Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 7:2 (2017) ► pp.213–235

What does ‘emergency’ mean?

Corrections in Romanian and Italian political interviews

 | University of Bucharest (Romania) and University of Calabria (Italy)
This article analyzes political interviews, focusing on the corrections made by the interviewees in their answers, from a comparative perspective. The data included both Romanian and Italian language interviews, published in print and online media. Two criteria for the classification of corrections have been identified, one regarding the target of the correction and one regarding the form in which the correction is made. The results show that content-oriented corrections are the most frequent type in both corpora, while mitigated corrections appeared more often in the Italian corpus than in the Romanian one. The politicians interviewed use corrections in order to reject the interviewer’s stance and to demonstrate a better understanding or knowledge of the topic discussed.
Keywords: political interviews, political communication, correction, confrontation, Romanian, Italian, media
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Politics and the media, face-to-face
  • 2.Data and method
  • 3.Interviews and confrontations
  • 4.Types of corrections
    • 4.1Classification according to the target of the correction
      • 4.1.1Context-related corrections
      • 4.1.2Content-related corrections
        • 4.1.2.1Corrections of IR’s statements
        • 4.1.2.2Corrections of a third party’s statements
      • 4.1.3Form-related corrections
        • 4.1.3.1Term-related corrections
        • 4.1.3.2Corrections of grading
    • 4.2.Classification according to the form of the correction
      • 4.2.1Unmitigated (direct) corrections
      • 4.2.2Mitigated (indirect) corrections
  • 5.Distribution of corrections across the two corpora
  • 6.The role of corrections in the interaction
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 27 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.7.2.04lev
References (20)
References
Bednarek, Monica and Helen Caple. 2012. News Discourse. London/New York: Continuum Books.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. and Tanya Romaniuk. 2011. “Questioning candidates.” In Talking Politics in Broadcast Media. Cross-cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and Accountability, ed. by Mats Ekström, and Marianna Patrona, 15–32. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven and John Heritage. 2002. The News Interview. Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Alessio, Dave and Mike Allen. 2000. “Media Bias in Presidential Elections: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Communication 50(4): 133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascălu-Jinga, Laurenția. 2006. Pauzele și întreruperile în conversația românească actuală [Pauses and interruptions in present-day Romanian conversations]. București: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
Dickerson, Paul. 2001. “Disputing with care: analysing interviewees’ treatment of interviewers’ prior turns in televised political interviews.” Discourse Studies 3(2): 203–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekström, Mats. 2009. “Announced refusal to answer: a study of norms and accountability in broadcast political interviews.” Discourse Studies 11(6): 681–702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Roger. 1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gnisci, Augusto, Pierpaolo Zollo, Marco Perugini, and Angiola Di Conza. 2013. “A comparative study of toughness and neutrality in Italian and English political interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 50(1): 152–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hallin, Daniel C. and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems. Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huls, Erica and Jasper Varwijk. 2011. “Political bias in TV interviews.” Discourse and Society 22(1): 48–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1986. News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. and P. R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Martin. 2008. “The discourse of the broadcast news.” Journalism Studies 9(2): 260–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “The accountability interview, politics and change in UK public service broadcasting.” In Talking Politics in Broadcast Media. Cross-cultural perspectives on political interviewing, journalism and accountability, ed. by Mats Ekström and Marianna Patrona, 33–55. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe, Anne. 2006. Investigating Media Discourse. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes.” In Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge/ London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reese, Stephen D. 2011 [2001]. ”Understanding the Global Journalist: A Hierarchy-of-Influences Approach.” In Cultural meanings of news: A text-reader, ed. by Daniel A. Berkowitz, 3–15. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Richardson, John E. 2007. Analysing Newspapers. An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Robinson, Sue. 2011 [2007]. “‘Someone’s Gotta Be in Control Here’: The Institutionalization of Online News and the Creation of a Shared Journalistic Authority.” In Cultural Meanings of News: A text-reader, ed. by Daniel A. Berkowitz, 151–164. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar