PARLIAMENTARY DISCOURSES

Cornelia Ilie
cornelia.ilie@hum.oru.se

Ilie, Cornelia. !!". Parliamen#ar$ Discourses. In %ei#h &ro'n (e).* Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics n) E)i#ion, +ol. ,, -../-,0. O12or)3 Else4ier.

In#ro)uc#ion

In many countries parliamentary proceedings are broadcast nowadays on radio and television, as
well as reported in the press and in specialised publications. However, in spite of the growing
visibility of parliamentary institutions, the scholarly interest for the study of parliamentary
discourse has been rather low until recently. There is one notable exception, though: one
parliament that has drawn considerable attention and continues to be much explored is the U.K.
arliament. This interest may be accounted for by its being probably the oldest institution of its
!ind which has also managed to maintain a great deal of its institutional and discursive rituals.
This retention is also the reason why this brief survey of parliamentary discourse is concerned to
a large extent with the characteristic features and functions of "ritish parliamentary discourse.

#ver since the latter half of the $%th century parliamentary discourse and parliamentary rhetoric
have gradually become the ob&ect of scholarly research in the fields of political sciences and
sociology '(il! and )alters *+,-, .organ and Tame *++/, 0lson and 1orton *++/, 2opeland
and atterson *++-3, but only very recently have they become a truly interdisciplinary concern
through the involvement of linguistic scholarship '2arb4 *++$, (lembrouc! *++$, "iryu!ov et al
*++5, Ilie $%%%, $%%*, $%%6a, $%%6b, $%%6c, $%%6d, $%%7, $%%5, ter )al $%%%a, 8an der 8al!
$%%%a, $%%%b, 8an 9i&! $%%%a, $%%7, )oda! and 8an 9i&! $%%%, :re; de <yala $%%*, )ilson
and (tapleton $%%6, "ayley $%%73. )hereas the research rooted in social and political sciences
focuses primarily on the explanation of facts and interpretation of issues, political events and
socio=political processes, linguistic research has benefited from the cross=fertilisation with the
above=mentioned disciplines in its exploration of the shifting and multi=leveled institutionalised
use of language, the communicative interaction of institutional agents, the interplay between
parliamentary dialogue and the thin!ing processes of its participants, the interdependence
between language=shaped facts and reality=prompted language ritualisation and change.

Parliamen#ar$ s$s#ems

It may be useful to recall that the word parliament is derived from the the 0ld >rench parlement,
originally from parler, i.e. to spea!. "y metonymic transfer, the term has come to refer to an
institution specialised in a particular !ind of tal!, and even to the building that hosts such an
institution. 1owadays the term parliament is used as the generic term for a legislative assembly
in certain countries, i.e. a governmental deliberative body made up of representatives of a nation
or people with the authority to adopt laws. There are legislative assemblies !nown by other
names, such as congress, diet and national assembly.

.ost legislatures are either unicameral or bicameral. < unicameral legislature is the simplest
!ind of law=ma!ing body and has only one house. < bicameral legislature has two separate
chambers, an upper and a lower house. In most parliamentary systems, the lower house is more
powerful, while the upper house is merely a chamber of advice or review. In presidential
systems, however, the powers of the two houses are often similar or e?ual. In federations it is
typical for the upper house to represent the component states.

arliamentarism is often praised, as compared to presidentialism, for its flexibility and
responsiveness to the public. It is criticised, though, for its tendency to sometimes lead to
unstable governments, as in the @erman )eimar Aepublic, the >rench >ourth Aepublic, Italy,
and Israel. arliamentarism became increasingly prevalent in #urope in the years after )orld
)ar I, partly imposed by the democratic victors, >rance and #ngland, on the defeated countries
and their successors, notably @ermanyBs )eimar Aepubli! and the new <ustrian Aepublic.
(everal nations that are considered parliamentary actually have presidents who are elected
separately from the legislature and who have certain real powers. #xamples of this type of
governance are Ireland and <ustria.

>or historical and political reasons, the most geographically widespread parliamentary system is
the Westminster system, named after )estminster alace, the meeting place of "ritainBs
parliament. The )estminster system is used in "ritain and in many nations of the
2ommonwealth countries, such as 2anada, <ustralia, .alaysia, (ingapore, Camaica, 1ew
Dealand and India, and in non=2ommonwealth states li!e Ireland. There are parliamentary
governments, such as @ermany and Italy, whose legislative procedures differ considerably from
the )estminster system.

0ne ma&or difference between the )estminster system and the types of parliamentarism used in
the rest of #urope and in non=2ommonwealth monarchies outside of #urope is the voting
system. .ost )estminister systems use a !ind of voting system, as mentioned above, !nown as
Efirst past the post.E In this system, each district elects one representative and that representative
can be elected with a plurality. <ll the other #uropean parliamentary systems use some !ind of
proportional representation, usually the list system. >irst past the post favors a two=party system,
whereas proportional representation favors a multi=party system.

The 5es#mins#er 6arliamen#ar$ s$s#em

The first #nglish arliament was formed during the reign of King Henry III in the *6th century.
The emergence of arliament in #ngland during the .iddle <ges was not an isolated
phenomenon. Throughout #urope from the *$th to the *7th centuries, similar bodies were
regularly summoned in other communities too, as the notion of a community of each realm
began to replace the feudal ties that bound individuals only to their lord.

