Cover not available
Article published In:
Thematic issue: New perspectives on conflict
[Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 9:2] 2021
► pp. 297–323

“The people watching at home”

An analysis of political disagreement in a public inquiry event

ORCID logo | University of Warwick , UK
ORCID logo | University of Warwick , UK
This paper explores disagreement practice in political discourse, specifically in the under explored public inquiry communicative event and more specifically in the select-committee hearing. We revisit earlier work on theorising disagreement to expand our understanding of its contextual nature, particularly in relation to the making of ideology.
Public inquiries combine the characteristics of professional meetings with characteristics of political discourse. They are typified by hybridised and ambiguous role expectations which participants negotiate in and through (potentially competing) practices in doing the ideological work demanded by the policy process. In this context, disagreement emerges as key to the performance of the interactants’ situated and explicit/semi-permanent roles as professional politicians.
By applying Critical Interactional Sociolinguistic analysis within a wider frame of audience design, we demonstrate the importance of the ideological role of disagreement to the policy process. We argue that further attention needs to be given to the policy talk in meso-level political events, such as the public inquiry, which connect the ideological (macro) political domains of human activity with the (micro) here and now of talk. We close the paper with directions for further research.
Keywords: disagreement, ideology, Critical Interactional Sociolinguistics, audience, policy process, meso-space, political discourse
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The UK Parliament select committee hearing
  • 3.Critical Interactional Sociolinguistics and policy analysis
    • 3.1Critical Interactional Sociolinguistics (CIS)
    • 3.2Application to policy events
    • 3.3Disagreement
      • 3.3.1A CIS approach to disagreement
  • 4.Methodology
  • 5.Data analysis
    • 5.1Excerpt A: “I don’t think you can um get away with that minister”
    • 5.2Excerpt B: “You’re quite right you know”
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00068.und
References (50)
References
Angouri, Jo. 2012. “Managing Disagreement in Problem Solving Meeting Talk.” Journal of Pragmatics 441: 1565–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Culture, Discourse and the Workplace. Oxon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angouri, Jo, and Miriam A. Locher. 2012. “Theorising Disagreement.” Journal of Pragmatics 441: 1549–1553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angouri, Jo, and Ruth Wodak. 2014. “‘They became big in the shadow of the crisis’: The Greek Success Story and the Rise of the Far Right.” Discourse & Society 25 (4): 540–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Sandra Harris. 1997. Managing Language: The Discourse of Corporate Meetings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. “Language Style as Audience Design.” Language in Society 13 (2): 145–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Back in Style: Reworking Audience Design.” In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, edited by Penelope Eckert and John R. Rickford, 139–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1983. “The Dynamics of Political Interviews.” Text 3 (2): 131–153.Google Scholar
Bousfield, Derek. 2014. “Stylistics, Speech Acts and Im/politeness Theory.” In The Routledge Handbook of Stylistics, edited by Michael Burke, 118–135. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buttny, Richard. 2015. “Contesting Hydrofracking during an Inter-governmental Hearing: Accounting by Reworking or Challenging the Question.” Discourse & Communication 9 (4): 423–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demasi, Mirko A. 2016. “Debating the European Union: Dynamics of Argumentation in Political Debates.” Loughborough University. [URL]
Ehrlich, Susan, and Alice F. Freed. 2010. “The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse: An Introduction.” In Why do you Ask? : The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, edited by Alice F. Freed and Susan Ehrlich, 3–19. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ekström, Mats. 2001. “Politicians Interviewed on Television News.” Discourse and Society 12 (5): 563–584. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2013. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies 7 (2): 177–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. 2012. “‘A Simple Disagreement? A row? Or a Massive Fall out?’: On the Challenges of an Analytical Task.” Journal of Pragmatics 441: 1623–1625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John Joseph, and Jenny Cook-Gumperz. 2008. “Studying Language, Culture, and Society: Sociolinguistics or Linguistic Anthropology?” Journal of Sociolinguistics 12 (4): 532–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haggith, Mandy. 1993. “Disagreement in Creative Problem Solving.” AAAI Technical Report SS-93-01.Google Scholar
Hajer, Maarten A. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. 1990. Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2007. “The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Research: An Interactional Alternative.” Journal of Politeness Research 31: 295–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 2005. “Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcast Talk.” In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, edited by Kristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders, 437–460. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Institute for Government. 2018. Public Inquiries. 21 May. Accessed June 2020. [URL]
. 2020. Select Committees. 19 May. Accessed June 2020. [URL]
Kreis, Ramona. 2017. “The 'Tweet Politics' of President Trump.” Journal of Language and Politics 16 (4): 607–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Laville, Sandra. 2019. “Six UK Fashion Retailers Fail to Cotton on to Sustainability.” The Guardian. Accessed 2019. [URL]
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Livesey, Sharon M. 2002. “The Discourse of the Middle Ground: Citizen Shell Commits to Sustainable Development.” Management Communication Quarterly 15 (3): 313–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marra, Meredith. 2012. “Disagreeing without being Disagreeable: Negotiating Workplace Communities as an Outsider.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (12): 1580–1590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Joe. 2020. Select Committees. Accessed 2021. [URL]
Montgomery, Martin. 2007. The Discourse of Broadcast News: A Linguistic Approach. Oxon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, James. 2019. The Discursive Construction of Blame: The Language of Public Inquiries. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Greg. 1998. “Displaying Opinions: Topics and Disagreement in Focus Groups.” Language in Society 271: 85–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rampton, Ben. 2016. “Foucault, Gumperz and Governmentality: Interaction, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty-first Century.” In Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates, edited by Nikolas Coupland, 303–328. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rydin, Yvonne. 1999. “Can we Talk Ourselves into Sustainability? The Role of Discourse in the Environmental Policy Process.” Environmental Values 8 (4): 467–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1973/1987. “On the Preference for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organisation, edited by Graham Button and John R. E. Lee, 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer Eric. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Hinsdale: Dryden.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1984. “Jewish Argument as Sociability.” Language in Society 131: 311–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 2012. “Disagreements, Face and Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 441: 1554–1564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Sophie. 2018. “MPs Launch Inquiry into Fashion Industry’s Environmental Impact.” The Telegraph. Accessed 2019. [URL]
Smithers, Rebecca. 2018. “MPs to Examine Environmental Footprint of UK Fashion Industry.” The Guardian. Accessed 2019. [URL]
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah, and Christina Kakavá. 1992. “Power and Solidarity in Modern Greek Conversation: Disagreeing to Agree.” Journal of Modern Greek Studies 10 (1): 11–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
UK Government. n.d. How Government Works. Accessed June 2020. [URL]
UK Parliament. 2018. MPs to Measure-up the Fashion Industry with Event at the V&A. November. Accessed June 2020. [URL]
. 2018. parliamentlive.tv: Environmental Audit Committee. 18 December. [URL]
. 2019. Sustainability of the Fashion Industry Inquiry: Publications. Accessed 2019. [URL]
. n.d. www.parliament.uk. Accessed June 2020. [URL]
Wodak, Ruth. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar