Volume 8, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



During the National Policy Institute’s national conference in Washington D.C. on Saturday November 19th, 2016, Richard Spencer delivered a speech in praise of the election victory of President Donald Trump. Shortly after the conference, Spencer was an invited guest on the programme in which he participated in a 32-minute interview with black journalist, host and managing editor Roland Martin. Drawing attention to the ideological aspects of the Martin/Spencer interview performance, we adopt the analytical lens of the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Musolff 2014Reisigl and Wodak 2009Wodak 20012009) to explore argumentation as a discursive strategy through or argumentative warrants (Reisigl and Wodak 2009Wodak 200920112015Wodak and Boukala 2015).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Amossy, Ruth
    2009 “The New Rhetoric’s Inheritance: Argumentation and Discourse Analysis.” Argumentation23: 313–324.10.1007/s10503‑009‑9154‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9154-y [Google Scholar]
  2. Borschel, Audrey
    2009Preaching Prophetically when the News Disturbs. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Boukala, Salomi
    2016 “Rethinking Topos in the Discourse Historical Approach: Endoxon seeking and Argumentation in Greek Media Discourses on ‘Islamist Terrorism’.” Discourse Studies18(3): 249–268.10.1177/1461445616634550
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445616634550 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bull, Peter and Anita Fetzer
    2006 “Who are we and who are you? The Strategic use of Forms of Address in Political Interviews.” Text & Talk26(1): 3–37.10.1515/TEXT.2006.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2014Analysing Political Speeches: Rhetoric, Discourse and Metaphor. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978‑1‑137‑36833‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-36833-1 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clayman, Steven
    1988 “Displaying Neutrality in Television News Interviews.” Social Problems35: 474–492.10.2307/800598
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800598 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clayman, Steven and John Heritage
    2002The News Interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  8. Coleman, Renita and Stephen Banning
    2006 “Network TV News’ Affective Framing of the Presidential Candidates: Evidence for a Second-Level Agenda-Setting Effect through Visual Framing.” J&MC Quarterly83: 313–328.10.1177/107769900608300206
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900608300206 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ekström, Mats
    2001 “Frågor, svar och icke-svar i politiska intervjuer: En samtalsanalys” [“Questions and Answers in Political Interviews”]. Nordicom Information23(3): 57–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2009 “Announced Refusal to Answer: A Study of Norms and Accountability in Broadcast Political Interviews.” Discourse Studies11(6): 681–702.10.1177/1461445609347232
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609347232 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ekström, Mats and Marianna Patronas
    2011Talking Politics in Broadcast News. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.42 [Google Scholar]
  12. Farr, Robert
    1984 “Interviewing: An Introduction to the Social Psychology of the Interview.” InPsychology for Managers, ed. byPeter Cooper and Cary Makin, 176–194. London: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fetzer, Anita
    2006 “‘Minister, we will see how the public judges you’”: Media References in Political Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics38(2): 180–195.10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.017 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fowler, Roger
    1991Language in the News. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gill, Ann and Karen Whedbee
    1997 “Rhetoric.” InDiscourse as Structure and Process, ed. byTeun van Dijk, 157–184. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Greatbatch, David
    1988 “A Turn-taking System for British News Interviews.” Language in Society17: 401–430.10.1017/S0047404500012963
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012963 [Google Scholar]
  17. Grue, Jan
    2009 “Critical Discourse Analysis, Topoi and Mystification: Disability Policy Documents from a Norwegian NGO.” Discourse Studies11(3): 285–308.10.1177/1461445609102446
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609102446 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hall, Stuart
    1977 “Culture, the Media and the ‘Ideological’ Effect.” InMass Communication and Society, ed. byJames Curran, Michael Gurevitch, and Janet Woollacott, 315–348. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Harris, Sandra
    1991 “Evasive Action: How Politicians Respond to Questions in Political Interviews.” InBroadcast Talk, ed. byPaddy Scannell, 76–99. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Harsin, Jayson
    2015 “Regimes of Posttruth, Postpolitics and Attention Economies.” Communication, Culture & Critique8: 327–333. 10.1111/cccr.12097
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12097 [Google Scholar]
  21. Heritage, John
    1985 “Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience.” InHandbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. byTeun van Dijk, 95–117. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hess-Lüttich, Ernest
    2007 “(Pseudo-) Argumentation in TV-Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 1360–1370. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hutchby, Ian
    2011 “Non-Neutrality and Argument in the Hybrid Political Interview.” Discourse Studies13 (3): 349–365.10.1177/1461445611400665
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611400665 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jutel, Olivier
    2013 “American Populism and the New Political Economy of the Media Field.” Political Economy of Communication1: 26–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kienpointner, Manfred
    2011 “Rhetoric.” InPragmatics in Practice, ed. byJan-Ola Ostman and Jef Verschueren, 264–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hoph.9.17kie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.9.17kie [Google Scholar]
  26. 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]
  27. Lauerbach, Gerda and Karin Aijmer
    2007 “Argumentation in Dialogic Media Genres: Talk Shows and Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics39 (8): 1333–1341.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  28. Linell, Per
    1998Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/impact.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Luginbühl, Martin
    2007 “Conversational Violence in Political TV Debates: Forms and Functions.” Journal of Pragmatics39 (8): 1371–1387.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  30. McNair, Brian
    2000Journalism and Democracy: An Evaluation of the Political Public Sphere. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Meehan, Eileen
    2005Why TV is Not Our Fault: Television Programming, Viewers and Who’s Really in Control. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Montgomery, Martin
    2007 “The Discourse of the Broadcast News Interview: A Typology.” Journalism Studies9(2): 260–277.10.1080/14616700701848303
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700701848303 [Google Scholar]
  33. Moulton, Janice
    1983 “A Paradigm of Philosophy: The Adversary Method.” InDiscovering Reality, ed. bySandra Harding and Merrill Hintikka, 149–64. Dordrecht: Reidel.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Musolff, Andreas
    2014 “Metaphor in the Discourse-Historical Approach.” InContemporary Critical Discourse Studies, ed. byChristopher Hart and Piotr Cap, 45–66. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. National Policy Institute
    National Policy Institute 2017www.npiamerica.org/
  36. Oxford Dictionaries
    Oxford Dictionaries 2016 “Word of the Year 2016.” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016.
  37. ProPublica
    ProPublica 2017 “About Us.” https://www.propublica.org/about/.
  38. Reisigl, Martin and Ruth Wodak
    2001Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2009 “The Discourse-Historical Approach.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Introducing Qualitative Methods, ed. byRuth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 87–121. 2nd ed.London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Richardson, John
    2004(Mis) Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. Amsterdam. John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.9 [Google Scholar]
  41. Rivers, Damian J. and Andrew S. Ross
    2018 “An Integrated Approach to Non-Verbal Performance in the Hybrid Political Interview.” Journal of Pragmatics132: 59–75.10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.012 [Google Scholar]
  42. Toulmin, Stephen
    1958/2003The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. van Rees, M. Agnes
    2007 “Discourse Analysis and Argumentation Theory: The Case of Television Talk.” Journal of Pragmatics39 (8): 1454–1463.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  44. Walton, Douglas
    1996Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Weigand, Edda
    2006 “Argumentation: The Mixed Game.” Argumentation20: 59–87.10.1007/s10503‑006‑9000‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9000-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. Willard, Charles Arthur
    1989A Theory of Argumentation. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wodak, Ruth
    2001 “The Discourse-Historical Approach.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis (1st edition), ed. byRuth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 63–95. London: Sage. 10.4135/9780857028020
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2009The Discourse of Politics in Action. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 2011The Discourse of Politics in Action, 2nd edition. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2015 “Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse-Historical Approach.” The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wodak, Ruth and Salomi Boukala
    2015 “European Identities and the Revival of Nationalism in the European Union: A Discourse Historical Approach.” Journal of Language and Politics14(1): 87–109.10.1075/jlp.14.1.05wod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.14.1.05wod [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accountability; argumentation; news interview; topoi
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