PARLIAMENTARY DISCOURSES

Cornelia Ilie cornelia.ilie@hum.oru.se

Ilie, Cornelia. 2006. Parliamentary Discourses. In Keith Brown (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd Edition, Vol. 9, 188-197. Oxford: Elsevier.

Introduction

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. Parliament. This interest may be accounted for by its being probably the oldest institution of its kind 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 British parliamentary discourse.

Ever since the latter half of the 20th century parliamentary discourse and parliamentary rhetoric have gradually become the object of scholarly research in the fields of political sciences and sociology (Silk and Walters 1987, Morgan and Tame 1996, Olson and Norton 1996, Copeland and Patterson 1997), but only very recently have they become a truly interdisciplinary concern through the involvement of linguistic scholarship (Carb 1992, Slembrouck 1992, Biryukov et al 1995, Ilie 2000, 2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2003d, 2004, 2005, ter Wal 2000a, Van der Valk 2000a, 2000b, Van Dijk 2000a, 2004, Wodak and Van Dijk 2000, Prez de Ayala 2001, Wilson and Stapleton 2003, Bayley 2004). Whereas 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 thinking processes of its participants, the interdependence between language-shaped facts and reality-prompted language ritualisation and change.

Parliamentary systems

It may be useful to recall that the word parliament is derived from the the Old French parlement, originally from parler, i.e. to speak. By metonymic transfer, the term has come to refer to an institution specialised in a particular kind of talk, and even to the building that hosts such an

institution. Nowadays 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 known by other names, such as congress, diet and national assembly.

Most legislatures are either unicameral or bicameral. A unicameral legislature is the simplest kind of law-making body and has only one house. A 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 equal. In federations it is typical for the upper house to represent the component states.

Parliamentarism 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 German Weimar Republic, the French Fourth Republic, Italy, and Israel. Parliamentarism became increasingly prevalent in Europe in the years after World War I, partly imposed by the democratic victors, France and England, on the defeated countries and their successors, notably Germanys Weimar Republik and the new Austrian Republic. Several nations that are considered parliamentary actually have presidents who are elected separately from the legislature and who have certain real powers. Examples of this type of governance are Ireland and Austria.

For historical and political reasons, the most geographically widespread parliamentary system is the Westminster system, named after Westminster Palace, the meeting place of Britains parliament. The Westminster system is used in Britain and in many nations of the Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Jamaica, New Zealand and India, and in non-Commonwealth states like Ireland. There are parliamentary governments, such as Germany and Italy, whose legislative procedures differ considerably from the Westminster system.

One major difference between the Westminster system and the types of parliamentarism used in the rest of Europe and in non-Commonwealth monarchies outside of Europe is the voting system. Most Westminister systems use a kind of voting system, as mentioned above, known as first past the post. In this system, each district elects one representative and that representative can be elected with a plurality. All the other European parliamentary systems use some kind of proportional representation, usually the list system. First past the post favors a two-party system, whereas proportional representation favors a multi-party system.

The Westminster parliamentary system

The first English Parliament was formed during the reign of King Henry III in the 13th century. The emergence of Parliament in England during the Middle Ages was not an isolated phenomenon. Throughout Europe from the 12th to the 14th 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 Middle Ages, especially from the 13th century on, Parliament used to be called together by the king as a reaction to pending problems. The Tudor, and especially the Elizabethan, parliamentary standardisation started with a formal record of the Commons proceedings in the Journal, which was kept from 1547, and with a group of manuals of parliamentary procedure and privileges.

By the end of the 18th century the publication of parliamentary debates and regular press reporting became common practice. As 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 19th century, when the British Parliament resembled a London club, the members capacity to scrutinise and influence the government in office was relatively limited. It was in the latter half of the 20th century that Parliament witnessed some of the major changes in modern times and acquired a more central role in the policy-making process.

Parliamentary norms and reports

Information technology provides nowadays easy access to national parliamentary websites, which are available at the following address: http://www.ipu.org/english/parlweb.htm The fact that most parliaments have established their presence on the web makes the legislative process and parliamentary proceedings more transparent and subject to public scrutiny. These sites have searchable databases of committee reports, records, hearings, votes and other parliamentary documents. Special sections are devoted to parliamentary questions and enquiries. Many of the parliamentary sites have a parallel version in English. Some 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 Erskine Mays Treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament (Limon and McKay 1997). It represents a code of behaviour that regulates the various forms of parliamentary interaction in the U.K. Parliament.

Hansard is the Official Report of the proceedings of the U.K. Parliament and is now published on the internet on the UK Parliament site: www.parliament.uk Hansard is published daily when Parliament is sitting, being also available in bound issues. In the House of Commons the Hansard Reporters sit in a gallery above the Speaker and take down every word that is said in the Chamber. The name Hansard was officially adopted in 1943 after Luke Hansard (1752 - 1828) who was the printer of the House of Commons Journal from 1774.

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. Slembrouck (1992) signalled some of the problems involved in the transcription process. First, intrinsic elements of spontaneous speech, such as false starts, involuntary repetitions, or incomplete sentences, are left out. Second, the written version does not reflect features of spoken language, such as intonation, stress and regional accents. Moreover, certain reformulations are produced by Hansard editors in order to avoid clumsy or unclear messages. Since 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 genre of parliamentary discourse

The notions of discourse and genre, however fuzzy and problematic, are central to the study of interaction practices in institutional settings like the Parliament. Current discourse-analytical approaches envisage discourse as language use relative to social, political and cultural formations it is language reflecting social order but also language shaping social order, and shaping individuals interaction with society. (Jaworski and Coupland 1999: 3). This definition can certainly apply to parliamentary discourse, i.e. a discourse in which institutional facework, political meaning negotiation and power management are being articulated and publicly displayed.

Like discourse and institutions, genres and institutions are mutually constitutive and acquire legitimacy within a speech community. In spite of its controversiality, the notion of genre can offer important insights into the nature, scope and functions of parliamentary discourse. Following Swales (1998/1990), genre may be regarded primarily as a class of communicative events in which language (and/or paralanguage) plays both a significant and an indispensable role (1998: 45) and the members of which share some set of communicative purposes (1998: 58). Furthermore, these purposes are recognized by the expert members of the parent discourse community, and thereby constitute the rationale for the genre (1998: 58).

From a pragma-linguistic perspective, parliamentary discourse belongs to the genre of political discourse. As such, it displays particular institutionalised discursive features and ritualised

interaction strategies, while complying with and/or circumventing a number of specific rules and constraints. The discursive interaction of parliamentarians is constantly marked 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. Parliamentary debates are meant to achieve a number of institutionally specific purposes, namely positionclaiming, persuading, negotiating, agenda-setting, and opinion building, usually along ideological or party lines.

From 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 asked to make a decision by evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of a future course of action. Elements characteristic of the forensic and epideictic genres are also present, even if occasionally and to a lesser extent. This confirms the Bakhtinian view that genres are heterogeneous. One of the major functions of Members of Parliament (henceforth MPs) is to contribute to problem-solving tasks regarding legal and political deliberation, as well as decision making processes. A major incentive for the parliamentarians active participation in the debates is the constant need to promote their own image in a competitive and performance-oriented institutional interaction. The MPs discourse is meant to call into question the opponents ethos, i.e. political credibility and moral profile, while enhancing their own ethos in an attempt to strike a balance between logos, i.e. logical reasoning, and pathos, i.e. emotion eliciting force.

Subgenres of parliamentary discourse

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

A common feature of many European legislatures (for example in Germany and Sweden) is the interpellation or short debate by means of which an opposition party (or an equivalent number of MPs) 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 ministers responsibilities.

Oral ministerial statements are made in the House of Commons after questions and urgent questions, 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. A minister speaks on behalf of the government to present their official views to Parliament. Statements can be on any subject ranging from a new policy announcement to an important national or international event or crisis.

Parliamentary speeches are traditional forms of political discourse. In the House of Commons all speeches are addressed to the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House, who acts as a chairperson. The Opening Speech is the first speech in a debate. The MP who has moved, or proposed, the motion outlines their view of why the House should adopt the motion. Parliamentary speeches are supposed to display, apart from facts or events, also selfpresentations and other-presentations.

A 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 Speaker of the House. According to Factsheet 52 (available at the U.K. Parliament website), the style of debate in the House has traditionally been based on cut-and-thrust: listening to other Members speeches and intervening in them in spontaneous reaction to opponents views. Members take it in turns to speak on the subject concerned.

Since it is during debates that most of the parliamentary confrontation takes place, it is hardly surprising that several studies on parliamentary discourse have focused on highly topical issues discussed in parliaments. A recurrent theme is the debate on immigration, i.e. legitimating the expulsion of illegal immigrants in the Spanish Parliament (Martn Rojo and Van Dijk 1997, Martn Rojo 2000), argumentation and counter-argumentation in Italian parliamentary debates on immigration (ter Wal 2000a, 2000b), disputes on immigration and nationality in the French Parliament (Van der Valk 2000b, Cabasino 2001), disputes on illegal immigrants, asylum and integration in the Dutch Parliament (Van der Valk 2000a). Closely related themes have also been explored: the distinctive features of parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states (Wodak and Van Dijk 2000, ter Wal 2000b), the regional parliamentary discourse from Northern Ireland on the use of Ulster-Scots and Irish alongside English, in official proceedings (Wilson and Stapleton 2003).

There is a comprehensive set of rules set out in Erskine May regarding the form, content and scope of the subgenre of oral and written questions. One of these rules stipulates that neither the questions nor the answers should be sustained by reasoning that may give rise to controversy. Other rules apply parliamentary norms to questions, while still others define the issues on which questions could be asked. Unlike the questioning strategies in courtroom interaction, which are meant to elicit particular expected answers and to exclude unsuitable answers, parliamentary questioning strategies are not intended to elicit particular answers, but rather to embarrass and/or to challenge the respondent to make uncomfortable or revealing declarations. As has been suggested by Franklin and Norton (1993), it seems that oral questions are asked primarily where the MP considers some publicity is desirable, whereas written questions are asked when the primary goal is to obtain information. Asking a question is usually a pretext to attack or praise the government and involves information that is already known: Few members would run the risk of asking such a question without knowing the likely answer (Franklin and Norton 1993: 112).

One of the prototypical forms of parliamentary questioning discourse is Question Time in the U.K. Parliament, Question Period in the Canadian Parliament, Frgestund in the Swedish Riksdag, Questions au Gouvernement in the French Parliament, Heure des questions in the Belgian Parliament, to name but a few. This questioning procedure was introduced in the European Parliament in 1973. Apart from oral questions, all these parliaments allow for questions tabled for written answers. Question Time is a specific session devoted to questioning the foremost representatives of the Government, namely the Prime Minister and/or Government Ministers, by their fellow MPs (cf. Factsheet P1 about Parliamentary questions available on the U.K. Parliament website). Government members are held accountable for their political intentions, statements and actions by fellow MPs. The order in which the questions are asked is previously established by a process of random selection. The Speaker calls up the MPs who want to ask questions. The first question, about the Prime Ministers engagements is always predictable. However, it offers several possibilities for asking supplementary questions, which are the really tricky ones for the Prime Minister, as well as for the other responding Ministers, who have to be prepared for all kinds of unexpected questions.

Question Time becomes particularly confrontational when the questioning is carried out by members of the Opposition. This explains why Question Time has been described as a facethreatening genre by Prez de Ayala (2001: 147), who shows that the high frequency of facethreatrening acts is counterbalaced by a wide range of politeness strategies. Each macro-question is analysed in terms of adjacency pairs, turns, moves and discourse acts. The histrionic and agonistic features of three parliamentary subgenres, i.e. speeches, debates and Question Time, are examined by Ilie (2003b), who makes 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 doublespeak and incompatible or inconsistent lines of action. Two rhetorical strategies are particularly investigated in the two discourse types, namely rhetorical questions and rhetorical parentheticals.

Parliamentary activity frames

As was shown in Ilie (2003b), in order to capture the major characteristics of parliamentary discourse activities it is useful to take into account three main types of institutional frames, namely spatial-temporal frame, which regards the spatial and temporal dimensions, i.e. the physical environment of parliamentary institutions and participant positioning in space and time; participant frame, which regards the roles and identities of parliamentary agents, as well as speaker-addressee and speaker-audience relationship; and finally, interaction frame, which regards the institutional structuring and functions of various activity types that are carried out in parliament.

(1) Spatial-temporal frame in Parliament

Spatial frames regard in the first place the physical setting of the parliament building and the seating arrangements. The physical setting of the House of Commons, with the Government MPs and Opposition MPs 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 Chair faces the main public gallery, called the Strangers Gallery, where members of the public at large are supposed to sit and watch the debates. A much wider audience of TVviewers have nowadays the possibility to watch the parliamentary sessions that are telecast. But in this case, the audiences viewing perspective is restricted to the specific filming angles chosen by parliamentary TV-camerapersons when foregrounding or backgrounding certain persons, interactions, etc.

