Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Two television debates between candidates for the Polish presidency, Aleksander Kwasniewski and Lech Wa4psa were held in the week preceding the second round of elec-tions in 1995. At the beginning of both debates, the moderator explained the rules-agreed to by the two candidates-strictlyapportioning communicative rights. The candidates were not to address each other or refer to each other's statements, restricting their utterances to answering questions posed by the moderator and journalists. In both debates, however, the candidates either addressed the other candidate directly to ask a question or challenge a point, or they directly responded to the opponent's statement, even though the response was irrelevant to the question they had been asked. These actions were usually accompanied by mitigatingdevices. An analysis of these devices is presented and explanation offered as to why in some cases none were used. The devices are discussed as instances of the pretence of cooperation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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

Benoit, W. L. , & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Brown, P. , & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Castelfranchi, C. , & Poggi, I. (1994). Lying as pretending to give information. In H. Parret (Ed.), Pretending to communicate (pp. 276-291). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Galasifski, D. (1996). Pretending to cooperate: How speakers hide evasive actions. Argumentation, 10, 375-388.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntaxand semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

Grice, H. P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 183-198). New York: Academic Press.

Hamilton, M. A. , & Mineo, P. J. (1998). A framework for understanding equivocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17(1), 3-35.

Holdcroft, D. (1987). Conversational relevance. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertucelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective (pp. 477-495). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

10.

Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

11.

Mura, S. S. (1983). Licensing violations: Legitimate violation of Grice's conversational principle. In R. T. Craig & K. Tracy (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy (pp. 101-115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

12.

Ng, S. H. , & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

13.

Sanders, R. E. (1987). Cognitive foundations of calculated speech. New York: State University of New York Press.

14.

Sarangi, S. K. , & Slembrouck, S. (1992). Noncooperation in communication: A reassess-ment of Gricean pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 117-154.

15.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse analysis. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

16.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction. London: Longman.

Strategies of Talking to Each Other

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References