This research can be regarded as a “natural experiment” on political equivocation in which the language of five well-known politicians, taken from television interviews, is compared with the language of five different politicians speaking in a courtroom setting. Videotapes from both contexts were transcribed and then systematically analyzed by means of reliable category systems of questions and answers based on the literature. Italian politicians employ elaboration as their preferred answer, both in television interviews and in courtroom examinations. Differences exist between legal and political contexts in the distribution of questions, answers, and in their associations (i.e., in different contexts the same questions have a different effect on answers). The findings are discussed in terms of the “situational” theory of political equivocation, integrated with a “contextual” explanation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adelswärd, V., Aronsson, K., Jönsson, L., & Linell, P. (1987). The unequal distribution of interactional space: Dominance and control in courtroom interaction. Text, 7, 313-346.
2.
Agar, M. (1985). Institutional discourse. Text, 5, 147-168.
3.
Atkinson, J. M. (1992). Displaying neutrality: Formal aspects of informal court proceedings. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 199-211). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court. The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
5.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.
6.
Bakeman, R., & Dorval, B. (1989). The distinction between sampling independence and empirical independence in sequential analysis. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 31-37.
7.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction. An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995). Analyzing interaction. Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Bakeman, R., & Robinson, B. F. (1994). Understanding log-linear analysis with ILOG. An interactive approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Bavelas, J. B. (1983). Situations that lead to disqualification. Human Communication Research, 9, 130-145.
11.
Bavelas, J. B. (1985). A situational theory of disqualification. Using language to leave the field. In J. Forgas (Ed.), Language and social situations (pp. 189-211). New York: Springer-Verlag.
12.
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Bryson, L., & Mullett, J. (1988). Political equivocation: A situational explanation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 137-145.
13.
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Bavelas, J. B., & Chovil, N. (1986). How people disqualify: Experimental studies of spontaneous written disqualification. Communication Monographs, 53, 70-74.
15.
Bavelas, J. B., & Smith, B. J. (1982). A method for scaling verbal disqualification. Human Communication Research, 8, 214-227.
16.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The bilingual courtroom. Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Bogoch, B., & Danet, B. (1984). Challenge and control in lawyer-client interaction: A case study in an Israeli Legal Aid office. Text, 4, 249-275.
18.
Bull, P. (1994). On identifying questions, replies and non-replies in political interview. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 115-131.
19.
Bull, P. (2000). Equivocation and the rhetoric of modernization: An analysis of televised interviews with Tony Blair in the 1997 British general elections. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 222-247.
20.
Bull, P., & Elliott, J. (1998). Level of threat: Means of assessing interviewer toughness and neutrality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 220-244.
21.
Bull, P., 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.
22.
Bull, P., & Mayer, K. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology, 4, 651-666.
23.
Cohen, J. A. (1960). Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Education and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
24.
Cole, M., Hood, L., & McDermott, R. P. (1978). Concept of ecological validity: Their differing implications for comparative cognitive research. Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparative Human Development, 2, 34-37.
25.
Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Danet, B., & Bogoch, B. (1980). Fixed fight or free-for-all? An empirical study of combativeness in the adversary system of justice. British Journal of Law and Society, 7, 36-60.
27.
Danet, B., Hoffman, K. B., Kermish, N., Rafn, H. J., & Stayman, D. G. (1976). An ethnography of questioning in the courtroom. In R. W. Shuy & A. Shnukal (Eds.), Language use and the uses of language (pp. 222-234). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
28.
Danet, B., & Kermish, N. (1978). Courtroom questioning: A sociolinguistic perspective. In L. N. Massery (Ed.), Psychology and persuasion in advocacy. Washington, DC: National College of Advocacy.
29.
Decree by the Republic President. (1988, September). Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 25(Ordinary Suppl.), 3-154 no. 447.
30.
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination. The case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470-520). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Drew, P. (1995). Conversation analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harr, L. VanLangenhove, & P. Strars (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 64-79). London: Sage Ltd.
32.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Dunstan, R. (1980). Context of coercion: Analyzing propriety of courtroom questions. British Journal of Law and Society, 7, 61-77.
34.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage Ltd.
35.
Fiedler, K., & Semin, G. R. (1996). Language in applied contexts. In G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Applied social psychology (pp. 91-109). London: Sage Ltd.
36.
Gnisci, A., & Pontecorvo, C. (in press). The organization of questions and answers in the thematic phases of hostile examination: Turn-by-turn manipulation of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics.
37.
Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Graeser, A. C., Lang, K., & Horgan, D. (1988). A taxonomy for question generation. Questioning Exchange, 2, 3-15.
39.
Haberman, S. J. (1982). Analysis of dispersion of multinomial responses. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77, 568-580.
40.
Haley, J. (1959). An international description of schizophrenia. Psychiatry, 22, 321-332.
41.
Hamilton, M. A., & Mineo, P. J. (1998). A framework for understanding equivocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 3-35.
42.
Harré, R., & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursive mind. London: Sage Ltd.
43.
Harris, S. (1991). Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 76-99). London: Sage Ltd.
44.
Jacobson, R., & Halle, M. (1956). Fundamentals of language. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
45.
Jefferson, G. (1985). On the interactional unpackaging of a gloss. Language and Society, 14, 435-466.
46.
Knoke, D., & Burke, P. J. (1990). Log-linear models. London: Sage Ltd.
47.
Lauer, T. W., & Peacock, E. (1990). An analysis of comparison questions in the context of auditing. Discourse Processes, 13, 349-361.
48.
Lehnert, W. G. (1978). The process of question answering. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
Levi, J. N. (1994). Language and law: A bibliographic guide to social science research in the U.S.A. (Teaching Resource Bulletin, 4). Chicago: American Bar Association.
50.
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and measurement of psychological forces. Contributions to Psychological Theory, 1(Serial No. 4).
51.
Linell, P. (1990). The power of dialogue dynamics. In I. Markov & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 147-177). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
52.
Linell, P., Gustavsson, L., & Juvonen, P. (1988). Interactional dominance in dyadic communication: A presentation of initiative-response analysis. Linguistics, 26, 415-442.
53.
Matoesian, G. M. (1993). Reproducing rape: Domination through talk in the courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
Obeng, S. G. (1997). Language and politics: Indirectness in political discourse. Discourse and Society, 8, 49-83.
55.
Philips, S. U. (1984). The social organization of question and answer in courtroom discourse. A study of changes of plea in a Arizona court. Text, 4, 225-248.
56.
Philips, S. U. (1987). On the use of WH questions in American courtroom discourse: A study on the relation between language form and language function. In L. Kedar (Ed.), Power through language (pp. 83-112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
57.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press.
58.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423, 623-656.
60.
Shuy, R. W. (1993). Language crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
61.
Singer, M. (1990). Answering questions about discourse. Discourse Processes, 13, 261-277.
62.
Valdés, G. (1986). Analyzing the demands that courtroom interaction makes upon speakers of ordinary English: Toward the development of a coherent descriptive framework. Discourse Processes, 9, 269-303.
63.
Walker, A. (1987). Linguistic manipulation, power and the legal setting. In L. Kedar (Ed.), Power through discourse (pp. 57-80). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
64.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.
65.
Wickens, T. D. (1989). Multiway contingency tables analysis for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
66.
Wilson, J. (1990). Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. London: Blackwell.
67.
Woodbury, H. (1984). The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica, 48, 197-228.