In the .iddle <ges, especially from the *6th century on, arliament used to be called together
by the !ing as a reaction to pending problems. The Tudor, and especially the #li;abethan,
parliamentary standardisation started with a formal record of the 2ommonsB proceedings in the
Cournal, which was !ept from *57-, and with a group of manuals of parliamentary procedure and
privileges.

"y the end of the *,th century the publication of parliamentary debates and regular press
reporting became common practice. <s a result, parliamentarians were becoming more aware of
the changing status and responsibility of parliamentary discourse and the necessity of shaping
extra=parliamentary opinion.

In the *+th century, when the "ritish arliament resembled a EFondon clubE, the membersB
capacity to scrutinise and influence the government in office was relatively limited. It was in the
latter half of the $%th century that arliament witnessed some of the ma&or changes in modern
times and ac?uired a more central role in the policy=ma!ing process.

Parliamen#ar$ norms an) re6or#s

Information technology provides nowadays easy access to national parliamentary websites,
which are available at the following address: http:GGwww.ipu.orgGenglishGparlweb.htm The fact
that most parliaments have established their presence on the web ma!es the legislative process
and parliamentary proceedings more transparent and sub&ect to public scrutiny. These sites have
searchable databases of committee reports, records, hearings, votes and other parliamentary
documents. (pecial sections are devoted to parliamentary ?uestions and en?uiries. .any of the
parliamentary sites have a parallel version in #nglish. (ome parliamentary websites offer even
audio and video web telecasting of parliamentary sessions.

The salient rhetorical features that characterise parliamentary interaction are counterbalanced by
explicit institutional constraints, the most important of which are stipulated in #rs!ine .ayBs
Treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament 'Fimon and .cKay *++-3.
It represents a code of behaviour that regulates the various forms of parliamentary interaction in
the U.K. arliament.

Hansard is the 0fficial Aeport of the proceedings of the U.K. arliament and is now published
on the internet on the UK arliament site: www.parliament.u! Hansard is published daily when
arliament is sitting, being also available in bound issues. In the House of 2ommons the Hansard
Aeporters sit in a gallery above the (pea!er and ta!e down every word that is said in the
2hamber. The name BHansardB was officially adopted in *+76 after Fu!e Hansard '*-5$ = *,$,3
who was the printer of the House of 2ommons Cournal from *--7.

The Hansard reports, which are theoretically supposed to be verbatim, actually involve a certain
amount of editing meant to do away with some of the formal shortcomings of any oral delivery.
(lembrouc! '*++$3 signalled some of the problems involved in the transcription process. >irst,
intrinsic elements of spontaneous speech, such as false starts, involuntary repetitions, or
incomplete sentences, are left out. (econd, the written version does not reflect features of spo!en
language, such as intonation, stress and regional accents. .oreover, certain reformulations are
produced by Hansard editors in order to avoid clumsy or unclear messages. (ince the transcripts
are not entirely accurate, it is necessary for analysts of parliamentary discourse to have access to
video recordings of the proceedings under consideration.

The 7enre o2 6arliamen#ar$ )iscourse

The notions of discourse and genre, however fu;;y and problematic, are central to the study of
interaction practices in institutional settings li!e the arliament. 2urrent discourse=analytical
approaches envisage discourse as Elanguage use relative to social, political and cultural
formations H it is language reflecting social order but also language shaping social order, and
shaping individualsB interaction with society.E 'Cawors!i and 2oupland *+++: 63. This definition
can certainly apply to parliamentary discourse, i.e. a discourse in which institutional facewor!,
political meaning negotiation and power management are being articulated and publicly
displayed.

Fi!e discourse and institutions, genres and institutions are mutually constitutive and ac?uire
legitimacy within a speech community. In spite of its controversiality, the notion of BgenreB can
offer important insights into the nature, scope and functions of parliamentary discourse.
>ollowing (wales '*++,G*++%3, genre may be regarded primarily as Ea class of communicative
events in which language 'andGor paralanguage3 plays both a significant and an indispensable
roleE '*++,: 753 and Ethe members of which share some set of communicative purposesE '*++,:
5,3. >urthermore, Ethese purposes are recogni;ed by the expert members of the parent discourse
community, and thereby constitute the rationale for the genreE '*++,: 5,3.

>rom a pragma=linguistic perspective, parliamentary discourse belongs to the genre of political
discourse. <s such, it displays particular institutionalised discursive features and ritualised
interaction strategies, while complying with andGor circumventing a number of specific rules and
constraints. The discursive interaction of parliamentarians is constantly mar!ed by their
institutional role=based commitments, by the dialogically shaped institutional confrontation and
by the awareness of acting in front and on behalf of a multi=level audience. arliamentary
debates are meant to achieve a number of institutionally specific purposes, namely position=
claiming, persuading, negotiating, agenda=setting, and opinion building, usually along
ideological or party lines.

