PAGE 1LaughterAnalysis of the Roles of LaughterI. IN.docx

Laughter
Analysis of the Roles of Laughter
I. INTRODUTION
A “common sense” approach to laughter is that is it simply a
response to humorous stimuli that conveys nothing else but
amusement. However, much research has been done recently
that indicates that laughter is much more than a simple response
to humorous stimuli and is indeed a means of communication
that can convey a variety of meaning and emotion depending on
the context of the subject of conversation and the familiarity of
the people speaking (Bonaiuto, Castellana, & Pierro, 2003;
Coates, 2007; Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 2006; Provine, 2004;
Vetttin & Todt, 2004). Laughter apparently can be interpreted
by the listener in a conversation in a variety of ways by the
listener and has not just one specific meaning or role, but rather
it conveys a myriad of that can be interpreted by the listener in
a variety of ways. The focus of this paper here is to analyze the
context in which laughter occurs within the context of a radio
talk show and a telephone conversation between two friends.
This analysis will examine how laughter communicates a sense
of acknowledging the connotation of the perceived humorous
utterance and how the speakers in the conversation show
solidarity by understanding the connotation of what the other
speaker said based on the findings of Bonaiuto et al (2003),
Coates (2007), Lampert & Ervin-Tripp (2006), and Vetttin &
Todt (2004).
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Provine (2004) discusses and defines the basis of laughter as an
“instinctive social call” that has roots in the “play” of early
human ancestors, i.e. apes. Since the roots of laughter began the
play of early human ancestors, for modern humans, laughter has
become a type of social importance to the extent that people are
much more likely to laugh when in the company of others
versus when alone. Because of this, Provine (2004) argues that
“laughter is a signal we send to others” since people rarely
laugh alone. Although there are many types of laughter for
many types of reasons, Provine (2004) explains laughter appears
in all cultures and is therefore universal. Furthermore, laughter
“punctuates speech” but is not speech and is usually placed at
the end of “complete statements or questions.” This indicates,
according to Provine (2004), that speech and laughter are
controlled by different parts of the brain since laughter is
spontaneous but does seem to have a type of “punctuation
effect,” i.e. it can allow for a pause or break in conversation.
Again, Provine (2008) makes clear that laughter is not
necessarily a conscious controlled act.
Despite not being a conscious act, one of the ways in which
laughter is used in conversation that may appear to be a
conscious act is as a type of “negotiation” where the speakers
attempt to use laughter as a means to make the listener agree
with their point, i.e. show solidarity (Bonaiuto et al., 2003).
This is done by looking at how a speaker can use laughter to
redefine a previous statement made by the speaker to let the
listener know that the previous statement made by the speaker
was not what he or she ment to say. For Bonaiuto et al (2003),
laughter is about legitimizing a particular statement and
negotiating its legitimacy. However, they found that laughter
can be used as a means of arguing by laughing to send a
message that the other speaker’s statement seems illegitimate.
This event can be witnessed in political debates where one
speaker will use laughter to scoff at the other’s statement.
Furthermore, Bonaiuto et al (2003) discuss the issue of when

one speaker gives “minimal or no acknowledgement” to a
statement intended as humorous by the other speaker and how
this fails to legitimize the joke teller’s point. This type of
minimal acknowledgement seems to be a conscious effort.
Perhaps it is because the speaker is not really laughing but
mocking the listener. Either way, this does seems to have a
function apart from other types of laughter and can function as a
means to convey sincerity or insincerity of either the one
laughing or the listener and acts as a strategic tool for the one
laughing.
Conversely, Coates (2007) views humor and laughter as
“conversation play” where the humor is in “what was meant”
versus “what was said.” This can be done when friends overlap
one another’s speech and say something similar at the same time
as the other speaker. This event is usually followed by laughter.
This, Coates (2007) explains, is typical in humorous talk among
friends and intimates, and shows “joint ownership of the
conversational floor.” Another way that Coates (2007) explains
how speakers share solidarity with their humor and laughter are
with “co-constructed utterances.” This occurs when one speaker
finishes another’s utterance so that the two speakers share “a
single voice.” She maintains that laughter is a signal from one
speaker to another that they are sharing in the collaboration and
involvement of the conversation. Because of this, the speaker
will send as strong a message of acknowledgement with
laughter as he or she does with little or no laughter. Of course,
these two have different meanings to the speaker and listener—
it is the presence or absence of laughter that conveys much.
Since laughter does convey much, and it may be interpreted by
the listener in unanticipated ways, there are apparent risks
involved with humor and laughter. Lampert and Ervin-Tripp
(2006) explain that the risk here is whether or not the speakers
view the laughter as a tease, that is, something the both speaker

and listener find humorous or, the risky part of it, whether the
listener views the intended humor as insulting. The reaction of
one speaker to another’s laughter has to do with how much
background information each has on the other. One possible
scenario, Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2006) explain, is that the
listener will presume the laughter or humor as a “real world
relevance” by presuming what was said by the speaker literally,
i.e. the denotation of the words uttered. Conversely, if the
listener uses “imaginary relevance,” the utterance is seen as
sarcasm or a type of teasing, that is, if the speaker’s laugh or
humor indicates, “just kidding.” This, however, is risky as well
in that the listener may not have understood that what was said
by the speaker was ment as humor. In this way, laughter can
mitigate the denotation of the words uttered and lets the listener
know that an insult was not intended. If the listener does not
understand, uses “real world relevance,” he or she could be
insulted and see the laughter or humor as a face-threatening act.
Vettin and Todt (2004) took a different approach to laughter by
viewing it as a means of communication rather than a simple
acknowledgement of something humorous. Instead of having
subjects stimulated with humor, Vettin and Todt (2004)
examined the differences in how people laughed in a variety of
situations during a conversation. Much of the data was
measured both acoustically, by occurrence, and by frequency of
laughter. What they found was that participants laughed more
often then they could later recall. The study also showed that
strangers laughed more often together than did acquaintances.
Because of this, Vettin & Todt (2004) explain that “laughter
may be effective means for establishing new relations.”
However, they found that strangers rarely will interrupt
another’s turn by overlapping with laughter. Conversely, those
that were “close friends” did this more often. Apparently,
overlapping with laughter when conversing with strangers “may
have negative consequences for the future relationship.”

III. THE DATA
The first attached transcript (see APPENDIX A) was taken from
the Bill Handel Show’s “Gripe Night in the Morning” that aired
on December 19, 2008 during the 5AM hour. The excerpt was
taken from the web site,
>http://kfiam640.com/podcast/BillHandel.xml<, which is an
archive of pod casts from previous airings. In this excerpt, an
adult male caller, James, complains about the high cost of
medical marijuana. Bill Handel, a fifty-seven year old male, and
Jodi Becker, an adult female, comment on the caller’s remarks
and ask questions in order to glean information from the caller
and to maintain the conversation.
The second attached transcript (see APPENDIX B) was taken
form a telephone conversation recorded in February 2009. The
conversation occurs between two friends: Debrah a white female
college student in her mid to late twenties and Brandi, Debrah’s
friend, a thirty-two year old white female. There is another,
Charles, Debrah’s older brother, that answers the phone in the
beginning of the conversation, but he is only in the conversation
for about fifteen seconds or so. The conversation is casual and
discusses a variety of topics including health, friends, kids at
school, people losing their jobs, education, and joking about
making the world better for them to live.
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
In the “Bill Handel Show” transcript, James (J), calls to
complain about the high cost of medical marijuana. In example
(1), when Bill (B) asks about the price of it, J begins to explain
and then starts laughing as he responds to B’s questions. This
seems to allude to what Bonaiuto et al (2003) described as the
speaker using laughter by “negotiating” with the listener to
agree with his point that medical marijuana is overpriced and of
lesser quality than what he can grow at home in line 29.

However, in line 33, 34, 36, and 38, the other co-hosts (X) and
(?) seem to be teasing J and take on the notion of what Lambert
and Ervin-Tripp (2005) described by using “imaginary
relevance” to connote that J is in fact under the influence of
marijuana at that time.
(1) 23
J
Well you go in like if you buy an ounce of it it’s about four
hundred bucks, (.)
24
J
and you can get it on the street cheaper,
25
(.)
26
J
hh and u::h you [know uh
27
B
[is it as good quality though
28
(.)
29---(J
ne nuh I’ve had better uh heheheheh (.)
30
B
You’ve[ had better on the street or you’ve had better ]

31---(?
[˚h hahah hahahahahahahahahaha˚
32
B
[in [<uh> the store.
33---(X
[Right no:w he’s ha(h)d be(h)tt(h)er hh
34---(?
[˚he he hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha˚
35
J
[No. No no no I’ve had better on the street (.) you know=
36---(?
[he he hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhaah˚
37---(J
=I’ve uh I’ve had better in my backyard. h hehehe
38---(?
[˚he he hahahaha˚
J continues in line 37 by continuing to negotiate with his
interlocutors by using laughter again to legitimize his claim.
What’s interesting here is that X and ? are using laughter in an
entirely different manner in that they seem to be taking the risk
that Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2005) describe and could
possibly be seen by J as a face threatening act. However, J does
not seem to take it as such since he continues with his strategy
of negotiating and legitimizing his claim. What is interesting
here is that B does not laugh here when it is evident that
everyone else is laughing. It is difficult to ascertain why B did

not laugh, but by not laughing, this could also be seen as a face
threatening act towards J in that could fail to legitimize the J’s
humor and laughter that he was using to attempt to legitimize
his claim (Bonaiuto, 2003). Figure (2) shows the conversation
with a minimal acknowledgement from B again while J and ?
laugh.
(2) 64
J
yeah. [Yeah.
65 B
[how much you weigh now.
66 (.2)
67 J
uuumm I I gained about twenty-five pounds I had uh uh=
68---(B
=[yeah I’ll bet
69---(J
[uh unusual heheheheh
70---(J & ?
[hahahahahahahahahahahh
71---(B
[yeah that tends to happen
72 X
you gotta put[ down the ben [an jerry’s fish food man
73---(B
[yeah

74---(?
[˚ha hahaha haha˚
Again, in lines 69 and 70 J attempts to legitimize his claim, but
this time it is about his weight gain. In line 68 and 73, all B
says is, “yeah,” thereby de-legitimizing J’s attempt at
legitimizing his claim with laughter.
However, a major difference occurs here where ? is now
laughing in unison with J in line 70 in figure (2). According to
Coates (2007), this type of unison overlap generally indicates
“joint ownership of the conversational floor” and would seem to
coincide with the Bonaiuto et al (2003) idea of a successful
attempt at using laughter as negotiating to come to a sense of
solidarity in the conversation.
Yet, B still does not laugh at all even though, as figure (3)
shows, he begins to joke about opening a business next to
medical marijuana stores.
(3) 78 B
[I, you know what.
79 J
[˚where’s the money go˚
80 B Tha ma[ my idea was tuh=
81 J
[˚the money goin˚
82---(B

=open up baskin robins ice cream stores next to e:very
medic[al marijuana=
83---(?
[˚heheheheh˚]
84---(B
=facility in California I [would make a f:ourchun.
85 J
[oh yeah
Lines 82 and 84 shows B discussing a plan to open a business,
but ? uses “imaginary relevance” discussed by Lampert and
Ervin-Tripp (2005) and laughs in line 83. The “imaginary
relevance” used by ? is clearly marked by his laughter in that he
believes B is teasing and therefore overlaps him with laughter.
However, Lampert and Ervin Tripp (2005) would point out that
? is taking a risk since it is possible that B literally means that
he wants to open an ice-cream store, i.e. using “real-world
relevance.”
Looking at the telephone call transcript reveals a different
perspective on laughter since the phone call occurred between
two friends. Despite the different subject matter and
demographics of the subjects, the laughter in this transcript
illustrates more of the “imaginary relevance” that Lampert and
Ervin-Tripp (2005) discussed as demonstrated by figure (4).
(4) 35 B: I breathe like an old person with emphysema
36 D: hm