Above the Speakers Chair is the Reporters Gallery. On the floor of the House on the Speakers right are the benches occupied by the supporters of the Government. By convention, Ministers sit on the front bench on the right hand of the speaker. The Prime Ministers seat is opposite to the despatch box on the Table. Official Opposition spokespersons use the front bench to the Speakers left. The Leader of the Opposition is sitting opposite the despatch box on that side of the Table. Thus, as a result of the seating arrangement, Government MPs and Opposition MPs are practically facing each other. Minority parties sit on the benches (often the front two) below the gangway on the left, though a minority party that identifies with the Government may sit on the right-hand side. However, as is indicated in Factsheet 52, there is nothing sacrosanct about these places, and on sundry occasions, when a Member 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 action.

Speeches made in the House of Commons have to conform to very specific rules. A Minister or Opposition spokesperson can speak from the Dispatch Box at the Table of the House, but other MPs have to rise to speak from where they were previously sitting and not from a rostrum. However, front-bench members usually stand at one of the Despatch boxes.

Important time-related constraints should also be taken into account in connection with the spatial frame. Some parliamentary sittings, such as Question Time, start at a particular preestablished 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. Certain 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 frequent unauthorised interruptions. A comparable situation can be found in most parliaments. (2) Participant frame in Parliament

In all parliaments, MPs enact specific participant roles, namely interacting participants and onlooking audiences. MPs are involved in a co-performance which is meant to both address and engage (sometimes even co-act with) an audience of MPs as active participants, who are

expected to contribute explicit forms of audience-feedback, e.g. questions, responses, interruptions. What is important for MPs is to consistently promote a political line which meets the general wishes of the voters (as expressed at general elections), to put certain issues on the political agenda, as well as to take desirable initiatives and effective measures.

(i) Parliamentary forms of address

The rules controlling the parliamentary forms of address are subject to a complex interplay of socio-cultural constraints: the overall effect and significance of the institutional activity in which the MPs are engaged, the nature of the institutionalised relationships (social distance and dominance) between MPs, the extent to which MPs share a common set of cultural expectations with respect to the social activity and the speech events that they are carrying out. While in noninstitutional settings politeness rules are just regulative and therefore provide more choice, in institutional settings, such as the Parliament, they are constitutive and therefore discourseintegrated.

In the House of Commons MPs are normally not addressed by their actual names, but by the names of their constituency or by their official position. Most importantly, MPs are addressed and address each other in the 3rd person singular through the intermediary of the Speaker of the House, who acts as a moderator. Interestingly, the only parliamentary participant officially addressed in the 2nd person is the Speaker or Deputy Speaker (the address form is Sir or Madam). It is significant that the English 2nd 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 MPs when addressing the Speaker of the House, and on the other hand, as a negative address form indicator in the overt face threatening act of interrupting speaking MPs.

The MPs in other parliaments, such as the French and the Italian parliaments, are normally referred to by means of the 2nd person pronoun. The second person plural pronoun of address V is used in many languages as a honorific form to singular respected or distant alters.

The ritualised form used in the Commons to address an MP is the Honourable Gentleman/Lady. In Hansard, however, this phrase is expanded into the form the Honourable Member for Ockendon (Mr. Bloggs) in order to avoid ambiguities. Two types of distinctions are marked by specific parliamentary forms of address. A hierarchical distinction is involved in the alternative uses of the Hon. Gentleman/Lady (to refer to a junior and/or ordinary MP) and the Right Hon. Gentleman/Lady (to refer to a senior and/or high status MP). A political distinction is conveyed by using one of the above-mentioned forms of address when referring to an MP that belongs to another political party than ones own, and by using the form my (Right) Hon. Friend when referring to an MP that belongs to ones own party.

Different parliaments display different degrees of flexibility and constraint. For example, interpersonal and strategic deference is conveyed in Swedish parliamentary discourse by a wider range of devices, namely: title, first and last name, title and last name, and occasionally only first name. The 3rd person pronoun is the officially acknowledged pronominal term of address in the Swedish Riksdag, just as in the House of Commons, so it counts as the unmarked pronominal address form. However, the use of the 2nd person pronoun ni also occurs occasionally in the Swedish debates (Ilie 2003d, 2005).

