A Diachronic Study of Unparliamentary Language in the New Zealand Parliament, 1890-1950
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WITHDRAW AND APOLOGISE: A DIACHRONIC STUDY OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE IN THE NEW ZEALAND PARLIAMENT, 1890-1950 BY RUTH GRAHAM A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Linguistics Victoria University of Wellington 2016 ii “Parliament, after all, is not a Sunday school; it is a talking-shop; a place of debate”. (Barnard, 1943) iii Abstract This study presents a diachronic analysis of the language ruled to be unparliamentary in the New Zealand Parliament from 1890 to 1950. While unparliamentary language is sometimes referred to as ‘parliamentary insults’ (Ilie, 2001), this study has a wider definition: the language used in a legislative chamber is unparliamentary when it is ruled or signalled by the Speaker as out of order or likely to cause disorder. The user is required to articulate a statement of withdrawal and apology or risk further censure. The analysis uses the Communities of Practice theoretical framework, developed by Wenger (1998) and enhanced with linguistic impoliteness, as defined by Mills (2005) in order to contextualise the use of unparliamentary language within a highly regulated institutional setting. The study identifies and categorises the lexis of unparliamentary language, including a focus on examples that use New Zealand English or te reo Māori. Approximately 2600 examples of unparliamentary language, along with bibliographic, lexical, descriptive and contextual information, were entered into a custom designed relational database. The examples were categorised into three: ‘core concepts’, ‘personal reflections’ and the ‘political environment’, with a number of sub-categories. This revealed a previously unknown category of ‘situation dependent’ unparliamentary language and a creative use of ‘animal reflections’. The database design enabled the identification of sub- groups of members of parliament, the ‘principal users’ and ‘frequent targets’ of unparliamentary language. The analysis of the forms of rebuke made by the Speakers of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives, for using unparliamentary language, showed they changed over time. In the early years of the period examined by the study, the use of unparliamentary language was relatively small with the numbers dramatically increasing after 1930. It is argued that increases in the use of unparliamentary language reflected ‘discontinuities’ in the Community of Practice. This was illustrated in the years 1928 to 1935 with high numbers of unparliamentary language directed at the incumbent coalition government by Labour Party members. The ‘principal users’ of unparliamentary language made full use of the ‘shared repertoire’, both parliamentary and unparliamentary language, as part of their ‘identity’. Following Wenger’s definition of ‘power’, as the duality of ‘negotiation’ and ‘identity’, the iv findings suggest that ‘non-participation’ in the institutional preference for parliamentary language was a form of ‘power’ within the Community of Practice. This study shows unparliamentary language to be a little researched element of parliamentary discourse that reveals much about individual users and the dynamics of the legislative chamber. The trends in its use have mirrored some of the most important political events in New Zealand’s history. While the use of unparliamentary language is popularly considered ‘bad’ behaviour this study casts new light on its role when seen within the wider discourse and historical context. v Acknowledgements I am grateful for the award of the Research Fellowship at the New Zealand Dictionary Centre that enabled me to undertake this study. I wish to thank my supervisors Dr Derek Wallace, Senior Lecturer, School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies and Dr Dianne Bardsley, Honorary Research Associate, New Zealand Dictionary Centre, for their support of the topic and patient guidance over the duration of the study. Thank you to my referees for admission to the thesis programme, Professor Charlotte Macdonald, School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations, Victoria University of Wellington and Associate Professor Richard Herr, OAM, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania. I would like to extend my thanks to Dr Dalice Sim and Dr Lisa Woods, Victoria University of Wellington, for their assistance with the statistical analysis. I acknowledge the support of my employers during the course of the study, the Parliamentary Library in Wellington and the Library of Victoria University of Wellington. Thank you to the professional staff from the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies and the wider university. The Victoria University Library has provided access to databases, Subject Librarian support, reference management training, Interloan and intersite services that have been a great assistance. My thanks to Judith Forman, Ministry of Justice Library, for the copies of Hansard offered on disposal. I would like to extend a special thank you to my son Simon for his support. To my parents, Anne and Dick Turvey, my husband James, son Mark and his partner Michelle, thank you for all your kindness and patience. I also acknowledge the wider Thomas, Turvey and Graham families. Finally, to my Library friends, Corinne, Keryn, Aisling and Corinna, thank you for your support. vi Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................... xiii List of Figures .............................................................................................................. xiv Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... xv Glossary ....................................................................................................................... xvi Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Rationale for the Study ......................................................................................... 2 1.2 Parliamentary Discourse and Unparliamentary Language ................................... 3 1.2.1 Parliamentary discourse ............................................................................... 4 1.2.2 Unparliamentary language ............................................................................ 7 1.3 Historical Political Background .......................................................................... 10 1.4 Conclusion and Outline of the Chapters ............................................................. 14 Chapter 2: Literature Review ..................................................................................... 17 2.1 Unparliamentary Language Research ................................................................. 18 2.1.1 Parliamentary insults ................................................................................... 19 2.1.2 Formulaic discourse structures ................................................................... 22 2.1.3 Behavioural standards ................................................................................. 23 2.1.4 Expunged words .......................................................................................... 24 2.2 Parliamentary Discourse Research ..................................................................... 25 2.2.1 Adversarial language .................................................................................. 25 vii 2.2.2 Interruptions, interjections and interventions ............................................. 29 2.2.3 Lexico-grammatical research ...................................................................... 34 2.3 New Zealand English and te reo Māori .............................................................. 37 2.3.1 Parliamentary discourse in New Zealand ................................................... 38 2.3.2 New Zealand English in parliamentary discourse ...................................... 39 2.3.3 Te reo Māori in parliamentary discourse .................................................... 40 2.4 Conclusion and Research Questions ................................................................... 41 Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework ........................................................................... 43 3.1 Communities of Practice ..................................................................................... 43 3.1.1 Background to the Community of Practice framework .............................. 43 3.1.2 Dimensions of a Community of Practice .................................................... 45 3.1.3 Shared repertoire and parliamentary discourse ........................................... 47 3.2 Linguistics, Community of Practice and ‘Power’ ............................................... 50 3.2.1 Communities of Practice in linguistics ....................................................... 51 3.2.2 ‘Power’ and Communities of Practice ........................................................ 52 3.2.3 The case of quibble ..................................................................................... 54 3.3 Impoliteness and Unparliamentary