Volume 13, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The present paper deals with an example of a TV broadcast discussion program, the Czech program , in which a dialogue fails. It presents a closer analysis of one representative episode of the program, which, despite being officially presented as offering space for discussion and a chance for ordinary citizens to talk to public personalities and politicians, takes the form of confrontainment, whose goal is to escalate debate. The paper reveals what practices by the discussants and the moderator contribute to the failure of a successful dialogue and discusses the role of broadcast programs of this kind in the contemporary communication sphere.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Atkinson, Maxwell J. and Paul Drew
    1979Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑04057‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-04057-5 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
    1986Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. (Emerson, Caryl; Holquist, Michael, trans., ed.) Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blumler, Jay G.
    1991Broadcasting finance in transition: a comparative handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blumler, Jay G. and Stephen Coleman
    2010 “Political communication in freefall: The British case – and others?”. The International Journal of Press/Politics15(2): 139–154. 10.1177/1940161210362263
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161210362263 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bohm, David
    1996On Dialogue. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  7. Burger, Harald
    1995 “Konversationelle Gewalt in Fernsehgesprächen. InHugger, P., Stadler, U. (eds), Gewalt. Kulturelle Formen in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Unionsverlag, 100–125. Zürich.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Carpentier, Nico
    2001 “Managing Audience Participation. The Construction of Participation in an Audience Discussion Programme”. European Journal of Communication16(2): 209–232. 10.1177/0267323101016002004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323101016002004 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carpignano, Paolo, Robin Anderson, Stanley Aronowitz, and William Difazio
    1990 “Chatter in the Age of Electronic Reproduction: Talk Show and the “Public Mind””. Social Text25/261: 33–55. 10.2307/466239
    https://doi.org/10.2307/466239 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clayman, Steven E. and John C. Heritage
    2010Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cottle, Simon
    2002 “TV Agora and agoraphobia post-September 11”. In: Zelizer, B. and S. A. (eds) Journalism after September111. London: Routledge: 178–198. 10.4324/9780203218136_chapter_10
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203218136_chapter_10 [Google Scholar]
  12. Čmejrková, Světla
    1999 “Televizní interview a jiné duely: Mediální dialog jako žánr veřejného projevu”. Slovo a slovesnost, 60 (4): 247–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2003 “Mediální rozhovor jako žánr veřejného projevu”. InJazyk, média, politika, ed. bySvětla Čmejrková, and Jana Hoffmannová, 80–115. Praha: Academia.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Drew, Paul and John Heritage
    1992 “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction”. InTalk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ekström, Mats and Eriksson, Göran
    2013 “Citizen Participation in Journalist Discourse: Multiplatform Political Interviews in the Swedish Election Campaign 2010”. InMedia Talk and Political Elections in Europe and America, ed. byMats Ekström and Andrew Tolson, 181–204. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137273321_9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137273321_9 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fairclough, Norman
    1989Language and Power. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Foucault, Michel
    1980Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Freire, Paulo
    2000Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gadamer, Hans G.
    1989Truth and Method. New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Habermas, Jürgen
    1981Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, 21vols. Frankfurt, Main: Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Havlík, Martin
    2008 “Poznámky k práci moderátorů televizních politických debat a rozhlasových interview”. Jazykovědné aktuality, XLV (1–2): 4–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Heritage, John
    1998 “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analyzing Distinctive Turn-Taking Systems”. InDialoganalyse VI (Volume21) (Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of IADA – International Association forDialog Analysis), ed. bySvětla Čmejrková, Jana Hoffmannová, Olga Müllerová, and Jana Svetlá, Tubingen: Niemeyer: 3–17. 10.1515/9783110965049‑001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110965049-001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hess-Lüttich, Ernest. W. B.
    2007 “(Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV-debates”. Journal of Pragmatics391: 1360–1370. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  24. Holly, Werner
    1994 “Confrontainment. Politik als Schaukampf im Fernsehen”. InMedienlust und Mediennutz. Unterhaltung als öffentliche Kommunikation, ed. byBosshart, L., Hoffmann-Riem, W., 422–434. München: UVK.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction”. InConversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation, ed. byGene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  26. Layman, Charles S.
    1999The Power of Logic. Mountain View, CA, USA: Mayfield.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Linell, Petr
    1998Aproaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  28. Livingstone, Sonia and Lunt, Peter
    1996Talk on Television, Audience Participation and Public Debate. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lotman, Juri
    1990Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 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]
  31. Marková, Ivana
    2016 ”10. Dialogue and mutual understanding”. Verbal Communication, ed. byAndrea Rocci and Louis de Saussure, 181–202. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110255478‑011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255478-011 [Google Scholar]
  32. Marková, Ivana, Per Linell, Michele Grossen and Anne Salazar-Orvig
    2007Dialogue in Focus Groups: Exploring Socially Shared knowledge. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Máte, Slovo [Google Scholar]
  34. Munson, Wayne
    1993All talk: The talkshow in media culture. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Müller-Wood, Anja
    2022 “Introduction. When dialogue fails (and why)”. InLanguage and Dialogue12 (1): 1–11. 10.1075/ld.00108.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00108.int [Google Scholar]
  36. Priest, Patricia J.
    1995Public Intimacies. Talk Show Participants and Tell-All TV. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Rautajoki, Hanna
    2012 “Membership categorization as a tool for moral casting in TV discussion: The dramaturgical consequentiality of guest introductions”. Discourse Studies14 (2): 243–260. 10.1177/1461445611433637
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611433637 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation”. Language50 (4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  39. 1978 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation”. InJ. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Svoboda, Michal
    2019, September27. “Drsná dohra včerejší Jílkové: Celý pořad zrušte. I vydlabaná dýně je chytřejší než Foldyna”. Eurozprávy.cz. Retrieved from: https://eurozpravy.cz/domaci/politika/drsna-dohra-vcerejsi-jilkove-cely-porad-zruste-i-vydlabana-dyne-je-chytrejsi-nez-foldyna.f97742a6/
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Swearingen, Jan
    1990Dialogue and dialectic: The logic of conversation and the interpretation of logic. InMaranhão (1990), 47–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Šťástková, Andrea
    2018, November4. “Máte slovo s M. Jílkovou… když se o něj poperete”. E15.cz. Retrieved from: https://www.e15.cz/the-student-times/mate-slovo-s-m-jilkovou-kdyz-se-o-nej-poperete-1353106
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Thiesmeyer, Lynn J.
    (ed.) 2003Discourse and Silencing: Representation and the Language of Displacement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.5 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tolson, Andrew
    2007Media talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Van Bijnen, Emma
    2019 “Dialogical power negotiations in conflict mediation”. Language and Dialogue9 (1): 84–105. 10.1075/ld.00033.bij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00033.bij [Google Scholar]
  46. Van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Vanhaeght, Anne-Sofie and Donders, Karen
    (2021) “Audience participation in public service media. From an instrumental to a purposeful vision”. AdComunica, 45–70. 10.6035/2174‑0992.2021.21.4
    https://doi.org/10.6035/2174-0992.2021.21.4 [Google Scholar]
  48. Walton, Douglas N.
    1999 “The fallacy of many questions: on the notions of complexity, loadedness and unfair entrapment in interrogative theory”. Argumentation13 (4): 379–383. 10.1023/A:1007727929716
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007727929716 [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