An Investigation Into the Phraseology of Question
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ORDER! ORDER!: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PHRASEOLOGY OF QUESTION TIME IN THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND HOUSES OF REPRESENTATIVES A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the University of Canterbury by Irina Loginova University of Canterbury 2013 Table of contents: Acknowledgements viii Abstract xi List of abbreviations and acronyms xiii List of figures, tables, graphs and diagrams xiv Figures xiv Tables xv Graphs xix Diagrams xxi Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1. Aims 1 1.1. Why examine Question Time? 1 1.2. Exploration of genrelects in general and methodology for their study 3 2. Analytic framework 5 2.1. Pre-elections 7 2.2. Reasons for the study 8 3. Methods 8 4. Outcomes 11 Chapter 2: PHRASEOLOGY OF QUESTION TIME 13 i 1. Introduction 13 2. Speech genres 13 3. Speech community, community of practice, discourse community 14 4. Summary of Chapter 2 23 Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY 25 1. Introduction 25 2. Developing a database for the study of the phraseology and ethnography of Parliamentary Question Time 26 3. The use of linguistic corpus tools for PLIs selection 40 4. Summary of Chapter 3 48 Chapter 4: HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF PARLIAMENTARY TRADITIONS IN NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIA 50 1. Introduction 50 2. Question Time as a communicative performance 50 3. History and geography of Australia and New Zealand 55 4. Summary of Chapter 4 63 Chapter 5: ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY OF QUESTION TIME 65 1. Introduction 65 2. Question Time as a ritual 65 2.1. Question Time in the New Zealand Parliament 66 ii 2.1.1. New Zealand Standing Orders 69 2.1.2. The New Zealand House of Representatives Debating Chamber 70 2.2. Question Time in the Australian Federal Parliament 75 2.2.1. Australian Parliament Standing and Sessional Orders 79 2.2.2.The Australian House of Representatives Debating Chamber 80 3. Stages of Question Time 85 4. The opening stage of Question Time 87 5. The questions and answers stage 89 5.1 Asking Main Questions 89 5.1.1. New Zealand 89 5.1.2. Australia 98 5.2. Answering main questions 108 5.2.1. New Zealand 108 5.2.2. Australia 109 5.3. Asking supplementary questions 112 5.3.1. New Zealand 112 5.3.2. Australia 116 5.4. Answering supplementary questions 118 iii 5.4.1. New Zealand 118 5.4.2. Australia 119 5.5. Raising points of order 120 5.5.1. New Zealand 120 5.5.2. Australia 138 5.6. Interruptions and comments 156 5.6.1. New Zealand 157 5.6.2. Australia 170 5.7. Speaker‟s ruling 184 5.7.1. New Zealand 184 5.7.2. Australia 191 5.8. Comment withdrawals and apologies 198 5.8.1. New Zealand 199 5.8.2. Australia 201 5.9. Personal explanations 202 5.10. Questions to the Speaker 203 5.11. Additional answers 206 6. The closing stage of Question Time 206 7. Summary of Chapter 5 207 Chapter 6: GENRELECTS 212 1. Introduction 212 iv 2. Research material 213 3. Formulaic language 216 4. Dialects 220 4.1. Regional dialects 220 4.1.1. Raising Points of Order 222 4.1.2. Asking questions 226 4.1.2.1. Question starters, transition phrases, etc. 232 4.1.2.2. Requesting information 235 4.1.2.3. Questioning the work of an addressee / Cabinet, etc. 238 4.1.2.4. Questioning the awareness of an addressee in the subject discussed 245 4.1.3. Answering questions 251 4.1.3.1. Answer starters, etc. 251 4.1.3.2. Providing information 257 4.1.4. Raising points of order on other matters 261 4.1.4.1. Points of order to make a personal explanation 262 4.1.4.2. Points of order to seek leave to table a document 263 v 4.1.4.3. Points of order to request / provide comment withdrawal (and apology) 264 4.1.4.4. Points of order on relevance 267 4.1.4.5. Points of order seeking the indulgence of the Chair to add to an answer 271 4.1.5. Miscellaneous 271 4.1.5.1. Turn-taking PLIs and transitional phrases 271 4.1.5.2. Forms of reference 273 5. Summary of Chapter 6 276 Chapter 7: CREATING DISORDER: THE EFFECT OF IMPENDING ELECTIONS ON QUESTION TIME IN TWO HOUSES OF REPRESENTATIVES 281 1. Introduction 281 2. The Speaker of the House 282 3. Disorder in the House 289 3.1. Creating disorder 290 3.1.1. Incorrect forms of address 290 3.1.2. Unparliamentary language 296 3.1.3. Telling lies 302 3.2. Drawing attention to disorder 308 vi 3.3. Quelling disorder 312 3.3.1. Directing an MP to resume his/her seat 312 3.3.2. Requesting that MPs withdraw their comments (and apologise) 315 3.3.3. Warning MPs 318 3.3.4. Directions for MPs to leave the Chamber 321 3.3.5. Other disciplinary formulae 325 4. Summary of Chapter 7 327 Chapter 8: DISCUSSION 329 1. Introduction 329 2. Limitations of the study 329 3. Discussion 332 4. Findings 336 5. Recommendations for future studies 339 6. Conclusion 340 BIBLIOGRAPHY 342 vii Acknowledgements I am very grateful for all the support and guidance provided by my two advisors, Professor Koenraad Kuiper and Professor Patrick McAllister, whose mentoring, moral support, advice, encouragement, good humour and constant feedback on my work have been invaluable. Their supervision of the project and “super vision” of my potential to complete it, as well as the speed at which they worked were fantastic. Thank you for all the time and work that you have put in me, for all the ideas and guidance. I would not have been able to complete this work without you. I am also grateful to the School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics of the University of Canterbury for creating a comfortable work environment and providing me with part-time employment. Big thanks to the postgraduate office. You have been very supportive and understanding, especially during the period of the Christchurch earthquakes, by providing (sometimes impossible under the ‘shaky’ conditions) access to facilities, resources and by extending the deadlines. viii I must also thank the UC Scholarship office for granting me a UC doctoral scholarship, a necessity in PhD life which often goes under-reported. The database, that was one of the most important elements of this project, was created with the help of Roger Corbett, for whom I am truly grateful. Andrew Fletcher helped me with the technical side of converting video clips of Question Time from the two Parliaments into a suitable format. Thank you, Andrew. Big thanks to my friend Lena Rodnyanskiy, who helped me a lot with calculations and statistics. I could not have completed this thesis without the support of my husband Vladimir and our two beautiful daughters, Victoria and Alisa. When Victoria first learned that my project was on parliamentary debates, she said: “Mum, what‟s parliament?” She used to spend a great deal of time watching Question Time videos with me in the next few months after this question, and after a while not only did she know many New Zealand and Australian MPs‟ names, but she would say things like “Mum, you should withdraw this offensive remark and apologise for it” or “Dinner is ready. Would the members please be seated?” ix Alisa was born when I was halfway through the project. And although she does not cite parliamentary formulae, she has been such a good baby by allowing her mother to continue working on the project. Also I would not have been able to finish the project without my mum Elena Kichaeva and my mother-in-law Natalia Loginova, who came to New Zealand and stayed here long term to help. Thank you, my family! x Abstract Question Time is a distinctive daily parliamentary routine. Its aim is to hold Ministers of the State accountable for the actions and decisions of the Government. However, in many Parliaments, including the New Zealand and Australian Federal Houses of Representatives, it is more of a theatrical performance where parties try their best to score political points. As any performance, Question Time is governed by certain rules and regulations outlined in an official document Standing Orders. As there is not much action, Standing Orders mainly describe language norms and specify „unparliamentary language‟. This research looks at and analyses the use of formulaic vocabulary used by MPs in the year preceding general elections in New Zealand and Australia. The formulaic language includes phrasal lexical items and formulae for asking / answering questions, for raising points of order and the Speakers‟ idiolectal phrasal vocabulary for quelling disorder in the Chambers and regulating the work of the House. The framework developed for this research consisted of the following steps: an ethnographic study of Question Time as a communicative performance which included the development of a database containing all the empirical material; a xi linguistic study of Question Time including genrelect study, parliamentary formulae study and disorder analysis before the elections. As a result this research has shown that Question Time is a communicative performance event in New Zealand and Australia with significant cultural, historic and linguistic differences in spite of the common origins of the two Parliaments. It has identified 60 Question Time genre-specific phrasal lexical items that MPs use in the two Parliaments, studied their structure and meaning (where necessary). It has also looked at the strategies the MPs employ for creating disorder in the House, and the ways of quelling disorder by the Speakers of the two Parliaments.