27.2945, Review: Discourse; Pragmatics; Socioling: Fetzer, Berlin, Weizman (2015)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-27-2945. Wed Jul 13 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 27.2945, Review: Discourse; Pragmatics; Socioling: Fetzer, Berlin, Weizman (2015)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Michael Czerniakowski <mike at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:21:51
From: Ramona Kreis [rkreis at mail.usf.edu]
Subject: The Dynamics of Political Discourse

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36148337


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-3892.html

EDITOR: Anita  Fetzer
EDITOR: Elda  Weizman
EDITOR: Lawrence N.  Berlin
TITLE: The Dynamics of Political Discourse
SUBTITLE: Forms and functions of follow-ups
SERIES TITLE: Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 259
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2015

REVIEWER: Ramona S Kreis, University of South Florida

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

The volume “The Dynamics of Political Discourse” analyzes political discourse
from a dynamic and process-oriented perspective, attending to the contextual
factors which shape how discourse is produced and communicated. Discourse in
today’s mediatized society is characterized by instantaneous transmission; the
technological affordances enable the audience to follow-up instantaneously in
chat-sessions, web-based discussion forums, and so on. This kind of
transmission may also lead to the promotion of non-elite political discourse
and enable larger and more heterogeneous groups of citizens to participate and
to be involved in decision-making processes.

The focus of this volume is on the forms and functions of follow-ups.
Follow-ups are conceptualized as communicative acts that are accepted,
challenged, or negotiated by third parties. This volume covers different
spoken and written genres, where follow-ups fall on a continuum between more
or less explicit as well as more or less responsive: political interview,
political speech, political debate, parliamentary question time, editorial,
op-eds, and discussion forums.

As regards the theoretical framework for this volume, follow-ups are
approached with speech act theory (Austin 1962) and discourse analysis
focusing on the sequentiality of follow-ups (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975).
Speech act theory uses the speech act as unit of analysis  in order to examine
the strategic use of language in context. A speech act in the traditional
sense is comprised of locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary
act. Speech act theory was further developed by Searle (1969), who
differentiated between utterance acts, propositional acts, and illocutionary
acts. 

While both Austin and Searle have been criticized for laying the focus on the
initial utterance of the first speaker, it has been established that Austin
conceived speech acts as inherently dynamic and dialogic and differentiated
intended and unintended effects as well as attempt and achievement (Fetzer
2002). A speech act or utterance (which seem to be used synonymously in this
volume) has therefore a dual function in discourse: its local purpose is
concerned with the immediate environment and its global purpose reflects on
the current discourse. Speech acts or utterances thus create and are created
by the context and can be considered social acts in dialogue due to their
dialogic, interactive nature.

The volume draws on the definition of follow-ups as an element of the triad
initiation-response-follow up (cf. Sinclair and Coulthard 1975) but extends
its original scope (classroom interaction between teacher and students) to
contexts outside the classroom, specifically the political context. The
editors of the volume adopt a broad definition of follow-ups by defining them
as non-initiative elements of discursive negotiations, which further expands
the notion of sequentiality, recognizing that discourse may take place in
different timeframes, spaces, or activities.

The volume consists of three parts: Approaching follow-ups, Follow-ups across
genres, and The perlocutionary potential of follow-ups as objects of talk. The
first part presents a theory-driven perspective on follow-ups and starts the
volume off by conceptualizing context, sequentiality, and perspective of
follow-ups. Jacob L. Mey’s contribution “Sequentiality and follow-ups”
discusses how interlocutors create and consume text within the total world
context which is constantly evolving and not fixed in time. Communication is
characterized by a constant adjustment of activities, an ongoing recalibration
of values, and the situated realization of linguistic resources incorporating
both spatial and temporal factors of the pragmatic act. 
 
Etsuko Oishi’s contribution “Follow-ups as speech acts in mediated political
discourse” proposes a model of sequentiality based on illocutionary act
sequences (Austin 1962) which entail descriptions of and reactions to things
and events shaping the nature of situated discourse. The model aims to explain
the interconnectedness of expositive acts, which, according to the author, has
not been achieved by earlier concepts (e.g., direction of fit, psychological
state). Oishi exemplifies the model by analyzing President Obama’s follow-ups
in the 2012 presidential debate. 