37 ((pause))
38 D: Well you’re too young to be an old person with
emphysema.
39 B: It’s true and granted I do have a birthday
coming but still
40---(D: heh
41---(B: heheheheh .h
Why does D see B’s remark of getting older and possibly having
a worsening condition as joke? Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2005)
maintain:
Speakers who intend their remarks to be heard as humor must
ensure that their comments will be heard within an immediate
context to have only weak or no relevance to the primary real-
world layer of talk, and that for their audience, the effort to
allow for relevance on an imaginary plane will be less than the
effort required to detect the real-world relevance (p. 54).
Since it appears that D is familiar with B’s condition, and that
emphysema is not a part of it, so D can interpret this as humor
based upon the context due to her familiarity with B and both
can laugh in lines 40-41 in figure (4).
In figure (5), D and B not only demonstrate “imaginary
relevance” again, but the two also show that they are sharing
“joint ownership of the conversational floor” as well (Lampert
& Ervin-Tripp, 2005; Coates, 2006).
(5) 331 B: I don’t think they do that yet though. - Do they

do lung transplants?
332 ((pause))
333---(D: I: don’t know - They had iron lungs
334---(B: I don’t ↑wa:nt an ↓iron [o:ne
335 D: [hmh hmh .hhh .hhh
336---(B: Then I’ll really be conscientious about my
weight.
337---(D: hhh hhh hhh hhh hhh hhh .hhh heh heh .h heh
heh .h
338---(B: [heheh
339---(D: [heheh .h heheh
Lines 333, 334, and 335 demonstrate the “imaginary relevance”
by interpreting the weight gain that B would suffer if she had
one by D’s laughter in lines 335 and 337. Furthermore, lines
338 and 339 show the unison laughter that is associated with
that is reveals, according to Coates (2006), that B and D are
engaging in “conversation as play” where the humor is in “what
was ment” instead of “what was said.” Figure (6) again
demonstrates the continuation of the discussion and same use of
“imaginary relevance”.
(6) 347---(B: Imagining me running around with an iron
lu(hh)ng.
348 D: hhhhhhhhh ha ha ha .hhh
The laughter in the above examples clearly indicates that B and
D ment the remark to be humorous rather than a literal “real-

world relevance” by continuing to make remarks like the one in
line 347 by using the imagery of B “running” around with a
heavy machine attached to her (Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 2005).
V. DISCUSSION
It appears then that the transcripts do reflect some of the data in
the transcript. The Bill Handel Show transcript example showed
how laughter can be used in a conversation as a type of
“negotiation” as described in Bonaiuto et al (2003). This was
especially the case with B’s failure to laugh, and his lack of
laughter could possibly be viewed as a face-threatening act
towards the speaker’s attempt at negotiation and is what makes
laughter and humor “risky” (Lambert & Ervin-Tripp, 2005). In
addition, both the Bill Handel and telephone conversation
examples clearly demonstrated how the notion of what “real-
world relevance” and “imaginary relevance” in laughter and
humor are played out in friendly conversation as described in
Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2005).
What was difficult to determine was what the intentions of the
speakers were. That is, without being able to interview and get
feedback from the subjects in the transcription, the transcript of
the conversation was the only way in which any theory could be
presumed. In addition, a major factor that was missing in this
analysis was body language and whether or not the subjects
were smiling or laughing inaudibly. This is especially the case
for the Bill Handel transcript since he may have been laughing
or smiling without anyone other than his co-hosts knowledge. In
order to get a more accurate study of laughter, the subjects
should be studies via video and audio since the exclusive use of
audio leaves much of what many people rely on for non-verbal
cues that communicate as much as laughter.
VI. CONCLUSION

Again, many of the theories posited by Bonaiuto et al (2003),
Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2005), and Coates (2006) were
demonstrated in the attached transcripts. It is also important to
note that the theories of Coates (2006) where the humor is in
“what was ment” versus “what was said” are very similar to the
relevancies discussed by Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2005). The
echoing of these two notions seems to further solidify what was
discussed here with these two transcripts. With all of this in
mind, conversational laughter, then, relies much on context and
familiarity or an acknowledgement of the connotation of what
said so that both speakers can have a mutual understanding of
what is ment.
APPENDIX A
Transcript: “Where’s Money the Goin’?”
Radio Program: The Bill Handel Show on KFI 640 AM Los
Angeles
Participants: Radio Host : Bill Handel (B)
Male caller: James (J): Complaining about the high cost
of medical marijuana
News Reporter: Jodi Becker (X)
1 B
Next Gripe=
2 X
=One more? We’ve James
3 (.4)

4 B
Ja:mes.
5 (.3)
6 J
Hey
7 B
>We[lc]ome to kfi.<
8 J
[xxxx]
9 (.5)
10 J
Hey howya doin Bill.
11 (.)
12 B
I’m ↑good.
13 (.2)
14 J
Hey uh you know the tax money bit an all that (.)
15 J
uuh you know these >medical marijuana stores?< They’re ch-
16 J
they’re charging these outrageous prices an uh (.)
17 J

hhh these guys kinda act like >hoodz in there< where’s all this
money goin.
18 (.4)
19 B
Rilly? Whadda they charge for grass in th mara in the medical
marijuana places.
20 B
it’s been a [while since] I’ve been in one.
21 J
[Waaaaeee,]
22 (.3)
23 J
Well you go in like if you buy an ounce of it it’s about four
hundred bucks, (.)
24 J
and you can get it on the street cheaper,
25 (.)
26 J
hh and u::h you [know uh
27 B
[is it as good quality though
28 (.)
29 J
ne nuh I’ve had better uh heheheheh (.)

30 B
You’ve[ had better on the street or you’ve had better ]
31 ?
[˚h hahah hahahahahahahahahaha˚
32 B
[in [<uh> the store.
33 X
[Right no:w he’s ha(h)d be(h)tt(h)er hh
34 ?
[˚he he hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha˚
35 J
[No. No no no I’ve had better on the street (.) you know=
36 ?
[he he hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhaah˚
37 J
=I’ve uh I’ve had better in my backyard. h hehehe
38 ?
[˚he he hahahaha˚
39 (.)
40 J
but, but where’s all that money ↑goin.
41 J
h:ow’s the gover[men ke-

42 B
[well lemmy a well lemmy ask you a question.
43 B [ ]Lemmy a[sk y]ou a question.
44 J
[kay]
[kay]
45 B
If it turns out. (.) That you’re payin four hundred dollars an
ounce for marijuana which I assume they’re keeping I mean
these medical marijuana (vu-ride) are keeping the money.
46 B
and it is legal to gro:w,
47 B
what up to six or eight plants or whatever the hell id iz
48 (.)
49 B
at home (.) for uh medicinal purposes.
50 B
for that legitimate for this reuh >under the same.<
51 B
Prescription that you have in terms of buying it,
52 B
Why aren’t you growing your ↑own?
53 (.)

54 J
Well. Well. Uh ((clears throat)) I am now since I,
55 J
you know I uh I had to stop buying it because
56 J
you know I had to[ wait] until I could grow it.
57 B
[yeah]
58 J
you know I uh uh it took nine months to grow it.
59 (.2)
60 J
so in the meantime [I’ll ((unintelligible))
61 B
[so at four hundred bucks an ounce,
62 B
alright. So now you you’ve gone through you know an the and
that’s ↑great.
63 (.)
64 J
yeah. [Yeah.
65 B

[how much you weigh now.
66 (.2)
67 J
uuumm I I gained about twenty-five pounds I had uh uh=
68 B
=[yeah I’ll bet
69 J
[uh unusual heheheheh
70 J & ?
[hahahahahahahahahahahh
71 B
[yeah that tends to happen
72 X
you gotta put[ down the ben [an jerry’s fish food man
73 B
[yeah
74 ?
[˚ha hahaha haha˚
75 B
yeah. Yeah=
76 X
=step aw[a:y from ] cheetos.

77 B
[I’ll tellya]
78 B
[I, you know what.
79 J
[˚where’s the money go˚
80 B
Tha ma[ my idea was tuh=
81 J
[˚the money goin˚
82 B
=open up baskin robins ice cream stores next to e:very
83 medic[al marijuana=
84 ?
[˚heheheheh˚]
85 B
=facility in California I [would make a f:ourchun.
86 J
[oh yeah
87 X
snooch[y goochies

88 J
[˚oh god˚
89 B
[there would be li:nes down the street.
90 (.)
91 J
huh you got it it I’m telling ya[ man
92 B
[absol[utely alright take care.
93 J
[but where’s the money goin=
94 J
= where’s the money goin
95 B
They’re ↑KEEPin ↓it >whaddaya mean where’s the money
goin<=
96 B
=they’re ↑KEEP[in ↓it

97 J
[wulla-
98 (.)
99 J
Wu California needs it [ah h haha
100 X
[ it’s called ca:pitalism James
101 X
learn the r:u[les man
102 B
[ya can you imagine California started selling medical
marijuana=
103 B
=medical gra[de] marijuana
104 X
[ay]
APPENDIX B
Transcript: “Talking on the phone with a friend”
Participants:

D=Debrah (white female college student)
B=Brandi (Debrah’s friend, 32 year old white female)
C=Charles (Debrah’s brother, 34 year old white male)
1 ((Phone ringing))
2 C: ((In falsetto)) Hell↑o:.
3 D: ((In falsetto)) Hell↑o:. You’re not the person I was
ca:lling?
4 C: Ah she says? that she’s curr↑ently busy and that she’d be
happy to call jyou back.
5 D: (In falsetto) What’s she currently ↑doin.
6 ((pause))
7 C: Uhhh she’s making something in the kitchen.
8 D: O::::h - well then I’m guessing thats meani:ng she’s not
coming over today.
9 C: Ohuh here she is
10 D: hm hm
11 ((pause))
12 B: Hello?
13 D: Hola. lady?
14 B: I forgot to call you - I torry

15 D: heh heh heh
16 .hhh It’s okay I thought maybe you’d forgotten to call
me
17 B: I storry
18 D: ↑Are you feeling any better?
19 B: hhha little betterhhh
20 ((pause))
21 Breathing isn’t much better though which is the
concern.
22 ((pause))
23 D: Ny ea:h? Breathing’s import.ant.
24 B: hah
25 B: Well
26 ((pause))
27 B: Just breathing a little better than yesterday would have
been hap- would have been
28 happy with me
29 D: Your not breathing any better?
30 B: Not really

31 ((pause))
32 D: °Well
33 ((pause))
34 D: °Are you
35 B: I breathe like an old person with emphysema
36 D: hm
37 ((pause))
38 D: Well you’re too young to be an old person with
emphysema.
39 B: It’s true and granted I do have a birthday coming but
still
40 D: heh
41 B: heheheheh .h
42 D: And granted you have been breathing second hand
smoke your entire life
43 B: Well not my entire life - ( ) past you know five or six
years
44 D: mhhh hh
45 B: heh
46 D: That’s long enough for your lungs to clear up isn’t it?

47 B: Well ye::ah sure it should be completely cure- cured by
now
48 D: (h)
49 ((pause))
50 D: ((clear throat)) how bought your aches and pains.
51 B: I’m still achy
52 ((pause))
53 B: ((exhaled pant))
54 D: I talked to Paul yesterday.
55 B: Oh and?
56 D: H(h)e a(h)sked how you were. I said that you sounded
like death warmed over.
57 B: Oh:. You’re so ni:ce
58 D: heh .hhh
59 B: What’d he say.
60 D: He- he laughed.
61 B: Well yeah cuz
62 ((pause))
63 Actually death warmed over is a natural state? for me.

