Paper about Sociolinguistics analysis

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.

S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169 147

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)

148 S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169

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

150 S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169

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

S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169 153

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

154 S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169

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.

158 S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169

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]

160 S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169

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

S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169 161

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.

162 S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169

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 agreement'), and o f f record politeness strategy n u m b er 2 ( ' G i v e association clues'):

Text 1, turn 8, move 2 - Mr. Forsyth: (...) I assume from mv hon. Friend's question that he has the same view. I am therefore a little puzzled as to why he does not see a deregulatory measure -the abolition of wages councils- as being in the interests of the labour market as a whole. It was certainly a view which he accepted in answers that he gave when he was a Min- ister. (...)

- Accusation o f acting for false or unavowed motives, formulated with negative politeness strategy n u m b e r 7 ('Impersonalize H ' ) and n u m b e r 2 ('Question, h e d g e ' ) , and with o f f record politeness strategy number 2 ( ' G i v e association clues'):

Text 24, turn 3, move 2 - Mr. Dowd: (...) Will the Prime Minister admit that the Govern- ment's proposals in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill for the measure of a pint of beer represent a total surrender to the interests of a big brewers, who are such generous back- ers of the Conservative party? (...)

6.2.3. When an M P is interrupted by the Speaker f o r f o rm u l a t i n g a f o rb i d d en F T A without redress, the M P withdraws it, but often reformulates it in an accept- able form, i.e. with adequate politeness strategies

This idea is the corollary o f the previous results. In the analysis o f Texts 2 and 7 it has been seen that when Madam Speaker interrupts the debate for a matter o f form, the M P is obliged to withdraw the forbidden FTA. Interestingly, after withdrawing it the MP often repeats the FTA, semantically identical, but formulated with politeness strategies. This procedure has b e c o m e conventionalized, and can be fo u n d w h e n e v e r there is an interruption o f this kind (Texts 1-8). S o m e examples are the following, from Texts 1 and 4:

S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169 163

Text 1, turn 6, moves 1-2 - M r . Forsyth: I am happy to withdraw the accusation of hypocrisy. I note that the hon.Member for Falkirk West accepts that the Labour Government abolished 11 wa~es councils, iust as this Conservative Government will do.

v

Text 4, turn 7, move 1. - Mr. Cryer: I will withdraw the word 'misleading' and say that h_.ee was economical with the truth.

In the first case, the withdrawn lTrA is reformulated with o f f record politeness strat- egy number 2 'Give association clues'; in the second, with o f f record politeness strategy number 4 'Understate'.

6.2.4. A special use o f politeness p e r v a d e s the whole genre o f question time, inde- p e n d e n t l y o f f o r b i d d e n F T A s

MPs use a high frequency o f politeness strategies to make their discourse accept- able in the Chamber, even containing FTAs explicitly forbidden in Erskine M a y ' s behavioural code. Interestingly, it has been observed that such a use o f politeness strategies extends to interventions whose contents are perfectly acceptable according to the House standards. This means that a special use o f politeness strategies per- vades the genre of Question Time, and it could even be argued that it is constitutive o f its style.

The last two columns of Table 1 show that there is no exact correlation between the figures o f frequency o f FTAs and politeness strategies per turn. It is true that texts with a high frequency of FTAs tend to have a high frequency o f politeness strategies (Texts 1, 5, 9, 19), but it is also true that a high frequency o f politeness strategies does not necessarily accompany a high frequency o f FTAs (Texts 18, 28 and 29). Similarly, the texts with highest frequency of politeness strategies (Texts 5, 9, 18, 19, 29) do not correspond to the highest frequencies o f FTAs, neither forbid- den nor permitted. All these facts show that the production o f politeness strategies is a general feature o f the genre, irrespective o f the need to counteract the effect o f a forbidden FTA. MPs use politeness strategies to make their discourse moderate, par- liamentary. Politeness strategies are one o f the linguistic means that MPs have to abide by the general communicative principle of the House, explained in Erskine May (1989: 380): " G o o d temper and moderation are the characteristics o f parlia- mentary language".

