Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 27:4 (2017) ► pp.529–552

The question of politeness in political interviews

| Glendon College, Toronto, Canada
This paper examines the question of politeness in political interviews, looking particularly at the use of loaded questions. Comparison is made between the two principal paradigms of politeness, Locher and Watts (2005) and Brown and Levinson (1987). The paper focuses on the interviewing style of Steven Sackur (HARDtalk, BBC) who employs loaded questions in his political interviews in keeping with the analysis of Walton (1991) who argues that loaded questions can function as a ‘reasonable’ means to constrain the response of an interviewee and in turn further discourse. Sackur employs loaded questions selectively to convey and reinforce a presupposition to which an interviewee is not committed. In so doing, he is able to constrain the contribution of his interviewee. Loaded questions are a linguistic means of (im)politeness used strategically by Sackur to further the discourse of his interviews.
Keywords: (im)politeness, loaded questions, political interviews
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The question of ‘politeness’ in political interviews
    • 1.2Political interviews
    • 1.3Theoretical approaches to (im)‘politeness’
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Data
    • 2.2Requests for information
    • 2.3Loaded questions
  • 3.Findings
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Johnson interview with Mair
    • 4.2Calderone interview with Sackur
    • 4.3Impoliteness
    • 4.4Guterres’ interview with Sackur
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 3 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.27.4.03mac
References (27)
References
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1983. “The Dynamics of Political Interviews.” Text 3 (2): 131–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power, eds. Gino Raymond & Matthew Adamson. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 35–72.Google Scholar
. 2011. Impoliteness Using Language to Cause Offense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Irving. 1955. “An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry 61: 213–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 2001. “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society 12 (4): 451–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. “Implicative Verbs.” Language 47 (2): 340–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1988. “On the Pragmatics of Answers.” In Questions and Questioning, ed. by Michel Meyer, 255–279. New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. “Rules for Ritual Insults.” In Language in the Inner City, 297–353. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William, and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Steven C. 1987. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Limberg, Holger. 2008. “Threats in Conflict Talk: Impoliteness and Manipulation.” In Impoliteness in Language Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practise, ed. by Derek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 127–154. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., and Richard J. Watts. 2005. “Politeness Theory and Relational Work.” Journal of Politeness Research 11: 9–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behaviour.” In Impoliteness in Language Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practise, ed. by Derek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 77–100. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam. 2006. “Polite Behavior within Relational Work: The Discursive Approach to Politeness.” Multilingua 25 (3): 249–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, Marcia. 1996. “Asking to Ask: The Strategic Function of Indirect Requests for Information in Interviews.” Pragmatics 6 (4): 491–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Tough Talk: Indirectness and Gender in Requests for Information.” Journal of Pragmatics 331: 293–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mullany, Louise. 2002. “‘I don’t think you want me to get a word in edgeways do you John?’ Re-assessing (Im)politeness, Language and Gender in Political Broadcast Interviews.” Sheffield Hallam Working papers: Linguistic Politeness and Context, 1–20. [URL]
Odebunmi, Akin. 2009. “Politeness in Print Media Political interviews in Nigeria.” California Linguistic Notes XXXIV (1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1973. “Presuppositions.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 21 (1973): 447–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
UNHCR. 2002. Conclusion on the Civilian and Humanitarian Character of Asylum. No. 94 (LIII) – 2002.Google Scholar
Van der Bom, Isabelle, and Karen Grainger. 2015. “Journal of Politeness Research: Introduction.” Journal of Politeness Research 11 (2): 165–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. 1991. ´Critical Faults and Fallacies of Questioning.” Journal of Pragmatics 151: 337–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wartenberg, Thomas E. 1990. The Forms of Power: From Domination to Transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. “Rudeness, Conceptual Blending Theory and Relational Work.” Journal of Politeness Research 41: 289–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Fu, Yanli
2024. A Comparative Analysis of the Use of the Discourse Marker “But” in a British Televised Political Interview Show: A Socio-Pragmatic Perspective. Corpus-based Studies across Humanities DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 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.