Negotiating validity claims in political interviews

Fetzer, Anita

doi:10.1515/text.1.2000.20.4.415

Cited by 48 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous authors claim that TV viewers of broadcast/media talk are "overhearers" or "overhearing audiences" (e. g., Clark and Carlson 1982;Heritage 1985;Levinson 1988;Heritage and Greatbatch 1991;Scannell and Cardiff 1991;Heritage and Roth 1995;Illie 1999;Fetzer 2000;Tolson 2001Tolson , 2006Clayman and Heritage 2002;Hutchby 2005Hutchby , 2006Matheson 2005;Weizman 2008). Irrespective of this prevalent parlance, TV viewers are indeed acknowledged as being ratified recipients of broadcast talk (Goffman 1981c(Goffman [1979(Goffman ], 1981dBell 1984Bell , 1991Heritage 1985;Scannell 1991;Livingstone and Lunt 1994;Fetzer 1999Fetzer , 2000Fetzer , 2006Hutchby 2006 .…”

Section: The Viewer As the Recipientmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Irrespective of this prevalent parlance, TV viewers are indeed acknowledged as being ratified recipients of broadcast talk (Goffman 1981c(Goffman [1979(Goffman ], 1981dBell 1984Bell , 1991Heritage 1985;Scannell 1991;Livingstone and Lunt 1994;Fetzer 1999Fetzer , 2000Fetzer , 2006Hutchby 2006 . Similarly, in studies on film dialogue 12 , authors also tend to conceive film viewers as "overhearers" (Kozloff 2000;Bubel 2006Bubel , 2008Richardson 2010) or "eavesdroppers" (Goffman 1981b(Goffman [1978), who are, nonetheless, the primary audience for whose benefit films (series and serials) are released.…”

Section: The Viewer As the Recipientmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Setting our House in order: The workings of impoliteness in multi-party film discourse

Dynel

2012

Journal of Politeness Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary objective of this paper is to elucidate the workings of (intentional) impoliteness in multi-party film talk. The departure point is the diversification of hearer types, coupled with the premise that film discourse operates on two communicative levels, namely the inter-character level and the recipient's level, at which the audience interprets characters' conversations. It is thus argued that the speaker's impolite utterance may carry different pragmatic effects when directed towards (yet not necessarily targeting), and interpreted by, his/her interlocutor(s) (an addressee or a third party), overhearers (a bystander or an eavesdropper), or when face-threatening to a non-participant. Moreover, the recipient (i. e., the viewer), is yet another hearer category, for whose pleasure impoliteness is interactionally rendered at the characters' level. The theoretical proposal to extend the dyadic model of impoliteness is illustrated with utterances produced by Gregory House, the main protagonist of the television series "House."

show abstract

Section: The Viewer As the Recipientmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Viewer As the Recipientmentioning

confidence: 99%

Setting our House in order: The workings of impoliteness in multi-party film discourse

Dynel

2012

Journal of Politeness Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mediatisation of political interviews also entails that two different frames of interaction occur simultaneously: the first-frame interaction is between the IR(s) and the IE(s), while there is a second-frame interaction between the first-frame participants and the audience, either present in the studio or in front of their television sets (cf., for example, Fetzer, 2000b). As a result, the IR, supposedly, acts as an animator, rather than the source of the whole spectrum of public opinion, while the IEs' aim is to animate the views, beliefs, decisions, actions, and so on, of the organization the IE represents and to influence the overhearing audience, rather than the IR, even though it is the IR whom s/he is engaged in face-to-face conversation with.…”

Section: The Political News Interview As a Genrementioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulative uses of pragmatic markers in political discourse

Furkó

2017

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pragmatic markers comprise a functional class of linguistic items that do not typically change the propositional meaning of an utterance but are essential for the organization and structuring of discourse, for marking the speaker's attitudes to the proposition being expressed as well as for facilitating processes of pragmatic inferences. Pragmatic marker research has been characterised by descriptive approaches: even case studies that take their data from political discourse tend to focus on linguistic patterns of co-occurrence and sequentiality rather than social-institutional norms or broader societal concerns. The novelty of this article is, therefore, in linking pragmatic marker research, a primarily discourse analytical, language-oriented field to the broader field of Discourse Studies with a focus on manipulative social practices and their manifestations in discursive strategies. This article analyses evidential markers, general extenders, quotation markers and markers of (un)certainty 1 in political interviews broadcasted by the BBC, CNN and Hungarian ATV. After a short overview of the formal and functional characteristics of pragmatic markers and their relevance to Discourse Studies in general and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) research in particular, characteristics of the political interview as political discourse, institutional discourse and media(tised) discourse are discussed. In the second part, the results of previous (primarily descriptive and genre analytical) research are reconsidered from the perspective of CDA and particular pragmatic markers are associated with manifestations of manipulative intent, such as suppression, polarization, recontextualising, conversationalisation and intended ambiguity. An important finding of this study is that a single pragmatic marker can serve several manipulative functions, while a given manipulative strategy is potentially realized by a variety of pragmatic items. Potential manipulative uses are exemplified with a view to applying the heuristic to the analysis of representations of particular political events and happenings, which is a direction for further research.

show abstract

“…its clear-cut division of labour, roles and rights and responsibilities. This holds for the length of turns, discourse topics and number of coparticipants (Fetzer 2000). In a political interview, the interviewer sets up a position and requests the interviewee to ratify their communicative contributions and their constitutive propositions and presuppositions.…”

Section: Political Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The expression of non-alignment in British and German political interviews

Fetzer

2008

FOL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political interviews are defined as question-and answer sequences in which interviewers and interviewees negotiate validity claims. Looked upon from an interpersonal angle, the interviewer sets up a position and requests the interviewee to ratify their claim by expressing alignment or non-alignment.This contribution examines the expression of non-alignment in a corpus of 12 interviews between journalists and the losers of the general elections in Britain (1997) and Germany (1998). The data share identical external parameters, very similar contextual features and almost identical argumentation strategies. In spite of that, the expression of non-alignment differs significantly. This is primarily due to language-specific preferences for the realization of turn-initial positions and their functions as interpersonal, topical and textual themes. In the British data, multiple themes are more frequent for the expression of non-alignment and thus assigned the status of a preferred variant; their sequential organization adheres to the sequence [[textual theme] [interpersonal theme] [topical theme]], which indicates that a negotiation of meaning is intended. Single topical themes are less frequent and therefore assigned the status of a dispreferred variant indicating that a negotiation of meaning is not intended. In the German data, the sequential organization of multiple themes does not display that kind of preference pattern and multiple themes do not necessarily indicate that a negotiation of meaning is intended. Regarding possible perlocutionary effects, the expression of non-alignment in British English is more process-oriented and thus more dynamic, while its German counterpart is more product-oriented and thus more abrupt.

show abstract

Negotiating validity claims in political interviews

Cited by 48 publications

References 2 publications

Setting our House in order: The workings of impoliteness in multi-party film discourse

Setting our House in order: The workings of impoliteness in multi-party film discourse

Manipulative uses of pragmatic markers in political discourse

The expression of non-alignment in British and German political interviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About