64 D: hhh .h
65 - And I asked him
66 ((pause))
67 about the:: about the gu:y?
68 B: uh. huh?
69 D: A:n - he said that he promised not to come to the
dinner,
70 ((pause))
71 B: Su:re.
72 D: A:nd - he Paul thinks that he’s - kind of full of it.
73 ((pause))
74 B: Wull we all think that but
75 D: hhh
76 B: ((pause))
77 B: But the
78 D: Wull he doesn’t think that lawyer guy was a real lawyer
guy he thinks
79 that he was an accountant law yer guy.
80 B: ((cough)) Oh no=

81 = no no I think the guy that showed up was the guy that
was complaining.
82 D: No: I know I ( ) the guy that - ca:lled I guess. that said
he was a lawyer?
83 B: Ha::
84 D: He thinks he was just the accountant guy.
85 B: 。Oh:
86 D: 。So
87 ((pause))
88 Any ways. Hopefully that’ll all be okay this evening.
89 B: °Wull °I
90 B: °Yeah
91 ((pause))
92 Yeah. Pastor Paul emailed me a couple times yesterday.
93 I tried to email him back the answers.
94 ((pause))
95 D hh h
96 B: I wonder if he got everything done - oh wull-
97 D: I don’t know when I talked to him I asked him if he
needed an:y: help?

98 B: uh huh?
99 D: A:nd
100 ((pause))
101 u:m
102 ((pause))
103 He said it would be nice to have someone there when
he ↑got there
104 ((pause))
105 But I asked him what time that was and he says ↑that’s
a good question.
106 - An then
107 B: When he got there.
108 D: Huh? - when he he was going in today.
to do: th(h)e wo(h)rk=
109 B: When he got there.
heh .h
110 D: = ((with laughing tone of voice))What. You think he
can get his sermon done at the
111 same time he’s doing a:ll the secretary work? hhh .h
112 B: ye:ah

113 D: hh .h
114 B: It’s not hard to put paper in and push print
115 D: Not well probably not if you
116 B: And then you could go back and work on
your sermon whi:le it’s
117 printing?, cuz it takes a while.
118 D: Yeah
119 ((pause))
120 Wull
121 B: Cuz I don’t have a copier.
122 ((pause))
123 he h
124 D: heh .h
125 But you will by Monday
126 B: Eeee
127 ((pause) )
128 And then you take it out and flip it overh hhh
129 He’s gonna waste so many - bulletins haha hahaha
130 D: But h

131 D: I asked him what time he was going to get there and he
said ↑That’s a good question
132 B:
((cough))
133 D: An I said well? - call me and he hasn’t called me so
134 B: hhhhh
135 D: And he’s running out of time cuz I go into work at
three
136 ((pause))
137 B: O::h yeah I gatta go get kids at o:ne cuz they have
minimum day.
138 D: Oh- why- do you know why?
139 B: - I don’t know why.=
140 D: =Because Dakota wasn’t at school today either
141 ((pause))
142 I told Beth either it was an in-service day or he got
expelled. - She said that wasn’t
143 very nice. I said - okay suspended.
144 She said that’s sti(h)ll no(h)t ve(h)ry ni(hh)ce.
145 B: But i

146 B: Yeah well?
147 ((pause))
148 ( ) can know it’s not very nice. It could be very true
149 D: Hahahahah .h
150 ((pause))
151 B: >I don’t know< I don’t - know why it just says - on the
paper that they’re - they
152 had minimum day yesterday and today.
153 ((pause))
154 That ↑was ↑it - ↓doesn’t ↑say ↑why
155 D: hmm
156 B: And then- and insist that you pick them ↑up ↓so
157 D: heh .h °go:(h)sh
158 ((rusting phone noise))
159 B: It just says, - there’s a big - yellow piece of paper says
minimum days Thursday,
160 Friday minimum days dismissal will be at twelve fifty-
one. That’s it.
161 And there’s a koala on it cuz they’re the Kelley
Koalas.
162 D: O::h

163 B: It’s that cute.
164 D: That’s a fearsome kind of -
165 B: O:h jy e::s
166 D: h hh
167 B: I’m very scared when I go there.
168 °They’re gonna fling phhh
169 D: That’s because you’re pi(h)cking u(h)p your ki(h)ds
170 B: They’re gonna fling pooh at me or so(h)meth(hh)ing
I(hh) do(hh)n’t kno(hh)w
171 heh heh he he
172 D: .h hh
173 B: Especially Chris. AY YAY YAY Hah hh
174 D: I heard something on the news this morning, and I only
caught the end of the: news
175 report, but it was something about.- McDonal:d’s
having a funeral: for a toilet?
176 B: O.ka:y?=
177 D: =And - um - I don’t know: what happened but it- I
guess the announcement ended
178 by sa:ying: something about coming to honor: - um the

toilet - who:
179 B:
huh
180 D: What did he sa:y. um ga:ve - OH - gave itself in. –
181 Who was shot in the line of doody.
182 ((rustling phone noises))
183 B: Oh. Ee: :w.
184 D: °hhh
185 B: That’s yuck?y.
186 We were- when we were at WalMart this morning. cuz
I got Chris’ check and we
187 needed medicine?
188 D: uh huh?
189 B: Apparently WalMart laid off a whole bunch of people
and fired a whole bunch of
190 people last night.
191 D: WalMart did?
192 B: mhhh hhh? - ( ) the one in Rialto.
193 Cuz we were walkin by and we were eves dropping.
hmh
194 D: h - ((groan))
195 B: You can’t help? when you’re walkin by.
196 D: h hh .h
197 B: But the lady who was standing there was like I’ve been
laid off

198 D: mmm
199 ((pause))
200 B: So we Charles was like - that’s ba::d - WalMart’s layin
out. heh - so:
201 D: Yeah we had a long discussion about that in one of my
classes yesterday.
202 B: o↑0h.
203 D: Cuz we were talking about whether literacy a:ctually:?
-
204 What was it. actually:: - um
205 ((pause))
206 Like if- if literacy meant that you would be successful.
207 B: hhhm
208 D: And we were: saying: - Not? necessarily. Not? in
today’s economy.
209 And especially - we were - um -
210 a lot of people were talking about if you’re - getting
your credential:, and you’re
211 getting a masters,
212 then you need to not ↑tell them that your getting a
master:s because
213 ((pause))
214 the:n
215 ((pause))
216 um
217 ((pause))

218 Then they may not hire you because you have too?
much education. and they have to
219 ↑pay you mo:re so.
220 B: °yeah
221 D: °yeah
222 ((pause))
223 D: A:ll ri:ght.
224 B: Pretty-
225 ((pause))
226 B: Pretty sad when you have to lie to get a ↑jo:b
227 ((pause))
228 D: °y(hh)eah
229 ((pause))
230 B: An when they- an when you tryin to be?,tter yourself.
they- they u- they use it
231 against?, you,
232 D: Yeah. You ↑know what ↑I think they should do,
233 ((pause))
234 They just should just sa:y,
235 ((pause))
236 this is how much we're pa:y↓ing,
237 ((pause))
238 I don't care if you have your BA:, your masters, your
doc.↑torate
239 if you want the job for this price?
240 ( (pause) )
241 ↓then you can >hhha:ve it..<
242 ((pause))
243 If you don't? we'll hire somebody?, ↓who's=
244 B: y:ea::h.
245 ( (pause) )
246 D: = .who'll?, >↑take it.<
247 ( (pause))

248 B: Yea:h. and but then still have minimum. requirements.
249 ((pause))
250 D: Nyeah
251 ( (pause))
252 B: Because if somebody wants to work a lesser ↑jo:b
the:n?, they ↑should ↑be ↑able. to
253 work a lesser job. Maybe?, they don't wa?nna. ((°lip
smack)) you know
254 ((pause))
255 be a professor (to all stuff), maybe they just wanna
teach high school. kids.=
256 D: =.I ha:d a:- a per.- a high school? teacher?, who was a
doc↑ter:it?
257 ((pause))
258 Had his doc?,tor.ate,
259 ((pasue))
260 B: So:: it should be: whatever the per?son. wants to do:.
not what-
261 ((pause))
262 you kno:w the- the ↑jo:b ↓wa:nts to do. with the
↑person.=
263 D: = nTha:t's what I: think too:.
264 B: We a gree:. on that.
265 D: If ↑we: were. ru:lin the world I?, tell ya.
266 D: .We need,- we just need. to get our.- our
computers. together.
267 B:
(° )
268 B: We ↑do:
269 ((pasue))

270 D: °Then we can rule the wo:rld.
271 B:
An I can add?,- Cha?,rles. ha:s two, ↑we ↓have
↑fou:r.
272 B: We?, could ↓do what we ru:le?, the ↑u:↓ni↓verse I
think with ↑fou:r
273 D: heh hh .h
274 B: Or at lea:st?, the. kno:wn ga?,lexies.=
275 D: ( )
276 D: = Should we congregate them at your?, house? or. my?,
room.
277 ((pause))
278 B: I'm no:t So::re.
279 ((pause))
280 D: They would never?, suspect?, it. from my house.
281 B: It's tr↑u:e. and if we're at the ↑second. fl↑oo:r. un your
r↑oo:m. we have better
282 connection to. sa?,tellite.
283 ((pause))
284 D: Ri ght. ↑An I can just, de:?,-cat?, the. bedroom:m?,
↓and you'd be all good.
285 B: ( )
286 ((pause))
287 B: °Yea:h.
288 ((pause))
289 D: hmhmhmh

290 B: Then we have to co:ver all the win?,dows. and
everything with tin?, foil. so that they
291 ↑can't ↓come in.
292 D: HEH HH .H
293 That ↓won't deflect?, ↓the satellite? =
294 B: °heh heh
295 ((pause))
296 D: -signal?=
297 B: = nununu. not tin foil. mh?,mh.
298 D: O(h)kay=
299 B: = hmh=
300 D: = hmhmhmh=
301 B: =Do it to keep them?, ↓and thei:r,- and thei:r, brain?,
powers. from coming in?, and
302 getting?, u(h)s.
303 D: HEh HEHEHEH .H HEHEH
304 B: .H heheh
305 B: We all have to wear tin foil hats. when we’re in the ro
(hh)om=
306 D:
.H
307 = so they don't kno:w ↓what we're ↓do:in when we're
in the:re
308 D: .h hahahah .h

309 B: he he heheheheh
310 D: .hhh SOUNDS Like. a pla:n. We'll do?, that. when
you're be?,tter.
311 B: ((cough))
312 B: uk?,- ok.
313 D: h hh .h
314 B: Je:st nee:d a ↑little bit of ti:me the::re
315 Wull I ↑figure ↓if ↑I'm not better than this on
↑Mo:nday.
316 I'm goin ba:ck?, ↓and goin ↑du↓:↑:de
317 ((pause))
318 I'm-I want a new?, one. Hah
319 D: mhhh hh
320 B: ((scratchy voice)) This one doesn't wo::rk=
321 D: = .I: think you should ask for a new two. Two new
lungs.
322 ((paise))
323 B: °Yea:h. >wull ↑Charles. says I can have one of his?,
↓and one of his?, ↓might do
324 the work of both of mine.<
325 D: HAH HAH .h
326 Yeah but ↑you know what he kind of needs his. He’s a
big guy.
327 B: Yeah that true
328 D: Yea:h

329 B: Yea:h
330 D: hm
331 B: I don’t think they do that yet though. - Do they do lung
transplants?
332 ((pause))
333 D: I: don’t know - They had iron lungs
334 B: I don’t ↑wa:nt an ↓iron o:ne
335 D: hmh hmh .hhh .hhh
336 B: Then I’ll really be conscientious about my weight.
337 D: hhh hhh hhh hhh hhh hhh .hhh heh heh .h heh heh .h
338 B: heheh
339 D: heheh .h heheh
340 ((pause))
341 B: he he he he
342 D: Hhh hhh .hhh
343 D: .hhh ALright. Well. I’ll let you go fix your - your
lunch now.
344 B: he he he
345 B: That should keep you happy for a few ho urs.
346 D:
Heheheheh
347 B: Imagining me running around with an iron lu(hh)ng.
348 D: hhhhhhhhh ha ha ha .hhh
349 D: Wull yu have you seen that Zim? Where he was

stealing people’s - organs?
350 B: uh? uh.
351 D: And rep he. - you should ask Charles. I think he
probably has it.
352 But Zim, he was going around stealing kids ↑organs.
because they were having a um
353 - a physical. and he didn’t have proper o(h)rgans so he
was stealing them from
354 people.
355 B: A::hoh
356 D: And he stole some kid’s lungs
357 and replaced them with a - with a radiator or
something like that.
358 B: That- that doesn’t work.
359 D: Heh n(h)o. The ki(h)d fell o(h)ver hhh hhh
360 B: .hhh .hhh
361 Okay.
362 D: .hhh alright.
363 B: Have fun at ↑work
364 D: Tha:nk you. Talk to you later.
365 B: I won’t
366 B: h B(h)ye
367 D: h b(h)ye.
References
Bonaiuto, M., Castellana, & E., Pierro, A. (2003). Arguing and
laughing: The use of humor to negotiate in group discussions.
Humor – International Journal of Humore Research. 16(2). 183-
223.
Coates, J. (2007). Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and
intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 29-49.
Lampert, A. & Ervin-Tripp, S. (2006). Risky laughter: Teasing
and self-directed joking among male and female friends. Journal
of Pragmatics, 38, 51-72.

Provine, R. (2004). Laughing, tickling, and the evolution of
speech and self. Current Directions in Psychological
Science.13(6), 215-218.
Vetttin, J. & Todt, D. (2004). Laughter in conversation:
Features of occurrence and acoustic structure. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior. 28(2), 92-115.
Sociolinguistics Term Paper
Topics is:
Interaction and Politeness and FTAs
Examine a radio talk show for politeness and FTAs.
Counseling shows are fun for this topic—for example, Dr. Phil
or Dr. Laura. How do they handle the FTA of giving advice and
diagnosing a problem?
The final term allows you to write a scholarly paper in which
you analyze a piece of data in a way that you contribute to a
larger conversation in the field of Sociolinguistics. The term
paper requires an original analysis of a data set that you
collected. You are encouraged to revise and expand your data
analysis assignment and to rely on your annotated bibliography
for sources. You should not feel tied to your annotated
bibliography, however, as you may use sources not in the
annotated bibliography and expand the bibliography.
Your term paper should be a well-written, well-organized,
coherent analysis in which you consistently address a research
question or a set of research questions, or an analytic purpose of
some sort. The paper should include the following sections:
1. Introduction( Research questions or statement of purpose) –
half to one page
2. Literature Review to set up the theoretical framework (a
review of the sources related to your topic and that helped you
formulate your topic) – three (3) to four (4) pages

3. Research questions or statement of purpose -- one (1) to three
(3) sentences
4. The Data/Description of data collection procedures --one half
(1/2) to one (1) page
5. Analysis and Findings of the data –four () to five (5) pages
6. Discussion and Conclusion -- two (2) to four (4) pages
7. Transcript or Text (from Dr.Phil show
https://www.yousubtitles.com/Dr-Phil-Challenges-24-Year-Old-
Who-Claims-Shes-The-Reincarnation-Of-Pocahontas-id-
2282771and https://www.yousubtitles.com/Watch-As-A-Dad-
Struggles-With-Meeting-His-Daugher-As-A-Woman-For-The-
First-Time-id-1208766
8. References (include at least five (5) for undergrads,two of
them are from Mandelbaum and Pomerantz’s “What Drives
Social Action?”and from Pérez de Ayala, Soledad’s “FTAs and
Erskine May: Conflicting needs?—Politeness in question time”.
I give you thePDF of the article at the bottom.
*****
The paper should be 10-12- pages double spaced, not including
the reference list and the transcript.
Please see the example term paper.
ELSEVIER Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169
www.elsevier.nl/locate/pragma
FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting needs? -
Politeness in Question Time
S o l e d a d P 6 r e z d e A y a l a *
Deptartamento de Filologfa lnglesa, Facultad de Filologia,

Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Received 6 October 1997; revised version 3 October 1999
Abstract
This article attempts to show how British Members of
Parliament (MPs) employ politeness
strategies (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987) as a device to
make their discourse abide by the
rules of Erskine M a y ' s Treatise on the law, privileges,
proceedings and usage o f Parliament.
Question Time is a highly aggressive genre, and Face
Threatening Acts (El'As) are intrinsic
to its essence, but MPs are constrained by the need to produce
'parliamentary language'.
Politeness strategies become the linguistic device that helps the
system work. When an MP
flouts the rules, s/he is often obliged to reformulate the El'A,
with face redress. Brown and
Levinson's 'balance principle' still holds, although with
different postulates: there is consen-
sus to threaten each other's Public Face (Gruber, 1993), but
respecting Erskine May's rules.
Politeness strategies serve to comply with a sort of
'institutionalized hypocrisy'. © 2001 Else-
vier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Politeness; Face-work; Conversational activity;
Parliamentary language
1. I n t r o d u c t i o n
T h e C h a m b e r o f the H o u s e o f C o m m o n s is the
face o f B r i t i s h p o l i t i c s . G a b r i e l

a n d M a s l e n ( 1 9 8 6 : 107) d e s c r i b e it as " t h e p u
b l i c c o c k p i t o f B r i t i s h p o l i t i c s w h e r e
First of all, I would like to thank Professor Angela Downing,
Chris Pratt and two anonymous review-
ers from Journal of Pragmatics for their insightful comments to
this article, which have proved invalu-
able. I would also like to thank Sir Clifford Boulton, former
Clerk of the House of Commons, and Mr.
Simon Patrick, for all their comments about Question Time. I
am also grateful to the Right Hon. Tristan
Garel-Jones and to Mrs. Sclater for their invaluable help during
my stay in the House of Commons.
Parliamentary copyright material is reproduced with the
permission of the Controller of Her
Majesty's Stationery Office on behalf of Parliament.
* E-mail: [email protected]
0378-2166/01/$ - see front matter © 201)1 Elsevier Science
B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 2 1 6 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 2 - 3
144 S.P. de Ayala /Journal ~f Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169
political parties and their leaders confront each other". This
does not mean that the
Chamber activity is all the work that Members of Parliament
(MPs) carry out. Much
work o f the Commons is actually done in committees.
However, the media help to sustain the idea of a Parliament as a
political fight.
Perhaps one of the most popular genres in Parliament - also
supported by radio and

TV - is Question Time, the daily hour, from Monday to
Thursday, from two thirty
to three thirty, when MPs from both sides of the House question
members of the
Government on their policy. Question Time is, probably, the
most adversarial among
parliamentary genres, because the main aim of oral questions,
far from seeking for
information, is usually to have the chance to score a political
point.
The C o m m o n s Chamber can produce an interesting
situation, linguistically
speaking, because it is the place where politicians of different
parties and ideolo-
gies publicly expose their face (in the G o f f m a n i a n sense,
G o f f m a n , 1967). Rela-
tions between MPs can become difficult, and the potential for
aggression is high.
Yet, communication is possible, partly due to the presence of
Erskine M a y ' s Trea-
tise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage o f
Parliament, with norms that
affect, among other things, both the content and form of
speeches, debates and
questions.
This article seeks to study face relations between MPs in the
Chamber, and the
role of politeness in their interaction. This idea is not new,
since in the introduc-
tion to Politeness: Some universals in language usage, Brown
and Levinson
(1987: 14) already pointed out the need to investigate " h o w
face regard (and sanc-
tions for face disregard) are incorporated in religious and

political s y s t e m s " . In
this study the G o f f m a n i a n concept of face and the use o f
politeness strategies will
be considered in a political context: Question Time in the House
o f Commons.
The first part o f the article presents the theoretical version o f
politeness on which
the analysis is based. The following sections describe Question
Time procedure
and the relevant points of Erskine M a y ' s Treatise. Sections 4
and 5 describe the
data and method o f analysis, together with an illustration of
the qualitative analy-
sis. Section 6 is a discussion of the results, followed by some
considerations about
face-work in the House of Commons. Finally, some conclusions
are drawn about
the extraordinary use of politeness in Question Time and about
parliamentary lan-
guage.
2. Politeness theory: A version
The present research is based on Brown and Levinson's
politeness theory (1978,
1987). Although keeping this theory within its core concepts, it
is impossible to dis-
regard the m a n y authors that have attempted to refine it.
Brown and Gilman (1989:
164) are right when they say that " i n this situation
investigators who want to work
with the Brown/Levinson theory of politeness must pick a
version".
Recent literature on Brown and Levinson's model concerns two
main aspects,

which are the concept of politeness itself and the claims for
universality on the one
hand, and diverse criticism and/or modification of one of the
elements of the model
S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169 145
on the other (mainly the concepts of face, face-threatening act,
and the factors that
determine the production and interpretation of politeness). With
respect to the con-
cept of politeness, there is certain confusion about its limits,
because, as Fraser
(1990) notes, Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) do not define it
explicitly. Janney
and Arndt (1992: 22) signal "the lack of agreement among
investigators about how
politeness should be defined as a subject of study". Most studies
have tried to refine
the concept, either restricting the notion of politeness, or
dividing it in different con-
cepts (Chen, 1993; Culpeper, 11996; Held, 1992; Janney and
Arndt, 1992; Kasper,
1990; Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1997; Kienpointner, 1997; Meier,
1995; Sell, 1991,
1992; Sifianou, 1992; Watts, 1989, 1992; Werkhofer, 1992). In
particular, some
scholars have found the need to distinguish between the
traditional notion of polite-
ness and a more theoretical, (linguistic) notion (see Watts et al.,
1992). In the present
article politeness is understood, following Brown and
Levinson's work, as the lin-
guistic action that redresses speaker and heater's face, a system

through which a
speaker can minimize the threat to one's or the other's face, with
the purpose of
avoiding conflict between the parts or softening communication
when there is risk of
confrontation due to the content of the message. However, as
Kerbrat-Orecchioni
(1997) and Kienpointner (1997)have signalled, I would like to
insist that the concept
of politeness is not only negative, face-saving and mitigating.
The role of positive
politeness as face-enhancing (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1997) is as
important as its nega-
tive counterpart. Positive and negative politeness should be seen
as the two sides of
the same coin.
With respect to the concept of face, one major issue of debate
has been its uni-
versality (cf. Gu, 1990; Ide, 1989 and Mao, 1994). More
relevant for the present
study is the contribution made by Gruber (1993), which
incorporates the concept of
public positive face (PPF), to be differenciated from a speaker's
positive face (PF).
Positive face, following Brown and Levinson (1987: 61), is "the
positive consistent
self-image or 'personality' (cr~acially including the desire that
this self-image be
appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants". Gruber
(1993) argues that
politicians, because of their special status in a country's public
life, have, besides
their positive face, a public positive face,
"which claims the consistent image of himself as being a

rational, trustworthy person whose political
ideas and actions are better fitted to the wants and demands of
the general public than those of his oppo-
nents." (Gruber, 1993: 3)
The public positive face constitutes a second level of face that a
person acquires
when entering public life. In this study the distinction will be
expanded to the scope
of negative face. Public negative face (PNF) could be defined as
the right not to suf-
fer impositions in the political sphere, in political life; whereas
negative face would
simply be, in Brown and Levinson's terms (1987: 61), "the basic
claim to territories,
personal preserves, rights to non-distraction - i.e. to freedom of
action and freedom
of imposition".
Politeness studies have also refined the notion of Face
Threatening Act (FFA)
(Johnson, 1992; Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1997). In particular,
Johnson (1992) argues
146 S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169
that a whole text (a peer review) can become an FTA (global
FTA), containing local,
individual FFAs (specific FTAs). Another important area of
politeness research has
been the study of the f a c t o r s that influence the choice of
politeness strategies (Adel-
sw~ird, 1989; Aronsson and Rundstr6m, 1989; Blum-Kulka and
House, 1989; Blum-

