Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews

Text and Talk

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 3-37

  Bull, Peter ^a   Fetzer, Anita ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b LEUPHANA UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Equivocation; Footing; Personal pronouns; Political interviews; Questions; Strategic communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247344539     PISSN: 18607330     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.002     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Austin, J. L. (1980). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
2. Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., and Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
3. Bazzanella, C. (2002). The significance of context in comprehension: The we case. In Context in Context, B. Edmonds and V. Akman (eds.). Foundations of Science 7: 239-254
4. Bell, A. and P. Garret (eds.) (1998). Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell
5. Blum-Kulka, S. (1983). The dynamics of political interviews. TEXT 3 (2): 131-153
6. Brown, P. (1995). Politeness strategies and the attribution of intentions: The case of Tzeltal irony. In Social Intelligence and Interaction, E. N. Goody (ed.), 153-174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
7. Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Style in Language, T. Sebeok (ed.), 253-276. Cambridge: MIT Press
8. Bull, P. E. (1994). On identifying questions, replies and non-replies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13: 115-131
9. -(2003). The Microanalysis of Political Communication: Claptrap and Ambiguity. London: Routledge
10. Bull, P. E. and Mayer, K. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology 14: 651-666
11. Chilton, P. and Schäffner, C. (1997). Discourse and politics. In Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, vol. 2, T. A. van Dijk (ed.), 206-230. London: Sage
12. -(2002). Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse. In Politics as Text and Talk: Analytical Approaches to Political Discourse, P. Chilton and C. Schäffner (eds.), 1-41. Amsterdam: Benjamins
13. Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1992). Referring as a collaborative process. In Intentions in Communication, P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (eds.), 463-493. Cambridge: MIT Press
14. Clayman, S. (1988). Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems 35: 474-492
15. De Fina, A. (1995). Pronominal choice, identity and solidarity in political discourse. Text 15: 379-410
16. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Arnold
17. -(2001). New Labour, New Language. London: Routledge
18. Fetzer, A. (2000). Negotiating validity claims in political interviews. Text 20 (4): 1-46
19. -(2004). Recontextualizing Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: Benjamins
20. Givón, T. (1993). English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins
21. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
22. Greatbatch, D. (1998). Conversation analysis: Neutralism in British news interviews. In Approaches to Media Discourse, A. Bell and P. Garret (eds.), 163-185. Oxford: Blackwell
23. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Dimensions of discourse analysis: Grammar. In Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 2, T. A. van Dijk (ed.), 29-56. New York: Academic Press
24. -(1994). Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold
25. Hamilton, M. A. and Mineo, P. J. (1998). A framework for understanding equivocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 17: 3-35
26. Harris, S. (1991). Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In Broadcast Talk, P. Scannell (ed.), 76-99. London: Sage
27. Hausendorf, H. and Kesselheim, W. (2002). The communicative construction of group identities: A basic mechanism of social categorization. In Us and Others, A. Duszak (ed.), 265-289. Amsterdam: Benjamins
28. Helmbrecht, J. (2002). Grammar and function of we. In Us and Others, A. Duszak (ed.), 31-50. Amsterdam: Benjamins
29. Inigo-Mora, I. (2004). On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics 3: 27-52
30. Janney, R. W. (2002). Cotext as context: Vague answers in court. Language and Communication (Special issue: Contexts of Social Action) 22 (4): 457-475
31. Jucker, A. (1986). News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins
32. Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1994). A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman
33. Maitland, K. and Wilson, J. (1987). Ideological conflict and pronominal resolution. Journal of Pragmatics 11: 495-512
34. Mühlhäusler, P. and Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
35. Pyykkö, R. (2002). Who is 'us' in Russian political discourse. In Us and Others, A. Duszak (ed.), 233-248. Amsterdam: Benjamins
36. Scannell, P. (ed.) (1991). Broadcast Talk. London: Routledge
37. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
38. Skarzynska, K. (2002). We and they in Polish political discourse. In Us and Others, A. Duszak (ed.), 249-264. Amsterdam: Benjamins
39. Wilson, J. (1990). Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell