1887
Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study addresses positioning in dissention fragments in political interviews in the Argentine media. The aim is to disclose how participants position themselves and others, and the consequences this has on meaning making in the interaction. From a dialogic perspective and a discourse pragmatic approach, we use the tenets of Positioning Theory and the Appraisal framework in the analysis of the data. We base our research on an exploratory-interpretive paradigm that provides qualitative results. To examine the position of the interactants, our attention focuses on the interrelated components of positioning, and on the linguistic resources used by the participants. The results reveal the implications of positioning for the communication of diversity, the relationship between participants, and the building of tense or relaxed atmospheres.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00124.gra
2022-08-08
2022-12-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, John
    1975How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baxter, Judith
    2017 “Positioning, Language and Identity: Poststructuralist Perspective.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity, ed. bySiân Preece, 34–49. London and New York: Routledge. Taylor and Francis Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bednarek, Monika
    2009 “Language Patterns and Attitude.” Functions of Language16 (2): 165–192. 10.1075/fol.16.2.01bed
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.2.01bed [Google Scholar]
  4. Brand, Graham and Paddy Scannell
    1991 “Talk, Identity and Performance: The Tony Blackburn Show.” InBroadcast Talk, ed. byPaddy Scannell, 201–226. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cap, Piotr and Urszula Okulska
    (eds.) 2013Analyzing Genres in Political Communication. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clayman, Stephen and John Heritage
    2002The News Interview. Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  7. Coulthard, Malcolm
    1994 “On Analyzing and Evaluating Text.” InAdvances in Written Text Analysis, ed. byMalcolm Coulthard, 1–11. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. De Fina, Anna, Deborah Schiffrin, and Michael Bamberg
    2006 “Introduction.” InDiscourse and Identity, ed. byAnna De Fina, Deborah Schiffrin, and Michael Bamberg, 1–13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511584459.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511584459.002 [Google Scholar]
  9. Eggins, Suzanne and James Martin
    1997 “Genres and Registers of Discourse.” InDiscourse as Structure and Process, ed. byTeun van Dijk, 230–257. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446221884.n9
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884.n9 [Google Scholar]
  10. Goffman, Erving
    1969The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1986Frame Analysis. Boston: North Eastern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Granato, Luisa
    2005 “Aportes de la Entonación a los significados del discurso [Contributions of intonation to the meanings of discourse].” RASAL. Revista de la Sociedad Argentina de Lingüística1: 85–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Granato, Luisa and María Leticia Móccero
    2019 “Afecto y emoción en la interacción entre políticos y audiencia: debate y entrevistas a candidatos presidenciales [Affect and emotion in the interaction between politicians and audience: debate and interviews with presidential candidates].” Paper presented atIII Congreso de la Delegación Argentina dela Asociación de Lingüística y Filología de América Latina (ALFAL) y VII Jornadas Internacionales de investigaciónen Filología Hispánica, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina, April 24–27, 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Granato, Luisa and Alejandro Parini
    2011 “Context and Talk in Confrontational Discourse.” InContext and Contexts, ed. byAnita Fetzer and Etsuko Oishi, 67–89. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.209.05gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.209.05gra [Google Scholar]
  15. 2018 “Stance and Casting the Identity of a New Political Leader: Interviews with the President of Argentina”. InPositioning and Stance in Political Discourse. The Individual, the Party and the Party Line, ed. byLawrence Berlin, 109–139. Willmington, Delaware: Vernon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2019 “The Discursive Construction of Morality in Political Interviews.” Paper presented atthe 16th International Pragmatics Conference, University of Hong Kong, Popular Republic of China.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Halliday, Michael A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan
    1989Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Halliday, Michael A. K. and James Martin
    1993Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Harré, Rom and Luk Van Langenhove
    (eds.) 1999Positioning Theory: Moral Context of Intentional Action. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Harré, Rom, Fathali M. Moghaddam, Tracey Pilkerton-Cairnie, Daniel Rothbar, and Steven R. Sabat
    2009 “Recent Advances in Positioning Theory.” Theory and Psychology19 (1): 2–31. 10.1177/0959354308101417
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354308101417 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hood, Susan
    2004 “Managing Attitude in Undergraduate Academic Writing: A Focus on the Introduction to Research Report.” InAnalysing Academic Writing: Contextualized Frameworks, ed. byLouise Ravelli and Robert Ellis, 34–44. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hunston, Susan
    1993 “Evaluation and Ideology in Scientific Writing.” InRegister Analysis: Theory and Practice, ed. byMohsen Ghadessy, 57–73. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1994 “Evaluation and Organization in a Sample of Written Academic Discourse.” InAdvances in Written Text Analysis, ed. byMalcolm Coulthard, 191–218. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2000 “Evaluation and the Planes of Discourse: Status and Value in Persuasive Texts.” InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. bySusan Hunston, and Geoff Thompson, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hunston, Susan and Geoff Thompson
    (eds.) 2000Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hutchby, Ian
    1996Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio. Mahawah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Irvine, Judith
    1990 “Registering Affect: Heteroglossia in the Linguistic Expression of Emotion.” InLanguage and the Politics of Emotion, ed. byCatherine Lutz and Lila Abu-Lughod, 126–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kayi-Aydar, Hayriye
    2019Positioning Theory in Applied Linguistics. Research, Design and Application. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑97337‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97337-1 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kfouri, Christianna
    2020 “Using the Positioning Theory Diamond to Examine the Social Literacy Domains across Domains, Space, and Time.” Paper presented atthe 2020 Positioning Theory Symposium, University at Buffalo, Graduate School of Education, Buffalo, New York, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lemke, Jay
    1992 “Interpersonal Meaning in Discourse: Value Orientations”. InAdvances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, ed. byMartin Davies and Louise Ravelli, 82–104. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1998 “Resources in Attitudinal Meaning: Evaluative Orientation in Text Semantics.” Functions of Language5 (1): 33–56. 10.1075/fol.5.1.03lem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.5.1.03lem [Google Scholar]
  32. Lutz, Catherine and Lila Abu-Lughod
    1990Language and the Politics of Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Macken-Horarik, Mary and Anne Isaak
    2014 “Appraising appraisal.” InEvaluation in Context, ed. byGeoff Thompson and Laura Alba-Juez, 67–92. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.242.04mac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.04mac [Google Scholar]
  34. Macken-Horarik, Mary, and Jim Martin
    (eds) 2003Negotiating Heteroglossia: Social Perspectives for Evaluation. Special issue ofText23 (2).