Kulka, 1992; Brown and Gilman, 1989; Cherry, 1988; House,
1989; Ide, 1989; Jan-
ney and Arndt, 1992; Kasper, 1990; Lakoff, 1989; Myers, 1989;
Olshtain, 1989;
Scheerhorn, 1991/1992; Spencer-Oatey, 1993; Tannen, 1992;
Vollmer and Olshtain,
1989; Watts, 1992; Wolfson, 1989). Most of these authors claim
that the factors pro-
posed by Brown and Levinson (Power (P), Distance (D) and
Ranking of impositions
(R)) are not universal and in any case not refined enough to
capture all the circum-
stances that may influence the production of politeness. In this
respect, it is fair to
say that Brown and Levinson (1987: 16) presented these factors
as global variables,
signalling that the social or cultural situation in which a given
FTA is produced may
involve other factors "which are not captured within the P, D,
and R dimensions".
When judging the factors that influence the production and
interpretation of
politeness, it is essential to take into account the context of the
linguistic situation,
and therefore assess every possible cultural, social, contextual
or personal circum-
stance of the linguistic activity which is being analysed (cf.
Kienpointner, 1997). In
the analysis of the parliamentary language of Question Time,
three factors have
been considered to.have a special weight in the election and
interpretation of polite-
ness strategies, in addition to P, D and R: the factor of political
affect, the presence
of an audience, and the existence of a parliamentary code that

rules spoken inter-
action.
The factor of Affect was first mentioned by Slugoski (1985),
who argued for the
need to separate affect from social distance. This idea was
accepted by Brown and
Levinson (1987), and further developed by Brown and Gilman
(1989), Blum-Kulka
(1992) and Spencer-Oatey (1993). In Ide (1989) it is defined as
a variable that
reflects the psychological attitude of the speaker (affinity,
affect or intimacy). In the
context of Question Time, this factor can be imported to reflect
the importance of the
a priori political affect between members of the same party, and
of the 'non-affect'
between members of different parties. As Brown and Levinson
noted (1987: 16),
this factor can influence the correct understanding of ironic
utterances either as com-
pliments or insults.
The presence of an audience was mentioned by Brown and
Levinson (1987: 16)
as a possible factor which could affect formality and thus "have
a principled effect
on assessments of FTA danger". Other authors have also
considered it (Myers,
1989; Chilton, 1990; Gruber, 1993). In the context of the House
of Commons, we
can even talk about several levels o f audience (the House
itself, the journalists and
the electors) which MPs take into account in their speech, and
which therefore have
to be weighed by the analyst in the interpretation of the

utterances.
A third factor of politeness, of crucial importance for this study,
is the existence
of the May Treatise, which becomes a code of behaviour that
regulates spoken inter-
action. In terms of politeness, the May code states which FTAs
are permitted, which
are forbidden, and the kind of language that is expected in the
House.
3. Question Time and Erskine May: Some considerations about
face
3.1. Question Time, a face-threatening genre
Question T i m e consists o f the questions that M P s put to
the G o v e r n m e n t , and the
corresponding answers. (I do not c o n t e m p l a t e written
questions, which can be con-
sidered a different genre. F o r a m o r e detailed study see
P6rez de Ayala, 1996). M a y
(1989: 287) maintains that the m a i n p u r p o s e o f oral
questions is ' o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n '
and ' p r e s s f o r a c t i o n ' . H o w e v e r , the real
objective o f oral questions is hardly e v e r
the obtention o f information. W h e n M P s table questions
for oral answer, they usu-
ally l o o k for the o c c a s i o n to attack the G o v e r n m e n
t , or support it. Thus, e v e r y ques-
tion or p a r l i a m e n t a r y e x c h a n g e can be considered
a global F T A (Johnson, 1992),

and the whole activity o f Question T i m e in the H o u s e o f
C o m m o n s a face-threaten-
ing genre.
3.2. Question Time procedure
T h e M a y Treatise gives rules about the procedure: M P s w
h o wish to table a ques-
tion for oral answer, give the questions, in written form, to the
Clerks at the Table,
and are not a n s w e r e d until a fortnight later. E v e r y
question is advertised on a notice
paper, at least two d a y s b e f o r e getting an answer. This m
e a n s that initial questions
are not spontaneous, but carefully p r e p a r e d in advance. As
Silk (1989: 192)
explains, they " c a n n o t be burningly topical and are
therefore usually b l a n d " .
O n c e an initial question is called in the C h a m b e r , the M
e m b e r o f the G o v e r n m e n t
to w h o m it is directed rises and gives a short answer, which
usually does not contain
all the information required. "['he real e x c h a n g e starts at
this point: the M P w h o
tabled the initial question has tile right to m a k e a s u p p l e
m e n t a r y question:
"Supplementary questions, without debate or comment, may,
within due limits, be addressed to them,
which are necessary for the elucidation of the answers that they
have been given." (May, 1989: 295)
This t y p e o f question is m u c h m o r e spontaneous. It is
in the s u p p l e m e n t a r i e s that
Question T i m e achieves its m a i n aim: surprise the

Minister, and oblige h i m / h e r to
improvise. This is not a l w a y s simple, b e c a u s e the M i n
i s t e r ' s cabinet, as well as pro-
viding the Minister with the a n s w e r to the initial question,
tries to give h i m / h e r all
the i n f o r m a t i o n to be able to a n s w e r all f o r e s e e
a b l e s u p p l e m e n t a r y questions in the
area. I m m e d i a t e l y afterwards, other M e m b e r s f r o
m both sides o f the H o u s e are usu-
ally called on to f o r m u l a t e further s u p p l e m e n t a r y
questions. With this procedure,
each initial question b e c o m e s a short debate, quick and
lively:
"It is through the supplementaries that question time comes
alive, (...) and it is here that backbenchers
hope to shine on the occasions when they catch a minister
unawares or are able to expose an area of pol-
icy which is embarrassing to the government." (Silk, 1989: 185)
3.3. R u l e s on f o r m a n d content o f oral questions
One o f the most outstanding features of the House o f C o m
m o n s is that both the
content and the form o f the questions and answers are ruled
very strictly by the May
Treatise.
3.3.1. Rules on M P s ' f a c e
From a linguistic point o f view, it is noticeable that many o f
these norms are

strongly related to face wants. The May Treatise makes a strong
defence o f Mem-
bers' face, and differentiates it from M e m b e r s ' political,
public face. This becomes
obvious in the following rule, which obliges Members to refer
to each other in their
official, and not personal, capacity:
"PERSONAL ALLUSIONS AND UNPARLIAMENTARY
EXPRESSIONS. In order to guard against
all appearance of personality in debate, no Member should refer
to another by name. Each Member must
be distinguished by the office he holds, by the place he
represents or by other designations, as (...) 'the
honourable' or 'right honourable gentleman the Member for
York', or 'the honourable and learned
Member who has just sat down' or, when speaking of a member
of the same party, 'my (right) hon-
ourable friend the Member for ...'." (May, 1989: 380)
Silk (1989: 92) comments that "[t]his form of circumlocution
does give a breathing
space for the MP speaking, and perhaps does something to avoid
personal abuse".
Similarly, Boulton, former Clerk o f the House (1992: 8),
explains that in this way
"[p]ersonalities are kept at a r m ' s length". This rule is
decisive for face considera-
tions, because it means that M e m b e r s ' (private) face is
fully protected, since it can-
not even be referred to. The May Treatise becomes the greatest
defender o f Mem-
bers' face. In the British Parliament, every person is seen in
their public capacity,
and no individual can be attacked in their private lives.

3.3.2. Rules on M P ' s public f a c e
However, M P s ' public face is different: MPs can be attacked
as politicians, as
public representatives, that is, in their public face. In fact, if M
P s ' public face were
not vulnerable, Question Time would be uninteresting. Political
debate in the House
o f C o m m o n s is based on the idea that M e m b e r s '
public face is vulnerable, and that
if it is threatened, they will defend themselves or counter-attack
in some way. Boul-
ton describes parliamentary procedure:
"At any given moment, one Member has the floor and is entitled
to be heard. This does not mean that
speeches are supposed to be heard in silence - and a Member
may be deliberately provocative and even
hope to meet with protests." (Boulton, 1992: 8)
This strong distinction between M P s ' Face and Public Face,
reinforced by the offi-
cial - not personal - form o f referring to each other, is at the
basis o f parliamentary
life.
M P s ' public face is exposed to reference, discussion and
threat. Nevertheless,
there are many May rules with respect to the form o f questions
and answers (and
speeches and debates as well) whose objective is to provide a
certain amount o f
S.P. de Ayala /Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169 149

protection to M e m b e r s ' public face. Boulton (1992: 8)
insists that "[t ]h e whole char-
acter o f proceedings in the C h a m b e r is adversarial, but
what the electorate is entitled
to see is 'a good, clean f i g h t ' " .
Firstly, any intervention in the House must be directed to the
Speaker, and not to
a particular person or party:
"A Member must address the Speaker and not direct his speech
to the House or to any party on either
side of the House." (May, 1989: 365)
This procedure softens the weight o f the threat, because the F
T A b eco m es indirect,
'filtered' by the Speaker. Another rule gives special protection
to Ministers' public
face by preventing other MPs from asking them their personal
opinion on a given
subject:
"Argument and disorderly expressions. Questions which seek an
expression of an opinion, or which
contain arguments, expressions of opinion, or which contain
inferences or imputations, (...) are not in
order." (May, 1989: 287)
In Question T i m e the raising o f controversial topics - which
can constitute itself an
F T A against the h e a r e r ' s (public) positive face (Brown
and Levinson, 1987: 66) - is
unavoidable, but this rule limits them in some way, trying to
afford some protection
to the Ministers' public face.

