Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


It is an essential requirement of democracy that politicians provide account of their words and actions to the public. However, being able to account is especially important when a politician or the party he/she is representing is assumed responsible for a critical event that has undesirable consequences for the public. Under such a condition, political press conferences serve as an instrument for a politician to justify the position of the government by means of argumentation. By adopting the pragma-dialectical framework, this paper sets out to explain how a politician maneuvers strategically in a press conference for the purpose of diminishing political responsibility when his party which is in charge of the government is assumed responsible for a critical event. The paper draws its data from the political press conference held by Erdoğan, a former Prime Minister of Turkey, following the mine accident that took place in Soma, Turkey, in 2014.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Andone, C
    2013Argumentation in Political Interviews: Analyzing and Evaluating Responses to Accusations of Inconsistency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.5 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2015 “The Burden of Proof in Dealing with Political Accountability.” InPersuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by R. Săftoiu , M.-I. Neagu , and S. Măda , 19–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.26.02and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.02and [Google Scholar]
  3. APA (American Press Association)
    2016Principles of Journalism. RetrievedJanuary 20, 2016, fromamericanpressassociation.com/principles-of-journalism/
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Besette, J.M
    2001 “Accountability: Political.” InInternational Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, ed. by N.J. Smelser and P.B. Baltes , 38–41. Retrieved fromwww.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767010913. doi: 10.1016/B0‑08‑043076‑7/01091‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01091-3 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhatia, A
    2006 “Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Press Conferences.” Discourse and Society17 (2): 173–203. doi: 10.1177/0957926506058057
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506058057 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clayman, S
    2006 “Arenas of Interaction in the New Media Era.” InNews from the Interview Society, ed. by M. Ekström , Å. Kroon , and M. Nylund , 239–264. Göteborg: Nordicom.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Clayman, S. , and Heritage, J
    2002The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  8. CSGB
    . 6331 Sayılı İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Kanunu [Law No. 6331 Occupational Health and Safety Law]. RetrievedNovember 8, 2015, fromwww.csgb.gov.tr/csgbPortal/ShowProperty/WLP%20Repository/csgb/dosyalar/kitap/kitap03_6331. English translation: www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/MONOGRAPH/92011/106963/F1028231731/TUR92011%20Eng.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dutwin, D
    2003 “The Character of Deliberation: Equality, Argument, and the Formation of Public Opinion.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research15 (3): 239–264. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/15.3.239
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/15.3.239 [Google Scholar]
  10. van Eemeren, F.H
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  11. van Eemeren, F.H. , and Grootendorst, R
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. van Eemeren, F.H. , and Houtlosser, P
    1997 “Rhetorical Rationales for Dialectical Moves.” InProceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. by J.F. Klumpp , 51–56. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2002 “Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Maintaining a Delicate Balance.” InDialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, ed. by F.H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser , 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2005 “Theoretical Construction and Argumentative Reality: An Analytic Model of Critical Discussion and Conventionalised Types of Argumentative Activity.” InThe Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at Mcmaster University, ed. by D. Hitchcock and D. Farr , 75–84. Hamilton, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Erdem, K. , and Solak, M
    2012The Grand National Assembly of Turkey. RetrievedJanuary 15, 2016, fromhttps://www.tbmm.gov.tr/yayinlar/yabanci_diller/TBMM_Ingilizce.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Eriksson, G
    2011 “Follow-up Questions in Political Press Conferences.” Journal of Pragmatics43: 3331–3344. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  17. Eshbaugh-Soha, M
    2003 “Presidential Press Conferences over Time.” American Journal of Political Science47: 348–353. doi: 10.1111/1540‑5907.00024
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00024 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2012 “The Politics of Presidential Press Conferences.” American Politics Research41 (3): 471–497. doi: 10.1177/1532673X12462450
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X12462450 [Google Scholar]
  19. Excerpts from President’s Remarks on Investigation into Attacks
    2001, September14. The New York Times. RetrievedNovember 20, 2015, fromwww.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/us/excerpts-from-president-s-remarks-on-investigation-into-attacks.html
    [Google Scholar]
  20. God-given Nature. RetrievedMay 27, 2015, fromwww.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=9604
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Goffman, E
    1986Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. (Original work published in 1974.)
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Harris, S
    1986 “Interviewers’ Questions in Broadcast Interviews.” InBelfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, ed. by J. Wilson and B. Crow , 50–85. Jordanstown: University of Ulster.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hinck, E.A
    1993Enacting the Presidency: Political Argument, Presidential Debates, and Presidential Character. Westport, CT: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jasinski, J.L
    2001Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. California: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781452233222
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233222 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lanoue, D.J. , and Schrott, P.R
    1991The Joint Press Conference: The History, Impact, and Prospects of American Presidential Debates. New York: Greenwood Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sapir, E
    1934 “Symbolism.” InEncyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, ed. by E.R.A. Seligman , 492–495. New York: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Smith, C
    1990Presidential Press Conferences: A Critical Approach. New York: Praeger Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. TMMOB
    2014, 18September. “TMMOB Soma maden kazası raporunu açıkladı [TMMOB declared the report on the Soma mine accident]”. InThe official website of the Chamber of the Mining Engineers of Turkey. RetrievedJune 26, 2015from, www.maden.org.tr/genel/bizden_detay.php?kod=9432
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Thornborrow, J
    2002Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Zarefsky, D
    2008 “Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.” Argumentation22: 317–330. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9096‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9096-9 [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