Interpersonal relationships in the televised electoral debate

Boicu, Ruxandra (2010): Interpersonal relationships in the televised electoral debate.

Abstract

Abstract

The present study is devoted to the analysis of the interpersonal relationships induced by the adversarial verbal exchanges that characterize a televised electoral debate. The studied electoral debate opposed the presidential candidates Ségolène Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy. It was broadcast in France, in May 2007. In keeping with the French tradition, the format allotted a generous space to the face-to-face interaction between Royal and Sarkozy. Each candidate had the opportunity to direct aggressive questions to the interlocutor. This is the reason for which this media event has been selected for this research. At the same time, the important number of interrogative utterances launched in the debate by all the participants present in the studio justifies the careful scrutiny of questioning in adversarial environments. A consistent section of the chapter presents the main concepts derived from the theories that articulate the foundation of the proposed empirical investigation. Thus, the configuration of the adversarial context is essential to the analysis of the televised electoral debate. The broadcasting of the electoral debate is interpreted as cause and explanation of the increased tension between the politicians engaged in a zero-sum game. The adversarial context is the frame within which the candidates choose the target of their verbal attacks, namely, the public image of the political adversary. The image of self is both exposed and vulnerable as it represents the main concern for all the participants in the broadcast. Relying on statistics, specialized literature demonstrates that presidential candidates are mainly appreciated for their efficacy in the battle on image, rather than for their argumentative competence. In order to explain image attacks the researcher needs the interpretive apparatus and the analytic instruments offered by the theories of impoliteness. That clarifies the interest for their evolution from the Goffmanian concept of “face” to the premises of the recent theories of im/politeness and relational work. The classic theory of linguistic politeness created by Brown and Levinson (1967) is duly described as inspirational for impoliteness analysts such as Culpeper, Bousfield or Kienpointner. The core of the research is the study of questions. That is why the chapter contains descriptions of several formal classifications, according to different principles. Likewise, the questioning speech act is explained as initiative turn in face-to-face interaction, forcing the interlocutor to provide an answer. Other theoretical considerations consist in comparative approaches of formal types of questions, without neglecting the functions specific to them. The aim of their inclusion in the chapter is to emphasize the features that questions receive in various environments. Analysts agree that, in established adversarialness, they become a means of imposing power (Wang 2006), a disaffiliative activity (Steensig and Drew, 2008) or even a challenge (Koshik 2003). This is one of the main ideas that underlie this empirical research. The objective of the research is to order the questions in the data base according to their potential as impolite speech acts. They are analysed as manifestations of off-record impoliteness (Bousfield 2008). There is a double research hypothesis: as the questions are subject to three criteria of classification, the most numerous class members according to each criterion will coincide with the most impolite types of questions. At the intersection of the results of the three measurements, there must be the prototype of the most impolite question in the corpus.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Keywords: adversarial questions, (im)politeness, debate mediator, presidential candidate, discourse
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B0 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B3 - History of Economic Thought: Individuals; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B3 - History of Economic Thought: Individuals > B31 - Individuals; L - Industrial Organization > L8 - Industry Studies: Services > L82 - Entertainment ; Media; Y - Miscellaneous Categories > Y8 - Related Disciplines

References

REFERENCES

Aime, D. and W. L. Benoit. “2004 Illinois U.S. Senate Debates: Keyes Versus Obama”. American Behavioral Scientist 49 (2005): 343-354.

Benoit, W. L. “Image Repair, Discourse and Crisis Communication”. Public Relations Review 23 (1997): 177-186.

Blas-Arroyo, J. L. “’Diga por qué, diga porqué...’. La repetición en el debate político-electoral”. Revista de Investigación Lingüística Vol. II, nr. 1 (1999): 5-42.

Blas-Arroyo, J. L. “’No diga chorradas…’ La descortesía en el debate político cara a cara. Una aproximación pragma-variacionista”. Oralia 4 (2001): 9–45.

Blas-Arroyo, J. L. “‘Perdóneme que se lo diga, pero vuelve usted a faltar a la verdad, señor González’: form and function of politic verbal behaviour in face-to-face Spanish political debates”. Discourse & Society Vol. 14-4 (2003): 395-423.

Boicu, R. “Modal Verbs and Politeness Strategies in Political Discourse”. Integrated skills and multilingualism for better cultural awareness and employability, 180-191. Bucureşti: Editura ASE, 2008.

Boicu, R.“Identificarea politicianului în interacţiune”. In Lucrările celui de al doilea simpozion internaţional de lingvistică (28-29, noiembrie 2008), edited by N. Saramandu, M. Nevaci and C. I. Radu, 505-516. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 2009.

Bousfield, D. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008.

Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Carlin, D. B., E. Morris and S. Smith. “The Influence of Format and Questions on Candidates’ Strategic Argument Choices in the 2000 Presidential Debates”. American Behavioral Scientist 44 (2001): 2196-2220.

Clayman, S. E. and J. Heritage. “Questioning Presidents: Journalistic Deference and Adversarialness in the Press Conferences of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan”. Journal of Communication, December (2002): 749-775.

Culpeper, J. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”. Journal of Pragmatics 25-3 (1996): 349-367.

Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield and A. Wichmann. “Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects”. Journal of Pragmatics 35 /10-11 (2003): 1545-1579.

Culpeper, J. “Impoliteness and The Weakest Link”. Journal of Politeness Research 1/1 (2005): 35-72.

Garcia-Pastor, M. D. “Political campaigns as zero-sum games: impoliteness and power in candidates’ exchanges”. In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, edited by D. Bousfield and M. A. Locher, 101-123. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008.

Ghiglione, R. and M. Bromberg. Discours politique et télévision. La vérité de l’heure. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1998.

Goffman, E. (ed.) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1967.

Harris, S. “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse”. Discourse & Society 12 (2001): 451–72.

Hinck, E. A. and S. S. Hinck. “Politeness strategies in the 1992 vice presidential and presidential debates”, Argumentation and Advocacy 38 (2002): 234-250.

Kaid, L. L. (ed.). Handbook of Political Communication Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2004).

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. Les Actes de langage dans le discours. Paris: Ed. Nathan, 2001. Kienpointner, M. “Varieties of Rudeness. Types and Functions of Impolite Utterances”. Functions of Language 4-2 (1997): 251-287. Koshik, I. “Wh-questions Used as Challenges”, Discourse & Society 5/1 (2003): 51–77.

Lakoff, R. T. “The Logic of Politeness, or Minding your p’s and q’s”. Chicago Linguistics Society 9 (1973): 292-305.

Leech, G. N. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman, 1983.

Locher, M. A. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004.

Muntigl, P. and W. Turnbull. “Conversational structure and facework in arguing”. Journal of Pragmatics 29 (1998): 225-256.

Nel, N. Le débat télévisé. Paris: Armand Colin, 1990. Ockrent, C. Duel. Comment la télévision façonne un president. Paris: Hachette, 1988.

Steensig, J. and Drew, P. “Introduction: Questioning and Affiliation/Disaffiliation in Interaction” , Discourse Studies 10 (2008): 5–15.

Thoveron, G. Comunicarea politică azi. Bucureşti : Editura Antet, 1996.

Tracy, K. and J. Robles. (2009) “Questions, questioning and institutional practices: an introduction”. Discourse Studies 11-2 (2009): 131-152.

Trent, S. J. and R. V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication. Principles and Practices. New York, Toronto and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC, 2004.

Trognon, A. and J. Larrue. “Les débats politiques télévisés”. In Pragmatique du discours politique, edited by A. Trognon and J. Larrue, 44-126. Paris: Armand Colin, 1994.

Wang, J. “Questions and the exercise of power”. Discourse & Society 17-4 (2006): 529-548.

Archer, D. “Scaling intentionality: a new (Goffman-inspired) face-work model”. Pasty Presentation (2009). http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/linguistics/groups/pasty/do cs/archer_handout.pdf.