Article published in:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 7:3 (2017) ► pp. 336–359

Expanding factors in threat to face

Assessing the toughness/equivocation connection in Japanese televised political interviews

| Doshisha University (Japan)
| Waseda University (Japan)
This paper details aspects related to the “face” – one’s social standing, reputation, and dignity – during interactions between interviewers and interviewees (both politicians and nonpoliticians) in more than 5,000 questions posed during three different broadcast interview programs aired throughout 2012–2013 in Japan. The interactions between interviewers and interviewees are also considered as a dialogic phenomenon in which interlocutors are actors who act and react. By examining the toughness of questions posed in these programs the paper explores their extent of threat to face of the interviewees and the facets associated with this threat, including features related to the interviewees themselves. The results indicate strong evidence of socio-cultural norms and values that affect interviewers’ relationship with politicians and other sources.
Keywords: political interviews, television, threats to face, Theory of Equivocation, media discourse, Japan
Published online: 27 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.7.3.02fel
References

References

Bavelas, Janet Beavin, Alex Black, Nicole Chovil, and Jennifer Mullett
1990 Equivocal Communication. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
1978 “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” In Questions and Politeness, ed. by Ester N. Goody, 56–311. 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 Interview.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13: 115–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter and Ofer Feldman
2011 “Invitations to Affiliative Audience Responses in Japanese Political Speeches.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 30: 158–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter and Pam Wells
2012 “Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31: 30–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bull, P. E., Judy Elliott, Derrol Palmer, and Libby Walker
1996 “Why Politicians are Three-Faced: The Face Model of Political Interviews.” British Journal of Social Psychology 35: 267–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jacob
1960 “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 20: 37–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Ofer
1998 “The Political Language of Japan: Decoding What Politicians Mean from What They Say.” In Politically Speaking: A Worldwide Examination of Language Used in the Public Sphere, ed. by Ofer Feldman and Christ’l De Landtsheer, 43–55. Westport, Conn: Praeger.Google Scholar
2004 Talking Politics in Japan Today. Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Ofer and Peter Bull
2012 “Understanding Audience Affiliation in Response to Political Speeches in Japan. Language and Dialogue 3: 375–397. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Ofer and Ken Kinoshita
2017 “Do Important Questions Demand Respectful Replies? Analyzing Televised Political Interviews in Japan.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 27: 121–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Ofer, Ken Kinoshita, and Peter Bull
2015 “Culture or Communicative Conflict? The Analysis of Equivocation in Broadcast Japanese Political Interviews.” Journal of Language & Social Psychology 34: 65–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 “ ‘Ducking and Diving:’ How Political Issues Affect Equivocation in Japanese Political Interviews.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 17: 141–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 359 ]
Goffman, Erving
1955/1967 “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry 18: 213–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1959/1990 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Harmondsworth. (Reprinted, London: Penguin Books 1990).Google Scholar
1967 “Where the Action Is.” In Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour, ed. by Erving Goffman, 149–270. Garden City, New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2007 “Emic Conceptualizations of (Im)politeness and Face in Japanese: Implications for the Discursive Negotiation of Second Language Learner Identities.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 657–680. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hirokawa, Randy Y.
1987 “Communication Within the Japanese Business Organization.” In Communication Theory From Eastern and Western Perspectives, ed. by D. Lawrence Kincaid, 137–149. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas M.
2002 Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas
1986 News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nakatsugawa, Satomi and Jiro Takai
2013 “Keeping Conflicts Latent: «Salient» versus «Non-Salient» Interpersonal Conflict Management Strategies of Japanese.” Intercultural Communication Studies 22: 43–60.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda
2010 Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 “How to Verify a Theory.” Language and Dialogue 6: 349–369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Feldman, Ofer & Ken Kinoshita
2019. Ignoring Respect: The Effects of Threat to Face on Replies and the Ensuing Questions During Broadcast Political Interviews in Japan. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 38:5-6 ► pp. 606 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 january 2021. 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.