7. Face-work in the House of Commons

Face-work in the Chamber has as its main purpose to attack and threaten the opponent's public face. In the light o f politeness theory, this is a remarkable issue, because Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) based their work on the Goffmanian idea that the first aim o f face-work is to try to diminish the threat to the other's face, and so avoid conflict. A new concept o f face-work emerges, that o f 'face-work as aggression', described by Calvo (1991) for the interaction between master and fool in Shakespeare. Calvo (1991: 96) explains that fools, because o f their job, are encouraged to threaten their master's face. This fact constitutes part o f the 'mutual

164 s.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169

k n o w l e d g e ' o f m a s t e r s a n d fools, w h i c h leads to a situation in w h i c h the c o n s e n s u s is n o t to p r e s e r v e the o t h e r ' s face, b u t r a t h e r to t h r e a t e n it.

Similarly, in the H o u s e o f C o m m o n s there is c o n s e n s u s to t h r e a t e n the p u b l i c f a c e o f the a d v e r s a r y , b e c a u s e F F A s are at the v e r y heart o f the genre. T h e C h a m b e r is the place w h e r e all M e m b e r s k n o w that t h e y c a n a t t a c k a n d be attacked. E v e r y b o d y k n o w s that the d u t y o f a g o o d M P is to criticize a n d attack, a n d be p r o v o c a t i v e even. T h e result is a ' b a t t l e o f w i t s ' , a n d as C a l v o explains, this t y p e o f a g g r e s s i v e f a c e - w o r k

"usually takes the shape of a verbal contest in which one has to outdo one's partner. This turns the dia- logue into a series of consecutive adjacency pairs in which both the first and second parts of the pair con- tain a threat to the face of the other participant. As Goffman has observed, the main purpose of the duel is to display one's abilities as conversationalist: 'the winner (...) demonstrates that as interactant he can handle himself better than his adversaries. Evidence of this capacity is often more important than all the other information the person conveys in the interchange' (Goffman, 1967: 25)." (Calvo, 1991: 98)

T h e situation in Q u e s t i o n T i m e is a n a l o g o u s . O n the o n e hand, the p u r p o s e o f the v e r b a l fight is t o s h o w that o n e is m o r e brilliant than o n e ' s o p p o n e n t ; b u t also, it is i m p o r t a n t to c o n v i n c e the a u d i e n c e that o n e is a b e t t e r p o l i t i c i a n than the o t h e r :

"IT]he winner proves that he can make his interlocutor lose face, and that he can easily fend off any threats posed to his own face. As Goffman says, conveying this information becomes the real topic of the talk, 'what the talk is about'. The interpersonal takes here precedence over the ideational: the refer- ential content conveyed by the dialogue is pushed to the background whereas interpersonal relations come to occupy the foreground." (Calvo, 1991 : 98)

This p h e n o m e n o n is c o n s t a n t in Q u e s t i o n T i m e . T o ' k i l l ' the a d v e r s a r y b e c o m e s the m a i n aim. T h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a l u e s (the a g g r e s s i v e f a c e - w o r k ) i m p o s e t h e m s e l v e s o v e r ideational content. F r o m the p o i n t o f v i e w o f f a c e - w o r k , this t y p e o f a g g r e s s i v e i n t e r a c t i o n b r e a k s the b a l a n c e that h o l d s in the g e n r e o f i n f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n ( B r o w n a n d L e v i n s o n ( 1 9 8 7 : 2 3 6 ) ) :

"If a breach of face respect occurs, this constitutes a kind of debt that must be made up by positive repa- ration if the original level of face respect is to be maintained. Reparation should be of an appropriate kind and paid in a degree proportionate to the breach." (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 236)

T h e b a l a n c e p r i n c i p l e o n l y h o l d s in situations w h e r e participants " h a v e a d e q u a t e m o t i v e s f o r c a r i n g f o r e a c h o t h e r s ' f a c e " ( B r o w n a n d L e v i n s o n , 1987: 236). S i n c e there is c o n s e n s u s to threaten e a c h o t h e r s ' face, there r e m a i n n o a p p a r e n t m o t i v e s f o r f a c e respect. H o w e v e r , c o m m u n i c a t i o n in the C h a m b e r w o u l d b e d i f f i c u l t if at least the a p p e a r a n c e o f f a c e r e s p e c t w e r e n o t kept. T h e M a y p r o c e d u r e c o d e , w i t h its fre- q u e n t r e a l i z a t i o n in p o l i t e n e s s strategies, is the e l e m e n t that serves to r e s t o r e the i m b a l a n c e that s u c h a g g r e s s i v e f a c e - w o r k causes. A n interesting situation o f 'insti- t u t i o n a l i z e d h y p o c r i s y ' originates, in w h i c h M e m b e r s v e r y k i n d l y d e s t r o y e a c h other. T h e f u n c t i o n o f p o l i t e n e s s c h a n g e s : p o l i t e n e s s strategies are n o t the linguistic m e a n s n e c e s s a r y to a v o i d conflict. Q u e s t i o n T i m e is conflict. P o l i t e n e s s strategies b e c o m e the m e a n s at the C h a m b e r ' s d i s p o s a l to be able to w o r k a n d p r o g r e s s , e v e n in the

s.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169 165

middle o f conflict. " G o o d temper and moderation" (May 1989: 380) are the main purposes o f this linguistic institutionalized hypocrisy. Behind it, there is surely an attempt to dignify the human being in the expression of its most difficult relation- ships.

8. Conclusion

The analysis contained in these pages has attempted to show that Question Time is a face-threatening genre, with a high frequency of FFAs, counterbalanced by a high production o f politeness strategies. Face-work in Question Time is governed by Erskine M a y ' s Treatise on the law, proceedings a n d usage o f Parliament. MPs in the House o f Commons use politeness strategies as the means to produce all kinds of FTAs, complying at the same time with the rules that forbid them. It has been seen that FTAs such as the accusation o f lying are not permitted in the House. If they are formulated in a direct way, the procedure is interrupted until they are withdrawn or reformulated with the appropriate amount of public face redress. On the other hand, if semantically identical FTAs are mitigated by politeness strategies, they are accepted by the Speaker.

This extensive use o f politeness comes from the requisite that all discourse pro- duced in the House be moderate and controlled. The principle of 'parliamentary lan- guage' governs all the speech delivered in the Chamber. This same principle was formulated, with different words, during a Point of Order:

"Whatever the exchanges in the House, English is a very rich language. I hope that we select it very carefully, however upset and excited we might become in our exchanges." (Hansard, february 9, 1993: column 831)

A strange situation originates in the Chamber, where face-work is used to provoke. Question T i m e ' s inquisitorial function leads to the production of a large amount of FTAs. As a result, the balance principle is broken. The presence of an artificial for- mal code, Erskine M a y ' s Treatise, is necessary to restore the balance with respect to the participants' public face, even if the balance achieved is in some way hypocriti- cal. Politeness strategies are the; linguistic means used by Members of Parliament to comply with Erskine M a y ' s form requirements, giving way to this kind of parlia- mentary institutionalized hypocrisy.

The present article has focused on the quantity of F F A s and politeness strategies, the content o f the F F A s and Erskine M a y ' s rules. Other variables o f interest, such as the kind o f face threatened (public positive or public negative), gender or ideologi- cal differences in the production of politeness, have been considered as being beyond the scope o f this article, and will be taken up in further research.

166 S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169

Appendix A: Simplified version of Brown and Levinson's charts of politeness strategies

Positive politeness

Claim 'common ground'

Convey that S and H are cooperators

Fulfil H ' s want (for some X)

Negative politeness

Be direct Don't presume/assume Don't coerce H

Communicate S ' s want not to impinge on H

Redress other wants of H's, derivative from negative face

Convey 'X is admirable, interest- ing'

Claim in-group membership with H

Claim common point of view, opinions, attidudes, knowledge, empathy

Indicate S knows H ' s wants and is taking them into account

Claim reflexivity

Claim reciprocity

Strat. 1 : Notice, attend to H Strat. 2: Exaggerate Strat. 3: Intensify interest to H

Strat. 4: Use in-group identity markers

Strat. 5: Seek agreement Strat. 6: Avoid disagreement Strat. 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground Strat. 8: Joke

Strat. 9: Assert or presuppose S ' s knowledge of and concern for H ' s wants

Strat. 10: Offer, promise Strat. 11 : Be optimistic Strat. 12: Include both S and H in the activity Strat. 13: Give (or ask for) rea- son

Strat. 14: Assume or assert reci- procity

Strat. 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, coop- eration)

