Volume 10, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study shows that when presidential candidates visit, late-night talk show discourse is argumentative, and that this argumentation is co-constructed by the host and the candidate. Through their questions, hosts implicitly invoke arguments by casting doubt on the candidate’s presidential bid. By treating the host’s questions as critical questions expressing skepticism whether people should vote for the candidate, politicians prototypically use two types of argument schemes to defend their case. First, to argue that their policy proposals are needed, candidates use complex problem-solving argumentation. Second, to maintain that they have the skills and character to succeed as president, candidates use symptomatic argumentation. In their response, candidates also deal with other critical questions belonging to the argument scheme invoked through the host’s question. Which critical questions of that argument scheme the candidate addresses in addition to the one posed by the host depends on the type of question the host has asked.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Andone, Corina
    2013Argumentation in Political Interviews. Analyzing and Evaluating Responses to Accusations of Inconsistency. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.5 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baum, Matthew A.
    2005 “Talking the Vote: Why Presidential Candidates Hit the Talk Show Circuit.” American Journal of Political Science49(2): 213–34. 10.1111/j.0092‑5853.2005.t01‑1‑00119.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.t01-1-00119.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Baym, Geoffrey
    2013 “Transformations in Hybrid TV Talk: Extended Interviews on The Daily Show (.Com).” InMedia Talk and Political Elections in Europe and America, ed. byMats Ekström and Andrew Tolson, 63–86. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137273321_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137273321_4 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1983 “The Dynamics of Political Interviews.” Text3(2): 131–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage
    2002The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  6. Collins, Sue
    2014 “Performing Ordinary : Politicians, Celebrity, & the Politics of Representation on Entertainment Talk.” The Popular Culture Studies Journal2(1&2): 109–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Craig, Robert T.
    2016 “Metacommunication.” InThe International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy, ed. byKlaus B. Jensen and Robert T. Craig, online. Routledge. doi:  10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect232
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect232 [Google Scholar]
  8. Van Eemeren, Frans H.
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2018Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham, CH: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
  10. Van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs
    1993Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2008 “Dialectical Profiles and Indicators of Argumentative Moves.” Journal of Pragmatics40(3): 475–93. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Tjark Kruiger
    2015 “Identifying Argumentation Schemes.” InReasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, 703–12. Cham, CH: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20955‑5_37
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_37 [Google Scholar]
  13. Eriksson, Göran
    2010 “Politicians in Celebrity Talk Show Interviews: The Narrativization of Personal Experiences.” Text and Talk30(5): 529–51. 10.1515/text.2010.026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2010.026 [Google Scholar]
  14. Feldman, Lauren, and Dannagal Goldthwaite Young
    2008 “Late-Night Comedy as a Gateway to Traditional News: An Analysis of Time Trends in News Attention among Late-Night Comedy Viewers during the 2004 Presidential Primaries.” Political Communication25(4): 401–22. 10.1080/10584600802427013
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600802427013 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fox Tree, Jean E., and Josef C. Schrock
    2002 “Basic Meanings of You Know and I Mean.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 727–47. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00027‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00027-9 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fraser, Bruce, and Monica Malamud-Makowski
    1996 “English and Spanish Contrastive Discourse Markers.” Language Sciences18(3–4): 863–81. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(96)00052‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00052-6 [Google Scholar]
  17. Garssen, Bart
    2017 “The Role of Pragmatic Problem-Solving Argumentation in Plenary Debate in the European Parliament.” InPrototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, 31–51. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11.03gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.03gar [Google Scholar]
  18. Grimshaw, Eean, and Menno H. Reijven
    2021 “U.S. Presidential candidates’ use of the first-person plural on Entertainment-Political Interviews.” InFresh Perspectives on Major Issues in Pragmatics, ed. byMonika Kirner-Ludwig, pp.61–81. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Jucker, Andreas H., and Sara W. Smith
    1998 “And People Just You Know like ‘Wow’. Discourse Markers as Negotiating Strategies.” InDiscourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, ed. byAndreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv, 171–201. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.57.10juc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.10juc [Google Scholar]
  20. Labov, William, and David Fanshel
    1977Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lauerbach, Gerda
    2007 “Argumentation in Political Talk Show Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics39(8): 1388–1419. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  22. Loeb, Laura
    2015 “The Celebrity Talk Show: Norms and Practices.” Discourse, Context & Media10: 27–35. 10.1016/j.dcm.2015.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2015.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2017 “Politicians on Celebrity Talk Shows.” Discourse, Context & Media20: 146–56. 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  24. Molek-Kozakowska, Katarzyna
    2013 “The Late-Night TV Talk Show as a Strategic Genre in American Political Campaigning.” InAnalysing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice, ed. byPiotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 321–43. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.13mol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.13mol [Google Scholar]
  25. Moy, Patricia, Michael A. Xenos, and Verena K. Hess
    2006 “Priming Effects of Late-Night Comedy.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research18(2): 198–210. 10.1093/ijpor/edh092
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh092 [Google Scholar]
  26. Niven, David, Robert R. Lichter, and Daniel Amundson
    2003 “The Political Content of Late Night Comedy.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics8(3): 118–33. 10.1177/1081180X03008003007
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X03008003007 [Google Scholar]
  27. Parkin, Michael
    2014Talk Show Campaigns. Presidential Candidates on Daytime and Late Night Television. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203551752
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203551752 [Google Scholar]
  28. Reijven, Menno H., Eean Grimshaw, and Gonen Dori-Hacohen
    2020 “‘That’s Not Funny!’ Identity and the organization of interaction on USA entertainment-political interviews.” Discourse, Context & Media35: 100386. 10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100386
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100386 [Google Scholar]
  29. Schegloff, Emmanuel A.
    1968 “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist70(6), 1075–1095. 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  30. Schegloff, Emmanuel A., and Gene H. Lerner
    2009 “Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction42(2), 91–115. doi:  10.1080/08351810902864511
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864511 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sidnell, Jack
    2007 “`Look’-Prefaced Turns in First and Second Position: Launching, Interceding and Redirecting Action.” Discourse Studies9(3): 387–408. 10.1177/1461445607076204
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076204 [Google Scholar]
  32. Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca
    2001 “Argumentation, Explanation and Causality. An Exploration of Current Linguistic Approaches to Textual Relations.” InText Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects, ed. byTed J. M. Sanders, Joost Schilperoord and Wilbert Spooren, 231–46. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.8.12hen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.12hen [Google Scholar]
  33. Taniguchi, Masaki
    2011 “The Electoral Consequences of Candidate Appearances on Soft News Programs.” Political Communication28(1): 67–86. 10.1080/10584609.2010.540304
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.540304 [Google Scholar]
  34. Weizman, Elda
    2008Positioning in Media Dialogue: Negotiating Roles in the News Interview. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.3 [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