Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews
- 26 January 2006
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH in Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies
- Vol. 26 (1), 3-37
- https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2006.002
Abstract
In the discourse of political interviews, references to coparticipants can be expressed explicitly by proper nouns and forms of address, and they can be expressed implicitly by personal pronouns and other indexical expressions. The meaning of personal pronouns is context dependent and retrievable only by inference, and therefore is less determinate. Furthermore, it can shift as the status of the participants shifts in interaction. This may occur both in terms of social roles and in terms of roles in talk and footing. In this context, an analysis was conducted of televised political interviews broadcast during the 1997 and 2001 British general elections and just before the war with Iraq in 2003. Question–response sequences were identified in which politicians made use of pronominal shifts as a form of equivocation. These sequences were analyzed in the context of Bavelas et al.'s (1990) theory of equivocation and Goman's (1981) concept of footing. In all but one of the questions, the interviewers sought to establish the politicians' authorship, whereas the politician typically responds in terms of the principal; in the other instance, the questioner sought to establish the position of the principal and the politician responds in terms of his own authorship. Possible strategic advantages of these forms of equivocation are discussed.This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- On the use of the personal pronoun we in communitiesJournal of Language and Politics, 2004
- The Significance of Context in Comprehension: The `WeCase'Foundations of Science, 2002
- Negotiating validity claims in political interviewsText & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 2000
- A Framework for Understanding EquivocationJournal of Language and Social Psychology, 1998
- Pronominal choice, identity, and solidarity in political discourseText & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 1995
- On Identifying Questions, Replies, and Non-Replies in Political InterviewsJournal of Language and Social Psychology, 1994
- How Not to Answer Questions in Political InterviewsPolitical Psychology, 1993
- Displaying Neutrality in Television News InterviewsSocial Problems, 1988
- Pronominal selection and ideological conflictJournal of Pragmatics, 1987
- The dynamics of political interviewsText & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 1983