(Co-)Constructing Interpersonally Sensitive Activities Across Institutional Settings
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This investigation is a conversation-analytic study of Mexican Spanish news interviews. It focuses on the question-answer adjacency pair in which interviewees (IE) are questioned, directly or indirectly, by the interviewers (IR) about the legality of their wealth in light of corruption allegations. The questions examined display strategies to generate news: content questions elicit a contrast; statement formulated questions followed by a request for confirmation give the opportunity to accept or deny the allegations, in contrast to statements which create a confrontational context. Non-type-conforming answers evade answering and type-conforming answers contain resistance elements. The IE minimize the allegations by repairing and providing a downgraded version, or use other resources to suggest that their activities are of common order, hence not newsworthy. The IE display evasion by addressing only certain elements of the question and counter the allegations by casting doubt on the professionalism of the IR.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Atkinson, John , and Paul Drew
    1979Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)
    2011 Mexican Poll Contender Peña Nieto Falters at Book Event. 6 December 2011. [online] Accessed on30 August 2016from www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-16044216
  3. Bull, Peter
    1994 “On Identifying Questions, Replies, and Non-replies in Political Interviews.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology13 (2): 115–131. doi: 10.1177/0261927X94132002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94132002 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bull, Peter , and Kate Mayer
    1993 “How Not to Answer Questions in Political Interviews”. Political Psychology14 (4): 651–666. doi: 10.2307/3791379
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3791379 [Google Scholar]
  5. Clayman, Steven E
    1988 “Displaying Neutrality in Television News Interviews.” Social Problems35 (4): 474–492. doi: 10.2307/800598
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800598 [Google Scholar]
  6. 1992 “Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News Interview Discourse.” InTalk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage , 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2001 “Answers and Evasions.” Language and Society30 (3): 403–442.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Clayman, Steven E. , and John Heritage
    2002The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clementson, David E
    2015 “Why Do We Think Politicians Are So Evasive? Insight From Theories of Equivocation and Deception, with a Content Analysis of U.S. Presidential Debates, 1996–2012.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology35 (3): 247–267. doi: 10.1177/0261927X15600732
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15600732 [Google Scholar]
  10. Drew, Paul , and John Heritage
    1992Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Garibay Kintana, Ángel M
    1964La Literatura de los Aztecas. Mexico, DF: Joaquín Mortiz.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goodwin, Charles , and Marjorie H. Goodwin
    1987 “Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments.” IPRA Papers in Pragmatics1 (1): 1–54. doi: 10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo [Google Scholar]
  13. Harris, Sandra
    1991 “Evasive Action: How Politicians Respond to Questions in Political Interviews.” InBroadcast Talk, ed. by Paddy Scannell , 76–99. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Heritage, John
    2012 “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 30–57. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  15. Jefferson, Gail
    1990 “List Construction as a Task and Resource.” InInteraction Competence, ed. by George Psathas , 63–93. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2004 “Glossary of Transcription Conventions.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies From the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner , 14–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125 [Google Scholar]
  17. Paz, Octavio
    1989 [1950]El Laberinto de la Soledad [The Labyrinth of Solitude]. Mexico, DF: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Actions, ed. by John M. Atkinson and John Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review68: 939–967. doi: 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  20. Sacks, Harvey
    1987 “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” InTalk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button and John R.E. Lee , 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1992Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Sacks, Harvey , and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    1979 “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas , 15–21. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Schegloff, Emanuel. A
    1996 “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-interaction: A Partial Sketch of Systematic.” InStudies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara A. Fox , 437–485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.33.14sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.14sch [Google Scholar]
  24. 2007Sequence Organisation in Interaction: A Prime in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  25. Vázquez Carranza, Ariel
    2013 “Responding and Clarifying: An Analysis of pues as a Sequential Marker in Mexican Spanish Talk-in-interactions.” Spanish in Context10 (2): 284–309. doi: 10.1075/sic.10.2.05vaz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.10.2.05vaz [Google Scholar]
  26. 2014Sequential Markers in Mexican Spanish Talk: A Conversation Analytic Study. PhD Thesis. University of Essex.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): answers; evasion; Mexican Spanish; news interviews; questions
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