>rom a rhetorical perspective, parliamentary discourse belongs to the deliberative genre of
political rhetoric, which is defined as an oratorical discourse targetting an audience that is as!ed
to ma!e a decision by evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of a future course of action.
#lements characteristic of the forensic and epideictic genres are also present, even if
occasionally and to a lesser extent. This confirms the "a!htinian view that genres are
heterogeneous. 0ne of the ma&or functions of .embers of arliament 'henceforth .s3 is to
contribute to problem=solving tas!s regarding legal and political deliberation, as well as decision
ma!ing processes. < ma&or incentive for the parliamentariansB active participation in the debates
is the constant need to promote their own image in a competitive and performance=oriented
institutional interaction. The .sB discourse is meant to call into ?uestion the opponentsB ethos,
i.e. political credibility and moral profile, while enhancing their own ethos in an attempt to stri!e
a balance between logos, i.e. logical reasoning, and pathos, i.e. emotion eliciting force.

Su87enres o2 6arliamen#ar$ )iscourse

The genre of parliamentary discourse displays several subgenres, such as ministerial statements,
speeches, debates, oral/written questions and Question Time.

< common feature of many #uropean legislatures 'for example in @ermany and (weden3 is the
interpellation or Eshort debateE by means of which an opposition party 'or an e?uivalent number
of .s3 can call a debate on a topical issue or a matter of public concern. Interpellations can be
regarded as mini=debates on broad areas of a ministerBs responsibilities.

0ral ministerial statements are made in the House of 2ommons after ?uestions and urgent
?uestions, before the public business of the day. Their purpose is to announce new policies or to
provide specific information about current or urgent political matters. < minister spea!s on
behalf of the government to present their official views to arliament. (tatements can be on any
sub&ect ranging from a new policy announcement to an important national or international event
or crisis.

arliamentary speeches are traditional forms of political discourse. In the House of 2ommons all
speeches are addressed to the (pea!er or 9eputy (pea!er of the House, who acts as a
chairperson. The 0pening (peech is the first speech in a debate. The . who has moved, or
proposed, the motion outlines their view of why the House should adopt the motion.
arliamentary speeches are supposed to display, apart from facts or events, also self=
presentations and other=presentations.

< parliamentary debate can be described in general terms as a formal discussion on a particular
topic which is strictly controlled by an institutional set of rules and presided over by the (pea!er
of the House. <ccording to >actsheet 5$ 'available at the U.K. arliament website3, Ithe style of
debate in the House has traditionally been based on cut=and=thrust: listening to other .embersB
speeches and intervening in them in spontaneous reaction to opponentsB viewsE. .embers ta!e it
in turns to spea! on the sub&ect concerned.

(ince it is during debates that most of the parliamentary confrontation ta!es place, it is hardly
surprising that several studies on parliamentary discourse have focused on highly topical issues
discussed in parliaments. < recurrent theme is the debate on immigration, i.e. legitimating the
expulsion of illegal immigrants in the (panish arliament '.artJn Ao&o and 8an 9i&! *++-,
.artJn Ao&o $%%%3, argumentation and counter=argumentation in Italian parliamentary debates on
immigration 'ter )al $%%%a, $%%%b3, disputes on immigration and nationality in the >rench
arliament '8an der 8al! $%%%b, 2abasino $%%*3, disputes on illegal immigrants, asylum and
integration in the 9utch arliament '8an der 8al! $%%%a3. 2losely related themes have also been
explored: the distinctive features of parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six #uropean
states ')oda! and 8an 9i&! $%%%, ter )al $%%%b3, the regional parliamentary discourse from
1orthern Ireland on the use of Ulster=(cots and Irish alongside #nglish, in official proceedings
')ilson and (tapleton $%%63.

There is a comprehensive set of rules set out in #rs!ine .ay regarding the form, content and
scope of the subgenre of oral and written questions. 0ne of these rules stipulates that neither the
?uestions nor the answers should be sustained by reasoning that may give rise to controversy.
0ther rules apply parliamentary norms to ?uestions, while still others define the issues on which
?uestions could be as!ed. Unli!e the ?uestioning strategies in courtroom interaction, which are
meant to elicit particular expected answers and to exclude unsuitable answers, parliamentary
?uestioning strategies are not intended to elicit particular answers, but rather to embarrass andGor
to challenge the respondent to ma!e uncomfortable or revealing declarations.
<s has been suggested by >ran!lin and 1orton '*++63, it seems that oral ?uestions are as!ed
primarily where the . considers some publicity is desirable, whereas written ?uestions are
as!ed when the primary goal is to obtain information. <s!ing a ?uestion is usually a pretext to
attac! or praise the government and involves information that is already !nown: E>ew members
would run the ris! of as!ing such a ?uestion without !nowing the li!ely answerE '>ran!lin and
1orton *++6: **$3.

