1887
Volume 13, Issue 5
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines the contextual constraints and requirements of discursive action in question-answer-sequences based discourse genres (interviews, Prime Minister’s Questions, People’s Prime Minister’s Questions) in mediated political discourse. It considers the multilayeredness of participation and pluralism of discursive action on the one hand, and the delimiting frame of the dialogic discourse genres on the other. It shows that both have a decisive impact on the participants’ meaning-making processes in context: the inherently unbounded participation framework contributes to pluralism of discursive action, while genre- and media constraints narrow down the scope of production and interpretation. This does not only hold for the stage at which a discursive action occurs in the discourse, but also for its degree of explicitness with regard to presuppositions and felicity conditions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.21025.fet
2022-12-06
2023-01-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, John L.
    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. Bateson, Gregory
    1972Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Chandler Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1983 The Dynamics of Political Interviews. Text3(2): 131–153.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bull, Peter, Anita Fetzer and Dániel Z. Kádár
    2020 Calling Mr Speaker ‘Mr Speaker’: The strategic use of ritual references to the Speaker of the UK House of Commons. Pragmatics30(1): 64–87. 10.1075/prag.19020.bul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19020.bul [Google Scholar]
  5. Chilton, Paul and Christina Schäffner
    (eds.) 2002Politics as Talk and Text: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, Billy
    2013Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139034104
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034104 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, Herbert H. and Thomas B. Carlson
    1982 Hearers and Speech Acts. Language58(2): 332–373. 10.1353/lan.1982.0042
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1982.0042 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dynel, Marta
    2017 Participation as audience design. InPragmatics of Social Media, ed. byC. R. Hoffmann and W. Bublitz, 61–82. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110431070‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431070-003 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fairclough, Norman
    1995Media Discourse. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fetzer, Anita
    2000 Negotiating Validity Claims in Political Interviews. Text20(4): 1–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. 2017 The Dynamics of Discourse: Quantity Meets Quality. InImplicitness: From Lexis to Discourse, ed. byP. Cap and M. Dynel, 235–257. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.276.11fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.11fet [Google Scholar]
  13. 2018 Discourse Pragmatics: Communicative Action Meets Discourse Analysis. InPragmatics and its Interfaces, ed. byC. Ilie and N. Norrick, 33–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.294.03fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.294.03fet [Google Scholar]
  14. 2020 “And I quote”: Forms and Functions of Quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions. Journal of Pragmatics1571: 89–100. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2021 Computer-Mediated Discourse in Context: Pluralism of Communicative Action and Discourse Common Ground. InApproaches to Internet Pragmatics. Theory and Practice, ed. byC. Xie, F. Yus, and H. Haberland, 47–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.318.02fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.318.02fet [Google Scholar]
  16. 2022 Role of Context. InCambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics, ed. byI. Kecskes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108884303.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108884303.007 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fetzer, Anita and Peter Bull
    2008 ”Well, I answer it by simply inviting you to look at the evidence”. The Strategic Use of Pronouns in Political Interviews. Journal of Language and Politics7(2): 271–289. 10.1075/jlp.7.2.05fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.7.2.05fet [Google Scholar]
  18. Fetzer, Anita and Elda Weizman
    2015 Introduction. InFollow-Ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across Discourse Domains, ed. byE. Weizman and A. Fetzer, Anita, vii–xvii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.60.001int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.001int [Google Scholar]
  19. 2018 “What I would say to John and everyone like John is …”: The Construction of Ordinariness through Quotations in Mediated Political Discourse. Discourse & Society29(5): 1–19. 10.1177/0957926518770259
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518770259 [Google Scholar]
  20. Garfinkel, Harold
    1994Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Givón, T.
    1993English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Greatbatch, David
    1988 A Turn-Taking System for British News Interviews. Language in Society171: 401–430. 10.1017/S0047404500012963
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012963 [Google Scholar]
  23. Grice, Herbert Paul
    1975 Logic and Conversation. InSyntax and Semantics, vol.III1, ed. byP. Cole, and J. L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gumperz, John J.
    1996 The Linguistic and Cultural Relativity of Inference. InRethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. byJ. J. Gumperz, and S. C. Levinson, 374–406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2003 Response Essay. InLanguage and Interaction. Discussions with John J. Gumperz, ed. byS. L. Eerdmans, C. L. Prevignano and P. J. Thibault, 105–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.117.09gum
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.117.09gum [Google Scholar]
  26. Kampf, Zohar
    2013 Mediated Performatives. InHandbook of Pragmatics, ed. byJ. Verschueren and J. Östman, 1 – 24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hop.17.med1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.17.med1 [Google Scholar]
  27. Landert, Daniela
    2017 Participation as User Involvement. InPragmatics of Social Media, ed. byC. R. Hoffmann and W. Bublitz, 31–59. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110431070‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431070-002 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lauerbach, Gerda and Anita Fetzer
    2007 Introduction. InPolitical Discourse in the Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, ed. byA. Fetzer and G. Lauerbach, 3–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.160.03lau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.160.03lau [Google Scholar]
  29. Levinson, Stephen. C.
    1979 Activity Types and Language. Linguistics171: 365–399. 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lewinski, Marcin and Mark Aakhus
    2014 Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry. Argumentation281: 161–185. 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  31. Mey, Jacob L.
    2011 Speech Acts in Context. InContext and Contexts: Parts meet Whole?, ed. byA. Fetzer and E. Oishi, 171–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.209.11mey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.209.11mey [Google Scholar]
  32. Sbisà, Marina
    2013 Some Remarks about Speech Act Pluralism. InPerspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy, ed. byA. Capone , 227–244. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑01011‑3_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01011-3_10 [Google Scholar]
  33. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  34. 1983Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173452
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173452 [Google Scholar]
  35. Searle, John R.
    2010Making the Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Van Dijk, Teun
    2000 Parliamentary Debates. InRacism at the Top: Parliamentary Discourses on Ethnic Issues, ed. byR. Wodak and T. van Dijk, 45–79. Klagenfurt: Drava.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Weizman, Elda
    2008Positioning in Media Dialogue: Negotiating Roles in the News Interview. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.3 [Google Scholar]
  38. Weizman, Elda and Anita Fetzer
    2019 Introduction. InThe Construction of ‘Ordinariness’ across Media Genres, ed. byA. Fetzer and E. Weizman, 1–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.307.01wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.307.01wei [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.21025.fet
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.21025.fet
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