Orderly and disorderly practices of personal pronouns during question time in the Malaysian House of Representatives
List of Authors
  • Yoong, David

Keyword
  • Personal Pronouns, Parliamentary practices, Question Time, Orderly and disorderly practices, Standing Orders, interactional norms

Abstract
  • It is common practice in parliaments around the world for Members of Parliament (MPs) to address each other indirectly through the Speaker of the House while parliament is in session. Indeed, this practice is enforced in written law. Theoretically, failing to take heed of this rule can result in negative repercussions for the offending MP. This paper which incorporates the dimensions of orderliness and disorderliness of interaction, analyses the ways MPs and the Chair practise personal pronouns during Question Time in the Malaysian House of Representatives. Data which date from August to December 2006 are comprised of 43 Hansard transcripts and 54.5 hours of video recordings of Question Time. It is discovered that the majority type of personal pronouns is in first person, followed by third person pronouns. In stark contrast, second person pronouns occur very rarely. These findings indicate that MPs generally understand the expected norms of behaviour. Analysis also reveals that second person pronouns are sometimes used to deliberately flaunt parliamentary regulations to achieve specific objectives.

Reference
  • Bayley, P. (2004). Introduction: The ways and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse. In P. Bayley (ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Bevitori, C. (2004). Negotiating conflict-interruptions in British and Italian parliamentary debates. In P. Bayley (ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 87–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Braun, F. (1988). Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Bell, R.T. (1976). Sociolinguistics: Goals, approaches, and problems. London: B. T. Batsford.
    Biggs, S. & Helms, L. B. (2006). The practice of American public policymaking. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
    Dardjowidjojo, S. (1978). Sentence patterns of Indonesia. Hawaii: University Press of Hawaii.
    Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow: Longman.
    Ferguson, C.A. (1959). Diglossia. Word 15, 324-340.
    Figlio, R.M. (1975). The seriousness of offences: An evaluation by offenders and nonoffenders. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 66(2), 189-200.
    Ghazali, K. (2004). The rhetoric of Dr. Mahathir Mohamad: Critical discourse perspective. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.
    Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending the politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society 12(4), 451-472.
    Kuo, S.H. (2002). From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text 22(1), 29-55.
    Menon, T. N. (1980). An outline of parliamentary procedure in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Bahagian Penerbitan Malaysia.
    Musolf, D. M. and Springer, J. F. (1979). Malaysia’s parliamentary system: Representative politics and policymaking in a divided society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.