Article published In: Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 7:1 (2008) ► pp.97–118
Discourse structure and political performance in adversarial parliamentary questioning
Published online: 26 May 2008
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.7.1.05smi
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.7.1.05smi
One of the most high-profile and glamorous speech situations to occur in many parliamentary democracies around the world is the spectacle of Question Time. Whereas most of what goes on in parliament may be drab, perfunctory and arcane, Question Time is often dramatic, adversarial, and highly publicised. It is, generally, the only parliamentary procedure to be televised and stands out in the public mind as one of the primary tests of a politicians ability to perform. But how might this performance be judged? Strangely, there has been little systematic linguistic research into the characteristic ways in which this political theatre is stage-managed by its actors. Using the Australian federal parliament as a case study, this paper attempts to elucidate some of the patterns that emerge from a close analysis of all opposition questions directed to government members over a weeks sitting of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Utilising the tools of systemic functional grammar, recurring discourse structures are identified as standard techniques of formal interrogation between political parties.
References (37)
Antaki, Charles, & Leudar, Ivan. 2001. Recruiting the record: Using opponents’ exact words in parliamentary argumentation. Text 21(4), 467—488.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). 2003. Enough Rope, with Andrew Denton. Interview with Helen Thomas broadcast on August 8, 2003; transcript accessed on August 9, 2003, at http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/enoughrope/stories/s941661.htm
Bayley, Paul. 2004. The whys and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse. In: Paul Bayley (Ed.). Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1—44.
. (Ed.). 2004. Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bevitori, Cinzia. 2004. Negotiating conflict: Interruptions in British and Italian parliamentary debates. In: Paul Bayley (Ed.). Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 87—109.
Carbó, Teresa. 1992. Towards an interpretation of interruptions in Mexican parliamentary discourse (1920—60). Discourse and Society 3(1), 25—45.
Clayman, Steven. E. 1993. Reformulating the question: A device for answering/not answering questions in news interviews and press conferences. Text 13(2), 159—188.
Clayman, Steven. E., & Heritage, John. 2002. Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication 52(4), 749—775.
Department of the House of Representatives. 2001. House of Representatives: Standing Orders. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Ekström, Mats. 2001. Politicians interviewed on television news. Discourse and Society 12(5), 563—584.
Halliday, Michael A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Arnold.
. 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. In: David J. Allerton, Edward Carney, & David Holdcroft (eds). Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57—79.
Halliday, Michael A.K. & Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1999. Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London and New York: Cassell.
Harris, Sandra. 1986. Interviewers’ questions in broadcast interviews. In: John Wilson and Bryan Crow (eds). Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics — Vol. 8. Jordanstown: University of Ulster, 50—85.
. 2001. Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society 12(4), 451—472.
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1985a. The structure of a text. In: Michael A.K. Halliday & Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University, 52—69.
. 1985b. The identity of the text. In:Michael A.K. Halliday & Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press, 97—116.
. 1996. The nursery tale as a genre. In: Carmel Cloran, David Butt & Geoff Williams (eds). Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning. London: Cassell, 51—72.
Heritage, John. 2002a. Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interview. In: Phillip Glenn, Curtis LeBaron, & Jenny Mandelbaum (eds). Studies in Language and Social Interaction. New York: Erlbaum, 57—90.
. 2002b. The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 341, 1427—1446.
Jucker, Andreas H. 1986. News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Martin, James R., Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M., & Painter, Clare. 1997. Working with Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 1993. Register in the round: Diversity in a unified theory of register analysis. In: Mohsen Ghadessy (Ed.). Register Analysis — Theory and Practice. London: Pinter: 221—292.
. 1995. Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.
Norton, Philip. 1993. Questions and the role of parliament. In: Mark Franklin and Philip Norton (eds). Parliamentary Questions. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 194—207.
Parliament of Australia Website. www.aph.gov.au Accessed on 29 November, 2002. Last reviewed 20 October, 2006.
Senate Table Office. 2000. The Senate: Standing Orders and Other Orders of the Senate. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
van Dijk, Teun A. 2000. Parliamentary debates. In: Ruth Wodak & Teun A. van Dijk (eds). Racism at the Top: Parliamentary Discourse on Ethnic Issues in Six European States. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag, 45—78.
. 2003. Knowledge in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics 2(1), 93—129.
. 2004. Text and context of parliamentary debates. In: Paul Bayley (Ed.). Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 339—372.
Cited by (20)
Cited by 20 other publications
Hames, Sam, Michael Haugh & Simon Musgrave
Akhib, Mohammed & Sky Marsen
Kostovicova, Denisa
Boswell, Owuor, Ngugi Beth & Kanyi Charles
Comstock, Lindy
2023. Journalistic practice in the international press corps. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 11:2 ► pp. 145 ff.
De Shalit, Ann, Katrin Roots & Emily van der Meulen
Albalat-Mascarell, Ana & María Luisa Carrió-Pastor
2022. Marcadores de implicación en los discursos de campaña para las elecciones generales de 2016 en España. Spanish in Context 19:3 ► pp. 537 ff.
Blas Arroyo, José Luis
2022. Constraint factors in the formulation of questions in conflictual discourse. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 187 ff.
Corbara, Silvia, Berta Chulvi, Paolo Rosso & Alejandro Moreo
Mah, Catherine L., Bruce Knox, Meghan Lynch & Lynn McIntyre
Tanaka, Lidia
2021. Japanese politicians’ questions in parliament. In Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 323], ► pp. 71 ff.
Shaw, Sylvia
2018. Off the record. In Doing Politics [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 80], ► pp. 105 ff.
McIntyre, Lynn, Patrick B. Patterson, Laura C. Anderson & Catherine L. Mah
Patterson, Patrick B., Lynn McIntyre, Laura C. Anderson & Catherine L. Mah
Loginova, Irina
Lukin, Annabelle
Keremidchieva, Zornitsa
2014. The U.S.Congressional Recordas a technology of representation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 3:1 ► pp. 57 ff.
Vuković, Milica
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 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.
