1887
Volume 8, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00023.riv
2018-11-02
2019-10-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00023.riv
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00023.riv
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accountability , argumentation , news interview and 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