Chapter published in:
The Discourse of Indirectness: Cues, voices and functionsEdited by Zohar Livnat, Pnina Shukrun-Nagar and Galia Hirsch
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 316] 2020
► pp. 231–252
“Do you condemn?”
Negotiating power relations through (in)direct questions and answers design in ethno-political interviews
Zohar Kampf | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
This chapter discusses a specific type of interactional ritual in ethno-political
interviews, one that hinders their conciliatory potential. The ritual is performed
by two types of participants: Jewish-Israeli interviewers demanding the condemnation
of transgressions committed by others, and the respective response by Arab-Israeli
political representatives in the role of interviewees. Negotiation over
condemnations is examined, as this speech act is considered crucial to setting up
models for civic behavior. The chapter demonstrates how interviewers’ efforts to
exercise interactional and social power through pushing their interviewees to adopt
a consensual stance are rejected by resorting to indirect answer designs. It
concludes by discussing the extent to which “do you condemn” questions may be
perceived as a legitimate professional journalistic practice.
Keywords: broadcast talk, news interviews, condemnations, epideictic rhetoric, positioning
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Political condemnations and moral scripts
- 3.Calls to condemn as rituals of loyalty in political interviews
- 4.Interviewers’ self-positioning through a “do you condemn” question
- 5.Interviewees’ responses to “Do you condemn” questions
- Direct refusal to condemn
- Direct agreement to condemn
- “I don’t want to be seen as someone who came here today to justify anything”: Overt resistance to answering
- “I wouldn’t do it”: Shifting from the general to the personal
- “I express my deep condolences”: Replacing condemnation with a different speech act
- “We have already condemned”: Referring to previous action
- “I oppose violence but the real violence is the occupation”: Shifting the blame
- 6.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgments -
Note -
References
Published online: 29 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.316.10kam
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.316.10kam
References
Al-Haj, Majid
Austin, John L.
Bavelas, Janet Beavin, Alex Black, Nicole Chovil, and Jennifer Mullett
Benoit, William L.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elda Weizman
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Zohar Kampf, and Tamar Liebes
Bull, Peter
Chouliaraki, Lilie
Clayman, Steven E.
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage
Clayman, Steven. E., and John Heritage
Dori-Hacohen, Gonen
Ekström, Mats
Fetzer, Anita, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence N. Berlin
Goffman, Erving
Grice, Herbert P.
Hallin, Daniel C.
Harré, Rom, and Fathali M. Moghaddam
Harris, Sandra
Hauser, Gerard A.
Heritage, John
Johnstone, Barbara
Kampf, Zohar
Kampf, Zohar, and Efrat Daskal
Kampf, Zohar, and Tamar Katriel
Lakoff, Robin T.
Lazersfeld, Paul F., and Robert K. Merton
Liebes, Tamar, Zohar Kampf, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka
Meyrowitz, Joshua
Rosenberg, Hananel, and Ifat Maoz
Schudson, Michael
Weizman, Elda
Weizman, Elda, Irit Levi, and Isaac Schneebaum