Piotr Cap proposes to extend the dialogic view of follow-ups and to include
also monologic discourse. His article “Monologic follow-ups in political
macro-discourse: The US anti-terrorist discourse as a case in point” focuses
on discourse targeting a macro-goal, that is monologic discourse of a speaker
relating to the shifting discourse context rather than another interlocutor.
Cap illustrates this monologic perspective on communication with G.W. Bush’s
War-on-Terror rhetoric. The macro-goal of Bush’s Iraq War discourse was
initially the legitimization of pre-emptive strikes and shifted due to the
changing political context. Cap’s example shows how follow-ups may thus also
relate to the previous utterances of the same speaker. 

The second part of this volume focuses on follow-ups across various genres.
Lawrence N. Berlin analyzes function and discursive strategies of follow-ups
in political debates. His contribution “Pragmatic strategies for follow-ups in
US political debates” is based on the Multilayered Model of Context (see e.g.
Berlin 2007), Positioning Theory (see e.g. Harré and van Langenhove 1991), and
the I-R-F model (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975). Instead of focusing exclusively
on the position of follow-ups within discourse, Berlin discusses their
function to identify affirmative and negative pragmatic strategies used during
the 2010 US Midterm Elections.

Hassan Atifi and Michel Maroccia shift both genre and context in their chapter
on “Follow-ups and dialogue in online discussions on French politics: From
internet forums to social TV.” The authors apply Sinclair and Coulthard’s
(1975) model of sequentiality to computer-mediated communication (CMC), thus
discussing a more complex and dynamic concept of follow-ups guided by
computer-mediated discourse analysis (Herring 2004). The triadic structure,
initiation-response-follow up, does not appear throughout political
discussions in CMC but the authors do identify it on the micro-blogging
platform Twitter. Furthermore, the analysis reveals that the participant’s
identity (ordinary citizens vs. professionals such as journalists and
politicians) influences whether or not the tripartite exchange structure is
represented. 

Luisa Granato and Alejandro Parini approach online follow-ups with Systemic
Functional Linguistics Theory. Their chapter “Online follow-ups as evaluative
reactions to two visits of the Argentinian President to the United States”
focuses on online users’ reactions to different speeches of the President of
Argentina while visiting the US in 2012. The authors analyze linguistic
features and functions of follow-ups used by online users contributing to
blogs and discussion forums as a reaction (agreement or disagreement) to the
President’s statements and performance as well as to other users’ opinions. 

The third and final part explores the perlocutionary potential of follow-ups
as objects of talk. While interlocutors generally do not discuss the
perlocutionary effects of an utterance explicitly, initiators of political
discourse, aiming at persuasion, often talk openly about their line of
argumentation as well as decision-making processes.

Elda Weizman discusses readers’ comments submitted to the op-eds of three
Israeli online newspapers in her chapter “Irony in and through follow-ups:
Talk and meta-talk in online commenting in the Israeli context.” While some
readers may perceive an ironic contribution of a newspaper author as a face
threat to readability, norms, and interpersonal relations, other readers align
with the ironic initiation of the columnists and join them in addressing a
common target. Irony is hence evaluated and practiced differently depending on
the reader’s perception of irony. In this chapter, follow-ups are
conceptualized as reactions to texts written by journalists or other readers,
thus representing discursive negotiations.

Cornelia Ilie follows the traditional tripartite definition of follow-ups. In
her contribution “Follow-ups as multifunctional questioning and answering
strategies in Prime Minister’s Questions” she analyzes the use of follow-ups
in the UK Parliament when Members of Parliament question the Prime Minister.
Follow-ups are dynamic elements of multifunctional questioning practices
aiming not only to elicit information but also to negotiate power positions,
to challenge the Prime Minister’s actions and decisions, and to address
multiple audiences (including the general public).

In Marjut Johansson’s chapter “If I am elected President …: Other-quotations
in French presidential debates,” follow-ups are conceptualized as situated
communicative acts. The author investigates functions and targets of
other-quotations during political debates. Candidates in French presidential
debates (2007 and 1012) use other-quotations, following-up on what other
speakers said, in order to address sociopolitical topics (to express
disagreement with an opponent’s standpoint) and identity (to accuse opponents)
as well as authenticity and moral codes. 

