Insulting as (un)parliamentary practice in the British and Swedish parliaments

Parliamentary identity and the management of the far‐right: A discursive analysis of Dutch parliamentary debates

“…In his response, Wilders reacts to the examples given by Roemer earlier. He states that he cannot draw a different conclusion and uses the same extreme case formulation twice (‘a very big’: lines 5, 9; Edwards, ; Pomerantz, ) to brand Roemer a liar which questions Roemer's prerequisite to participate in the debate (Ilie, ). Such an explicit negative personal characterization is rather unusual and the intervention of the Speaker of the House indicates that it is considered a normative breach of the parliamentary rules.…”

“It's Not the Whole Truth”. The Notions of Truth and Falsehood as Persuasive Devices in Polish and Swedish Parliamentary Talk

“…The research that is most relevant for this study shows that Swedish parliamentary talk represents a "neutral and rather unemotional rhetorical style" (Ilie 2003) and is to a large extent consensus-oriented (Ilie 2007), Insulting, when it takes place in the Swedish Riksdag, can be described as "ethos-oriented logos" (Ilie 2003).…”

“…I would claim that there have been ambiguities in all parties, especially when they were very young parties, even though the picture, of course, is much more complex than the media debate would have it. Swedish MPs can also accuse their opponents of not keeping to the truth and in a moralising, reproachful tone blame lies for impairing the quality of the debate (compare Ilie (2003) and her discussiion on moralising replies to insults in the Swedish Riksdag) (see example (25) below).…”

Linguistic Violence in Contemporary Russian Public Discourses

“…Without claiming to be exhaustive, below is an attempt to draw together the perspectives that illuminate linguistic violence: 1) Studies of aggression, impoliteness and conflict talk in everyday interpersonal communication (Irvine 1993;Tracy & Tracy 1998;Voroncova 2006a-b;Dymarskij 2008;Weiss 2008;Bousfield & Locher 2008;Culpeper 2011); 2) Works reflecting legal and forensic approaches to language, especially in relation to the crimes and regulation of speech (such as defamation, or in the case of Russian law, 'protection of honour, dignity and business reputation') (Cover 1986(Cover , 1993Shuy 2005Shuy , 2009Weiss 2009;Coulthart et al 2011;Goletiani 2011;Herz & Molnar 2012;Richter 2012;Reid 2013); 3) Violence exercised in political discourse (Rogan & Hammer 1997;Ilie 2004;Wodak et al 2013;Hansson 2015;Wodak 2015); 4) Media reporting on violence and conflict (e.g . Hart 2013;Lukin 2013;McDo-nald at el.…”