Chapter published in:
Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 73–98

Questioning the questionable

Arguments and counter-arguments in political accountability interviews

| Malmö University
The aim of this chapter is to identify and scrutinize the mechanisms of overt and covert argumentation and counter-argumentation that underlie the question-answer turn-taking structure in a political accountability interview conducted as part of the BBC HARDtalk programmes. The political accountability interview (Montgomery, 2011) can be regarded as an interviewer-mediated hybrid dialogue genre that combines inquiry dialogue and persuasion dialogue in varying degrees. As an inquiry dialogue it exhibits a question-and-answer pattern of information-seeking and information-sharing, and as a persuasion dialogue it functions as a consistent pursuit on either side to advance argumentation-supported interpretations and evaluations of targeted facts and events. While an interviewer is normally supposed to assume a neutral and impartial role in questioning the interviewee, there is increasing evidence (Bell & van Leeuven, 1994; Clayman, 2002; Heritage, 2002) that during the interview interaction, both interviewer and interviewee compete to assume control over meaning negotiation about the (re)interpretation and (re)contextualisation of controversial issues under discussion in order to impact the perceptions and beliefs of a multi-layered and diverse audience. The analytical focus of the present investigation is twofold: on the one hand, the interplay of questions and answers used by the interviewer and the interviewee to articulate argumentative and counter-argumentative claims meant to legitimize or delegitimize the relevance and validity of debated standpoints in an interview about controversial political events (Russian interventions in Ukraine) and related international reactions; on the other hand, the argumentation strategies used by the interviewer and the interviewee to justify or to challenge the relevance and validity of competing definitions and (re)definitions of keywords central to the discussion.
Published online: 02 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.05ile
References

References

Andone, C.
(2013) Argumentation in Political Interviews. Analyzing and Evaluating Responses to Accusations of Inconsistency. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bell, P., & van Leeuven, T.
(1994) The Media Interview: Confession, Contest, Conversation. Kensington: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D.
(1994) Echo questions: A pragmatic account. Lingua, 94: 197–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, A., Stewart, P. & Alexander, R.
2008 Broadcast Journalism: Techniques of Radio and Television News, 6th Edition. New York and London: Focal Press, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Burriss, L. L.
(1989) Changes in presidential press conferences. Journalism Quarterly, 66(2), 468–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, G.
(1984) On the role of thematic roles in semantic theory. Linguistics, 22, 259–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chilton, P. A.
(2004) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clayman, S.
(2002) The tribune of the people: Maintaining the legitimacy of aggressive journalism. Media, Culture and Society, 24(2): 197–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S., & Heritage, J.
(2002a) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. C.
(2002b) Questioning president: journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S. presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 149–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dumitrescu, D.
(1990) The Grammar of Echo Questions in Spanish and Romanian. Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
(1991) Spanish echo questions and their relevance to the current syntactic theory. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 10(2): 42–65.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van
(2010) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
(1992) Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(1999) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1(4): 479–497. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation, 20, 381–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ekström, M., & Patrona, M.
(Eds.) (2011) Talking Politics in the Broadcast Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and Accountability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, J., & Bull, P.
(1996) A question of threat: face threats in questions posed during televised political interviews. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 6: 49–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Ch.
(1968) The case for case. In E. Bach & T. R. Harms (Eds.) Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.Google Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Greatbatch, D.
(1998) Conversation analysis: Neutralism in British news interviews. In A. Bell and P. Garret (Eds.) Approaches to Media Discourse (pp. 163–185). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, S. (1991) Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast Talk (pp. 76–99). London: Sage.Google Scholar
(2001) Being politically impolite: extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society, 12: 451–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.
(2002) The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1427–1446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Greatbatch, D.
(1991) On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.) Talk and Social Structure (pp. 93–137). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ilie, C.
(1994) What Else Can I Tell You? A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
(1999) Question-response argumentation in talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 31 (8): 975–999. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Talking the talk, walking the walk: Candidate profiles in election campaign interviews. In G. Gobber, S. Cantarini, S. Cigada, M. C. Gatti, & S. Gilardoni (Eds.) Proceedings of the IADA Workshop Word Meaning in Argumentative Dialogue (pp. 543–557). Homage to Sorin Stati. Vol. II. L’analisi linguistica e letteraria XVI Special Issue, 2.Google Scholar
(2009a) Rhetorical questions. In L. Cummings, (Ed.) The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia (pp. 435–438). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2009b) Strategies of refutation by definition: A pragma-rhetorical approach to refutations in American public speech. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.) Pondering on Problems of Argumentation. Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues (pp. 35–51). Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009c) Ideologically biased definitions as institutionally legitimating arguments. In A. Capone (Ed.) Perspectives on Language Use and Pragmatics (pp. 116–144). München: Lincom.Google Scholar
(2015a) Questions and questioning. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie & T. Sandel (Eds.) The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 1257–1271). Boston: John Wiley & Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Follow-ups as multifunctional questioning and answering strategies in Prime Minister’s Questions. In A. Fetzer, E. Weizman, & L. Berlin (Eds.) Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups (pp. 195–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kampf, Z., & Dasksal, E.
(2011) When the watchdog bites: Insulting politicians on air. In M. Ekström and M. Patrona (Eds.). Talking Politics in the Broadcast Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and Accountability (pp. 177–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koselleck, R.
(2002) The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts (Cultural Memory in the Present). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D.
(1977) Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lauerbach, G.
(2004) Political interviews as hybrid genre. Text, 24(3): 353–397. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maruenda-Bataller, S.
(2002) Reformulations and Relevance Theory Pragmatics: The Case of TV News Interviews. Studies in English Language and Linguistics, Monographs, Vol.12. Lengua inglesa, Universitat de Valencia.Google Scholar
Montgomery, M. (2007) The Discourse of Broadcast News: A Linguistic Approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2008) The discourse of broadcast news: A typology. Journalism Studies 9(2): 260–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The accountability interview, politics and change in UK public service broadcasting. In Ekström and Patrona (Eds.) Talking Politics in Broadcast Media (pp. 33–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parker, F., & Pickeral J.
(1985) Echo questions in English. American Speech, 60 (4): 337–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T.
(1995) Thematic relations and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry, 26: 635–62.Google Scholar
Patrona, M.
(2011) Neutralism revisited: When journalists set new rules in political news discourse. In M. Ekström and M. Patrona (Eds.). Talking Politics in the Broadcast Media: Cross-cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and Accountability (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Heesacker, M.
(1981) Effects of rhetorical questions on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40: 432–440. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.
(1988) From interview to confrontation: observations of the Bush/Rather encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 22: 1–4: 215–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Q.
(1999) Rhetoric and conceptual change. Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought, 3: 60–73.Google Scholar
Sun, T.
(2010) Adversarial questioning and answering strategies in Chinese government press conferences. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 8(2): 131–162.Google Scholar
Tolson, A.
(2012) ‘You’ll need a miracle to win this election’ (J. Paxman 2005): Interviewer assertiveness in UK general elections 1983–2010. Discourse, Context & Media, 1: 45–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walton, D.
(2005) How to evaluate argumentation using schemes, diagrams, critical questions and dialogues. Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue, 51–74.Google Scholar
(2010) Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. C. W.
(1995) Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 323], Crossref logo
No author info given
2021.  In Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 323], Crossref logo
No author info given
2021.  In Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 323], Crossref logo
No author info given
2021.  In Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 323], Crossref logo
Ilie, Cornelia
2018.  In Pragmatics and its Interfaces [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 294], ► pp. 85 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 march 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.