In the last chapter of this volume “‘When you came into office you said that
your government would be different’: Forms and functions of quotations in
mediated political discourse” Anita Fetzer focuses on quotations as a
follow-up in political interviews, political speeches, and Prime Minister’s
questions (PMQs). The form and function of quotations depends on genre and
context. Whereas politicians tend to use self-quotations in interviews to
reconstruct credibility, they use them in speeches to demonstrate ideological
coherence and leadership. Other-quotations, on the other hand, have different
functions: in interviews they tend to target the interviewee’s lack of
coherence or credibility and in speeches and PMQs they are used for
self-promotion or to criticize others.

EVALUATION

This collection of articles on the dynamics of political discourse, with the
focus on forms and functions of follow-ups, represents a valuable contribution
to the fields of applied linguistics, communication studies, and political
science. Covering a wide range of genres and contexts, the book extends the
traditional notion of follow-ups to political discourse. While some authors of
this collection refer to the original triad as proposed by Sinclair and
Coulthard (1975), that is, initiation-response-follow-up, viewing the
follow-up as the third element in a sequence, the general understanding of the
contributors converges to a broader perspective on follow-ups as communicative
acts.

The editors of the volume lay the common ground for understanding follow-ups
by contextualizing them within the theoretical framework of speech act theory
and discourse analysis. The theoretical framework is supported by the first
part of the volume, which presents a theory-driven approach to conceptualizing
context, sequentiality, and perspective on follow-ups. Although follow-ups are
clearly defined and coherently approached throughout the book, the
introduction of this volume could go into more detail regarding
conceptualizing discourse analysis in general and political discourse analysis
in particular, as it is done with respect to speech act theory, in order to
provide readers who are new to this subject with more background information.
Nonetheless, the volume is accessible and useful for students and researchers
from the above-mentioned fields.

Overall, this volume coherently brings together a variety of theoretical and
empirical approaches including diverse contexts: not only different genres
(from discussion forums to Prime Minister’s questions) but also different
countries and thus discourse in various languages or varieties (Argentina,
France, Israel, UK, and US). Furthermore, this volume’s contributions  range
from spoken communication, as in presidential debates or political interviews,
to CMC, as in online discussion forums or comment sections of online
newspapers, and therefore exemplify the potential future research in the field
of Political Discourse.

REFERENCES

Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Berlin, Lawrence N. 2007. Cooperative conflict and evasive language: The case
of the 9/11 commission hearings. In Anita Fetzer (ed.), Context and
appropriateness: Micro meets macro, 176-215. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins

Fetzer, Anita. 2002. Communicative intentions in context. In Anita Fetzer and
Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Rethinking sequentiality: Linguistics meets
conversational interaction, 37-69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Harré, Rom and Luk van Langenhove. 1991. Varieties of positioning. Journal for
the Theory of Social Behavior 21(4). 393-407.

Herring, Susan C. 2004. Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to
researching online communities. In Sasha A. Barab, Rob Kling and James H. Gray
(eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the services of learning,
338-376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair, John & Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse:
The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Ramona Kreis is a doctoral student in the Second Language Acquisition and
Instructional Technology program at the University of South Florida. Her
research interests include online discourse, multilingual practices, and
second language acquisition.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

This year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $79,000. This money 
will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our 
Student Editors for the coming year.

Don't forget to check out Fund Drive 2016 site!

http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/

For all information on donating, including information on how to 
donate by check, money order, PayPal or wire transfer, please visit:
http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Indiana University and
as such can receive donations through Indiana University Foundation. We
also collect donations via eLinguistics Foundation, a registered 501(c)
Non Profit organization with the federal tax number 45-4211155. Either
way, the donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your
state tax return (U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the
IRS Web-Site, or contact your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that
they will match any gift you make to a non-profit organization.
Normally this entails your contacting your human resources department
and sending us a form that the Indiana University Foundation fills in
and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative
procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without
costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if
your company operates such a program.


Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-2945	
----------------------------------------------------------