0ne of the prototypical forms of parliamentary ?uestioning discourse is KLuestion TimeB in the
U.K. arliament, KLuestion eriodB in the 2anadian arliament, K>rMgestundB in the (wedish
Ai!sdag, KLuestions au @ouvernementB in the >rench arliament, KHeure des ?uestionsB in the
"elgian arliament, to name but a few. This ?uestioning procedure was introduced in the
#uropean arliament in *+-6. <part from oral ?uestions, all these parliaments allow for
?uestions tabled for written answers. Luestion Time is a specific session devoted to ?uestioning
the foremost representatives of the @overnment, namely the rime .inister andGor @overnment
.inisters, by their fellow .s 'cf. >actsheet * about arliamentary ?uestions available on the
U.K. arliament website3. @overnment members are held accountable for their political
intentions, statements and actions by fellow .s. The order in which the ?uestions are as!ed is
previously established by a process of random selection. The (pea!er calls up the .s who want
to as! ?uestions. The first ?uestion, about the rime .inisterBs engagements is always
predictable. However, it offers several possibilities for as!ing supplementary ?uestions, which
are the really tric!y ones for the rime .inister, as well as for the other responding .inisters,
who have to be prepared for all !inds of unexpected ?uestions.

Luestion Time becomes particularly confrontational when the ?uestioning is carried out by
members of the 0pposition. This explains why Luestion Time has been described as Ia face=
threatening genreE by :re; de <yala '$%%*: *7-3, who shows that the high fre?uency of face=
threatrening acts is counterbalaced by a wide range of politeness strategies. #ach macro=?uestion
is analysed in terms of ad&acency pairs, turns, moves and discourse acts. The histrionic and
agonistic features of three parliamentary subgenres, i.e. speeches, debates and Luestion Time,
are examined by Ilie '$%%6b3, who ma!es a systematic comparison with corresponding subgenres
of theatre performances, starting from the consideration that parliamentary dialogue contributes
to revealing frames of mind and beliefs, as well as exposing instances of doublespea! and
incompatible or inconsistent lines of action. Two rhetorical strategies are particularly
investigated in the two discourse types, namely rhetorical ?uestions and rhetorical
parentheticals.

Parliamen#ar$ ac#i4i#$ 2rames

<s was shown in Ilie '$%%6b3, in order to capture the ma&or characteristics of parliamentary
discourse activities it is useful to ta!e into account three main types of institutional frames,
namely s6a#ial/#em6oral 2rame, which regards the spatial and temporal dimensions, i.e. the
physical environment of parliamentary institutions and participant positioning in space and timeN
6ar#ici6an# 2rame, which regards the roles and identities of parliamentary agents, as well as
spea!er=addressee and spea!er=audience relationshipN and finally, in#erac#ion 2rame, which
regards the institutional structuring and functions of various activity types that are carried out in
parliament.

(-* S6a#ial/#em6oral 2rame in Parliamen#

(patial frames regard in the first place the physical setting of the parliament building and the
seating arrangements. The physical setting of the House of 2ommons, with the @overnment .s
and 0pposition .s facing each other as members of two competing camps has undoubtedly
played an important role in fostering an adversarial and confrontational tone of debate. The
Speakers !hair faces the main public gallery, called the Strangers "allery, where members of
the public at large are supposed to sit and watch the debates. < much wider audience of T8=
viewers have nowadays the possibility to watch the parliamentary sessions that are telecast. "ut
in this case, the audienceBs viewing perspective is restricted to the specific filming angles chosen
by parliamentary T8=camerapersons when foregrounding or bac!grounding certain persons,
interactions, etc.

<bove the (pea!erBs 2hair is the #eporters "allery. 0n the floor of the House on the (pea!erBs
right are the benches occupied by the supporters of the @overnment. "y convention, .inisters sit
on the front bench on the right hand of the spea!er. The rime .inisterBs seat is opposite to the
despatch box on the Table. 0fficial 0pposition spo!espersons use the front bench to the
(pea!erBs left. The Feader of the 0pposition is sitting opposite the despatch box on that side of
the Table. Thus, as a result of the seating arrangement, @overnment .s and 0pposition .s
are practically facing each other. .inority parties sit on the benches 'often the front two3 below
the gangway on the left, though a minority party that identifies with the @overnment may sit on
the right=hand side. However, as is indicated in >actsheet 5$, Ithere is nothing sacrosanct about
these places, and on sundry occasions, when a .ember has deliberately chosen to occupy a place
on the front bench or on the opposite of the House from normal, there is no redress for such
actionE.

(peeches made in the House of 2ommons have to conform to very specific rules. < .inister or
0pposition spo!esperson can spea! from the 9ispatch "ox at the Table of the House, but other
.s have to rise to spea! from where they were previously sitting and not from a rostrum.
However, front=bench members usually stand at one of the 9espatch boxes.

Important time=related constraints should also be ta!en into account in connection with the
spatial frame. (ome parliamentary sittings, such as Luestion Time, start at a particular pre=
established time and are normally time=bound. There are, however, parliamentary proceedings,
such as debates, that do not always have a fixed or pre=established duration. Their starting time is
designated beforehand, but the finishing time is often delayed. 2ertain debates on very
controversial issues may end long after midnight. This is mainly due to innumerable procedural
incidents, an extremely high number of amendments and fre?uent unauthorised interruptions. <
comparable situation can be found in most parliaments.
(* Par#ici6an# 2rame in Parliamen#

In all parliaments, .s enact specific participant roles, namely interacting participants and
onloo!ing audiences. .s are involved in a co$performance which is meant to both address and
engage 'sometimes even co=act with3 an audience of .s as active participants, who are
expected to contribute explicit forms of audience$feedback, e.g. ?uestions, responses,
interruptions. )hat is important for .s is to consistently promote a political line which meets
the general wishes of the voters 'as expressed at general elections3, to put certain issues on the
political agenda, as well as to ta!e desirable initiatives and effective measures.

