1887
Volume 7, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper details aspects related to the “face” – one’s social standing, reputation, and dignity – during interactions between interviewers and interviewees (both politicians and nonpoliticians) in more than 5,000 questions posed during three different broadcast interview programs aired throughout 2012–2013 in Japan. The interactions between interviewers and interviewees are also considered as a dialogic phenomenon in which interlocutors are actors who act and react. By examining the toughness of questions posed in these programs the paper explores their extent of threat to face of the interviewees and the facets associated with this threat, including features related to the interviewees themselves. The results indicate strong evidence of socio-cultural norms and values that affect interviewers’ relationship with politicians and other sources.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.7.3.02fel
2017-11-27
2018-11-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bavelas, Janet Beavin , Alex Black , Nicole Chovil , and Jennifer Mullett
    1990Equivocal Communication. Newbury Park: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
    1978 “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” InQuestions and Politeness, ed. by Ester N. Goody , 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bull, Peter
    1994 “On Identifying Questions, Replies and Non-Replies in Political Interview.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology13: 115–131. doi: 10.1177/0261927X94132002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94132002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bull, Peter and Ofer Feldman
    2011 “Invitations to Affiliative Audience Responses in Japanese Political Speeches.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology30: 158–176. doi: 10.1177/0261927X10397151
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X10397151 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bull, Peter and Pam Wells
    2012 “Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology31: 30–48. doi: 10.1177/0261927X11425034
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11425034 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bull, P. E. , Judy Elliott , Derrol Palmer , and Libby Walker
    1996 “Why Politicians are Three-Faced: The Face Model of Political Interviews.” British Journal of Social Psychology35: 267–284. doi: 10.1111/j.2044‑8309.1996.tb01097.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01097.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen, Jacob
    1960 “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement20: 37–46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 [Google Scholar]
  9. Feldman, Ofer
    1998 “The Political Language of Japan: Decoding What Politicians Mean from What They Say.” InPolitically Speaking: A Worldwide Examination of Language Used in the Public Sphere, ed. by Ofer Feldman and Christ’l De Landtsheer , 43–55. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2004Talking Politics in Japan Today. Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Feldman, Ofer and Peter Bull
    2012 “Understanding Audience Affiliation in Response to Political Speeches in Japan. Language and Dialogue3: 375–397. doi: 10.1075/ld.2.3.04fel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.2.3.04fel [Google Scholar]
  12. Feldman, Ofer and Ken Kinoshita
    2017 “Do Important Questions Demand Respectful Replies? Analyzing Televised Political Interviews in Japan.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication27: 121–157. doi: 10.1075/japc.27.1.07fel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.27.1.07fel [Google Scholar]
  13. Feldman, Ofer , Ken Kinoshita , and Peter Bull
    2015 “Culture or Communicative Conflict? The Analysis of Equivocation in Broadcast Japanese Political Interviews.” Journal of Language & Social Psychology34: 65–89. doi: 10.1177/0261927X14557567
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14557567 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2016 “‘Ducking and Diving:’ How Political Issues Affect Equivocation in Japanese Political Interviews.” Japanese Journal of Political Science17: 141–167. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109916000013
    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109916000013 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goffman, Erving
    1955/1967 “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry18: 213–231. doi: 10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1959/1990The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Harmondsworth. (Reprinted, London: Penguin Books 1990).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 1967 “Where the Action Is.” InInteraction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour, ed. by Erving Goffman , 149–270. Garden City, New York: Anchor.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Haugh, Michael
    2007 “Emic Conceptualizations of (Im)politeness and Face in Japanese: Implications for the Discursive Negotiation of Second Language Learner Identities.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 657–680. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hirokawa, Randy Y.
    1987 “Communication Within the Japanese Business Organization.” InCommunication Theory From Eastern and Western Perspectives, ed. by D. Lawrence Kincaid , 137–149. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Holtgraves, Thomas M.
    2002Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jucker, Andreas
    1986News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pb.vii.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.vii.4 [Google Scholar]
  22. Nakatsugawa, Satomi and Jiro Takai
    2013 “Keeping Conflicts Latent: «Salient» versus «Non-Salient» Interpersonal Conflict Management Strategies of Japanese.” Intercultural Communication Studies22: 43–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Weigand, Edda
    2010Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2016 “How to Verify a Theory.” Language and Dialogue6: 349–369. doi: 10.1075/ld.6.3.01wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.3.01wei [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.7.3.02fel
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.7.3.02fel
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