1887
Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores disagreement practice in political discourse, specifically in the under explored public inquiry communicative event and more specifically in the . We revisit earlier work on theorising disagreement to expand our understanding of its contextual nature, particularly in relation to the making of ideology.

Public inquiries combine the characteristics of professional meetings with characteristics of political discourse. They are typified by hybridised and ambiguous role expectations which participants negotiate in and through (potentially competing) practices in doing the ideological work demanded by the policy process. In this context, disagreement emerges as key to the performance of the interactants’ situated and explicit/semi-permanent roles as professional politicians.

By applying Critical Interactional Sociolinguistic analysis within a wider frame of audience design, we demonstrate the importance of the ideological role of disagreement to the policy process. We argue that further attention needs to be given to the policy talk in meso-level political events, such as the public inquiry, which connect the ideological (macro) political domains of human activity with the (micro) of talk. We close the paper with directions for further research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00068.und
2021-07-05
2021-09-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Angouri, Jo
    2012 “Managing Disagreement in Problem Solving Meeting Talk.” Journal of Pragmatics44: 1565–1579. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2018Culture, Discourse and the Workplace. Oxon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351068444
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351068444 [Google Scholar]
  3. Angouri, Jo, and Miriam A. Locher
    2012 “Theorising Disagreement.” Journal of Pragmatics44: 1549–1553. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  4. Angouri, Jo, and Ruth Wodak
    2014 “‘They became big in the shadow of the crisis’: The Greek Success Story and the Rise of the Far Right.” Discourse & Society25 (4): 540–565. 10.1177/0957926514536955
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926514536955 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Sandra Harris
    1997Managing Language: The Discourse of Corporate Meetings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.44
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.44 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bell, Allan
    1984 “Language Style as Audience Design.” Language in Society13 (2): 145–204. 10.1017/S004740450001037X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001037X [Google Scholar]
  7. 2001 “Back in Style: Reworking Audience Design.” InStyle and Sociolinguistic Variation, edited byPenelope Eckert and John R. Rickford, 139–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1983 “The Dynamics of Political Interviews.” Text3 (2): 131–153.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bousfield, Derek
    2014 “Stylistics, Speech Acts and Im/politeness Theory.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Stylistics, edited byMichael Burke, 118–135. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  11. Buttny, Richard
    2015 “Contesting Hydrofracking during an Inter-governmental Hearing: Accounting by Reworking or Challenging the Question.” Discourse & Communication9 (4): 423–440. 10.1177/1750481315576842
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481315576842 [Google Scholar]
  12. Demasi, Mirko A.
    2016 “Debating the European Union: Dynamics of Argumentation in Political Debates.” Loughborough University. https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/thesis/Debating_the_European_Union_dynamics_of_argumentation_in_political_debates/9480254
  13. Ehrlich, Susan, and Alice F. Freed
    2010 “The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse: An Introduction.” InWhy do you Ask? : The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, edited byAlice F. Freed and Susan Ehrlich, 3–19. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ekström, Mats
    2001 “Politicians Interviewed on Television News.” Discourse and Society12 (5): 563–584. 10.1177/0957926501012005001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012005001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fairclough, Norman
    2013 “Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies7 (2): 177–197. 10.1080/19460171.2013.798239
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.798239 [Google Scholar]
  16. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra
    2012 “‘A Simple Disagreement? A row? Or a Massive Fall out?’: On the Challenges of an Analytical Task.” Journal of Pragmatics44: 1623–1625. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gumperz, John Joseph, and Jenny Cook-Gumperz
    2008 “Studying Language, Culture, and Society: Sociolinguistics or Linguistic Anthropology?” Journal of Sociolinguistics12 (4): 532–545. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2008.00378.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00378.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Haggith, Mandy
    1993 “Disagreement in Creative Problem Solving.” AAAI Technical ReportSS-93-01.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hajer, Maarten A.
    1995The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hanks, William F.