Finally, May (1989: 381) lJists a n u m b e r o f expressions
which are considered
unparliamentary and are therefore forbidden:
1 The imputation o f false or u n a v o w e d motives. ( . . . )
2 The misrepresentation o f the language o f another and the
accusation o f misrepre-
sentation. ( . . . )
3 Charges o f uttering a deliberate falsehood. ( . . . )
4 Abusive and insulting language o f a nature likely to create
disorder.
This set o f rules protects M e m b e r s ' public face, because
it forbids a n u m b er o f
threatening acts against MPs and Ministers (accusations o f
lying and insulting,
mainly). H o w e v e r , the importance attached to the context
in which the F F A is
uttered is noticeable: " T h e Speaker has said that ( . . . )
expressions which are unpar-
liamentary when applied to individuals are not always so
considered w h en applied to
a whole p a r t y " (May, 1989: 380). It is individuals', not the p
a r t y ' s public face, that
M a y defends.
3.3.3. The role o f the S p e a k e r
The rules are safeguarded by the Speaker. All initial questions
are edited b y the
Clerks o f the House, on the S p e a k e r ' s behalf, and no
question is printed on the Order
Paper if it does not c o m p l y with the M a y norms. With
respect to supplementaries

and answers, which cannot be controlled by the Clerks in a
written form, it is the
Speaker directly who has the p o w e r to interrupt them. I f
the Speaker considers that
a given utterance does not c o m p l y with the rules o f the
House, the procedure will be
stopped immediately, and the M e m b e r in question will be
asked to withdraw or
reformulate the utterance. The procedure will not continue until
the withdrawal or
reformulation takes place. In extreme cases, when the MP
refuses to do so, s/he can
be expelled from the Chamber.
It is relatively easy to table a parliamentarily acceptable
question. Th e difficult
task, for any MP wishing to surprise the Governm en t , is to
formulate an initial ques-
tion cleverly enough to lead the Minister to the topic area where
s/he wants to make
the supplementary. At the same time, the question must not be
too vague or general,
because " t h e Speaker has also refused to call Members to ask
a supplementary ques-
tion o f Ministers (other than the Prime Minister) when their
original question was o f
so general a character as to provide a wide area for
supplementaries" (May, 1989:
296).
Vagueness in initial questions is a controversial issue that

differentiates ordinary
question time from Prime Minister's question time. In the latter,
the procedure
allows for the production o f questions such as ' t o ask the
Prime Minister i f he will
list his arrangements for t o d a y ' . This type o f question,
apparently innocent, is poten-
tially the most dangerous and harmful to the Prime Minister's
public face, because it
provides an infinite possibility o f supplementaries, i.e. it
opens up a wider topic
scope to surprise the Prime Minister. Thus, question time
constitutes an F T A m u c h
stronger in the case o f the Prime Minister than in the case o f
the rest o f the Minis-
ters. As a result o f this, the Prime Minister is obliged to spend
hours preparing
meticulously for unexpected questions. This unlimited risk to
which the Prime Min-
ister's public face is subject does not exist in the case o f
ordinary question time.
Interestingly, one o f the first changes introduced by Blair's
Lab o u r government, in
May, 1997, was the reduction o f the two fifteen-minutes
weekly sessions o f Prime
Minister's question time to one session only, o f thirty minutes,
which also involved
a reduction o f risk to the Prime Minister's public face.
3.4. Parliamentary language
Erskine M a y effectively prevents FTAs against M e m b e r s '
face, but leaves ro o m
for FTAs against their public face. FTAs o f this type, ev en
those which are appar-
ently forbidden, do take place in Question Time, i f MPs and

Ministers are able to
formulate them in 'parliamentary language':
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of
parliamentary language. Parliamentary language
is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the
opinions and conduct of his opponents in
debate." (May, 1989: 380)
This simple norm seems to be the clue to free expression in the
Chamber. In the fol-
lowing pages it will be argued that a good deal o f this type o f
language is linguisti-
cally captured in Brown and L e v i n s o n ' s politeness
strategies. Parliamentary lan-
guage, and more specifically politeness strategies b e c o m e
the vehicle o f what will be
called 'parliamentary institutionalized h y p o c r i s y ' :
anything - - or almost anything -
can be said, provided that it is formulated with the appropriate
degree o f politeness.
S.P. de Ayala / Journal o f Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169 151
4. Data
4 . 1 . T h e t e x t s
T h e corpus analysed consists o f 29 texts. Each o f them is a
complete question (or
m a c r o - q u e s t i o n ) , that is, a full parliamentary
exchange consisting o f an initial ques-
tion, its answer, and a supplementary question or a series o f
them, and their corre-

sponding answers. On average, each macro-question has nine
turns. Th e total num-
ber o f turns analysed amounts to 271. The texts can be
grouped as follows:
T e x t s 1 to 8 are a selection made by Simon Patrick, clerk of
the House of Commons (per-
sonal communication), of most questions containing rulings by
Madam Speaker due to
problems of form, during 1993.
The rest o f the texts correspond to two visits to the House, in
February 1993 and
1994, and have been chosen at random:
- T e x t s 9 to 1 4 are questions to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and to the Health Depart-
ment, made in February 1993.
- T e x t s 15 to 2 3 are questions to the departments of
National Heritage, Defence, and Trade
and Industry, in February 1994.
- T e x t s 2 4 to 2 9 are questions to Prime Minister John
Major in February 1994.
4 . 2 . T h e H a n s a r d v e r s i o n
The version o f the texts is that provided by the Hansard report.
Hansard is a doc-
ument o f invaluable interest, although from a linguistic point o
f view it presents
some difficulties. As S l e m b r o u c k rightly points out,
"Hansard is essentially written language and the editorial
production processes bear testimony to this

fact. The original spoken discourse is converted into a text
which has the obvious properties of written
language." (Slembrouck, 1992: 104)
S l e m b r o u c k (1992: 104) signals some o f the problems
that the Hansard transcrip-
tion poses. First, some features o f spoken language are taken
away. This includes
intonation and stress, which are obviously difficult to transcribe
without specific lin-
guistic conventions, but also some less obvious ones, such as " i
n c o m p l e t e utter-
ances, false starts or grammatical slips". Second, Hansard offers
a transcription o f
formal Standard English, and does not reflect regional accents
or other features o f
spoken informal English such as verb contractions. Third,
Hansard editors v ery often
produce " t h e 'repair' o f an 'obscured m e s s a g e ' " and " t
h e avoidance o f ' c l u m s y ' and
'inelegant' formulations".
Obviously, the Hansard editors do not aim at producing a fully-
detailed linguistic
transcription, but S l e m b r o u c k (1992: 104) is right in
warning the reader, and spe-
cially the analyst, against its deficiencies. In spite o f them,
and due to the difficulties
to get the video recordings o f the sessions corresponding to
the 29 texts o f the
152 s.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169
corpus, the Hansard transcript has been used in this research,

and it has proved to be
a homogeneous basis for analysis. Nevertheless, it should be
admitted that a spoken
version of the texts would probably modify the results of the
analysis slightly,
though not in any decisive way.
5. Method o f analysis
The analysis conducted for this research has attempted to
identify the production
of FFAs and politeness strategies by each of the speakers in
each of the 29 macro-
questions. In the original Brown and Levinson politeness
framework (1978), the
analysis was carried out at the level of speech act. In the 1987
reedition, although the
analysis was kept to the same level, the authors signalled the
existing relationship
between FTAs and conversation structure, as well as the need to
extend the analysis
of politeness to discourse and textual categories (Brown and
Levinson, 1987: 233).
In the last twelve years, many studies have echoed this
suggestion (cf. Davies, 1987;
Coupland et al., 1988; Holmes, 1988; Green, 1989; Blum-Kulka,
1990; Wilson et
al., 1991/1992; Johnson, 1992; Pavlidou, 1994). Calvo and
Geluykens (1995: 5)
clearly state that "FTAs in conversation should be investigated
in relation to the
longer sequential organization in terms of turn-taking, and not
just in terms of sen-
tence-level speech acts".
The method of analysis developed in this study combines a

version of the Brown
and Levinson approach to politeness with categories from
Conversation Analysis
(turn and adjacency pair), and Discourse Analysis (move and
act), with a twofold
purpose. On the one hand, it is an attempt to identify adequately
the units of realiza-
tion of FTAs and politeness strategies in the discourse, taking
into account the
generic structure of oral Question Time (for a detailed
explanation see Prrez de
Ayala, 1996). On the other hand, this method also tries to study
politeness phenom-
ena in relation to textual organization, becoming thus a tool of
quantitative analysis
to seek the relationship between the textual units and the
frequency of FTAs and
politeness strategies.
5.1. Categories o f analysis
The genre of Question Time can be defined as a conversational
activity (Levin-
son, 1983:318) with a marked structure, responding to
procedure requirements. The
rather rigid pattern of question-answer, typical of this
parliamentary genre, is well
captured by the conversational categories of adjacency pair and
turn. Each macro-
question is divided in a series of turns, distributed by the
Speaker. Simultaneously,
the turns are grouped in pairs, question and answer, which are
adjacent and have spe-
cial internal cohesion, structure which responds to the concept
of adjacency pair.

However, these two categories do not suffice to analyse the
discourse of Question
Time, due to the fact that its turns can be much longer and more
complex than those
produced in the genre of ordinary conversation.Thus, it becomes
necessary to
include other categories, smaller than the turn, to produce a
detailed and refined
analysis o f the different elements o f turn structure. Such
categories can be found in
recent models o f discourse analysis. One o f the most co m p l
et e o f them is probably
Tsui (1994). This model for the analysis o f casual
conversation uses the categories
o f act, m o v e and e x c h a n g e (Sinclair and Coulthard,
1975), with several modifica-
tions. T h e concept o f e x c h a n g e , with its three parts,
does not fit in Question T i m e
structure, but the category o f m o v e is v e r y suitable to
explain the structure o f the
turn, as Tsui herself notes:
"The accomplishment of two things within the same turn (...)
can be captured by describing (them) as
consisting of two moves." (Tsui, 1994: 10)
Moves are the structural categories in which a turn can be
divided, and which iden-
tify a new function in the discourse o f the speaker. In order to
identify such func-
tions, we will adopt T s u i ' s t a x o n o m y o f discourse

acts (1994), in its first two parts
(Initiating Act and Responding or Challenging Act). T s u i ' s t
a x o n o m y is especially
valuable for politeness studies, because it studies each o f the
discourse acts as possi-
ble F T A s and in relation to the production o f politeness
strategies.
The analysis o f the F F A s and politeness strategies is carried
out at the level o f
discourse acts. Each macro-question is analysed into adjacency
pairs, turns, m o v e s
and discourse acts. For each move, a main discourse act is
identified. It is at this
level that FTAs and politeness strategies are identified.
5.2. A n illustration
The results o f the analysis o f the 29 texts - the figures o f F
T A s and politeness fo r
each text - will be shown in Table 1 in Section 6. T h e full
qualitative analysis o f all
the texts has obviously not been included in the present article.
H o w ev er, as a sam-
ple, this section offers the qualitative analysis o f two o f the
texts (Texts 2 and 7),
belonging to the Question T i m e sessions o f July 13 and 19,
1993. In the analysis,
reference will be made to B r o w n and L e v i n s o n ' s
charts o f politeness strategies
(1987: 102, 1 3 1 , 2 1 4 ) . A simplified version o f the charts,
based on Calvo (1991), is
provided in Appendix A.
SAMPLE 1 : TEXT 2

Date and Hansard location: July 19, 1993, Question 23, Column
13
Department~interlocutor: Duchy of Lancaster (Chancellor: Mr.
William Waldegrave)
Topic: Charter Marks
Number o f participants: 4, including Madam Speaker, who
interrupts twice
T e x t 2 contains an example o f an F T A forbidden by
Erskine May, an accusation
o f lying. T h e Question belongs to the Question T i m e
session o f 19 July 1993, and it
is a discussion about 'Charter Marks', awards given b y the G o
v e r n m e n t to private
enterprises in recognition o f the services rendered to society.
Th e question is raised
by a conservative MP, Mr. Bates, and it is directed towards Mr.
Waldegrave, also
conservative, Chancellor o f the D u c h y o f Lancaster. In
turn 5 Ms. Mo w l am , a labour
MP, is given the floor. In her second m o v e Ms. M o w l a m
changes the topic and
accuses the Chancellor o f misleading the House o v e r the
'Matrix Churchill affair'. In
1990 it was discovered that Matrix Churchill, a British co m p
an y , had been selling
equipment to Iraq for its weapons programmes before its
invasion o f Kuwait, ev en
when the G o v e r n m e n t had banned such exports to Iraq in
1984. S o m e ministers,
including Mr.Waldegrave, f o r m e r Foreign Office Minister,

were accused o f knowing
that those exports were being made, and thus o f breaching
their o w n guidelines in a
crucial matter. Further, they were accused o f deceiving the
Parliament as to the Gov-
e r n m e n t ' s real policy, and o f using official secrecy to
conceal the deception. Th e
matter was in the newspapers for some time.
The topic o f Charter Marks is not o f special importance, but
it is an attempt to
give Mr. Waldegrave the possibility o f talking about a
successful issue fo r the G o v -
ernment, and thus to score a political point. The first two
adjacency pairs develop
between two conservative Members, and there are no FTAs.
Turn 5, however, brings
a hardening o f the debate, with Ms. M o w l a m ' s
intervention. Ms. M o w l a m not only
questions the validity o f charter marks, but also Mr. W a l d e
g r a v e ' s honesty:
T5 - Ms. M o w l a m : (move 1) In a week that I believe marks
the second anniversary of the cit-
izens' charter, will the Minister comment on the validity of the
charter marks, ( m o v e 2) as
well as his ability to deliver openness in central Government
machinery (...)?
The first m o v e is a request for information, and
simultaneously an F T A against Mr.
W a l d e g r a v e ' s public positive face, since Ms. M o w l a
m ' s question implies that she is
doubtful about the usefulness o f charter marks. This type o f
F T A is perfectly valid
in the Chamber, but even so it is formulated with negative

