A Pragmatic Analysis of Responses in Malaysian Parliamentary Discourse

Najah Zainal Abidin, Jariah Mohd Jan


This study employs the framework of responses proposed by Harris (1991), the notion of implicature as defined by Thomas (1995), and the dimensions of resistance introduced by Clayman (2001) to examine the types of responses in Malaysian Parliamentary Question Time. Analysis revealed the tendency of using direct, indirect, and evasive responses to specific questions for various reasons. Direct answers were observed in questions that could reflect positively on the government’s image. On the contrary, indirect answers were employed in questions that suggest clashing of goals between responders and questioners that could subsequently threaten the image of the government whereas negative presuppositions and the way questions are structured in parliament influence the production of evasion.

Keywords: direct answer, evasive response, indirect answer, parliamentary discourse, political discourse


Full Text:



Alfahad, A. (2016). Equivocation in Arabic news interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(2), 206-223.

Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullet, J. (1988). Political equivocation: a situational explanation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7(2),137-145.

Bayley, P. (Ed.). (2004). Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (Vol. 10). John Benjamins Publishing.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1983). The dynamics of political interviews. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 3(2), 131-154.

Bull, P. (1994). On identifying questions, replies, and non-replies in political interviews. Journal of language and social psychology, 13(2), 115-131.

Bull, P. (2000). Equivocation and the rhetoric of modernization: An analysis of televised interviews with Tony Blair in the 1997 British General Election. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19(2), 222-247.

Bull, P. (2008). “Slipperiness, Evasion, and Ambiguity” Equivocation and Facework in Noncommittal Political Discourse. Journal of language and social psychology, 27(4), 333-344.

Bull, P., & Strawson, W. (2020). Can’t answer? Won’t answer? An analysis of equivocal responses by Theresa May in Prime Minister’s Questions. Parliamentary Affairs, 73(2), 429-449.

Carranza, A. V. (2016). Evading and resisting answering: an analysis of Mexican Spanish news interviews. Pragmatics and Society, 7(4), 570-594.

Chilton, P. A. (2004). Analyzing political discourse: Theory and practice. Psychology Press.

Chovanec, J. (2020). “Those are not my words”: Evasion and metalingual accountability in political scandal talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 158, 66-79.

Clayman, S. E. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society, 30(3), 403-442.

Clayman, S. E. (2012). Conversation analysis in the news interview context. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 630-656). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dillon, J. T. (1990). The Practice of Questioning. Routledge, London: Taylor & Francis.

Ekström, M. (2009). Announced refusal to answer: A study of norms and accountability in broadcast political interviews. Discourse Studies, 11(6), 681-702.

Feldman, O., Kinoshita, K., & Bull, P. (2016). ‘Ducking and Diving’: How Political Issues Affect Equivocation in Japanese Political Interviews. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 17(2), 141-167.

Gnisci, A. (2021). Pragmatic functions of question-answer sequences in Italian legal examinations and TV interviews with politicians. In Ilie, C. (323.), Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures, (pp. 109-144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gnisci, A., & Bonaiuto, M. (2003). Grilling politicians: Politicians' answers to questions in television interviews and courtroom examinations. Journal of language and social psychology, 22(4), 385-413.

Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.

Hanafe, N. Z., & Thani, S. R. M. (2016). Evasion strategies by politicians in news interviews. Malaysian Journal of Languages and Linguistics (MJLL), 5(1), 10-30.

Harris, S. (1991). Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk: 76-99. London: Sage.

Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T. A. Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 3 (pp. 95-119). New York: Academic Press.

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2011). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Vol. 44. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Heritage, J., & Drew, P. (1992). Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ilie, C. (2015). Parliamentary discourse. In Karen Tracy (ed.), The international encyclopaedia of language and social interaction, 3, 1113-1127. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Ilie, C. (2021). Evasive answers vs. aggressive questions. In Ilie, C. (323.), Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures, (pp. 35-70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Insch, G. S., Moore, J. E., & Murphy, L. D. (1997). Content analysis in leadership research: Examples, procedures, and suggestions for future use. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(1), 1-25.

Lem Atanga, L. (2018). Discourse and racism: a study of (anti)-racist discourse in the Austrian and Australian parliaments. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 13(3), 300-307.

Lim, L. (2000). A Dynamic Bumiputera Commercial and Industrial Class?: A Mismatch with Market Rationality. Japanese Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 37(4), 443-457.

May, T. E. (2004) Parliamentary Practice, 23rd edn, London, LexisNexis, accessed at https://www.parliament.uk.

Obeng, S. G. (1997). Language and politics: Indirectness in political discourse. Discourse & Society, 8(1), 49-83.

Penyata Rasmi Dewan Rakyat, [Online], Available from:

Rasiah, P. (2007). Evasion in Australia’s Parliamentary Question Time: The case of the Iraq war. (Unpublished Ph.D’s thesis). University of Western Australia, Perth. Retrieved on Dec 20, 2018 from https://repository.uwa.edu.au/R/?func=dbinjumpfull&object _id=10474&local_ base=GEN01-INS01

Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2008). “Those Are Only Slogans” A Linguistic Analysis of Argumentation in Debates With Extremist Political Speakers. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(4), 345-358.

Tanaka, L. (2021). Japanese politicians’ questions in parliament. In Ilie, C. (323.), Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures, (pp. 71-108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Van Der Valk, I. (2003). Right-wing parliamentary discourse on immigration in France. Discourse & Society, 14(3), 309-348.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2005). War rhetoric of a little ally: Political implicatures and Aznar’s legitimatization of the war in Iraq. Journal of language and politics, 4(1), 65-91.

Wilson, J. (1990). Politically speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v4i2.92-106


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Najah Zainal Abidin, Jariah Mohd Jan

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Journal of Pragmatics Research, (JoPR), E-ISSN: 2656-8020, is published by State Institute of Islamic Studies, (IAIN) Salatiga, Indonesia. it is an International forum published every April and October.