(i* Parliamen#ar$ 2orms o2 a))ress

The rules controlling the parliamentary forms of address are sub&ect to a complex interplay of
socio=cultural constraints: the overall effect and significance of the institutional activity in which
the .s are engaged, the nature of the institutionalised relationships 'social distance and
dominance3 between .s, the extent to which .s share a common set of cultural expectations
with respect to the social activity and the speech events that they are carrying out. )hile in non=
institutional settings politeness rules are &ust regulative and therefore provide more choice, in
institutional settings, such as the arliament, they are constitutive and therefore discourse=
integrated.

In the House of 2ommons .s are normally not addressed by their actual names, but by the
names of their constituency or by their official position. .ost importantly, .s are addressed
and address each other in the 6rd person singular through the intermediary of the (pea!er of the
House, who acts as a moderator. Interestingly, the only parliamentary participant officially
addressed in the $nd person is the (pea!er or 9eputy (pea!er 'the address form is I(irE or
I.adamE3. It is significant that the #nglish $nd person pronoun you may be used in two exactly
opposite cases in terms of politeness: on the one hand, as a positive address form indicator in
ritualistic politeness formulae used by .s when addressing the (pea!er of the House, and on
the other hand, as a negative address form indicator in the overt face threatening act of
interrupting spea!ing .s.

The .s in other parliaments, such as the >rench and the Italian parliaments, are normally
referred to by means of the $nd person pronoun. The second person plural pronoun of address 8
is used in many languages as a honorific form to singular respected or distant alters.

The ritualised form used in the 2ommons to address an . is Ithe Honourable
@entlemanGFadyE. In Hansard, however, this phrase is expanded into the form Ithe Honourable
.ember for 0c!endon '.r. "loggs3E in order to avoid ambiguities. Two types of distinctions
are mar!ed by specific parliamentary forms of address. < hierarchical distinction is involved in
the alternative uses of Ethe Hon. @entlemanGFadyE 'to refer to a &unior andGor ordinary .3 and
Ethe Aight Hon. @entlemanGFadyE 'to refer to a senior andGor high status .3. < political
distinction is conveyed by using one of the above=mentioned forms of address when referring to
an . that belongs to another political party than oneBs own, and by using the form Emy 'Aight3
Hon. >riendE when referring to an . that belongs to oneBs own party.

9ifferent parliaments display different degrees of flexibility and constraint. >or example,
interpersonal and strategic deference is conveyed in (wedish parliamentary discourse by a wider
range of devices, namely: title, first and last name, title and last name, and occasionally only first
name. The 6rd person pronoun is the officially ac!nowledged pronominal term of address in the
(wedish Ai!sdag, &ust as in the House of 2ommons, so it counts as the unmar!ed pronominal
address form. However, the use of the $nd person pronoun KniB also occurs occasionally in the
(wedish debates 'Ilie $%%6d, $%%53.

.s are not expected to have a straightforward dialogue with each other, vi;. to be engaged in a
genuine reasoning process or truth finding discussion. <ll .s are fully aware of the fact that
they cannot realistically hope to persuade political opponents of the &ustifiability of their ideas
and beliefs. )hile addressing the current addressee's3, their interventions and arguments are
e?ually intended for all .s in the House and for the wider 'present or T8=viewing3 audience.
(ii* Parliamen#ar$ roles an) au)iences

The institutional interaction of debating .s reveals role shifts between their public roles as as
representatives of a part of the electorate and their private roles as members of the same
electorate they represent. The .s who are ta!ing the floor to address the House, as well as
those .s who are being directly addressed and act as interlocutors, can be regarded as active
participants. The rest of the .s who are not actually involved in the current debate can be
regarded as side participants. 0ther listeners, such as the Hansard reporters, the members of the
press, or members of the public at large present in the (trangersB @allery, can be regarded as
bystanders.

<s a result of the increasing mediatisation of parliamentary proceedings, .s perform a ma&or
part of their wor! in Ithe public eyeE, namely in front of several !inds of audiences made up of
politicians andGor laypersons. The onloo!ing audience is actually a multi=layered audience, i.e.
the insider audience of fellow .s, the outsider audience of visitors in the (trangersB @allery,
and the more remote outsider audience of T8=viewers. <s has been shown in Ilie '$%%6b3, in
arliament there is an awareness of and a tolerance for the audience of outsiders, but the targeted
audience is the insider audience of fellow .s. 1o special effort is made to ac!nowledge the
presence of this audience of outsiders or to get their approval. 0ne of the reasons may be the fact
that it is normally a random and continuously changing audience that happens to be in the
(trangersB @allery on a particular day at a particular time.
(9* In#erac#ion 2rame in Parliamen#

The interaction between .s is convention=based and rule=regulated. <s instantiations of
individual and group confrontations, parliamentary debates display well=regulated competing,
but also collaborative discursive processes. <s manifestations of collective underta!ings,
parliamentary debates display, especially in matters of vital national importance, not only
adversarial interaction, but also converging and complementary discursive contributions that are
orchestrated institutionally and performed &ointly.
(ome of the most salient parliamentary interaction frames are described below.