politeness (strategies 2
'Question, h e d g e ' and 5 ' G i v e d e f e r e n c e ' : 'will
the Minister c o m m e n t on ...'). Th e
second m o v e is an accusation o f dishonesty. Ms. M o w l a
m uses the interrogative on
charter marks as an excuse to introduce her main topic, the
accusation against Mr.
Waldegrave. This is a very serious F T A in the House, but it is
accepted, because it
is formulated with an understatement ( o f f record politeness
strategy n u m b er 4).
However, Ms. M o w l a m insists on the idea o f the
accusation, and introduces a num-
ber o f subordinate clauses that contain an F T A semantically
identical to the first one,
but with increasingly explicit and direct formulations:
T5 - Ms. M o w l a m : (...) ( m o v e 2) as well as his ability
to deliver openness in central Govern-
ment machinery (...) given that his integrity as a Minister has
been seriously put in question
by the evidence produced last week that he misled the House
over the Matrix Churchill
affair? (my underlining)
Syntactically, the structure o f Move 2 is very complex. It
starts with a paratactic
Noun Group, 1 ' . . . (as well as) his ability to deliver openness
in central g o v e r n m e n t
m a c h i n e r y ' . Following this, we find a hypotactic causal
clause, dependent upon the
primary interrogative clause: 'given that his integrity as a
Minister has been seri-
ously put in question . . . ' . The last constituent o f this
hypotactic clause, the Adjunct

The syntactic analysis and syntactic terms are based on Halliday
(1994).
S.P. de Ayala / Jgurnal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169 155
' b y the evidence . . . ' has a clause e m b e d d e d as
Postmodifier, 'that he misled the
House . . . ' . W e find, all in all, three syntactic levels, - the
primary interrogative
clause, the hypotactic causal clause, and the e m b e d d e d
clause - , each o f which con-
tains a formulation o f the same I ~ A , the accusation o f
dishonesty. It is worth noting
that the degree o f explicitness grows parallel with syntactic
depth:
- The primary interrogative clause, as has been seen, is an F T A
o f f record.
- The hypotactic causal clause is on record, but it includes a
large amount o f face
redress. W e find negative politeness strategy n u m b e r 7
'Impersonalize S and H '
and n u m b e r 9 ' N o m i n a l i z e ' : 'his integrity has been
seriously put in question by
the evidence . . . ' .
- The e m b e d d e d clause is on record, with no redress at all:
'h e misled the H o u s e ' .
The F T A is there, with all its strength.
Thus, it seems possible to establish a relationship between
syntactic level and
politeness strategies. The primary clause has strong politeness

strategies, and as Ms
M o w l a m submerges herself in hypotaxis and embedding,
politeness strategies disap-
pear. This m a y have to do with the fact that syntactic c o m p
l e x i t y can be a politeness
strategy itself (Johnson, 1992); or with the circumstance that an
idea introduced in a
subordinate clause can be perceived as less important than that
introduced in the
main clause. H o w e v e r , the forbidden word catches Mad am
S p eak er's attention, and
Ms. M o w l a m is interrupted:
T6 - M a d a m Speaker: ( m o v e 1) Order. I ask the hon.
Lady to withdraw what she has said. No
Minister misled the House.
Madam Speaker intervenes due to a formal problem. T h e first
two formulations o f
the F T A are acceptable. It is the third which is
parliamentarily wrong. Cunningly,
Ms. M o w l a m tries to withdraw the second one, 'the question
on the Minister's
integrity', but Madam Speaker insists on her withdrawing the F
T A that contains the
unparliamentary word:
T 7 - Ms. M o w l a m : (move 1) I will withdraw the question
on the Minister's integrity. ( m o v e
2) However, I would like him to explain -
T8 - M a d a m Speaker: ( m o v e 1) Order. I have asked the
hon. Lady to withdraw her statement
that the Minister has misled the House.
T9 - M s . M o w l a m : ( m o v e 1) I will withdraw the
statement that the Minister misled the
House. (...)

Paradoxically, by pronouncing a word which is
unparliamentary, the speaker (Ms.
Mowlam, in this case) manages to introduce it four consecutive
times (turns 5, 6, 8
and 9), twice uttered by herself land twice by Mad am Speaker.
In spite o f withdraw-
ing her words, they remain indelible in the ears o f the
audience.
It is also noticeable that what Madam Speaker asks Ms. M o w l
a m to withdraw the
F T A is 'the s t a t e m e n t that the Minister misled the H o u
s e ' . It is the s t a t e m e n t what is
to be withdrawn, not the idea. This accounts for the fact that,
after withdrawing her
156 S.P. de Ayala /Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169
words, Ms. Mowlam insists on her FTA, wording it in a
different manner, with neg-
ative politeness strategy n u m b e r 2 'Question, h e d g e ' and
o f f record 4 'Understate'
and 15 ' B e incomplete, use ellipsis':
T9 - Ms. Mowlam: ( . . . ) (move 2) May I ask the Minister
instead whether he considers the
evidence that came to light last week a contradiction to his job
as Minister with responsibil-
ity for open Government? (my underlining)
The clerks o f the House c o m m e n t this case o f
interruption (personal communica-
tion):

It should be noted that it is possible to suggest that a Member
has misled the House inadver-
tently; but a simple use of the word 'mislead' is taken to mean a
deliberate act, and is there-
fore ruled to be disorderly.
Politeness strategies seem to be the clue used by Ms. Mo w l am
to keep FTAs within
parliamentary limits. The series o f FTAs she produces are
semantically identical, but
only one o f them is not acceptable, the one produced bald on
record.
SAMPLE 2: TEXT 7
Date and Hansard location: July 13, 1993, Question l, Columns
827-829
Department~interlocutor: Prime Minister (Mr. John Major)
Topic: Engagements
Number o f participants: 5 speakers, including Madam Speaker,
who intervenes to re-establish
order
T e x t 7 belongs to Prime Minister's Question Ti m e (13 July
1993), and is another
good example o f the production o f an F F A forbidden by
May which b eco m es
acceptable as a result o f its careful formulation.
The question is put by Mr. David Evans, conservative MP, to
the conservative
Prime Minister Mr. John Major. Mr. Major had recently
returned fro m T o k y o , where
he had attended a meeting o f the Group o f Seven. This
meeting was considered to be

a success, especially on economic matters (G7 agreement on
tariffs on manufactur-
ers). Mr. Evans does not produce a request for information, but
simply uses his ques-
tion to congratulate the Prime Minister on his success.
Simultaneously, and in con-
trast, he comments on John Smith's unsuccessful meeting. Mr.
John Smith, then
Leader o f the Opposition, had just arrived from a co n feren ce
in Bournemouth, where
the transport workers' union, the largest union affiliated to the
Lab o u r party, had
voted against his plans to reform the party. As a result o f the
allusion, Mr. Smith
asks for the floor and at this m o m e n t a discussion starts
between him and the Prime
Minister, on the main topic o f the macro-question, value added
tax. John Smith crit-
icises the increase o f domestic fuel bills because o f VAT. Th
e G o v e r n m e n t ' s pro-
posal to impose V A T on domestic gas and electricity bills was
w o n by the G o v ern -
ment the day before this question was put, i.e. July 12, 1993. Th
e L a b o u r party was
expected to challenge T o r y MPs to explain why they
supported it.
S.P. de Ayala / Journal o f Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169 157
T h e m a i n part o f the question is the V A T discussion b e
t w e e n J o h n Smith and
John Major. John S m i t h ' s only p u r p o s e is to p r o v e
that John M a j o r is a liar b e c a u s e
he p r o m i s e d his electors that he would not charge heating

with V A T , a p r o m i s e
which was not fulfilled:
T5 - M r . J o h n Smith: ( m o v e 1) Following the vote in
the House last night in which the Prime
Minister and his colleagues voted lo impose value added tax on
the heating bills of millions
of pensioners and families, does not he think that he should now
apologise to the British peo-
ple for betravin~ the election pledges that he made during the
last election? (my underlining)
This accusation is an F T A to J o h n M a j o r ' s PPF, f o r m
u l a t e d with a e u p h e m i s m ( o f f
record strategy n u m b e r 12). J o h n M a j o r ' s a n s w e r
to this F T A is another F T A :
T6 - The P r i m e Minister: ( m o v e 1) I am surprised that
the right hon. and learned Gentleman
should raise that matter today. Thi,; week's edition of 'Labour
Party News' contains an arti-
cle with the heading
'Sending your comments to Chris Smith MP'.
It asks:
'In what ways can economic policy be developed to encourage
environmental protection?
You might consider: Taxation Policy (e.g. energy tax ...)'
With the explanation o f these facts, the P r i m e Minister
implies that there is a con-
tradiction in John S m i t h ' s criticism. Since the F T A is not
stated directly, but o n l y
through facts, his speech can b e a n a l y s e d as o f f record
strategy n u m b e r 2, ' G i v e

hints'.
T h e next a d j a c e n c y pair is a repetition o f the s a m e
FTAs. In turn 7 Mr. Smith
repeats the accusation o f lying to the electors:
T 7 - Mr. Smith: ( m o v e 1) The Prime Minister clearly does
not want to hear a reference to his
VAT commitment. Let me remind him what he said in the
'Conservative Campaign Guide' -
[Interruption.] ( M o v e 2) I know that Conservative Members
do not want to hear it. The last
thing that they want to hear abow: is the 'Conservative
Campaign Guide'. It attacked the
Labour party for what it called irresponsible scares about VAT
and said:
'The Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government has no
intention of raising VAT.'
Why was that said in the election? (my underlining)
Again, the s a m e strategy is used o f explaining the facts that
lead to the accusation,
and not the accusation itself ( o f f record 2). In s u m m a r y ,
turns 5 and 7 are instances
o f an accusation o f lying which is a c c e p t e d b y M a d a
m S p e a k e r b e c a u s e they are
w o r d e d with a great deal o f public face redress.
T h e interest o f this text extends further to turn 9, where Mr.
Battle, a labour MP,
interrupts the p r o c e d u r e - he has not r e c e i v e d the f l
o o r - and f o r m u l a t e s the accusa-
tion o f lying on record:
T9 - Mr. Battle: ( m o v e 1) You lied to them.