Make minimal assump- Be indirect tions about H ' s wants Don't assume H is able/ Give H option not to act willing to do A

Assume H is not likely to do A

Minimize threat Make explicit R, P, D values

Dissociate S, H from the particular infringement

Strat. 1: Be convention- ally indirect Strat. 2: Question, hedge

Strat. 3: Be pessimistic

Strat. 4: Minimize the imposition Strat. 5: Give deference

Strat. 6: Apologize

Strat. 7: Impersonalize S and H Strat. 8: State the FTA as a general rule Strat. 9: Nominalize

Strat. 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H

S.P. de Ayala /Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169 167

Off record

Invite conversational implica- Violate Relevance Maxim tures, via hints triggered by vio- lation of Gricean Maxims

Violate Quantity Maxims

Violate Quality Maxim

Strat. 1: Give hints Strat. 2: Give association clues Strat. 3: Presuppose

Strat. 4: Understate Strat. 5: Overstate Strat. 6: Use tautologies

Strat. 7: Use contradictions Strat. 8: Be ironic Strat. 9: Use metaphors Strat. 10: Use rhetorical ques- tions

Be vague or ambiguous Violate Manner Maxim Strat. l 1 : Be ambiguous Strat. 12: Be vague Strat. 13: Over-generalize Strat. 14: Displace H Strat. 15: Be incomplete, use ellipsis

(Brown and Levinson, 1987: 102, 131 and 214)

References

Adelsw~ird, Viveka, 1989. Defendants' interpretations of encouragements in court: The construction of meaning in an institutionalized context. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 741-749.

Aronsson, Karin and Bengt Rundstr6m, 1989. Cats, dogs, and sweets in the clinical negotiation of real- ity: On politeness and coherence in pediatric discourse. Language in Society 18: 483-504.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, 1990. You don't touch lettuce with your fingers: Parental politeness in family discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 259-288.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana,1992. The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In: Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, eds., Politeness in language. Studies in its history, theory and prac- tice, 255-280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Juliane House, 1989. Cross-cultural and situational variation in requestive behavior. In: S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper, eds., Cross-cultural pragmatics, 123-154. Nor- wood, NJ: Ablex.

Boulton, Sir Clifford, 1992. Rules and conventions. The House Magazine, November 2, 1992: 8. Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson, 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In:

E. Goody, ed., Questions and politeness, 56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson, 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman, 1989. Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies. Lan-

guage in Society 18: 159-213. Calvo, Clara, 1991. Power relations and fool-master discourse in Shakespeare: A discourse stylistics

approach to dramatic dialogue (Monographs in systemic linguistics 3. Department of English Stud- ies, University of Nottingham.

Calvo, Clara and Ronald Geluykens, 1995. Politeness strategies and sequential organization in crime fic- tion telephone conversations. Journal of Applied Linguistics 9(2): 49-66.

Chen, Rong, 1993. Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 49-75.

168 S.P. de Ayala / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169

Cherry, Roger D., 1988. Politeness in written persuasion. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 63-81. Chilton, Paul, 1990. Politeness, politics and diplomacy. Discourse and Society 1 (2): 201-224. Coupland, Nikolas, Karen Grainger and Justine Coupland, 1988. Politeness in context: Intergenerational

issues (review article). Language in Society 17: 253-262. Culpeper, Jonathan, 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25(3): 349-367. Davies, Eirlys, 1987. A contrastive approach to the analysis of politeness formulas. Applied Linguistics

8(1): 75-88. Fraser, Bruce, 1990, Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14:219-236 Gabriel, Philip and Andrew Maslen, 1986. British politics. London: Longman. Goffman, Erving, 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Green, Georgia, 1989. Pragmatics and natural language understanding. London: Erlbaum. Gruber, Helmut, 1993. Political language and textual vagueness. Pragmatics 3(1): 1-28. Gu, Yueguo, 1990. Politeness phenomena in modem Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 237-257. Halliday, Michael, 1994. An introduction to functional grammar (Second edition). London: Arnold. Hansard parliamentary debates. House of Commons official report. London: Her Majesty's Stationery

Office. Held, Gudrun, 1992. Politeness in linguistic research. In: Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad

Ehlich, eds., Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, 131-1552. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Holmes, Janet, 1988. Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 445--465.

