Cover not available

Article published In: The Pragmatics of Ritual
Edited by Dániel Z. Kádár and Juliane House
[Pragmatics 30:1] 2020
► pp. 64–87

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

Calling Mr Speaker ‘Mr Speaker’

The strategic use of ritual references to the Speaker of the UK House of Commons

 | University of York
 | University of Augsburg
 | Dalian University of Foreign Languages | Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 22 November 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19020.bul
Abstract
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 outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1PMQs: A ritual practice
    • 1.2Mediated address in PMQs
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Discourse organisation
    • 4.2Conflictual situations
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (46)
References
Archer, Dawn. 2008. “Verbal Aggression and Impoliteness: Related Or Synonymous?” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by D. Bousfield and M. A. Locher, 181–207. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Affairs 67 (2): 253–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blair, Tony. 2010. A Journey. London: Hutchinson.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
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 Psychology 35 (2): 267–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. 6 February. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bull, Peter, and Pam Wells. 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
Collins, Randall. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 251: 349–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durkheim, Émile. 1912 [1954]. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans. by Carol Cosman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 1999. “Challenging the Unspoken: Exploiting The Ideology in and of Political Interviews.” In Language and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference. Vol. 11, ed. by J. Verschueren, 98–113. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. “Negotiating Validity Claims in Political Interviews.” Text 20 (4): 1–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Negotiating Rejections: A Socio-cultural Analysis.” Multilingua 21 (4): 399–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “‘Minister, we will see how the public judges you’. Media References in Political Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2): 180–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “‘Well if that had been true that would have been perfectly reasonable’: Appeals to Reasonableness in Political Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (8): 1342–1359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “Challenges in Contrast.” Languages in Contrast 9 (1): 73–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 & Society 29 (5): 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Peter Bull. 2019. “Quoting Ordinary People in Prime Minister’s Questions.” In The Construction of ‘Ordinariness’ across Media Genres, ed. by A. Fetzer and E. Weizman, 73–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gal, Susan. 1989. “Language and Political Economy.” Annual Review of Anthropology 181: 345–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. “Where the Action Is.” In Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour by Erving Goffman, 149–270. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1974. Frame Analysis. Boston, MA: North Eastern University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansard (House of Commons Daily Debates). Accessed at [URL]
Harris, Sandra. 2001. “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 121: 451–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoggart, Simon. 2011. “Prime Minister’s Questions – or an Unpleasant Football Match.” The Guardian, 14 December. Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons Information Office. 2010. Some Traditions and Customs of the House (Factsheet G7, General Series), accessed at [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2010. Strategic uses of parliamentary forms of address: The case of the UK Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag. Journal of Pragmatics 421: 885–911. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Jay. 2011. “Through the Liminal: A Comparative Analysis of Communitas and Rites of Passage in Sports Hazing and Initiations.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology 36 (3): 199–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. 2013. Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. “Heckling: A Mimetic-Interpersonal Perspective.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 2 (1): 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. 2017. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Juliane House. Forthcoming. “Ritual Frame Indicating Expressions across Cultures.”
Lees, Charles. 2015. The Saint in the Bear Pit: Reviewing Jeremy Corbyn’s First PMQs. The Conversation, 16 September. [URL]
May, Erskine T. 2004. Parliamentary Practice, 23rd ed. London: LexisNexis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roskell, John S., Linda Clark, and Carole Rawcliffe (eds.). 1993. The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1386–1421. Stroud: Alan Sutton Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siegel, Sidney, and N. John Castellan, Jr. 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Philip, Timothy L. Phillips, and Ryan D. King. 2010. Incivility: The Rude Stranger in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Pragmatics 1 (1): 73–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Staal, Fritz. 1979. The Meaninglessness of Ritual. Numen 26 (1): 2–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
The Guardian. 2017. “NHS at Breaking Point, According to British Medical Association.” 20 February.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
The Independent. 2017. “Did the Conservatives Really Cut the Police and Make Us Less Safe from Terror Attacks?” 5 June.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, Graham P. 2006. United Kingdom: The Prime Minister and Parliament. In Executive Leadership and Legislative Assemblies, ed. by N. D. J. Baldwin, 4–37. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, Victor. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Rituals. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Morality and Liminality. In Blazing the Trail: Way Marks in the Exploration of Symbols, ed. by V. Turner, 132–161. Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Psychology 38 (1): 61–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (17)

Cited by 17 other publications

Bull, Peter & Maurice Waddle
2023. Adversarial interaction in Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 11:2 ► pp. 623 ff. DOI logo
Georgalidou, Marianthi
2023. Greek Political Discourse, 2019–2022: Instrumentalizing Impoliteness and Aggression. In Political Debasement, ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Kirner-Ludwig, Monika
2023. Book review. Journal of Pragmatics 204 ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Reber, Elisabeth
2023. On the ritualization of commemorative practices: Paying tribute in British Prime Minister's Questions. Journal of Pragmatics 214 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Zainal Abidin, Najah, Veronica Lowe & Jariah Mohd Jan
2023. Evasion in Malaysian Parliamentary Question Time. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 31:3 ► pp. 1057 ff. DOI logo
Fetzer, Anita
2022. Doing things with discourse in the mediated political arena. Pragmatics and Society 13:5 ► pp. 769 ff. DOI logo
Fetzer, Anita
2022. ‘For (…) a leader like this Prime Minister to talk about morals and morality is a disgrace’: offensive action, uptake and moral implications in the context of parliamentary debates. Language & Communication 87 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Li, Shuo & Eric Rosales
2022. Digital Analysis of Non-material Cultural Heritage Under Network Information Technology. In Application of Intelligent Systems in Multi-modal Information Analytics [Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, 138], ► pp. 829 ff. DOI logo
House, Juliane & Dániel Z. Kádár
2021. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, DOI logo
House, Juliane & Dániel Z. Kádár
2022. Political Language in Contrast: An Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 188 ► pp. 132 ff. DOI logo
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Juliane House
2021. ‘Politeness Markers’ Revisited - A Contrastive Pragmatic Perspective. Journal of Politeness Research 17:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Juliane House
2022. Aggression and its (de)escalation in mediatised rites of aggression. Language & Communication 87 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Kádár, Dániel Z., Juliane House, Fengguang Liu & Yulong Song
2021. Admonishing. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 31:2 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Bull, Peter
2020. Meeting the media as a political psychologist. History & Philosophy of Psychology 21:1 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Kádár, Dániel Z., Fengguang Liu & Juliane House
2020. (Im)Politeness and Chinese political discourse – An introduction. Discourse, Context & Media 35 ► pp. 100384 ff. DOI logo
Kádár, Dániel Z., Fengguang Liu, Juliane House & Wenrui Shi
2020. Reporting ritual political advice in the Chinese state media: A study of the National People’s Congress. Discourse, Context & Media 35 ► pp. 100388 ff. DOI logo
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Sen Zhang
2019. Alignment, ‘politeness’ and implicitness in Chinese political discourse. Journal of Language and Politics 18:5 ► pp. 698 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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.

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