Cover not available
Review article published In:
Dialogicity in Political Discourse
Edited by Elda Weizman and Zohar Livnat
[Pragmatics and Society 13:5] 2022
► pp. 731–746
Introduction

Dialogic meaning-making in political settings

An introduction

 | Bar-Ilan University
 | Bar-Ilan University
The goal of this special issue is to investigate the forms and functions of dialogicity in political discourse. Starting with the premise that the boundaries between monologue and dialogue are blurred in contemporary political discourse in general and in mediated political discourse in particular, it sets up to explore how dialogical features, manifest in situated discourse in various degrees of explicitness, are exploited by participants in the political arena, be they professional politicians, semi-professional activists or ordinary people, for various purposes.
Article outline
  • 1.Politics and language
  • 2.Dialogicity
    • 2.1Dynamic co-construction of meaning
    • 2.2Orientation towards the other
  • 3.Multivocality
  • 4.About the contributions
  • Bibliography
Published online: 6 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21026.int
References (58)
Bibliography
Aristotle. 1992. The Politics. Translated by T. A. Sinclair, revised and re-presented by T. J. Saunders. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed. & transl. by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Translated by Vern W. McGee; ed. by Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Buber, Martin. 1959. Besod Siach (The Dialogue on Man and Being). Hebrew translation by Hugo Bergman, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.Google Scholar
. 1965. “Dialogue.” In Between Man and Man, translation by Ronald Gregor Smith. London: Macmillan. [First published 1947 by Routledge and Kegan Paul].Google Scholar
. 1970. I and Thou. Translated by Walter Kauffman, New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
Cap, Piotr, and Urszula Okulska. 2013. “Analyzing genres in political communication: An introduction.” In Analyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice, ed. by Piotr Cap and Urszula Okulska 1–26. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charaudau, Patrick. 2002. “Rôle.” In Dictionnaire d’Analyse du Discours, ed. by Patrick Charaudeau and Dominique Maingueneau, 513–515. Paris: Éd. Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner. 1997. “Discourse and politics.” In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2: Discourse as Social Interaction, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 206–230. London: Sage.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse.” In Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. by Paul Chilton and Christina Schäffner, 1–44. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. 1977. “Conversational relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics 11: 309–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo, and Asher Idan. 1989. “From individual to collective action.” In The philosophy of Leo Apostel – descriptive and critical essays, ed. by Fernand Vandamme and Raoul Pinxten, 133–148. Ghent: Communication and Cognition.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2013. “The multilayered and multifaceted nature of political discourse.” In The Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across Cultures, ed. by Anita Fetzer, 1–18. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Some food for thought on the theory and practice of internet pragmatics.” Internet Pragmatics 2 (1): 34–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Peter Bull. 2013. “Political interviews in context.” In Analyzing Genres in Political Communication, ed. by Piotr Cap and Urszula Okulska (eds.), 73–99. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Elda Weizman. 2015. “Following up across contexts and discourse domains: Introduction.” In Follow-ups in Political Discourse, ed. by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer, ix–xix. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence N. Berlin (eds.). 2015. The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-ups. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Elda Weizman. 2018. “‘What I would say to John and everyone like John is …’: The construction of ordinariness through quotations in mediated political discourse.” Discourse and Society 29 (5): 495–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Maurice. 2005. “Martin Buber and Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogue of Voices and the Word that is Spoken”. In Dialogue as a Means of Collective Communication, ed. by Bela Banathly and Patrick M. Jenlink, 29–40. New York: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Helmut. 2013. “Genres in political discourse: the case of the ‘inaugural speech’ by Austrian chancellors.” In Analyzing Genres in Political Communication, ed. by Piotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 29–71. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Genres in political discourse: The case of the ‘inaugural speech’ of Austrian chancellors.” In Analyzing Genres in Political Communication, ed. by Piotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 73–99. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horsbøl, Anders. 2018. “United we diverge: Politician Facebook responses to terror attacks.” In Doing Politics: Discursivity, Performativity and Mediation in Political Discourse, ed. by Michael Kranert and Geraldine Horan, 235–258. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Kampf, Zohar. 2020. “‘Do you condemn?’ Negotiating power relations through (in)direct questions and answers design in ethno-political interviews.” In The Discourse of Indirectness: Cues, Voices and Functions, ed. by Zohar Livnat, Pnina Shukrun-Nagar, and Galia Hirsch, 231–251. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohn, Ayelet. 2016. “The Polyphonic Framing of Ehud Olmert.” Israel Studies in Language and Society 9 (1–2): 116–141. [In Hebrew.]Google Scholar