House, Juliane, 1989. Politeness in English and German: The functions of 'please' and 'bitte'. In: S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper, eds., Cross-cultural pragmatics, 96-119. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ide, Sachiko, 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8(2/3): 223-248.

Janney, Richard and Horst Arndt, 1992. Intracultural tact versus intercultural tact. In: Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, eds., Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and prac- tice, 21-42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Johnson, Donna, 1992. Compliments and politeness in peer-review texts. Applied Linguistics 13(1): 51-71.

Kasper, Gabriele, 1990. Linguistic politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 193-218. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine, 1997. A multilevel approach in the study of talk in interaction. Pragmat-

ics 7(1): 1-20. Kienpointner, Manfred, 1997. Varieties of rudeness: Types and functions of impolite utterances. Func-

tions of Language 4(2): 251-287. Lakoff, Robin, 1989. The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua 8(2/3):

101-129. Levinson, Stephen, 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mao, Robert LuMing, 1994. Beyond politeness theory: 'Face' revisited and renewed. Journal of Prag-

matics 21: 451-486. May, Erskine, 1989. Treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament. (Twenty-first

edition, edited by C.J. Boulton.) London: Butterworth. Meier, Ardith J., 1995. Passages of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 24(4): 381-392. Myers, Greg, 1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics 10(1): 1-35. Olshtain, Elite, 1989. Apologies across languages. In: Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House and

Gabriele Kasper, eds., Cross-cultural pragmatics, 155-173. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Pavlidou, Theodossia, 1994. Contrasting German-Greek politeness and the consequences. Journal of

Pragmatics 21:487-511. Prrez de Ayala, Soledad, t996. Question Time: Cortesia lingtiistica en la C~imara de los Comunes.

Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Scheerhorn, Dirk R., 1991/1992. Politeness in decision-making. Research on Language and Social Inter-

action 25: 253-273. Sell, Roger, 1991. The politeness of literary texts. In: Roger Sell, ed., Literary pragmatics, 208-259.

London: Routledge.

S.P. de Ayala /Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 143-169 169

Sell, Roger, 1992. Literary texts and diachronic aspects of politeness. In: Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, eds., Politeness in language. Studies in its history, theory and practice, 109-129. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sifianou, Maria, 1992. Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Silk, Paul, 1989. How parliament works (Second edition). London: Longman. Sinclair, John and Malcolm Coulthard, 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford Uni-

versity Press. Slembrouck, Stef, 1992. The parliamentary Hansard 'verbatim' report: the written construction of spo-

ken discourse. Language and Literature 1(2): 101-119. Slugoski, B.R., 1985. Grice's theory of conversation as a social psychological Model. Ph.D. thesis, Uni-

versity of Oxford. Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 1993. Conceptions of social relations and pragmatics research. Journal of Prag-

matics 20: 27--47. Tannen, Deborah, 1992. Rethinking pc,wer and solidarity in gender and dominance. In: C. Kramsch and

S. McConnell-Ginet, eds., Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study 135-147. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Tsui, Amy, 1994. English conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vollmer, Helmut J. and Elite Olshtain, 1989. The language of apologies in German. In: S. Blum-Kulka,

J. House and G. Kasper, eds., Cross-cultural pragmatics 197-218. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Watts, Richard, 1989. Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behaviour. Multi-

lingua 8(2/3): 131-166. Watts, Richard, 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for uni-

versality. In: Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, eds., Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, 43-70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Watts, Richard, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, 1992. Introduction. In: Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, eds., Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, 1-20. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Werkhofer, Konrad, 1992. Traditional and modem views: The social constitution and the power of politeness. In: Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, eds., Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, 155-202. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wilson, Steven R., Min-Sun Kim and Hendrika Meischke, 1991/1992. Evaluating Brown and Levinson's politeness theory: Revised analysis of directives and face. Research on Language and Social Interac- tion 25: 215-252.

Wolfson, Nessa, 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA: Newbury.

Soledad P6rez de Ayala (1966) took her first degree in English language and literature, from the Uni- versidad Complutense de Madrid in 1989. She earned the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics and Modem English Language from Nottingham University, under the supervision of Margaret Berry and Michael McCarthy. In 1996 she obtained her Ph.D. at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, under the supervision of Professor Angela Downing. Presently she is a teacher of the English Department of the Universidad Complutense.