    1990Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Haugh, Michael
    2007 “The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Research: An Interactional Alternative.” Journal of Politeness Research3: 295–317. 10.1515/PR.2007.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.013 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hutchby, Ian
    2005 “Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcast Talk.” InHandbook of Language and Social Interaction, edited byKristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders, 437–460. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Institute for Government
    Institute for Government 2018Public Inquiries. 21May. AccessedJune 2020. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/public-inquiries
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Institute for Government
    Institute for Government 2020Select Committees. 19May. AccessedJune 2020. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/select-committees
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kreis, Ramona
    2017 “The 'Tweet Politics' of President Trump.” Journal of Language and Politics16 (4): 607–618. 10.1075/jlp.17032.kre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17032.kre [Google Scholar]
  26. Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe
    1985Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London, New York: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Laville, Sandra
    2019 “Six UK Fashion Retailers Fail to Cotton on to Sustainability.” The Guardian. Accessed 2019 https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2019/jan/31/six-uk-fashion-retailers-fail-to-cotton-on-to-sustainability-environment
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  29. Livesey, Sharon M.
    2002 “The Discourse of the Middle Ground: Citizen Shell Commits to Sustainable Development.” Management Communication Quarterly15 (3): 313–349. 10.1177/0893318902153001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318902153001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Marra, Meredith
    2012 “Disagreeing without being Disagreeable: Negotiating Workplace Communities as an Outsider.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (12): 1580–1590. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  31. Marshall, Joe [Google Scholar]
  32. Montgomery, Martin
    2007The Discourse of Broadcast News: A Linguistic Approach. Oxon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203006634
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203006634 [Google Scholar]
  33. Murphy, James
    2019The Discursive Construction of Blame: The Language of Public Inquiries. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑50722‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50722-8 [Google Scholar]
  34. Myers, Greg
    1998 “Displaying Opinions: Topics and Disagreement in Focus Groups.” Language in Society27: 85–111. 10.1017/S0047404500019734
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019734 [Google Scholar]
  35. Rampton, Ben
    2016 “Foucault, Gumperz and Governmentality: Interaction, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty-first Century.” InSociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates, edited byNikolas Coupland, 303–328. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107449787.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107449787.015 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rydin, Yvonne
    1999 “Can we Talk Ourselves into Sustainability? The Role of Discourse in the Environmental Policy Process.” Environmental Values8 (4): 467–484. 10.3197/096327199129341923
    https://doi.org/10.3197/096327199129341923 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sacks, Harvey
    1973/1987 “On the Preference for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” InTalk and Social Organisation, edited byGraham Button and John R. E. Lee, 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Schattschneider, Elmer Eric
    1960The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Hinsdale: Dryden.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1984 “Jewish Argument as Sociability.” Language in Society13: 311–335. 10.1017/S0047404500010526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010526 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sifianou, Maria
    2012 “Disagreements, Face and Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics44: 1554–1564. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  41. Smith, Sophie
    2018 “MPs Launch Inquiry into Fashion Industry’s Environmental Impact.” The Telegraph. Accessed 2019 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/06/22/mps-launch-inquiry-fashion-industrys-environmental-impact/
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Smithers, Rebecca
    2018 “MPs to Examine Environmental Footprint of UK Fashion Industry.” The Guardian. Accessed 2019 https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/jun/22/mps-to-examine-environmental-footprint-of-uk-fashion-industry
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tannen, Deborah, and Christina Kakavá
    1992 “Power and Solidarity in Modern Greek Conversation: Disagreeing to Agree.” Journal of Modern Greek Studies10 (1): 11–34. 10.1353/mgs.2010.0203
    https://doi.org/10.1353/mgs.2010.0203 [Google Scholar]
  45. UK Government
    UK Government. n.d.How Government Works. AccessedJune 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/how-government-works
    [Google Scholar]
  46. UK Parliament
    UK Parliament 2018MPs to Measure-up the Fashion Industry with Event at the V&A. November. AccessedJune 2020. https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/news-parliament-2017/sustainable-fashion-vanda-evidence-17-19/
    [Google Scholar]
  47. UK Parliament
    UK Parliament 2018parliamentlive.tv: Environmental Audit Committee. 18 December. https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/ccea76b1-55ee-4cff-94a8-146852285d1e
    [Google Scholar]
  48. UK Parliament [Google Scholar]
  49. UK Parliament
    UK Parliament. n.d.www.parliament.uk. AccessedJune 2020. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wodak, Ruth
    2009The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00068.und
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00068.und
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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