Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountability

References

1. Aakhus, M. and Marcin Lewiński
   2017 “Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy.” Argumentation31(1): 179–207. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑016‑9403‑9
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9 [Google Scholar]
2. Andone, C.
   2013 Argumentation in political interviews. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.5
   https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.5 [Google Scholar]
3. Andone, C.
   2015a “The burden of proof in dealing with political accountability.” InPersuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. bySăftoiu, R., M. Neagu, and S. Măda. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.26.02and
   https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.02and [Google Scholar]
4. Andone, C.
   2015b “Pragmatic Argumentation in European Practices of Political Accountability.” Argumentation29: 1–18. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑014‑9334‑2
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9334-2 [Google Scholar]
5. Andone, C. and Alfonso Hernández
   2019 “Scientific arguments in policy-making.” Journal of Argumentation in Context8(2): 195–213. doi:  10.1075/jaic.18040.and
   https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18040.and [Google Scholar]
6. Bovens, M.
   2006 “Analysing and Assessing Public Accountability. A Conceptual Framework.” European Governance Papers (EUROGOV)No. C-06-01.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bovens, M.
   2007 “Public accountability.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Public Management, ed. byFerlie, E., Lynn, L. E., & Pollitt, C.New York: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bush, G. W.
   2003 President George Bush discusses Iraq in national press conference. The White House. PresidentGorge W. Bush. RetrievedJune 17, 2020, fromhttps://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
   [Google Scholar]
9. Clayman, S.
   2001 “Answers and evasions.” Language in Society30(3): 403–442. doi:  10.1017/S0047404501003037
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404501003037 [Google Scholar]
10. Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage
    2002 The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
11. Clayman, S. and Matthew P. Fox
    2017 “Hardballs and softballs. Modulating adversarialness in journalistic questioning.” Journal of Language and Politics16(1): 19–39. doi:  10.1075/jlp.16.1.02cla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.16.1.02cla [Google Scholar]
12. Cornwell, E.
    1960 “The Presidential Press Conference: A Study in Institutionalization.” Midwest Journal of Political Science4(4): 370–389. doi:  10.2307/2108872
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2108872 [Google Scholar]
13. Demir, Y.
    2016 “Maneuvering strategically in a press conference to diminish political responsibility for a critical event. The case of the Soma mine disaster.” Journal of Argumentation in Context5(2): 191–217. doi:  10.1075/jaic.5.2.07dem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.5.2.07dem [Google Scholar]
14. Grice, H. P.
    1991 “Logic and conversation.” InStudies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Harcup, T.
    2014 “Press conference” A dictionary of Journalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Ingram, D. and Peter Henshall
    2008 “Press and media conferences” The News Manual. A Professional Resource for Journalists and the Media. Volume 1: Basic Techniques. RetrievedJune 17, 2020, fromhttps://www.thenewsmanual.net/index.htm
    [Google Scholar]
17. Kumar, M. J.
    2003 “’Does This Constitute a Press Conference’ Defining and Tabulating Modern Presidential Press Conferences.” Presidential Studies Quarterly33(1): 221–237. doi:  10.1177/0360491802250551
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0360491802250551 [Google Scholar]
18. Leal, F.
    2020 “On the Importance of Questioning Within the Ideal Model of Critical Discussion.” Argumentation. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑020‑09516‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09516-0 [Google Scholar]
19. Lewiński, M. and Mark Aakhus
    2014 “Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry.” Argumentation28(2): 161–185. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
20. Mulgan, R.
    2003 Holding Power to Account. Accountability in Modern Democracies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781403943835
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403943835 [Google Scholar]
21. Raz, J.
    1980 The concept of a legal system. An introduction to the theory of legal system. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198253631.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198253631.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
22. Rocci, A. and C. Raimondo
    2018 “Dialogical Argumentation in Financial Conference Calls: the Request of Confirmation of Inference (ROCOI).” InArgumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation (Vol.II, 699–715) ed. byOswald, S. & Maillat, D.London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Searle, J.
    1979 Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
24. Searle, J. and D. Vanderveken
    1985 Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    1992 Analysing Complex Argumentation. The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. Amsterdam: Sicsat.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Stinga, L.
    2008 Political Accountability as a Radial Concept. EUI Working Papers SPS 2008/08.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Van Eemeren, F. and R. Grootendorst
    1984 Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordretch: Foris Publications. 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
28. Van Eemeren, F. and R. Grootendorst
    2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Van Eemeren, F., P. Houtlosser, and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans
    2007 Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
30. Van Eemeren, F.
    2010 Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
31. Van Eemeren, F.
    2017a “Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective.” InPrototypical Argumentative Patternsed. byvan Eemeren, F.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11.02van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.02van [Google Scholar]
32. Van Eemeren, F.
    2017b “The dependency of argumentative patterns on institutional context.” InPrototypical Argumentative Patternsed. byvan Eemeren, F.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11.10van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.10van [Google Scholar]
33. Van Eemeren, F.
    2018 Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
34. Wu, Peng
    2017 “Strategic maneuvering by personal attacks in spokespersons’ argumentative replies at diplomatic press conferences.” Journal of Argumentation in Context6(3): 285–314. doi:  10.1075/jaic.17022.wu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17022.wu [Google Scholar]
35. Zarefsky, D.
    2014 Political argumentation in the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.7 [Google Scholar]