“Slipperiness,Evasion,and Ambiguity”

Abstract

Noncommittal political discourse in televised political interviews is examined in the context of Bavelas, Black, Chovil, and Mullett's theory of equivocation. The two central propositions of this theory are shown to be well supported. Bull and others' reconceptualization of the theory in terms of face and face management is also discussed. It is argued that the latter is more parsimonious in its explanation of equivocal discourse in political interviews. Furthermore, it may be extended to those instances in which politicians do reply to questions, and to the assessment of the interview performance of both interviewers and politicians. In addition, it provides a useful conceptual framework for future research on nonequivocal political discourse. Overall, it is proposed that in the analysis of political discourse, the main propositions of equivocation theory can be subsumed within the wider conceptual framework of face and face management.

Keywords

commitment equivocation facework political discourse televised political interviews news interviews

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bavelas, J.B. , Black, A. , Bryson, L. , & Mullett, J. (1988). Political equivocation: A situational explanation . Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 137-145.

Bavelas, J.B. , Black, A. , Chovil, N. , & Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brown, P. , & Levinson, S.C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56-310). Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P. , & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bull, P.E. (1998). Equivocation theory and news interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 36-51.

Bull, P.E. (2000). Equivocation and the rhetoric of modernization: An analysis of televised interviews with Tony Blair in the 1997 British General Election. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 222-247.

Bull, P.E. (2003a). The analysis of equivocation in political interviews . In G. Breakwell (Ed.), Doing social psychology research (pp. 205-228). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Bull, P.E. (2003b). The microanalysis of political communication: Claptrap and ambiguity. London: Psychology Press.

Bull, P.E. , & Elliott, J. (1998). Level of threat: Means of assessing interviewer toughness and neutrality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 17, 220-244.

10.

Bull, P.E. , Elliott, J. , Palmer, D. , & Walker, L. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology , 35, 267-284.

11.

Bull, P.E. , & Mayer, K. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interviews . Political Psychology, 14, 651-666.

12.

Clayman, S.E. (1988). Displaying neutrality in television news interviews . Social Problems, 35, 474-492.

13.

Clayman, S.E. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news interview discourse. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 163-198). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.

15.

Feldman, O. (2004). Talking politics in Japan today. Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press.

16.

Gnisci, A. , & Bonaiuto, M. (2003). Grilling politicians: Politicians' answers to questions in television interviews and courtroom examinations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 385-413.

17.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior (pp. 5-45). Garden City, NY: Anchor. (Reprinted from "On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction ," Psychiatry, 18, 213-231, by E. Goffman, 1955)

18.

Hamilton, M.A. , & Mineo, P.J. (1998). A framework for understanding equivocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 3-35.

19.

Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society , 12, 451-472.

20.

Jucker, J. (1986). News interviews: A pragmalinguistic analysis. Amsterdam: Gieben.

21.

Tracy, K. (1990). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 209-222). Chichester, UK: Wiley.