Volume 16, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper examines how Japanese leading politicians deal with the communicative problems posed to them during broadcast political interviews. Based on data gathered during 14-month period in 2012–2013, the paper replicates and modifies the “” to explore the extent to which national and local level politicians endeavor to affect the content of information distributed to the public and to influence the way people perceive events that take place in the public domain. Differentiating among selected groups of politicians, i.e., ruling and opposition parties’ members, Cabinet ministers and prime ministers, and local level politicians, the paper focuses on the ways Japanese politicians (and for comparison also nonpoliticians) equivocate during televised programs and the conditions underlying this equivocation, thereby also assesses the significance of these talk shows in the broader context of political communication in Japan.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bavelas, Janet Beavin , Alex Black , Nicole Chovil , and & Jennifer Mullett
    1990Equivocal Communication. Newbury Park: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bull, Peter
    2009 “Techniques of Political Interview Analysis.” InDiscourse and Politics, ed. by Álvarez-Benito, Gloria , Gabriela Fernández-Díaz , and Isabel M. Íñigo-Mora , 215–228. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bull, Peter and Kate Mayer
    1993 “How Not to Answer Questions in Political Interview.” Political Psychology4: 651–666. doi: 10.2307/3791379
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3791379 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cohen, Jacob
    1960 “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement20 (1): 37–46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 [Google Scholar]
  5. Feldman, Ofer
    2004Talking Politics in Japan Today. Brighton, England: Sussex Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Feldman, Ofer , Ken Kinoshita , and Peter Bull
    2015 “Culture or Communicative Conflict? The Analysis of Equivocation in Broadcast Japanese Political Interviews.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology34: 65–89. doi: 10.1177/0261927X14557567
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14557567 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2016 “’Ducking and Diving’: How Political Issues Affect Equivocation in Japanese Political Interviews.” Japanese Journal of Political Science17: 141–167 doi: 10.1017/S1468109916000013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109916000013 [Google Scholar]
  8. Hansson, Sten
    2015 “Discursive Strategies of Blame Avoidance in Government: A Framework for Analysis.” Discourse & Society26: 297–322. doi: 10.1177/0957926514564736
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926514564736 [Google Scholar]
  9. Heritage, John
    1985 “Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of Talk for an Overhearing Audience.” InHandbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by van Dijk, Teun A. , Vol.3, 95–119. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Jucker, Andreas
    1986News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pb.vii.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.vii.4 [Google Scholar]

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