MPs are not expected to have a straightforward dialogue with each other, viz. to be engaged in a genuine reasoning process or truth finding discussion. All MPs are fully aware of the fact that they cannot realistically hope to persuade political opponents of the justifiability of their ideas and beliefs. While addressing the current addressee(s), their interventions and arguments are equally intended for all MPs in the House and for the wider (present or TV-viewing) audience. (ii) Parliamentary roles and audiences

The institutional interaction of debating MPs 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 MPs who are taking the floor to address the House, as well as those MPs who are being directly addressed and act as interlocutors, can be regarded as active participants. The rest of the MPs who are not actually involved in the current debate can be regarded as side participants. Other listeners, such as the Hansard reporters, the members of the press, or members of the public at large present in the Strangers Gallery, can be regarded as bystanders.

As a result of the increasing mediatisation of parliamentary proceedings, MPs perform a major part of their work in the public eye, namely in front of several kinds of audiences made up of politicians and/or laypersons. The onlooking audience is actually a multi-layered audience, i.e. the insider audience of fellow MPs, the outsider audience of visitors in the Strangers Gallery, and the more remote outsider audience of TV-viewers. As has been shown in Ilie (2003b), in Parliament there is an awareness of and a tolerance for the audience of outsiders, but the targeted audience is the insider audience of fellow MPs. No special effort is made to acknowledge the presence of this audience of outsiders or to get their approval. One of the reasons may be the fact that it is normally a random and continuously changing audience that happens to be in the Strangers Gallery on a particular day at a particular time. (3) Interaction frame in Parliament

The interaction between MPs is convention-based and rule-regulated. As instantiations of individual and group confrontations, parliamentary debates display well-regulated competing, but also collaborative discursive processes. As manifestations of collective undertakings, 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 jointly. Some of the most salient parliamentary interaction frames are described below. (i) Openings and closings of parliamentary sessions

Parliamentary proceedings in the Commons are officially opened and closed by the Speaker 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 Opening Speech. The MP who has moved, or proposed, a particular motion outlines his/her view of why the House should adopt the motion.

The State Opening of Parliament takes place after a General Election and at the beginning of each new session of Parliament. On that occasion the Queen reads the Queens Speech. It is a reminder of times when the King or Queen actually chose the legislation to be debated in Parliament. Today the Government prepares the Queens speech. The speech details the Governments policies and the bills it will introduce in the next session.

(ii) Parliamentary turn-taking and talk-monitoring rules

The turn-taking structure of parliamentary interaction shows that linguistic constraints are paralleled by institutional constraints. It is the Speaker of the House who ensures the reinforcement of orderly interventions and the observance of parliamentary rules. S/he is in charge of monitoring speaker selection and turn assignment, so that MPs take it in turns to speak and present their standpoints in an orderly manner.

In the Commons parliamentary turn-taking is regulated not only by institutional conventions, but also by the participants spontaneous verbal, paraverbal and non-verbal signalling. Paraverbal signalling refers to the way in which a verbal message is conveyed by means of tone, pitch and pacing of the voice. Since MPs may speak only if called to do so by the Speaker, they must try to catch the Speakers eye, i.e. to attract his/her attention by standing, or half standing.

(iii) Parliamentary interruptions

Another way of competing for the floor is to resort to authorised verbal interruptions. The orderly question-answer sequences can be disrupted by recurrent authorised interruptions or

interventions by MPs who want to grab the floor. In principle, an MP cannot suddenly intervene when another MP is speaking to the House unless the speaking MP allows it by giving way. The interruption consists in asking the current speaker to give way so as to allow the intervening MP to ask a question or make a comment.

Apart from authorised interruptions, there are also unauthorised interruptions, namely spontaneous verbal reactions of MPs who interrupt the current speaker. Such 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. Carb (1992) gives a detailed account of the types of interruptions in the Mexican parliament, Cabasino (2001) and Van der Valk (2002) describe interruptions in French debates on immigration, Ilie (2004b) analyses and compares interruption patterns in British parliamentary debates and in drama dialogue, while Bevitori (2004) compares the interruptions in British and Italian parliamentary debates. (iv) Parliamentary questioning/answering patterns

