1. bookVolume 72 (2021): Issue 2 (December 2021)
    NLP, Corpus Linguistics and Interdisciplinarity
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1338-4287
First Published
05 Mar 2010
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

‘And we are Stuck in One Place, Minister.’ A Study of Evasiveness in Replies to Face-Threatening Questions in Slovak Political Interviews on Scandals (A Combined Approach)

Published Online: 30 Dec 2021
Page range: 690 - 704
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1338-4287
First Published
05 Mar 2010
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

The phenomenon of political evasiveness in the genre of a political interview has been the focus of several discourse studies employing conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis and the social psychology approach. Most of the above-mentioned studies focus on a detailed qualitative analysis of political discourse identifying a wide range of communication strategies that permit politicians to ambiguate their agency and at the same time boost their positive face. Since these strategies may change over time and also be subject to a culture specific environment, the aim of this paper is to discover a) which evasive communicative strategies were employed by Slovak politicians in 2012–2016, b) which lexical substitutions were most frequently used by them to avoid negative connotations of face-threatening questions, and finally, c) which cognitive frames formed a frequent conceptual background of their evasive political argumentation. The paper will draw on a combination of quantitative and qualitative approach to the analysis of non-replies devised by Bull and Mayer (1993) and critical discourse analysis in the sample of five Slovak radio interviews aired on the Rádio Express. The selection of interviews was not random- in each interview the politician was asked highly conflictual questions about bribery, embezzlement or disputes in the coalition. Based on qualitative research of Russian-Slovak political discourse (2009) by Dulebová it is hypothesized that a) the evasive strategy of ‘attack’ on the opposition and ‘attack on the interviewer’ would occur in our sample with the highest prominence in the speech of the former Prime Minister Fico, and b) the politicians accused of direct involvement in scandals would be the most evasive ones.

Keywords

[1] Bull, P., and Mayer, K. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political psychology, 14(4), pages 651–666. Accessible at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791379. Search in Google Scholar

[2] Jucker, J. (1986). News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. Amsterdam: Gieben.10.1075/pb.vii.4 Search in Google Scholar

[3] Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behaviour. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Search in Google Scholar

[4] Brown & Levinson in Huang, Y. (2013). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

[5] Elliott, J., and Bull, P. (1996). A Question of Threat: Face Threats in Questions Posed During Televised Political Interviews. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 6, pages 49–72.10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(199602)6:1<49::AID-CASP355>3.0.CO;2-H Search in Google Scholar

[6] Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse. Theory and practise. Routledge, 2004.10.4324/9780203561218 Search in Google Scholar

[7] Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Search in Google Scholar

[8] Dulebová, I. (2009). Jazykové prostriedky manipulácie v modernom ruskom a slovenskom politickom diskurze. In Literatúra v kontexte slovanskej kultúry 20. storočia, pages 96–101, Banská Bystrica: UMB. Search in Google Scholar

[9] Ryabova, T., and Ryabov, O. (2011). The real man of politics in Russia: On gender discourse as a resource for the authority, 42, pages 58–71. Search in Google Scholar

[10] Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. A practical guide. London: Sage.10.4135/9781849208895 Search in Google Scholar

[11] Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartivik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Search in Google Scholar

[12] Edmüller, A., and Wilhelm, T. (2010). La Manipulation. L’art d’influencer à vôtre portée. Édition française. Ixelles: Les Miniguides Ecolibris. Search in Google Scholar

[13] Gabrielsen, J., Jonch-Clausen, H., and Pontoppidan, Ch. (2017). Answering without answering: Shifting as an evasive strategy. Journalism, 21(9), pages 1355–1370. Search in Google Scholar

[14] Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230319899 Search in Google Scholar

[15] Chudinov, A. P. (2001). Rossia v metaforicheskom zerkale: kognitivnoe issledovanie politicheskoy metafory (1991–2000). Ekaterinburg: Ural. Search in Google Scholar

[16] Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. English translation. Cambridge: Polity Press. Search in Google Scholar

[17] Dijk, V. (1998). Ideology. London: Sage. Search in Google Scholar

[18] Gaufman, E. (2018). Money can’t buy it? Everyday Geopolitics in Post-Soviet Russia. In Informal nationalism after communism. London: I. B. Tauris. Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo