Cover not available
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
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theories of face
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1The interviews
    • 3.2Procedure
      • 3.2.1Type, style, and mode of the questions posed during televised interviews
        • 3.2.1.1Prefaced and nonprefaced questions
        • 3.2.1.2Distinguishing the syntactic structure of questions
        • 3.2.1.3Identifying grammatically complete and incomplete questions
        • 3.2.1.4Identifying questions that seek personal opinions versus prevalent views within a group
      • 3.2.2Assessing the questions’ level of threat
    • 3.3Coding
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.7.3.02fel
References (24)
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter. 1994. “On Identifying Questions, Replies and Non-Replies in Political Interview.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 131: 115–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter and Ofer Feldman. 2011. “Invitations to Affiliative Audience Responses in Japanese Political Speeches.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 301: 158–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter and Pam Wells. 2012. “Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 311: 30–48. DOI logoGoogle 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 351: 267–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1960. “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 201: 37–46. DOI logoGoogle 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 31: 375–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Ofer and Ken Kinoshita. 2017. “Do Important Questions Demand Respectful Replies? Analyzing Televised Political Interviews in Japan.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 271: 121–157. DOI logoGoogle 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 341: 65–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “‘Ducking and Diving:’ How Political Issues Affect Equivocation in Japanese Political Interviews.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 171: 141–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1955/1967. “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry 181: 213–231. DOI logoGoogle 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 391: 657–680. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakatsugawa, Satomi and Jiro Takai. 2013. “Keeping Conflicts Latent: «Salient» versus «Non-Salient» Interpersonal Conflict Management Strategies of Japanese.” Intercultural Communication Studies 221: 43–60.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “How to Verify a Theory.” Language and Dialogue 61: 349–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Kinoshita, Ken
2023. Integrating Conversation Analysis with Facial Expression Analysis. In Japanese Politicians’ Rhetorical and Indirect Speech, ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Kinoshita, Ken
2023. Sad Facial Expressions Mean an Equivocal Response. In Japanese Politicians’ Rhetorical and Indirect Speech, ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Kinoshita, Ken
2023. Providing Information in Japanese Political Interviews. In Japanese Politicians’ Rhetorical and Indirect Speech, ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Zainal Abidin, Najah, Veronica Lowe & Jariah Mohd Jan
2023. Evasion in Malaysian Parliamentary Question Time. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 31:3 ► pp. 1057 ff. DOI logo
Feldman, Ofer
2022. Introduction: Political Interviews—An Analytical Model. In Adversarial Political Interviewing, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gnisci, Augusto, Margherita Asterope, Rosa Casapulla, Maria D’Agostino & Gaetano Perillo
2022. Threat to Face and Equivocation in Televised Interviews of Italy’s Politicians For and Against the 2016 Constitutional Referendum. In Adversarial Political Interviewing, ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 2024. 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.