(i* O6enin7s an) closin7s o2 6arliamen#ar$ sessions

arliamentary proceedings in the 2ommons are officially opened and closed by the (pea!er of
the House, who also announces the topics of the agenda, intervening whenever these topics are
not properly followed. The first speech in a debate is called the 0pening (peech. The . who
has moved, or proposed, a particular motion outlines hisGher view of why the House should adopt
the motion.

The (tate 0pening of arliament ta!es place after a @eneral #lection and at the beginning of
each new session of arliament. 0n that occasion the Lueen reads the LueenBs (peech. It is a
reminder of times when the King or Lueen actually chose the legislation to be debated in
arliament. Today the @overnment prepares the LueenBs speech. The speech details the
@overnmentBs policies and the bills it will introduce in the next session.

(ii* Parliamen#ar$ #urn/#a:in7 an) #al:/moni#orin7 rules

The turn=ta!ing structure of parliamentary interaction shows that linguistic constraints are
paralleled by institutional constraints. It is the (pea!er of the House who ensures the
reinforcement of orderly interventions and the observance of parliamentary rules. (Ghe is in
charge of monitoring spea!er selection and turn assignment, so that .s ta!e it in turns to spea!
and present their standpoints in an orderly manner.

In the 2ommons parliamentary turn=ta!ing is regulated not only by institutional conventions, but
also by the participantsB spontaneous verbal, paraverbal and non=verbal signalling. araverbal
signalling refers to the way in which a verbal message is conveyed by means of tone, pitch and
pacing of the voice. (ince .s may spea! only if called to do so by the (pea!er, they must try to
Kcatch the (pea!erBs eyeB, i.e. to attract hisGher attention by standing, or half standing.

(iii* Parliamen#ar$ in#erru6#ions

<nother way of competing for the floor is to resort to EauthorisedE verbal interruptions. The
orderly ?uestion=answer se?uences can be disrupted by recurrent EauthorisedE interruptions or
interventions by .s who want to grab the floor. In principle, an . cannot suddenly intervene
when another . is spea!ing to the House unless the spea!ing . allows it by Igiving wayE.
The interruption consists in as!ing the current spea!er to Bgive wayB so as to allow the
intervening . to as! a ?uestion or ma!e a comment.

<part from EauthorisedE interruptions, there are also unauthorised interruptions, namely
spontaneous verbal reactions of .s who interrupt the current spea!er. (uch interruptions,
consist of exclamations of approval or disapproval, and are perceived as some of the particularly
distinctive characteristics of all parliamentary discourses. It is significant that several of the
exisiting studies on parliamentary discourse have focused on the analysis of interruptions. 2arb4
'*++$3 gives a detailed account of the types of interruptions in the .exican parliament, 2abasino
'$%%*3 and 8an der 8al! '$%%$3 describe interruptions in >rench debates on immigration, Ilie
'$%%7b3 analyses and compares interruption patterns in "ritish parliamentary debates and in
drama dialogue, while "evitori '$%%73 compares the interruptions in "ritish and Italian
parliamentary debates.

(i4* Parliamen#ar$ ;ues#ionin7<ans'erin7 6a##erns

In all parliaments the ?uestion=response se?uences represent the default ad&acency pairs of
several parliamentary subgenres, such as oralGwritten ?uestions and Luestion Time. They often
display exchanges of challenging, accusatory, but also countering, defensive and ironical,
remar!s between 0pposition .s and @overnment .s, as well as friendly and cooperative
?uestions from .s belonging to the @overnment party. <s has been shown in 2hester and
"owring '*+/$3, >ran!lin and 1orton '*++63 and in Fimon and .cKay '*++-3, there are several
subtypes of parliamentary ?uestions in terms of content, scope and purpose. These ?uestions are
often multifunctional and convey different degrees of argumentativeness depending on their
specific contexts of occurrence. Thus, a fre?uent type of ?uestions are the so=called partisan
questions that are as!ed not only to defend and reinforce the power of the @overnment, but also
to attac! the 0pposition. <nother recurrent type of parliamentary ?uestions are the attention
seeking questions, used particularly by bac!benchers to gain attention and to ac?uire
information, as well as to contribute to local publicity. 1owadays an increasing number of
?uestions are being as!ed by .s on behalf of lobbying and presssure groups, usually from their
own constituencies.

<ccording to syntactic criteria, a vast ma&ority of parliamentary ?uestions belong to the closed
category of yes$no questions, which are meant to constrain the respondentsB answering options.
<ccording to pragma=linguistic criteria, parliamentary ?uestions often belong to the category of
rhetorical questions, leading questions and echo questions, which are confirmation=eliciting and
reaction=eliciting, rather than information=eliciting in that they single out and expose the
opponentBs wea!nesses, often in an ironical or sarcastic tone.

(4* Parliamen#ar$ 6oli#eness s#ra#e7ies

<s has been shown in Ilie '$%%*, $%%6d, $%%53 and :re; de <yala '$%%*3, parliamentary debates
involve systematic face=threatening acts mar!ed by unparliamentary language and behaviour.
These acts cover a continuum that ranges from milderGmitigated acts, such as reproaches,
accusations and criticisms, to very strong ones, such as insults. The study of unparliamentary
strategies provides important clues about moral and social standards, pre&udices, taboos, as well
as value &udgements of different social=political groups, as well as individuals in a community.

2ross=cultural studies are particularly enlightening in this respect, since the forms and functions
of insults and their respective feedbac!s vary in different cultures and institutional settings.
(everal aspects of the use and effects of unparliamentary language in the U.K. arliament and in
the (wedish Ai!sdag have been examined from a politeness and cognitive theoretical perspective
'Ilie $%%*3, as well as from a rhetorical perspective 'Ilie $%%6d3. 0ne of the conclusions is that
Iwhat is generally referred to as unparliamentary uses of language constitute instances of
institutionally ritualised confrontational interaction.E 'Ilie $%%6d: ,*3. The results of the
contrastive analysis indicate that #nglish unparliamentary language is mar!ed particularly by
pathos$oriented logos, whereas (wedish unparliamentary language is mar!ed particularly by
ethos$oriented logos.
(4i* Parliamen#ar$ me#a)iscourse

.etadiscourse is a term generally used to indicate a shift in discourse levels, by means of which
the spea!erBs multi=level messages are being conveyed alongside, above andGor beyond the
unfolding discourse. arliamentary metadiscourse is used to highlight the co=occurrence and
confrontation of competing ideological and personal representations, on the one hand, and the
discursive interplay between the participantsB interpersonal and institutional voices, on the other.

(everal metadiscursive strategies have been investigated in the "ritish parliamentary discourse:
metadiscursive argumentation through the use and misuse of clich:s 'Ilie $%%%3, metadiscursive
attribution, reporting and ?uoting strategies 'Ilie $%%6a3, and metadiscursive parentheticals 'Ilie
$%%6b, $%%6c3.
&i8lio7ra6h$
"ayley, aul 'ed.3. '$%%73. !ross$cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. <msterdam:
Cohn "en&amins.
"evitori, 2in;ia. '$%%73. 1egotiating conflict: Interruptions in "ritish and Italian parliamentary
debates. In . "ayley 'ed.3 !ross$cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. ,-=*%+.
<msterdam: Cohn "en&amins.
"iryu!ov, 1i!olai, Ceffrey @leisner and 8ictor (ergeyev. '*++53. The !risis of sobornost%
Parliamentary discourse in present$day #ussia. 9iscourse O (ociety / '$3: *7+=*-5.
2abasino, >rancesca. '$%%*3. &ormes et en'eu( du d)bat public* +iscours parlementaire et
immigration. Aoma: "ul;oni.
2arb4, Teresa. '*++$3. Towards an interpretation of interruptions in ,e(ican parliamentary
discourse. 9iscourse O (ociety 6'*3: $5=75.
2hester, 9.1orman and "owring, 1ona. '*+/$3. Questions in Parliament. 0xford: 2larendon
ress.
2opeland, @ary ). and (amuel 2. atterson 'eds3. '*++-3. Parliaments in the modern world%
!hanging institutions. <nn <rbor: The University of .ichigan ress.
>ran!lin, .. and 1orton, . 'eds3. '*++63. Parliamentary questions. 0xford: 0xford University
ress,
Ilie, 2ornelia. '$%%%3. 2lich:=based metadiscursive argumentation in the Houses of
arliament. -nternational .ournal of /pplied 0inguistics, *% '*3: /5=,7.
Ilie, 2ornelia. '$%%*3. Unparliamentary language: Insults as cognitive forms of confrontation. In
A. 9irven, A. >ran! and 2. Ilie 'eds.3 0anguage and -deology, 1ol* --% +escriptive !ognitive
/pproaches, $65=$/6, K<msterdam: Cohn "en&amins.
Ilie, 2ornelia. '$%%6a3. 9iscourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates. .ournal of
0anguage and Politics *'$3: $/+=$+*.
Ilie, 2ornelia. '$%%6b3. Histrionic and agonistic features of parliamentary discourse. Studies in
!ommunication Sciences 6'*3: $5=56.
Ilie, 2ornelia. '$%%6c3. arenthetically spea!ing: arliamentary parentheticals as rhetorical
strategies. In .. "ondi and (. (tati 'eds.3 !urrent Studies in +ialogic !ommunication, $56=
$/7.
TPbingen: .ax 1iemeyer 8erlag.
Ilie, 2ornelia. '$%%6d3. Insulting as 'un3parliamentary practice in the #nglish and (wedish
arliaments. >orthcoming in . "ayley 'ed.3 !ross$cultural perspectives on parliamentary
discourse. 75=,/. <msterdam: Cohn "en&amins.
Ilie, 2ornelia. '$%%73. Interruption patterns in "ritish parliamentary debates and in drama
dialogue. In <. "etten and .. 9annerer 'eds.3 +ialoganalyse -2 $ +ialogue in 0iterature and
the
,edia. 6**=6$/. TPbingen: .ax 1iemeyer 8erlag.
Ilie, 2ornelia. '$%%53. oliteness in (weden: arliamentary forms of address. In F. Hic!ey and
..
(tewart 'eds.3 Politeness in 3urope. *-7=*,,. 2levedon: .ultilingual .atters.
Cawors!i, <dam and 2oupland, 1i!olas 'eds.3. '*+++3. The discourse reader. Fondon and 1ew
Qor!: Aoutledge.
Fimon, 9.). and .cKay, ).A. 'eds.3. '*++-3. 3rskine ,ay% Parliamentary practice. $$nd
edition.
Fondon: "utterworths.
.artJn Ao&o, Fuisa. '$%%%3. (pain, outer wall of the #uropean fortress: <nalysis of parliamentary
debates on immigration policy in (pain. In A. )oda! and T. 8an 9i&! 'eds.3. #acism at the top*
Parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in si( 3uropean states. 2h. /. Klagenfurt, <ustria:
9rava 8erlag.
.artJn Ao&o, Fuisa and van 9i&!, Teun. '*++-3. KThere was a problem and it was solvedB.
Fegitimating the expulsion of illegal immigrants in (panish arliament. +iscourse 4 Society
,'73:
5/6=/%/.
.organ, Aoger, and 2lare Tame 'eds3. '*++/3. Parliaments and parties% The 3uropean
Parliament
in the political life of 3urope. Fondon: .acmillan. 'chs on "ritain, Italy, 9enmar!3
0lson, ..9. O 1orton, . 'eds3. '*++/3. The new parliaments of central and 3astern 3urope.
Fondon, ortland: >ran! 2ass.
:re; de <yala, (oledad. '$%%*3. >T<s and #rs!ine .ay: 2onflicting needsR = oliteness in
Luestion Time. .ournal of Pragmatics 66: *76=*/+.
(il!, aul and Ahodri )alters. '*+,-3. 5ow parliament works. Fondon: Fongman.
(lembrouc!, (. '*++$3. The parliamentary Hansard KverbatimB report: The written construction
of
spo!en discourse. 0anguage and 0iterature *'$3, *%*=**+.
(wales, Cohn .. '*++,G*++%3. "enre /nalysis% 3nglish in academic and research settings.
2ambridge and 1ew Qor!: 2ambridge University ress.
ter )al, C. '$%%%a3. 2omparing argumentation and counter=argumentation in Italian
parliamentary debate on immigration. In .. Aeisigl and A. )oda! 'eds.3 The Semiotics of
#acism. 8ienna: assagen 8erlag.
ter )al, C. '$%%%b3. Italy: sicure;;a e solidarietS. In A. )oda! and T. van 9i&! 'eds.3 #acism at
the top* Parliamentary discourse on ethnic issues in 6 3uropean states, Klagenfurt: 9rava
8erlag.
8an der 8al!, Ine!e. '$%%%a3. arliamentary discourse on illegal immigrants, asylum and
integration: The case of Holland. In A. )oda! O T.<. van 9i&! 'eds.3 #acism at the Top*
Parliamentary discourses on ethnic isues in si( 3uropean states. Klagenfurt: 9rava 8erlag.
8an der 8al!, Ine!e. '$%%%b3. arliamentary discourse on immigration and nationality in >rance.
In A. )oda! O T.<. van 9i&! 'eds.3 #acism at the top* Parliamentary discourses on ethnic
isues
in si( 3uropean states. Klagenfurt: 9rava 8erlag.
8an der 8al!, Ine!e. '$%%$3. Interruptions in >rench debates on immigration, In A. )oda! and
..
Aeisigl 'eds.3, The semiotics of racism. 8ienna: assagenverlag.
8an 9i&!, Teun. '$%%%a3. arliamentary debates. In A. )oda! and T.<. 8an 9i&! 'eds.3 #acism
at
the top* Parliamentary discourses on ethnic isues in si( 3uropean states. '75=-,3. Klagenfurt,
<ustria: 9rava 8erlag.
8an 9i&!, Teun. '$%%73. Text and context of parliamentary debates. In . "ayley 'ed.3 !ross$
cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. 67%=6-$. <msterdam: Cohn "en&amins.
)ilson, Cohn and Karyn (tapleton. '$%%63. 1ation=state, devolution and the parliamentary
discourse of minority languages. .ournal of 0anguage and Politics $'*3: 5=6%.
)oda!, Auth and Teun <. 8an 9i&! 'eds.3. '$%%%3. #acism at the top* Parliamentary discourses
on ethnic issues in si( 3uropean states. Klagenfurt, <ustria: 9rava 8erlag.


arliamentary )eb (ites
http:GGwww.&imslaughter.comGparliamentarywebsites.htm

Inter=arliamentary Union
http:GGwww.ipu.orgGenglishGhome.htm

arliamentary rocedure Luotations
http:GGwww.&imslaughter.comG?uotations.htm

#2A9 '#uropean 2entre for arliamentary Aesearch and 9ocumentation
http:GGwww.ecprd.orgGindex.asp

The United Kingdom arliament Home age
http:GGwww.parliament.u!

Five coverage of U.K arliament proceedings
http:GGwww.parliamentlive.tv