ترجم الموضوع الى العربية
 ترجم محتوى الصفحة الى الانكليزية باستخدام خدمة كوكول - الموقع غير مسؤول عن الترجمة

(the unparliamentary language(upl)

Ibrahim Abu Hammad
2019 / 5 / 23

1-PREFACE
this study discuss the unparliamentary language(upl) in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan(hkj). In the other word to think of unparliamentary language because the ------function------ of parliament Requires deliberation and The argumentation. but in parliamentary of Jordan is find very repeat of misconduct in language as insults . mobbing. and bullying So that the researcher will be study this subject in this paper .because this study is very important for the public opinion. So that the researcher is going to bridge this gab in this study.

2-Research question
This study attempt to answer and debates the question below:
1- How to distinguish between parliamentary language and unparliamentary language?
2- How to treat the relationship in parliamentary. to prevent unparliamentary language?

3-Literature review
Researcher not found Literature reviewing in Arabic language which represent the difficult of this research. And that mean the effort researching who is doing by researcher. But the researcher found few study which study the western world as Austrian ,new Zeeland and United States of America. But that study are conserving in language analysis. Discourse theory .and Discourse theory in populism research In other hand this study concern on legal aspect. For example of Literature review as:
1- Ilie, Cornelia(2001) -;---;-----;-------;---------;-----------;------Unparliamentary language: Insults as cognitive forms of confrontation. InR. ------dir------ven, R. Frank and C. Ilie (eds.) Language and ideology, Vol. II: De------script------ive cognitive approaches, 235263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.205.14ili https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.205.14ili [Google Scholar]
The study of debating tactics and strategies has tended to overemphasise the role of the debators cooperative spirit and to overestimate the positive sides of the speakers ulterior motives in accordance with Grices cooperative principle, as has been shown by Slugoski (1985) and Penam (1990). The debators inevitable confrontational outbursts of emotionality and aggression have often been underestimated. In fact, the shared experience of acting and reacting emotionally at critical moments in the debate makes it possible for the debators to position and reposition themselves more purposefully, as well as to re-evaluate their opponents arguments from a new perspective. To a large extent, the MPs interaction in Parliament is a competition for power and leadership roles. Power is to be understood here not only as an institutional status which is assigned-or-earned, but also as an interactional skill and process.
But above study different from this research in the place-limit-ed the (hkj). And the variable of economic .political. and sociology circumstance. And this study concern in concept of law.

2- R Graham(2016) Withdraw and Apologise: A Diachronic Study of Unparliamentary Language in the New Zealand Parliament, 1890-1950 Victoria University of Wellington

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 Mā-;---;-----;-------;---------;-----------;------ori.
But this study in spite of very important but study the sanction parliament in language corner in the same time the researcher will study these subject in legal corner.

4-Limited study
In time: house parliamentary of Jordan in march 2018- march2019.
In place: : house parliamentary of Jordan.

5-Methodology:

1-The de------script------ion method by describe of the subject and analyses these elements of it.
2-historical method by study the legal discourse in Arab legal.
3-Comparative method by compare this subject by another state from development country and un development country .
And these study doesn t use statically broach to survey sample of society. Because these porch dis accepted from member of parliament.

6- data collection
This is a qualitative research study. The document was used as a source of information, while observation and audio recordings were used as instruments to collect data. The data were purposively sampled by selecting the desired information from ten volumes of the parlamntry document within the period of March 2015 to March 2016.
7- data analysis
This study applied of legal theory research by-limit-ed the elements of the unparlimantery language with the regulementry legal of parliamentary of Jordan.
References:
First :English language
1- Ilie, Cornelia(2001) -;-Unparliamentary language: Insults as cognitive forms of confrontation. InR. -dir-ven, R. Frank and C. Ilie (eds.) Language and ideology, Vol. II: De------script------ive cognitive approaches, 235263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.205.14ili https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.205.14ili [Google Scholar].
2- R Graham(2016) Withdraw and Apologise: A Diachronic Study of Unparliamentary Language in the New Zealand Parliament, 1890-1950 Victoria University of Wellington
: :
1- (2005) ɡ : ʡ .


2- (2016) ߡ : ʡ .

















Add comment
Rate the article

Bad 12345678910 Very good
                                                                                    
Result : 100% Participated in the vote : 1