In all parliaments the question-response sequences represent the default adjacency pairs of several parliamentary subgenres, such as oral/written questions and Question Time. They often display exchanges of challenging, accusatory, but also countering, defensive and ironical, remarks between Opposition MPs and Government MPs, as well as friendly and cooperative questions from MPs belonging to the Government party. As has been shown in Chester and Bowring (1962), Franklin and Norton (1993) and in Limon and McKay (1997), there are several subtypes of parliamentary questions in terms of content, scope and purpose. These questions are often multifunctional and convey different degrees of argumentativeness depending on their specific contexts of occurrence. Thus, a frequent type of questions are the so-called partisan questions that are asked not only to defend and reinforce the power of the Government, but also to attack the Opposition. Another recurrent type of parliamentary questions are the attention seeking questions, used particularly by backbenchers to gain attention and to acquire information, as well as to contribute to local publicity. Nowadays an increasing number of questions are being asked by MPs on behalf of lobbying and presssure groups, usually from their own constituencies.

According to syntactic criteria, a vast majority of parliamentary questions belong to the closed category of yes-no questions, which are meant to constrain the respondents answering options. According to pragma-linguistic criteria, parliamentary questions 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 opponents weaknesses, often in an ironical or sarcastic tone.

(v) Parliamentary politeness strategies

As has been shown in Ilie (2001, 2003d, 2005) and Prez de Ayala (2001), parliamentary debates involve systematic face-threatening acts marked by unparliamentary language and behaviour. These acts cover a continuum that ranges from milder/mitigated 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, prejudices, taboos, as well as value judgements of different social-political groups, as well as individuals in a community.

Cross-cultural studies are particularly enlightening in this respect, since the forms and functions of insults and their respective feedbacks vary in different cultures and institutional settings. Several aspects of the use and effects of unparliamentary language in the U.K. Parliament and in the Swedish Riksdag have been examined from a politeness and cognitive theoretical perspective (Ilie 2001), as well as from a rhetorical perspective (Ilie 2003d). One of the conclusions is that what is generally referred to as unparliamentary uses of language constitute instances of institutionally ritualised confrontational interaction. (Ilie 2003d: 81). The results of the contrastive analysis indicate that English unparliamentary language is marked particularly by pathos-oriented logos, whereas Swedish unparliamentary language is marked particularly by ethos-oriented logos. (vi) Parliamentary metadiscourse

Metadiscourse is a term generally used to indicate a shift in discourse levels, by means of which the speakers multi-level messages are being conveyed alongside, above and/or beyond the unfolding discourse. Parliamentary 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 participants interpersonal and institutional voices, on the other.

Several metadiscursive strategies have been investigated in the British parliamentary discourse: metadiscursive argumentation through the use and misuse of clichs (Ilie 2000), metadiscursive attribution, reporting and quoting strategies (Ilie 2003a), and metadiscursive parentheticals (Ilie 2003b, 2003c).
Bibliography

Bayley, Paul (ed.). (2004). Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bevitori, Cinzia. (2004). Negotiating conflict: Interruptions in British and Italian parliamentary debates. In P. Bayley (ed.) Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. 87-109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Biryukov, Nikolai, Jeffrey Gleisner and Victor Sergeyev. (1995). The Crisis of sobornost:

Parliamentary discourse in present-day Russia. Discourse & Society 6 (2): 149-175. Cabasino, Francesca. (2001). Formes et enjeux du dbat public. Discours parlementaire et immigration. Roma: Bulzoni. Carb, Teresa. (1992). Towards an interpretation of interruptions in Mexican parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society 3(1): 25-45. Chester, D.Norman and Bowring, Nona. (1962). Questions in Parliament. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Copeland, Gary W. and Samuel C. Patterson (eds). (1997). Parliaments in the modern world: Changing institutions. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Franklin, M. and Norton, P. (eds). (1993). Parliamentary questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ilie, Cornelia. (2000). Clich-based metadiscursive argumentation in the Houses of Parliament. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10 (1): 65-84. Ilie, Cornelia. (2001). Unparliamentary language: Insults as cognitive forms of confrontation. In R. Dirven, R. Frank and C. Ilie (eds.) Language and Ideology, Vol. II: Descriptive Cognitive Approaches, 235-263, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ilie, Cornelia. (2003a). Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics 1(2): 269-291. Ilie, Cornelia. (2003b). Histrionic and agonistic features of parliamentary discourse. Studies in Communication Sciences 3(1): 25-53. Ilie, Cornelia. (2003c). Parenthetically speaking: Parliamentary parentheticals as rhetorical strategies. In M. Bondi and S. Stati (eds.) Current Studies in Dialogic Communication, 253264. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Ilie, Cornelia. (2003d). Insulting as (un)parliamentary practice in the English and Swedish Parliaments. Forthcoming in P. Bayley (ed.) Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. 45-86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ilie, Cornelia. (2004). Interruption patterns in British parliamentary debates and in drama dialogue. In A. Betten and M. Dannerer (eds.) Dialoganalyse IX - Dialogue in Literature and the Media. 311-326. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Ilie, Cornelia. (2005). Politeness in Sweden: Parliamentary forms of address. In L. Hickey and M. Stewart (eds.) Politeness in Europe. 174-188. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Jaworski, Adam and Coupland, Nikolas (eds.). (1999). The discourse reader. London and New

