliaments under Scrutiny: Discourse Strategies and Interaction Practices, ed. by Cornelia Ilie, 223–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. “Learning to Differ: Transforming Parliament through Argument and Debate in Poland Post–1989.” In Let’s Talk Politics: New Essays on Deliberative Rhetoric, ed. by Hilde van Belle, Kris Rutten, Paul Gillaerts, Dorien van de Mieroop, and Baldwin van Gorp, 185–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez de Ayala, Soledad. 2001. “FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting Needs? – Politeness in Question Time.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2): 143–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piazza, Roberta. 2002. “The Pragmatics of Conducive Questions in Academic Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 509–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Jonathan B. Slapin. 2011. “Parliamentary Questions and Oversight in the European Union.” European Journal of Political Research 50 (1): 53–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Jan Svartvik, Geoffrey Leech, and Sidney Greenbaum. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London, New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raunio, Tapio. 1996. “Parliamentary Questions in the European Parliament: Representation, Information and Control.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 2 (4): 356–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rozenberg, Olivier, Olivier Chopin, Catherine Hoeffler, Bastien Irondelle, and Jean Joana. 2011. “Not Only a Battleground: Parliamentary Oral Questions Concerning Defence Policies in Four Western Democracies.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (3): 340–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rozenberg, Olivier, and Shane Martin. 2011. “Questioning Parliamentary Questions.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (3): 394–404. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russo, Federico, and Matti Wiberg. 2010. “Parliamentary Questioning in 17 European Parliaments: Some Steps towards Comparison.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 16 (2): 215–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsui, Amy. 1992. “A Functional Description of Questions.” In Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, 89–110. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woodbury, Hanni. 1984. “The Strategic Use of Questions in Court.” Semiotica 48 (3–4): 197–228.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lastres-López, Cristina
2023. Morphosyntactic and pragmatic variation in conditional constructions in English and Spanish parliamentary discourse. In Exploring Language and Society with Big Data [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 111], ► pp. 308 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