Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 22:1 (2017) ► pp.27–56

Tracing facework over time using semi-automated methods

 | Manchester Metroplitan University
 | Lancaster University
Impolite behaviour tends to attract more evaluative comment than other facework, making it easier to investigate synchronically and diachronically. A reliance on metapragmatic commentary is not optimum for UK parliamentary studies, however, as MPs cannot use “insulting or rude language” that breaks the chamber’s “rules of politeness” (www​.parliament​.uk). The work reported here thus offers three innovative methods of tracing MPs’ facework as they negotiated the “unparliamentary language” prohibition, and the results gleaned when the methods were applied to Hansard records (1812–2004). Method 1 prioritises portmanteau tags made up of USAS semtags. Method 2 prioritises themes derived from the HTOED. Method 3 draws on ‘meaning constellations’ (i.e. simultaneous searches of multiple tags). The UK parliamentary website highlights the “considerable ingenuity” displayed by MPs in order to circumvent their unparliamentary language prohibition. All methods have found examples of such ingenuity, many of which are characterized by multiple facework intentions (Archer 2015).
Keywords: facework, Hansard, HTOED, meaning constellations, USAS
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Using semantic fields to identify pragmatic spaces over time
    • 1.2Methodological aims of this paper
  • 2.Facework from the nineteenth century onwards
  • 3.Explanation of Hansard datasets
  • 4.Identifying Potential Facework Indicators within the HTST
    • 4.1Portmanteau tag searches
    • 4.2(Single) HT codes
    • 4.3Utilising meaning constellations
      • 4.3.1(Bad Behaviour), Accusation, (Spitefulness), Speech Act
      • 4.3.2Respect + Commendation, praise + Speech Act
      • 4.3.3Respect + Contempt + Speech Act
  • 5.Main insights
  • 6.Future work
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 28 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.1.02arc
References (36)
References
Archer, D. (2014). Exploring verbal aggression in English historical texts using USAS: The possibilities, the problems and potential solutions. In I. Taavitsainen, A. H. Jucker & J. Tuominen (Eds.), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics, (pp. 277–301). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Slurs, insults, (backhanded) compliments and other strategic facework moves. Language Sciences 521, 82–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baron, A., & Rayson, P. (2008, May). VARD 2: A tool for dealing with spelling variation in historical corpora. Paper presented at the Postgraduate Conference in Corpus Linguistics, Birmingham, UK.
Baumeister, R. F. (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychological review of historical research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 163–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cockcroft, R., & Cockcroft, S. (2005). Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric (2nd. ed.). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Crewe, E. (2005). Lords of Parliament: Manners, Rituals and Politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., & Demmen, J. (2011). Nineteenth-century English politeness: Negative politeness, conventional indirect requests and the rise of the individual self. In M. Bax & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), Understanding Historical (Im)politeness (pp.49–80). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunning, T. (1993). Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome’s Press.Google Scholar
Farrelly, M., & Seoane, E. (2012). Democratization. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of The History of English (pp.392–401). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A., & Bull, P. (2012). Doing leadership in political speech: Semantic processes and pragmatic inferences. Discourse & Society, 23(2), 127–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finch, E., & Fafinski, S. (2015). Legal Skills. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor.Google Scholar
(1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse & Society, 12(4), 451–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, A., & Clifford, R. (2011). Polite incivility in defensive attack: Strategic politeness and impoliteness in cross-examination in the David Irving vs. Penguin Books Ltd and Deborah Lipstadt trial. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, 7(1), 43–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. M. Suls (Eds.), Psychological Perspectives of the Self (pp.231–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2012). Changes in politeness cultures. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of The History of English (pp.422–433). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. & Taavitsainen, I. (2000). Diachronic speech act analysis: Insults from flyting to flaming. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(1), 67–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopytko, R. (1995) Against rationalistic pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 231, 475–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N., Hundt, M., Mair, C., & Smith, N. (2009). Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp.66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Locher, M., & Watts, R. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In D. Bousfield & M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.77–100). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
May, E., & Sweetman, J. F. (Eds.) (1989). Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (21st ed.) London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Penman, R. (1990). Facework & politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1/2), 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayson, P. (2008). Wmatrix: A Web-based Corpus Processing Environment [Computer software]. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Available at [URL](last accessed May 2017).
Reid, C. (2012). Imprison’d Wranglers: The Rhetorical Culture of the House of Commons 1760–1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smiles, S. (1859). Self-Help; with Illustrations of Character and Conduct. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Trilling, L. (1967). Beyond Culture: Essays on Literature and Learning. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Ward, J. (1980). The Hansard Chronicles. Toronto: Deneau and Greenberg.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2006). Anglo scripts against “putting pressure” on other people and their linguistic manifestations. In C. Goddard (Ed.), Ethnopragmatics. Understanding Discourse in Cultural Context (pp. 31–63). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Landone, Elena
2022. Corpus Analysis. In Methodology in Politeness Research [Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, ], ► pp. 217 ff. DOI logo
Haselow, Alexander & Sylvie Hancil
2018. Rethinking language change from a dialogic perspective. Language Sciences 68 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Archer, Dawn
2017. Mapping Hansard Impression Management Strategies through Time and Space. Studia Neophilologica 89:sup1 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo
Archer, Dawn
2017. Context and historical (socio-)pragmatics twenty years on. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 18:2 ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
Archer, Dawn
2018. Negotiating difference in political contexts: An exploration of Hansard. Language Sciences 68 ► pp. 22 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.