1887
image of Equivocation in media communication
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines equivocation in Arabic and global interviews using interviews with Saudi politician Adel Al-Jubeir as a case study. The study has three main objectives: to assess the applicability of existing frameworks for coding responses in Arabic interviews, to explore the potential discrepancy in question design between Arabic and global interviews and its potential impact on equivocation, and to identify the most frequently recurring responses in these interviews. Rasiah’s (2010) framework is employed to analyse equivocation and coding responses. The dataset includes 2 hours and 45 minutes of Arabic interviews and an equal duration of global interviews. The findings indicate the effectiveness of the proposed frameworks in coding responses in Arabic interviews. Likewise, they show that Arabic interviewers adopt a less adversarial questioning style compared to their global counterparts, and that aggressive questioning contributes to higher equivocation rates. Furthermore, the coded responses vary between the two interview settings.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.24009.alr
2024-08-27
2024-09-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alfahad, Abdulrahman
    2015 “Saudi broadcast interviews: Moving towards aggressiveness”. Discourse & Communication():–. 10.1177/1750481315571179
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481315571179 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2016 “Equivocation in Arabic news interviews”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology():–. 10.1177/0261927X15579126
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15579126 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alroumi, Abdulrahman
    2022 “Assessments and actions: Instances from Arabic broadcast political interviews”. Journal of Pragmatics:–. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.023 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alroumi, Abdulrahman and El Mustapha Lahlali
    2022 “The accountability of assessments in news interviews”. Discourse& Communication (): –. 10.1177/17504813211026563
    https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813211026563 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2023 “The role assessments in providing evasive answers in news interviews”. Pragmatics and Society: –. 10.1075/ps.21056.alr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21056.alr [Google Scholar]
  6. Bavelas, Janet B., Alex Black, Lisa Bryson, and Jennifer Mullett
    1988 “Political equivocation: A situational explanation”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology():–. 10.1177/0261927X8800700204
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8800700204 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bavelas, Janet B., Alex Black, Nicole Chovil, and Jennifer Mullett
    1990Equivocal Communication. London, England: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Vol.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bull, Peter
    1994 “On identifying questions, replies, and non-replies in political interviews”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology:–. 10.1177/0261927X94132002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94132002 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2003The Microanalysis of Political Communication: Claptrap and Ambiguity. London, England: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203417843
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203417843 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bull, Peter, Judy Elliott, Derrol Palmer, and Libby Walker
    1996 “Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews”. British Journal of Social Psychology:–. 10.1111/j.2044‑8309.1996.tb01097.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01097.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Bull, Peter, and Kate Mayer
    1993 “How not to answer questions in political interviews”. Political Psychology:–. 10.2307/3791379
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3791379 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bull, Peter, and Will Strawson
    2020 “Can’t answer? Won’t answer? An analysis of equivocal responses by Theresa May in Prime Minister’s Questions”. Parliamentary Affairs():–. 10.1093/pa/gsz003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsz003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Carranza, Ariel
    2016 “Evading and resisting answering”. Pragmatics and Society(), –. 10.1075/ps.7.4.03car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.4.03car [Google Scholar]
  15. Clayman, Steven
    2001 “Answers and evasions”. Language in Society:–. 10.1017/S0047404501003037
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404501003037 [Google Scholar]
  16. Clayman, Steven, Marc N. Elliott, John Heritage, and Laurie L. McDonald
    2006 “Historical trends in questioning presidents”, –. Presidential Studies Quarterly:–. 10.1111/j.1741‑5705.2006.02568.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2006.02568.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage
    2002The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  18. Feldman, Ofer, Ken Kinoshita, and Peter Bull
    2017 “Failures in leadership: How and why wishy-washy politicians equivocate on Japanese political interviews.” Journal of language and politics():–. 10.1075/jlp.15009.fel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.15009.fel [Google Scholar]
  19. Goffman, Erving
    1955 “On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction”. Psychiatry():–. 10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008 [Google Scholar]
  20. Harris, Sandra
    1991 “Evasive Action: How Politicians Respond to Questions in Political Interviews”. InBroadcast talk, ed. byPaddy Scannell, –. London, England: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hayes, Andrew F., and Klaus Krippendorff
    2007 “Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data”. Communication Methods and Measures:–. 10.1080/19312450709336664
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jucker, Andreas H.
    1986News interviews: A pragmalinguistic analysis. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Gieben. 10.1075/pb.vii.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.vii.4 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lewin, Kurt
    1938 “The conceptual representation and measurement of psychological forces”. Contributions to Psychological Theory, , –. 10.1037/13613‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/13613-000 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pomerantz, Anita
    1986 “Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims”. Human studies:–. 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  25. Rasiah, Parameswary
    2010 “A framework for the systematic analysis of evasion in parliamentary discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics():–. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  26. Shalash, Dana
    2020 “The disaffiliative use of ‘did you know’ questions in Arabic news interviews: The case of Aljazeera’s ‘The Opposite Direction’”. Discourse Studies():–. 10.1177/1461445620916367
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620916367 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.24009.alr
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.24009.alr
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