York: Routledge. Limon, D.W. and McKay, W.R. (eds.). (1997). Erskine May: Parliamentary practice. 22nd edition. London: Butterworths. Martn Rojo, Luisa. (2000). Spain, outer wall of the European fortress: Analysis of parliamentary debates on immigration policy in Spain. In R. Wodak and T. Van Dijk (eds.). Racism at the top. Parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states. Ch. 6. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava Verlag. Martn Rojo, Luisa and van Dijk, Teun. (1997). There was a problem and it was solved. Legitimating the expulsion of illegal immigrants in Spanish Parliament. Discourse & Society 8(4): 563-606. Morgan, Roger, and Clare Tame (eds). (1996). Parliaments and parties: The European Parliament in the political life of Europe. London: Macmillan. (chs on Britain, Italy, Denmark) Olson, M.D. & Norton, P. (eds). (1996). The new parliaments of central and Eastern Europe. London, Portland: Frank Cass. Prez de Ayala, Soledad. (2001). FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting needs? - Politeness in Question Time. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 143-169. Silk, Paul and Rhodri Walters. (1987). How parliament works. London: Longman. Slembrouck, S. (1992). The parliamentary Hansard verbatim report: The written construction of spoken discourse. Language and Literature 1(2), 101-119. Swales, John M. (1998/1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. ter Wal, J. (2000a). Comparing argumentation and counter-argumentation in Italian parliamentary debate on immigration. In M. Reisigl and R. Wodak (eds.) The Semiotics of Racism. Vienna: Passagen Verlag. ter Wal, J. (2000b). Italy: sicurezza e solidariet. In R. Wodak and T. van Dijk (eds.) Racism at the top. Parliamentary discourse on ethnic issues in 6 European states, Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag. Van der Valk, Ineke. (2000a). Parliamentary discourse on illegal immigrants, asylum and integration: The case of Holland. In R. Wodak & T.A. van Dijk (eds.) Racism at the Top. Parliamentary discourses on ethnic isues in six European states. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag. Van der Valk, Ineke. (2000b). Parliamentary discourse on immigration and nationality in France.

In R. Wodak & T.A. van Dijk (eds.) Racism at the top. Parliamentary discourses on ethnic isues in six European states. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag. Van der Valk, Ineke. (2002). Interruptions in French debates on immigration, In R. Wodak and M. Reisigl (eds.), The semiotics of racism. Vienna: Passagenverlag. Van Dijk, Teun. (2000a). Parliamentary debates. In R. Wodak and T.A. Van Dijk (eds.) Racism at the top. Parliamentary discourses on ethnic isues in six European states. (45-78). Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava Verlag. Van Dijk, Teun. (2004). Text and context of parliamentary debates. In P. Bayley (ed.) Crosscultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. 340-372. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wilson, John and Karyn Stapleton. (2003). Nation-state, devolution and the parliamentary discourse of minority languages. Journal of Language and Politics 2(1): 5-30. Wodak, Ruth and Teun A. Van Dijk (eds.). (2000). Racism at the top. Parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava Verlag.

Parliamentary Web Sites http://www.jimslaughter.com/parliamentarywebsites.htm

Inter-Parliamentary Union http://www.ipu.org/english/home.htm

Parliamentary Procedure Quotations http://www.jimslaughter.com/quotations.htm

ECPRD (European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation http://www.ecprd.org/index.asp The United Kingdom Parliament Home Page http://www.parliament.uk

Live coverage of U.K Parliament proceedings http://www.parliamentlive.tv