Article published in:
Journal of Asian Pacific Communication
Vol. 27:1 (2017) ► pp. 121–157

Do important questions demand respectful replies?

Analyzing televised political interviews in Japan

| Doshisha University, Japan
| Waseda University, Japan

This paper examines the attributes of questions asked during televised political interviews in Japan. It details the type, style, and mode of questions posed during broadcast programs to national- and local-level politicians, and nonpoliticians, including experts in different areas. Based on data gathered during 2012–2013 from three interview programs, the paper provides criteria for identifying questions and distinguishing them from other expressions, differentiates the diverse types of questions, and proposes new criteria to analyze interviewers’ questions. Furthermore, the paper replicates and modifies the “Theory of Equivocation” to examine how Japanese interviewees cope with the communicative problems posed to them during televised political interviews and the effects of these questions on the interviewees’ replies.

Keywords: Political interviews, Television, Media discourse, Theory of Equivocation, Political issues, Japan
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1The Interviews
    • 2.2Procedure
    • 2.3Detailing questions and their configuration
    • 2.4Examining Responses
    • 2.5Coding
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 23 May 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.27.1.07fel
References
Bavelas, J.B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J.
(1990) Equivocal communication. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Baym, G.
(2007) Representation and the politics of play: Stephen Colbert’s better know a district, Political Communication, 241, 359–376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bull, P.
(1994) On identifying questions, replies and non-replies in political interview. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 131, 115–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bull, P., Elliott, J., Palmer, D., & Walker, L.
(1996) Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology, 351, 267–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J.
1960 A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 201, 37–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeLuca, K. M., & Peeples, J.
(2002) From public sphere to public screen: Democracy, activism, and the “violence” of Seattle. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 191, 125–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, O.
(2004) Talking politics in Japan today. Brighton, England: Sussex Academic Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, O., Kinoshita, K., & Bull, P.
(2015) Culture or communicative conflict? The analysis of equivocation in broadcast Japanese political interviews. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 341, 65–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) "Ducking and diving:" How political issues affect equivocation in Japanese political interviews. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 171, 141–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.
(1985) Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of talk for an overhearing audience. In T. A. van Dijk, (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, Vol. 31, 95–119, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Holt, E., & Clift, R.
(Eds.) (2007) Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, J.
(1986) News Interviews: A pragmalinguistic analysis. Amsterdam: Gieben. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Full-text

Do important questions demand respectful replies?
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Eljand-Kärp, Viivika & Halliki Harro-Loit
2020. Journalists interviewing elite athletes: Dumb answers or bad questions?. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies 12:1 ► pp. 79 ff. Crossref logo
Feldman, Ofer & Ken Kinoshita
2017. Expanding factors in threat to face. Language and Dialogue 7:3 ► pp. 336 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. 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.