Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3851
  • E-ISSN: 2542-386X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
  • “Our Chief Political Editor reads between the lines of the Chancellor’s Budget speech”

    The strategic exploitation of conversational implicature in mediated political discourse

  • Author(s): Anita Fetzer 1
  • View Affiliations Hide Affiliations
    1 University of Augsburg, Germany
  • Source: Internet Pragmatics, Volume 1, Issue 1, Jan 2018, p. 29 - 54
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00003.fet
    • Version of Record published : 28 May 2018


This paper examines the multilayeredness of computer-mediated political discourse, focussing on the interdependencies between the contextual constraints and requirements of the medium on the one hand, and contextualisation, indexicality of communicative action and conversational implicature on the other. Particular attention is given to implicit and entextualised references to differences between what is said and what is meant in the communicative act of follow-up, to the importation of context and provision of background information, to their function with respect to the interactional organisation of (non)credibility and argumentative (non)coherence, and to the co-construction of discourse common ground. Within the context of computer-mediated political discourse, these references are used strategically to accommodate the contextual constraints and requirements of a multilayered reception format and their multilayered felicity conditions, and to support speaker-intended interpretation of multilayered discourse on the production side.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Atifi, Hassan , and Michel Marcoccia
    2015 “Follow-ups and dialogue in online discussions on French politics: From Internet forums to social TV”. InThe Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups, ed. by Anita Fetzer , Elda, Weizman , and Lawrence N. Berlin , 109–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.259.05ati
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259.05ati [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, John L.
    1976How to do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bateson, Gregory
    1972Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Chandler Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chilton, Paul , and Christina Schäffner
    2002 “Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse”. InPolitics as Text and Talk: Analytical Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. by Paul Chilton , and Christina Schäffner , 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.4.03chi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.03chi [Google Scholar]
  6. Clayman, Steven , and John Heritage
    2002The News Interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fairclough, Norman
    1995Media Discourse. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 1998 “Political discourse in the media: Analytical framework”. InApproaches to Media Discourse, ed. by Allan Bell , and Peter Garret , 142–162. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2006Language and Globalization. Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fetzer, Anita
    2000 “Negotiating validity claims in political interviews.” Text20(4): 1–46. doi: 10.1515/text.1.2000.20.4.415
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.4.415 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2006 “‘Minister, we will see how the public judges you’. Media references in political interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics38(2): 180–195. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2011 “’Here is the difference, here is the passion, here is the chance to be part of a great change’: Strategic context importation in political discourse.” InContext and Contexts: Parts Meet Whole?, ed. by Anita Fetzer , and Etsuko Oishi , 115–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.209.08fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.209.08fet [Google Scholar]
  13. 2012 “Contexts in interaction: Relating pragmatic wastebaskets.” InWhat is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges, ed. by Rita Finkbeiner , Jörg Meibauer , and Petra Schumacher , 105–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.196.08fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.196.08fet [Google Scholar]
  14. 2013 “The multilayered and multifaceted nature of political discourse.” InThe Pragmatics of Political Discourse. Explorations across Cultures, ed. by Anita Fetzer , 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.228.01fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.228.01fet [Google Scholar]
  15. 2014 “Conceptualizing discourse.” InThe Pragmatics of Discourse, ed. by Klaus Schneider , and Anne Barron , 35–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214406‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214406-003 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2015 “‘When you came into office you said that your government would be different’: Forms and functions of quotations in mediated political discourse.” InThe Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups, ed. by Anita Fetzer , Elda Weizman , and Lawrence N. Berlin , 245–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.259.10fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259.10fet [Google Scholar]
  17. 2016 “Political interviews and responsibility: A case study of its interactional organization.” InResponsibility in Discourse and the Discourse of Responsibility, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman , and Anna Solin , 163–196. Sheffield: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2017 “The dynamics of discourse: Quantity meets quality.” InImplicitness: From Lexis to Discourse, ed. by Piotr Cap , and Marta Dynel , 235–257. Amsterdam: John Benjamnis. doi: 10.1075/pbns.276.11fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.11fet [Google Scholar]
  19. Fetzer, Anita , and Varol Akman
    2002 “Contexts of social action: Guest editors’ introduction.” Language and Communication22(4): 391–402. doi: 10.1016/S0271‑5309(02)00016‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(02)00016-2 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fetzer, Anita , and Elisabeth Reber
    2015 “Quoting in political discourse: Professional talk meets ordinary postings.” InThe Pragmatics of Quoting Now and Then, ed. by Jenny Arendholz , Wolfram Bublitz , and Monika Kirner-Ludwig , 97–124. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110427561‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110427561-006 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fetzer, Anita , Elda Weizman , and Laurence N. Berlin
    (eds.) 2015The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.259
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goffman, Erving
    1986Frame Analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Givòn, Talmy
    2005Context as Other Minds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.130
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.130 [Google Scholar]
  24. Greatbatch, David
    1988 “A turn-taking system for British news interviews.” Language in Society17: 401–430. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500012963
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012963 [Google Scholar]
  25. Grice, Herbert Paul
    1975 “Logic and conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics. Vol. III, ed. by Peter Cole , and Jerry L. Morgan , 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gumperz, John J.
    1996 “The linguistic and cultural relativity of inference.” InRethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. by John J. Gumperz , and Stephen C. Levinson , 374–406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Habermas, Jürgen
    1987Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1985 “Analysing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience.” InHandbook of Discourse Analysis 3: Discourse and Dialogue, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk , 95–117. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1979 “Activity types and language.” Linguistics17: 365–399. doi: 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 [Google Scholar]
  31. Linell, Per
    1998Approaching Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2009Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Livnat, Zohar
    2012 “Follow-ups in a loose argumentative context: The pragmatic effectiveness of figurative analogy.” InProceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-Ups Across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May – 2 June 2012, ed. by Anita Fetzer , Elda Weizman , and Elisabeth Reber , 165–177. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg 2012. – [online]. URL: opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/6116
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Penco, Carlo
    1999 “Objective and cognitive context.” In2nd International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context, Context’99, Proceedings, ed. by Paolo Bouquet , Massimo Benerecetti , Luciano Serafini , Patrick Brézillon , and Francesca Castellani , 270–283. Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/3‑540‑48315‑2_21
    https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48315-2_21 [Google Scholar]
  35. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sinclair, John , and Malcolm Coulthard
    1975Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sperber, Dan , and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Thibault, Paul J.
    2003 “Contextualization and social meaning-making practices.” InLanguage and Interaction. Discussions with John J. Gumperz, ed. by Susan L. Eerdmans , Carlo L. Prevignano , and Paul J. Thibault , 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.117.05thi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.117.05thi [Google Scholar]
  39. Weinberger, David
    2011Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now that the Facts aren’t the Facts, Experts are Everywhere, and the Smartest person in the Room is the Room. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Weizman, Elda
    2015 “Irony in and through follow-ups: Talk and meta-talk in online commenting in the Israeli context.” InThe Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups, ed. by Anita Fetzer , Elda Weizman , and Lawrence N. Berlin , 173–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.259.07wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259.07wei [Google Scholar]
  41. Weizman, Elda , and Anita Fetzer
    (eds.) 2015Follow-Ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across Contexts Discourse Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.60
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60 [Google Scholar]
  42. Yus, Francisco
    2011Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.213
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.213 [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error