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



The goal of this special issue is to investigate the forms and functions of dialogicity in political discourse. Starting with the premise that the boundaries between monologue and dialogue are blurred in contemporary political discourse in general and in mediated political discourse in particular, it sets up to explore how dialogical features, manifest in situated discourse in various degrees of explicitness, are exploited by participants in the political arena, be they professional politicians, semi-professional activists or ordinary people, for various purposes.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aristotle
    Aristotle 1992The Politics. Translated byT. A. Sinclair, revised and re-presented byT. J. Saunders. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
    1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Translated byCaryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 1984Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed. & transl. byCaryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 10.5749/j.ctt22727z1
    https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt22727z1 [Google Scholar]
  4. 1986Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Translated byVern W. McGee; ed. byMichael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Buber, Martin
    1959Besod Siach (The Dialogue on Man and Being). Hebrew translation byHugo Bergman, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1965 “Dialogue.” InBetween Man and Man, translation byRonald Gregor Smith. London: Macmillan. [First published 1947 by Routledge and Kegan Paul].
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1970I and Thou. Translated byWalter Kauffman, New York: Touchstone.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cap, Piotr, and Urszula Okulska
    2013 “Analyzing genres in political communication: An introduction.” InAnalyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice, ed. byPiotr Cap and Urszula Okulska1–26. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.01cap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.01cap [Google Scholar]
  9. Charaudau, Patrick
    2002 “Rôle.” InDictionnaire d’Analyse du Discours, ed. byPatrick Charaudeau and Dominique Maingueneau, 513–515. Paris: Éd. Le Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner
    1997 “Discourse and politics.” InDiscourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2: Discourse as Social Interaction, ed. byTeun A. van Dijk, 206–230. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2002 “Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse.” InPolitics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. byPaul Chilton and Christina Schäffner, 1–44. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.4.03chi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.03chi [Google Scholar]
  12. Chilton, Paul
    2004Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dascal, Marcelo
    1977 “Conversational relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics11: 309–328. 10.1016/0378‑2166(77)90026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(77)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dascal, Marcelo, and Asher Idan
    1989 “From individual to collective action.” InThe philosophy of Leo Apostel – descriptive and critical essays, ed. byFernand Vandamme and Raoul Pinxten, 133–148. Ghent: Communication and Cognition.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fetzer, Anita
    2013 “The multilayered and multifaceted nature of political discourse.” InThe Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across Cultures, ed. byAnita Fetzer, 1–18. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.228.01fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.228.01fet [Google Scholar]
  16. 2019 “Some food for thought on the theory and practice of internet pragmatics.” Internet Pragmatics2 (1): 34–40. 10.1075/ip.00019.fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00019.fet [Google Scholar]
  17. Fetzer, Anita, and Peter Bull
    2013 “Political interviews in context.” InAnalyzing Genres in Political Communication, ed. byPiotr Cap and Urszula Okulska (eds.), 73–99. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.04fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.04fet [Google Scholar]
  18. Fetzer, Anita, and Elda Weizman
    2015 “Following up across contexts and discourse domains: Introduction.” InFollow-ups in Political Discourse, ed. byElda Weizman and Anita Fetzer, ix–xix. 10.1075/dapsac.60.001int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.001int [Google Scholar]
  19. Fetzer, Anita, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence N. Berlin
    (eds.) 2015The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-ups. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.259
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fetzer, Anita, and Elda Weizman
    2018 “‘What I would say to John and everyone like John is …’: The construction of ordinariness through quotations in mediated political discourse.” Discourse and Society29 (5): 495–513. 10.1177/0957926518770259
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518770259 [Google Scholar]
  21. Friedman, Maurice
    2005 “Martin Buber and Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogue of Voices and the Word that is Spoken”. InDialogue as a Means of Collective Communication, ed. byBela Banathly and Patrick M. Jenlink, 29–40. New York: Kluwer. 10.1007/0‑306‑48690‑3_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48690-3_3 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goffman, Erving
    1959The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Penguin Books
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gruber, Helmut
    2013 “Genres in political discourse: the case of the ‘inaugural speech’ by Austrian chancellors.” InAnalyzing Genres in Political Communication, ed. byPiotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 29–71. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.03gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.03gru [Google Scholar]
  24. 2013 “Genres in political discourse: The case of the ‘inaugural speech’ of Austrian chancellors.” InAnalyzing Genres in Political Communication, ed. byPiotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 73–99. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.03gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.03gru [Google Scholar]
  25. 2019 “Genres, media, and recontextualization practices: Re-considering basic concepts of genre theory in the age of social media.” Internet Pragmatics2 (1): 54–82. 10.1075/ip.00023.gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00023.gru [Google Scholar]
  26. Horsbøl, Anders
    2018 “United we diverge: Politician Facebook responses to terror attacks.” InDoing Politics: Discursivity, Performativity and Mediation in Political Discourse, ed. byMichael Kranert and Geraldine Horan, 235–258. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.80.10hor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.80.10hor [Google Scholar]
  27. Hymes, Dell
    1974Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kampf, Zohar
    2020 “‘Do you condemn?’ Negotiating power relations through (in)direct questions and answers design in ethno-political interviews.” InThe Discourse of Indirectness: Cues, Voices and Functions, ed. byZohar Livnat, Pnina Shukrun-Nagar, and Galia Hirsch, 231–251. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.316.10kam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.316.10kam [Google Scholar]
  29. Kohn, Ayelet
    2016 “The Polyphonic Framing of Ehud Olmert.” Israel Studies in Language and Society9 (1–2): 116–141. [In Hebrew.]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kohn, Ayelet, and Rachel Weissbrod
    2020 “Anne Frank’s Diary – The Graphic Adaptation as a case of ‘indirect translation’: Integrating the principle of relevance with Bakhtinian concepts.” InThe Discourse of Indirectness: Cues, Voices and Functions, ed. byZohar Livnat, Pnina Shukrun-Nagar, and Galia Hirsch, 119–142. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.316.06wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.316.06wei [Google Scholar]
  31. Kranert, Michael, and Geraldine Horan
    2018 “Introduction: ‘Doing politics’ – recent developments in political discourse analysis.” InDoing Politics: Discursivity, Performativity and Mediation in Political Discourse, ed. byMichael Kranert and Geraldine Horan, 1–28. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.80.01kra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.80.01kra [Google Scholar]
  32. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1992 “Activity types and language.” In Talk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Livnat, Zohar
    2012Dialogue, Science and Academic Writing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.13 [Google Scholar]
  34. Livnat, Zohar, and Ayelet Kohn
    2018 “Morality, loyalty and eloquence: Conversational challenges and resources in a televised confrontational dialogue.” Journal of Language and Politics17 (3): 405–427. 10.1075/jlp.17001.liv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17001.liv [Google Scholar]
  35. Livnat, Zohar, and Beverly Lewin
    2016 “The interpersonal strand of political speech: Recruiting the audience in PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s speeches.” Language and Dialogue6 (2): 275–305. 10.1075/ld.6.2.04liv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.2.04liv [Google Scholar]
  36. Mey, Jacob L.
    2000When Voices Clash: A Study in Literary Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2015 “Sequentiality and follow-ups.” InThe Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups, ed. byAnita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence Berlin, 17–31. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.259.01mey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259.01mey [Google Scholar]
  38. Morson, Gary Saul, and Caryl Emerson
    1990Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9780804765961
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804765961 [Google Scholar]
  39. Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1969The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated byJohn Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R.
    1922The Andaman Islanders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Scannell, Paddy
    1991 “Introduction: The Relevance of Talk.” InBroadcast talk, ed. byPaddy Scannell, 1–13. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Searle, John
    1992 “Conversation.” In(On) Searle on Conversation, ed. byHerman Parret and Jef Verschueren, 7–29. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.21.02sea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.21.02sea [Google Scholar]
  43. Searle, John R.
    2010Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tolson, Andrew
    2006Media talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Vanderveken, Daniel
    1984 “What is an illocutionary force?” inDialogue: An Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. byMarcelo Dascal, 185–207. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbcs.1.19van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.1.19van [Google Scholar]
  46. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1985 “Introduction: Dialogue as Discourse and Interaction.” InHandbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. byTeun A. van Dijk, Vol.31, 1–11. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 1997 “What is political discourse analysis?” Belgian Journal of Linguistics11 (1): 11–52. 10.1075/bjl.11.03dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.03dij [Google Scholar]
  48. Weizman, Elda
    1998 “Individual intentions and collective purpose: The case of news interviews.” InDialogue Analysis61, Vol.21, ed. bySvětlá Čmejrková, Jana Hoffmannová, Olga Müllerová, and Jindra Světlá, 269–280. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110965049‑030
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110965049-030 [Google Scholar]
  49. Weizman, Elda, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka
    1992 “Ordinary misunderstanding.” InCurrent Advances in Semantic Theory, ed. byMaxim I. Stamenov, 419–434. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.73.34wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.73.34wei [Google Scholar]
  50. Weizman, Elda
    2008Positioning in Media Dialogue: The Case of News Interviews on Israeli Television. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.3 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2013 “Political irony: Constructing reciprocal positioning in the news interview.” InThe Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across Cultures, ed. byAnita Fetzer, 167–190. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.228.09wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.228.09wei [Google Scholar]
  52. 2018 “Commenting on in-memoriam columns: Juggling with deliberative and epidictic norms.” Internet Pragmatics1 (1): 161–183. 10.1075/ip.00008.wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00008.wei [Google Scholar]
  53. Weizman, Elda, and Anita Fetzer
    (eds.) 2015Follow-ups in Political Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.60
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2018 “Constructing ordinariness in online journals: a corpus-based study in the Israeli context.” Israel Studies in Language and Society11 (1): 23–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2019 “Introduction.” InThe Construction of Ordinariness in Media Genres, ed. byAnita Fetzer and Elda Weizman, 1–17. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.307.01wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.307.01wei [Google Scholar]
  56. Widdicombe, Sue
    1998 “‘But you don’t class yourself’: The interactional management of category membership and non-membership.” InIdentities in Talk, ed. byCharles Antaki and Sue Widdicombe, 52–70. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Wilson, Deirdre
    2012 “Metarepresentation in linguistic communication.” InMeaning and Relevance, ed. byDeirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber, 230–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [First published inDan Sperber (ed.) 2000 Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000, 411–48]. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.014 [Google Scholar]
  58. Zimmerman, Don
    1998 “Identity, context and interaction.” InIdentities in Talk, ed. byCharles Antaki and Sue Widdicombe, 87–106. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
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