The same idea, the same F T A delivered by Mr. Smith with
great care o v e r turns 5
and 7, is synthesized in one line, ' Y o u lied to t h em '. Th e P
T A is there, bare and
plain, and thus unacceptable. Madam Speaker interrupts the
debate and calls for
order:
TIO - Madam Speaker: (move 1) Order. I clearly heard the hon.
Gentleman's unparliamen-
tary language. Will he now withdraw it?
Mr. Battle knows the rules o f the House and produces, as the
Prime Minister notes
in turn 12, 'a typically cheap withdrawal':
TII - Mr. Battle: (move 1) I understand that the expression is
"economical with the truth", Madam
Speaker.
He does not withdraw the offence, but simply rephrases the
same F T A with a con-
ventionalized euphemism (off record politeness strategy n u m b
e r 12). T h e Clerks o f
the House (personal communication) made the following c o m
m e n t to this interven-
tion:
"The phrase 'economical with the truth' (...) is a quotation of a
remark by the then Cabinet
Secretary about evidence he gave in Australia in the
'Spycatcher' trial. This phrase has

become almost as familiar a euphemism for lying as the phrase
'terminological inexactitude'
used by Winston Churchill decades ago.
Mr. Battle's four words are interrupted immediately, because
they are too concise,
too direct. The message c o n v e y e d by both speakers is
identical. Th e difference lies
in the manufacture o f the ideas: Mr. Smith uses politeness. Mr.
Battle does not.
Once again, the analysis o f this text has proved that politeness
strategies b e c o m e
the linguistic means used by MPs to produce in the Ch am b er F
F A s which are for-
bidden by the May Treatise, and not be interrupted by the
Speaker.
6. Results
6.1. Q u e s t i o n T i m e is a g e n r e w i t h a h i g h f r e
q u e n c y o f F T A s a n d p o l i t e n e s s s t r a t e -
g i e s
Table 1 lists the 29 texts together with the nu m b er o f turns
per text (column 2 o f
the Table). Columns 3 and 4 show the n u m b e r o f FI'As and
politeness strategies in
each text. The figures are very different from one text to
another, because the length
o f the text also varies. For this reason, it has b e c o m e
necessary to calculate the fre-
quency o f FTAs and politeness strategies per turn, dividing for
each text the n u m b er
o f FFAs by the n u m b e r o f turns (columns 5 and 6 o f
Table 1). Th e last line o f the

table shows the total number o f FTAs and turns, and the
average freq u en cy o f F F A s
and politeness strategies per turn.
S.P. de Ayala /Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169 159
Question Time has been defined as a Face-Threatening Genre
(section 3.1). This
idea is supported by the fact that in Question Time all the
macro-questions, except
Texts 17 and 28, contain FTAs. Text 5 is specially aggressive,
with 43 FTAs in its
29 turns. Other texts show more than one FTA per turn (Texts 1,
10 and 19), or at
least 1 FTA per turn (Texts 3, .5, 7 and 9). All in all, the total
average of FTAs per
turn is 0.86, near 1 FTA per turn. If we take into account that
the average length o f
a turn is 53 words, then we haw~ 1 FTA every 53 words
approximately, which seems
a high frequency o f production of FTAs. To my knowledge,
(probably due to the dif-
ficulties o f carrying out quantitative studies of politeness),
there are no studies o f the
frequency of FTAs in informal everyday conversation, so there
is no real term of
comparison, but the figures in Table 1 show a genre with a high
frequency of FTAs.
This reflects the high level o f aggressiveness o f Question
Time, the most adversarial
among parliamentary genres, wlhere the main purpose of the
interactants is (as I said
before) to have the chance to score a political point.

Similarly, columns 4 and 6 of Table 1 show the number o f
politeness strategies
per text and per turn (2.7 on average, every 53 words), which
indicate a high fre-
quency o f politeness strategies. This responds to the
requirements o f the behavioural
code contained in Erskine May. The production o f FFAs has to
be compatible with
moderate parliamentary language, and this moderation is
reached through the pro-
duction o f politeness strategies. The high frequency both o f
FTAs and o f linguistic
politeness strategies leads us to speak about institutional
politeness, typical o f social
contexts where special (non-linguistic) politeness is required. In
the case o f the
House of Commons, the behavioural code seems to have its
linguistic counterpart in
the special production of linguistic politeness strategies.
6.2. The production o f FTAs and o f politeness strategies in
Question Time is con-
trolled by Erskine May's Treatise on the law, privileges,
proceedings and
usage o f Parliament
The production of FTAs in Question Time is not random,
fortuitous or contingent
on the occasion, as m a y happen in informal conversation; on
the contrary, it is sys-
tematic, prepared and genre-constitutive. Its management is
based on the procedure
described in M a y (1989). Interestingly, however, the
production o f FTAs has a num-
ber of restrictions, which are to be found in the same procedural
source.

In section 3.3 it has been seen that Erskine M a y ' s rules on
form and content of
oral questions forbid the production o f FTAs against MPs'
face. On the other hand,
MPs' public face is exposed to discussion and threat, even
though there are some
rules that protect it in some respects. These rules become the
variables that control
the production of FTAs against MPs' public face. Two main
variables can be identi-
fied:
A. Whether the F T A is forbidden or permitted: [+ Forbidden]
vs. [ - Forbidden]
B. Whether the FTA is produced with enough face redress: [+
Politeness] vs. I -
Politeness]
Table 1
Number and frequency of F'I'As and politeness strategies per
turn in each text, and total number of FFAs
and politeness strategies.
Text n ° Turns FTAs Strategies Fl'As/Turn Strat./Turn
1 10 15 32 1.5 3.2
2 10 4 32 0.4 2.8
3 10 10 24 1.0 2.4
4 4 2 9 0.5 2.2
5 29 43 110 1.4 3.7

6 8 8 22 1.0 2.7
7 14 14 35 1.0 2.5
8 12 I 1 30 0.9 2.5
9 10 10 36 1.0 3.6
10 10 11 29 1.1 2.9
11 12 8 22 0.6 1.8
12 10 8 24 0.8 2.4
13 6 3 17 0.5 2.8
14 10 5 20 0.5 2.0
15 8 6 22 0.7 2.7
16 14 12 36 0.8 2.5
17 4 - 9 0 2.2
18 6 5 22 0.8 3.6
19 8 11 33 1.3 4.1
20 10 3 25 0.3 2.5
21 8 6 23 0.7 2.8
22 12 10 34 0.8 2.8
23 4 3 8 0.7 2.0
24 18 15 50 0.8 2.7
25 6 3 6 0.5 1.0
26 4 2 5 o.5 1.0
27 6 4 16 0.6 2.6
28 4 - 13 0 3.2
29 4 3 14 0.7 3.5
Total 271 235 754 0.86 2.78
F T A s o f t h e p e r m i t t e d k i n d a r e c o n s t a n t l
y b e i n g p r o d u c e d i n Q u e s t i o n T i m e , b o t h
w i t h a n d w i t h o u t f a c e - r e d r e s s . I n p r i n c i
p l e , f o r b i d d e n F T A s l e a d t o a n i m m e d i a t e
i n t e r r u p t i o n o f t h e d e b a t e . H o w e v e r , it m a
y h a p p e n t h a t F T A s w h i c h a r e f o r b i d d e n

c a n n e v e r t h e l e s s b e a c c e p t e d , i f t h e y a r e
a c c o m p a n i e d b y a p p r o p r i a t e f a c e - r e d r e s
s ,
i.e. l i n g u i s t i c p o l i t e n e s s s t r a t e g i e s . T a b l
e 2 s u m m a r i z e s t h e s e f o u r p o s s i b i l i t i e s ,
w h i c h w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g
s e c t i o n s .
Table 2
Types of FTAs in Question Time
[+ FORBIDDEN] [ - FORBIDDEN]
[+ POLITENESS] OK OK
[- POLITENESS] INTERRUPTION OK
6 . 2 . 1 . F T A s f o r b i d d e n b y M a y a n d n o t f o r
m u l a t e d w i t h e n o u g h f a c e - r e d r e s s ( p o l i t
e -
n e s s s t r a t e g i e s ) r e s u l t in a n i m m e d i a t e i n
t e r r u p t i o n o f t h e d e b a t e
The FTAs forbidden by May (1989: 3 8 0 - 3 8 1 ) are personal
allusions, which are
FTAs against M P s ' private face; accusation o f falsehood or
o f u n a v o w e d motives;
misrepresentation o f another M P ' s language; accusation o f
misrepresentation; accu-
sation o f lying deliberately; and insulting or producing abusive

language.
In our corpus there are no e:~amples o f personal allusions, but
there are cases o f
accusations o f lying, o f hypocrisy, o f u n a v o w e d
motives and o f insults, all o f which
caused the intervention o f Madam Speaker, and therefore the
interruption o f the
debate. Texts 1-8 are macro-questions which contain cases o f
this type. In most
examples, the forbidden F T A is an accusation o f lying
(Texts 2, 4 and 7),
Text 2, turn 5, m o v e 2 - Ms. M o w l a m : ( . . . ) by the
evidence produced last week that he mis-
led the House over the Matrix Churchill affair?
Text 4, turn 3, m o v e I - M r . Cryer: ( . . . ) In view of that
unsatisfactory and misleading answer
(...)
Text 7, turn 9, m o v e 1 - Mr. Battle : You lied to them.
an accusation o f hypocrisy (Text 1),
Text 1, turn 4, m o v e 2 - M r . F o r s u h : (...) It is the
height of hypocrisy for him to come to the
House and complain about this Government following the very
measures which they -
or an accusation o f dishonest behaviour (Text 5):
Text 5, turn 21, m o v e 3 - Mr. Straw: ( . . . ) On the issue of
freeloading -
The rest o f the cases are insults (Texts 3, 6 and 8):
Text 3, turn 5, m o v e 2 - Mr. Faula's: ( . . . ) Cheeky little

pups.
Text 6, turn 5, m o v e 1. - Mr. Rogers: At some time in his
busy schedule, will the Minister
take time to instruct his stool pigeons who are brought forward
to ask questions -
Text 8, turn 3, m o v e 2. - Mr. Banks: ( . . . ) He could get his
own back on 'Baroness Bonkers',
who has said some nasty things about him.
In all these examples the formulation o f the forbidden F F A
is produced openly, bald
on record, with no face redress, with no politeness strategies,
and it is the combina-
tion o f these two variables ([+ F o r b i d d e n ] [ -
Politeness] F TA ) that leads to the
immediate interruption o f the debate.
An important idea that can be deduced is the fact that in
Question T i m e in the
House o f C o m m o n s , politeness is given priority o v e r
clarity, the interpersonal o v e r
the ideational, in linguistic terms. W h e n e v e r Mad am
Speaker interrupts, the debate
loses continuity and brightness. In T e x t 2, for example, the
question formulated by
Ms. M o w l a m in turn 5 is not answered until turn 10, that is,
until Mad am Speaker
considers that the Public Face o f Mr.Waldegrave has been
restored. As long as the
interpersonal relations have not been restored, the ideational
debate cannot continue.

6.2.2. F T A s forbidden by M a y and f o r m u l a t e d with
enough face-redress (adequate
politeness strategies) are admitted by the Speaker
Although Texts 1-8 show that sometimes MPs produce
forbidden F TA s with no
face-redress, it should be said that this type o f F F A is
notably less frequent than per-
mitted FTAs or forbidden FTAs which b e c o m e acceptable
due to their careful lin-
guistic formulation. Such linguistic formulation involves a
skilful use o f linguistic
politeness strategies. As the detailed analysis o f T e x t 7 has
shown, accusing another
MP o f lying can be accepted if the F T A is formulated with
euphemisms ( o f f record
politeness strategy n u m b e r 12), or giving hints o f the
accusation ( o f f record polite-
ness strategy n u m b e r 2).
The corpus offers another example o f an accusation o f lying
(Text 10, turn 7,
m o v e 1), accusations o f hypocrisy (Text 1, turn 8, m o v e
2; T e x t 24, turn 4, m o v e 1)
and accusations o f acting for false or u n a v o w e d motives
(Text 15, turn 7, m o v e 1;
T e x t 24, turn 3, m o v e 2), all o f them formulated with so
m a n y politeness strategies
that the F T A is accepted by the Speaker o f the House. S o m
e examples are the fol-
lowing:
- Accusation o f hypocrisy formulated with positive politeness
strategies n u m b e r
7 ('Presuppose c o m m o n ground'), 4 ( ' U s e in-group
identity m ark ers') and 5 ( ' S e e k

LaughterAnalysis of the Roles of LaughterI. IN.docx

PAGE 1LaughterAnalysis of the Roles of LaughterI. IN.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from karlhennesey

More from karlhennesey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PAGE 1LaughterAnalysis of the Roles of LaughterI. IN.docx