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Martin, James and David Rose
    2007Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2008Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Martin, James and Peter White
    2005The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  38. McVee, Mary B., Katarina N. Silvestri, Nichole Barrett, and Katherine S. Haq
    2019 “Positioning Theory.” InTheoretical Models and Processes, ed. byDonna E. Alvermann, Norman J. Unrau, Misty Sailors, and Robert B. Ruddel, 382–400. New York and London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Miller, Donna R.
    2004 “Truth, Judgement and the American Way.” InCross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, ed. byPaul Bayley, 271–300. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.10.08mil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.08mil [Google Scholar]
  40. Móccero, María Leticia
    2005 Tensión y Distensión en la Entrevista Periodística Televisiva [Tension and distension in the televisión journalistic interview]. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Unpublished MA Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2007 “Estrategias conversacionales, imagen social y tensión/distensión en entrevistas periodísticas televisivas [Conversational strategies, social image and tension/distension in television journalistic interviews].” InActas del III coloquio nacional de investigadores en estudios del discurso, ed. byElizabeth Rigatuso, 180–195. Bahía Blanca: Universidad Nacionaldel Sur.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Norton, Bonny
    2013Identity and Language Learning: Extending the Conversation. Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783090563
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783090563 [Google Scholar]
  43. Nunan, David
    1994Research Methods in Language Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Oteíza, Teresa
    2017 “The Appraisal Framework and Discourse Analysis.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, ed. byTom Barlett, and Gerard O’Grady, 457–472. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Oteíza, Teresa and Claudio Pinuer
    2013 “Valorative Prosody and the Symbolic Construction of Time in Historical Recent National Discourses.” Discourse Studies15 (1): 43–64. 10.1177/1461445612466447
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612466447 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2019 “El sistema de valoración como herramienta teórico-metodológica para el estudio social e ideológico del discurso [The evaluation system as a theoretical-methodological tool for the social and ideological study of discourse].” Logos: Revista de Lingüística, Filosofía y Literatura29 (2): 207–229. 10.15443/RL2918
    https://doi.org/10.15443/RL2918 [Google Scholar]
  47. Poynton, Caty
    1996 “Amplification as a Grammatical Prosody: Attitudinal Modification in the Nominal Group.” InMeaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretation, ed. byMargaret Berry, Christopher Butler, and Robin Fawcett, 211–227. Norwood, N.J: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Quiroz, Beatriz
    2018 “Negotiating Interpersonal Meanings: Reasoning about MOOD.” Functions of Language25 (1): 130–158. 10.1075/fol.17013.qui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.17013.qui [Google Scholar]
  49. Scannell, Paddy
    1991Broadcast Talk. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Silverman, David
    2001Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Slocum-Bradley, Nikki
    2009 “The Positioning Diamond: A Trans-Disciplinary Framework for Discourse Analysis.” Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour40 (1): 79–107. 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.2009.00418.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00418.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Taboada, María Teresa
    2004Building Coherence and Cohesion. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.129
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.129 [Google Scholar]
  53. Thompson, Geoff and Laura Alba-Juez
    (eds.) 2014Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.242
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242 [Google Scholar]
  54. Van Langenhove, Luk and Rom Harré
    1999 “Introducing Positioning Theory.” InPositioning Theory: Moral Context of Intentional Action, ed. byRom Harré and Luk Van Langenhove, 14–31. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Vasilyeva, Alena L.
    2016 “Confrontation and Collaboration in the Course of the Election Debate.” Language and Dialogue6 (3): 370–394. 10.1075/ld.6.3.02vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.3.02vas [Google Scholar]
  56. Weigand, Edda
    2010Language as Dialogue. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Weizman, Elda
    2008Positioning in Media Dialogue. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.3 [Google Scholar]
  58. White, Peter R. R.
    2002 “Appraisal – the Language of Evaluation and Stance.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byJef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen, 1–27. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00124.gra
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00124.gra
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