Cover not available
Part of
Follow-ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across contexts and discourse domains
Edited by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 60] 2015
► pp. 3–24

Follow-ups in broadcast political discourse

speeches, interviews, and parliamentary questions

The concept of the follow-up as the third element of a sequential triad was originally formulated in the context of classroom discourse by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). In this chapter, it is applied to the analysis of three distinct genres of political discourse: speeches, interviews, and parliamentary questions. Illustrative examples are drawn from television broadcasts with British politicians. It is proposed that the concepts of the follow-up and the sequential triad can be usefully applied to all three genres of political discourse. Their application also highlights significant gaps in the current research literature, most notably, how both interviewers and politicians follow up equivocal and unequivocal responses by politicians to questions. In addition, it is argued that the concept of the follow-up can be usefully extended beyond the sequential triad to analyze not only sequential interactions over time, but also various forms of political action within and outside parliament.
Published online: 20 August 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.01bul
References (51)
References
Atkinson, Max. 1983. “Two devices for generating audience approval: a comparative study of public discourse and text.” In Connectedness in Sentence, Text and Discourse, ed. by Konrad Ehlich and Henk van Riemsdijk, 199–236. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 1984a. Our Masters’ Voices. London & New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
. 1984b. “Public Speaking and Audience Responses: Some Techniques for Inviting Applause.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Max Atkinson and John Heritage, 370–409. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, Stephen R., Peter Kerr, Christopher Byrne, and Liam Stanley. 2012. “Questions to the Prime Minister: A Comparative Study of PMQs from Thatcher to Cameron?” Parliamentary Affairs: 1–28.Google Scholar
Bercow, John. 2010. “Speech to the Centre for Parliamentary Studies,” 6 July. Retrieved 26 December, 2012, from the Rt Hon John Bercow MP web site: [URL].
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena?” In Questions and Politeness, ed. by Esther Goody, 56–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bull, Peter. 1994. “On Identifying Questions, Replies and Non-Replies in Political Interviews.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13: 115–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. “Queen of Hearts or Queen of the Arts of Implication? Implicit Criticisms and their Implications for Equivocation Theory in the Interview between Martin Bashir and Diana, Princess of Wales.” Social Psychological Review 1: 27–36.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Equivocation and the Rhetoric of Modernisation: An Analysis of Televised Interviews with Tony Blair in the 1997 British General Election.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 19: 222–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. The Microanalysis of Political Communication: Claptrap and Ambiguity. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. “What Makes a Successful Politician? The Social Skills of Politics.” In The Psychology of Politicians, ed. by Ashley Weinberg, 61–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012a. “Gestures.” In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, ed. by Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (2nd edition), 248–254. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. “Follow-Ups in Broadcast Political Discourse: Speeches, Interviews, and Parliamentary Questions.” In Proceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-ups Across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May – 2 June 2012, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber, 35–47. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg – [online]. URL: [URL] URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-71656.Google Scholar
Bull, Peter and Elliott, Judy. 1998. “Level of Threat: Means of Assessing Interviewer Toughness and Neutrality.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 17: 220–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter, and Fetzer, Anita. 2010. “Face, Facework and Political Discourse.” International Review of Social Psychology 23: 155–185.Google Scholar
Bull, Peter and Mayer, Kate. 1993. “How not to Answer Questions in Political Interviews.” Political Psychology 14: 651–666. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter, and Wells, Pam. 2012. “Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31: 30–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 1989. “The Production of Punctuality: Social Interaction, Temporal Organization and Social Structure.” American Journal of Sociology 95: 659–691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 25(3): 349–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, Patrick, George W. Jones, and Brendon O’Leary. 1990. “Prime Ministers and the Commons: Patterns of Behaviour, 1868 to 1987.” Public Administration 68: 123–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, Patrick, George W. Jones, Jane Burnham, Robert Elgie, and Peter Fysh. 1993. “Leaders, Politics and Institutional Change: The Decline of Prime Ministerial Accountability to the House of Commons, 1868–1990.” British Journal of Political Science 23: 267–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Judy, and Peter Bull. 1996. “A Question of Threat: Face Threats in Questions Posed during Televised Political Interviews.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 6: 49–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giddings, Philip and Helen Irwin. 2005. “Objects and Questions.” In The Future of Parliament, ed. by Philip Giddings, 67–77. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. “Where the Action is.” Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour, ed. by Erving Goffman, 149–270. Garden City, New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
. 1979. “Footing.” Semiotica 25: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greatbatch, David L. 1988. “A Turn-Taking System for British News Interviews.” Language in Society 17: 401–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Helmut. Intertextual References in Austrian Parliamentary Debates: Between Evaluation and Argumentation. This volume.
Harris, Sandra. 1991. “Evasive Action: How Politicians Respond to Questions in Political Interviews.” In Broadcast Talk, ed. by Paddy Scannell, 76–99. London: Sage.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 12: 451–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, Steven E. Clayman and Don H. Zimmerman. 1988. “Discourse and Message Analysis: The Micro-Structure of Mass Media Messages.” In Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes, ed. by Robert Hawkins, Suzanne Pingree, and John Weimann, 77–109. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, John and David L. Greatbatch. 1986. “Generating Applause: A Study of rhetoric and Response at Party Political Conferences.” American Journal of Sociology 92: 110–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. “On the Institutional Character of Institutional Talk: The Case of News Interviews.” In Talk and Social Structure, ed. by Deirdre Boden and Don H. Zimmerman, 93–137. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hoggart, Simon. 2011. “Prime Minister’s Questions – or an Unpleasant Football Match?” The Guardian, 14 December. Retrieved 26 December, 2012, from [URL]
Irwin, Helen, Andrew Kennon, David Natzler, and Robert Rogers. 1993. “Evolving Rules.” In Parliamentary Questions, ed. by Mark Franklin, and Philip Norton, 23–72. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis. 1996. “The White House Speeches: Semantic and Paralinguistic Strategies for Eliciting Applause”. Text 16(2): 199–224.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 2005. Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rawnsley, Andrew. 2012. “The Prime Minister has put his Judgment and Integrity on Trial.” The Observer, 27 May. Retrieved 26 December 2012 from [URL]
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, Volume 1, ed. by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1989. “From Interview to Confrontation: Observations on the Bush/Rather encounter.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 22: 215–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2001. “The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union.” International Organization 55: 47–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sedgemore, Brian. 1980. The Secret Constitution. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John and Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
The Guardian, 2010.). “Editorial: In Praise of... Prime Minister’s Questions,” October 14. Retrieved 26 December, 2012, from [URL].
. 2011. “Murder Trial collapse Exposes News of the World Links to Police Corruption”, 11 March Retrieved December 26, 2012, from [URL].
, 2011. “I would have taken Rebekah Brooks Resignation, Says Cameron, 8 July., Retrieved 26 December, 2012, from [URL].
Thibault, Paul J. 2003. “Contextualization and Social Meaning-Making Practices.” In Language and Interaction. Discussions with John J. Gumperz, ed. by Susan L. Eerdmans, Carlo L. Prevignano, and Paul J. Thibault, 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda. 2008. Positioning in Media Dialogue: Negotiating Roles in the News Interview. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Weizman, Elda
2023. Recontextualization practices: A scale of directness. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo
Ilie, Cornelia
2021. Questions we (inter)act with. In Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 323], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kampf, Zohar
2020. “Do you condemn?”. In The Discourse of Indirectness [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 316], ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo
Bull, Peter
2016. Claps and claptrap: The analysis of speaker-audience interaction in political speeches. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 4:1 ► pp. 473 ff. DOI logo
Berlin, Lawrence N., Elda Weizman & Anita Fetzer
2015. Introduction. In The Dynamics of Political Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 259], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gruber, Helmut
2015. Policy-oriented argumentation or ironic evaluation: A study of verbal quoting and positioning in Austrian politicians’ parliamentary debate contributions. Discourse Studies 17:6 ► pp. 682 ff. DOI logo
Mikalayeva, Liudmila
2015. Follow-ups in pre-structured communication. In Follow-ups in Political Discourse [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 60], ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo
Sauer, Christoph
2015. Follow-ups in political talk shows and their visual framing. In Follow-ups in Political Discourse [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 60], ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 january 2025. 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.