Kohn, Ayelet, and Rachel Weissbrod. 2020. “ Anne Frank’s Diary – The Graphic Adaptation as a case of ‘indirect translation’: Integrating the principle of relevance with Bakhtinian concepts.” In The Discourse of Indirectness: Cues, Voices and Functions, ed. by Zohar Livnat, Pnina Shukrun-Nagar, and Galia Hirsch, 119–142. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kranert, Michael, and Geraldine Horan. 2018. “Introduction: ‘Doing politics’ – recent developments in political discourse analysis.” In Doing Politics: Discursivity, Performativity and Mediation in Political Discourse, ed. by Michael Kranert and Geraldine Horan, 1–28. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. “Activity types and language.” In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Livnat, Zohar. 2012. Dialogue, Science and Academic Writing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Livnat, Zohar, and Ayelet Kohn. 2018. “Morality, loyalty and eloquence: Conversational challenges and resources in a televised confrontational dialogue.” Journal of Language and Politics 17 (3): 405–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Livnat, Zohar, and Beverly Lewin. 2016. “The interpersonal strand of political speech: Recruiting the audience in PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s speeches.” Language and Dialogue 6 (2): 275–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 2000. When Voices Clash: A Study in Literary Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2015. “Sequentiality and follow-ups.” In The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence Berlin, 17–31. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morson, Gary Saul, and Caryl Emerson. 1990. Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R. 1922. The Andaman Islanders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scannell, Paddy. 1991. “Introduction: The Relevance of Talk.” In Broadcast talk, ed. by Paddy Scannell, 1–13. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1992. “Conversation.” In (On) Searle on Conversation, ed. by Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren, 7–29. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tolson, Andrew. 2006. Media talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Vanderveken, Daniel. 1984. “What is an illocutionary force?” in Dialogue: An Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. by Marcelo Dascal, 185–207. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 1985. “Introduction: Dialogue as Discourse and Interaction.” In Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, Vol. 31, 1–11. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1997. “What is political discourse analysis?” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 11 (1): 11–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda. 1998. “Individual intentions and collective purpose: The case of news interviews.” In Dialogue Analysis 61, Vol. 21, ed. by Světlá Čmejrková, Jana Hoffmannová, Olga Müllerová, and Jindra Světlá, 269–280. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 1992. “Ordinary misunderstanding.” In Current Advances in Semantic Theory, ed. by Maxim I. Stamenov, 419–434. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda. 2008. Positioning in Media Dialogue: The Case of News Interviews on Israeli Television. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Political irony: Constructing reciprocal positioning in the news interview.” In The Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across Cultures, ed. by Anita Fetzer, 167–190. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Commenting on in-memoriam columns: Juggling with deliberative and epidictic norms.” Internet Pragmatics 1 (1): 161–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda, and Anita Fetzer (eds.). 2015. Follow-ups in Political Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Constructing ordinariness in online journals: a corpus-based study in the Israeli context.” Israel Studies in Language and Society 11 (1): 23–48.Google Scholar
. 2019. “Introduction.” In The Construction of Ordinariness in Media Genres, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Elda Weizman, 1–17. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Widdicombe, Sue. 1998. “‘But you don’t class yourself’: The interactional management of category membership and non-membership.” In Identities in Talk, ed. by Charles Antaki and Sue Widdicombe, 52–70. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2012. “Metarepresentation in linguistic communication.” In Meaning and Relevance, ed. by Deirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber, 230–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [First published in Dan Sperber (ed.). 2000. Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 411–48]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Don. 1998. “Identity, context and interaction.” In Identities in Talk, ed. by Charles Antaki and Sue Widdicombe, 87–106. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ke, Yuguo
2023. Integrated positive and negative analyses of cognitive-mediation strategies in the social quarrels. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.