Article published In:
Journal of Language and PoliticsVol. 7:2 (2008) ► pp.271–289
‘Well, I answer it by simply inviting you to look at the evidence’
The strategic use of pronouns in political interviews
In the discourse of political interviews, references to participants 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 according to the status of the participants 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 Goffmans (1981) concept of footing. The polyvalent function of pronominal shifts, their potential perlocutionary effects and strategic advantages are discussed.
References (30)
Austin, John L. 1980. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beattie, Geoffrey W. 1982. Turn-taking and interruption in political interviews — Margaret Thatcher and Jim Callaghan compared and contrasted. Semiotica 391, 93—114. 
Bull, Peter E. 2003. The Microanalysis of Political Communication: Claptrap and Ambiguity. London: Routledge.
Bull, Peter & Anita Fetzer. 2006. Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews. Text and Talk 26(1), 1—35.
Bull, Peter E. & Kate Mayer. 1988. Interruptions in political interviews: A study of Margaret Thatcher and Neil Kinnock. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 71, 35—45.
Chilton, Paul & Christina Schäffner. 1997. Discourse and politics. In: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.). Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 21. London: Sage, 206—230.
Clayman, Steven. 1988. Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems 351 474—492.
. 1992. Footing in the achievement of neutrality: the case of news interview discourse. In: Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds). Talk at Work, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 163—198.
Clayman, Steven & John Heritage. 2002. The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Media Discourse. London: Arnold.
. 2001. New Labour, new Language. London: Routledge.
Fetzer, Anita. 2000. Negotiating validity claims in political interviews. Text 20(4), 1—46.
. 2006. ‘Minister, we will see how the public judges you. Media References in political interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 38(2), 180—195.
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Greatbatch, David L. 1986. Aspects of topical organization in news interviews: the use of agenda-shifting procedures by interviewees. In: Richard E. Collins, James Curran, Nicholas Gamham, Paddy Scannell, Philip Schlesinger & Colin Sparks. Media, Culture and Society, Beverly Hills: Sage, 441—455.
. 1992. On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In: Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds). Talk at Work, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 268—301.
Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds). Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III, New York: Academic Press, 41—58.
Harris, Sandra. 1986. Interviewers’ questions in broadcast interviews. Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 81, 50—85.
Hausendorf, Heiko & Wolfgang Kesselheim. 2002. The communicative construction of group identities: A basic mechanism of social categorization. In: Anna Duszak (ed.). Us and Others, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 265—289.
Heritage, John C. 1985. Analyzing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In: Teun A.van Dijk (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol. 31, New York: Academic Press, 95—117.
Heritage, John C. & David L. Greatbatch. 1991. On the institutional character of institutional talk: the case of news interviews. In: Deidre Boden and Don Zimmerman (eds). Talk and Social Structure, Cambridge: Polity Press, 93—137.
Janney, Richard W. 2002. Cotext as context: vague answers in court. Language & Communication 22(4), 457—475.
Leech, Geoffrey & Jan Svartvik. 1994. A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman.
Maitland, Karen & John Wilson. 1987. Ideological conflict and pronominal resolution. Journal of Pragmatics 111, 495—512.
Mülhäusler, Peter & Ron Harré. 1990. Pronouns and People: The linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Pyykkö, Riitta. 2002. Who is ‘us’ in Russian political discourse. In: Anna Duszak (ed.). Us and Others, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 233—248.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1989. Harvey Sacks — lectures 1964—1965. An introduction/memoir. Human Studies 121, 187—209.
Thornborrow, Joanna. 2002. Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. London: Pearson Education.
Van Dijk, Teun. 1998. Ideology: a Multidisciplinary Approach. Sage: London.
Wilson, John. 1990. Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Cited by (34)
Cited by 34 other publications
Fitzgerald, Chris & Martin Mullen
2024. ‘Each of us Is Responsible for all of us’: Solidarity and National Responsibility in Irish Leaders’ COVID Speeches. In The Nation in the Time of the Pandemic, ► pp. 67 ff. 
Szczygłowska, Tatiana
2024. We have to ensure that… A contrastive corpus-based analysis of English situation manipulators and their Polish translation equivalents. Lingua 302 ► pp. 103702 ff.
Williams, Jamie & David Wright
2024. Ambiguity, responsibility and political action in the UK daily COVID-19 briefings. Critical Discourse Studies 21:1 ► pp. 76 ff.
Zernetska, Olga V. & Pavlo V. Zernetskyi
2023. COMPARATIVE COMMUNICATIVE AND SEMANTIC DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL SPEECHES OF EARLY 21ST CENTURY. Scientific Journal of National Pedagogical Dragomanov University. Series 9. Current Trends in Language Development :26 ► pp. 77 ff.
Beauchamp, David & Sheena Gardner
2023. A trinocular view of the auxiliary verb will in
COVID-19 briefings from Westminster and Holyrood. Language, Context and Text. The Social Semiotics Forum 5:1 ► pp. 124 ff.
Ansani, Alessandro, Marco Marini, Christian Cecconi, Daniele Dragoni, Elena Rinallo, Isabella Poggi & Luca Mallia
2022. Analyzing the Perceived Utility of Covid-19 Countermeasures: The Role of Pronominalization, Moral Foundations, Moral Disengagement, Fake News Embracing, and Health Anxiety. Psychological Reports 125:5 ► pp. 2591 ff.
Bączkowska, Anna
2022. Forms of Address in Polish Nonprofessional Subtitles. In Language Use, Education, and Professional Contexts [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 71 ff.
Ho, Victor
2022. Strategic use of nouns and pronouns in public discourse. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 51 ff.
Vuković-Stamatović, Milica
2022. Beyond the Question–Answer Format: How Montenegrin Interviewers Depart from the “Normative” Political Interview Structure. In Adversarial Political Interviewing, ► pp. 127 ff.
Yang, Na & Zihe Wang
2022. Addressing as a gender-preferential way for suggestive selling in Chinese e-commerce live streaming discourse: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Pragmatics 197 ► pp. 43 ff.
Della Giusta, Marina, Sylvia Jaworska & Danica Vukadinović Greetham
2021. Expert communication on Twitter: Comparing economists’ and scientists’ social networks, topics and communicative styles. Public Understanding of Science 30:1 ► pp. 75 ff.
Fetzer, Anita & Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka
2021. Argumentative, Political and Legal Discourse. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 520 ff.
黄, 怡
2021. Transitivity Analysis of Theresa May’s Resignation Speech. Modern Linguistics 09:03 ► pp. 810 ff.
Palander-Collin, Minna & Minna Nevala
2020. Person reference and democratization in British English. Language Sciences 79 ► pp. 101265 ff.
Peikola, Matti
2020. Patterns of reader involvement on sixteenth-century English title pages, with special reference to second-person pronouns. In Voices Past and Present - Studies of Involved, Speech-related and Spoken Texts [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 97], ► pp. 113 ff.
Albalat-Mascarell, Ana & María Luisa Carrió-Pastor
2019. Self-representation in political campaign talk: A functional metadiscourse approach to self-mentions in televised presidential debates. Journal of Pragmatics 147 ► pp. 86 ff.
Jaworska, Sylvia & Tigran Sogomonian
2019. After we #VoteLeave we can #TakeControl. In Reference and Identity in Public Discourses [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 306], ► pp. 181 ff.
Kantara, Argyro
2019. Laughter and identity construction in political interviews. Journal of Language and Politics 18:3 ► pp. 420 ff.
Kantara, Argyro
2022. Manifestations of Integrated Hybridity in Journalistic Questioning During the 2012 Elections in Greece. In Adversarial Political Interviewing, ► pp. 43 ff.
Nevala, Minna & Ursula Lutzky
2019. Pragmatic explorations of reference and identity in public discourses. In Reference and Identity in Public Discourses [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 306], ► pp. 1 ff.
Robles, Jessica S. & Theresa Castor
2019. Taking the moral high ground: Practices for being uncompromisingly principled. Journal of Pragmatics 141 ► pp. 116 ff.
Wei, Jennifer M. & Ren-feng Duann
Chou, Hsuan-Yi & Min-Hung Yeh
2018. Minor language variations in campaign advertisements: The effects of pronoun use and message orientation on voter responses. Electoral Studies 51 ► pp. 58 ff.
Mitchell, Philip & James Stewart
2017. Who are We?. Journalism Practice 11:4 ► pp. 417 ff.
Bryan, Clint & Mohammed Albakry
2016. “To be real honest, I’m just like you”: analyzing the discourse of personalization in online sermons
. Text & Talk 36:6 ► pp. 683 ff.
Fetzer, Anita
2014. “Judge us on what we do”. In Constructing Collectivity [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 239], ► pp. 331 ff.
Fetzer, Anita
2014. We and I, and you and them. In The Expression of Inequality in Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 248], ► pp. 213 ff.
Fetzer, Anita
2022. Doing things with discourse in the mediated political arena. Pragmatics and Society 13:5 ► pp. 769 ff.
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
2014. Constructing collectivity with ‘we’. In Constructing Collectivity [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 239], ► pp. 1 ff.
Jalilifar, Alireza & Maryam Alavi-Nia
2012. We are surprised; wasn’t Iran disgraced there? A functional analysis of hedges and boosters in televised Iranian and American presidential debates. Discourse & Communication 6:2 ► pp. 135 ff.
Vuković, Milica
2012. Positioning in pre-prepared and spontaneous parliamentary discourse: Choice of person in the Parliament of Montenegro. Discourse & Society 23:2 ► pp. 184 ff.
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
2021. Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 247 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 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.