Cover not available

Article published In: Practices of Dialogue, Dialogues in Practice
Edited by Alain Létourneau, Geneviève Boivin and Nicolas Bencherki
[Language and Dialogue 13:2] 2023
► pp. 254–276

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Debate or dialogue?

A case of a Czech TV discussion program where dialogue fails

 | Masaryk University
Published online: 1 August 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00149.zak
Abstract
The present paper deals with an example of a TV broadcast discussion program, the Czech program Máte slovo, in which a dialogue fails. It presents a closer analysis of one representative episode of the program, which, despite being officially presented as offering space for discussion and a chance for ordinary citizens to talk to public personalities and politicians, takes the form of confrontainment, whose goal is to escalate debate. The paper reveals what practices by the discussants and the moderator contribute to the failure of a successful dialogue and discusses the role of broadcast programs of this kind in the contemporary communication sphere.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.“Dialogue” and its presence in the Czech discussion program
  • 3.The Czech discussion program and its place in the context of media discourse
    • 3.1Máte slovo as institutional dialogue
    • 3.2Participants in Máte slovo
    • 3.3Máte slovo as “confrontalk”
  • 4.Design of the analysis
  • 5.Practices hindering the establishment of a successful dialogue
    • 5.1Violating rules of turn-taking, overlaps, and strong emotional states
    • 5.2Loaded questions, repeated questions, and reformulations
    • 5.3Argumentative fouls, attacks, and silencing
    • 5.4Lack of common ground and common communicative intentions
    • 5.5Moderator’s style and bias
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (48)
References
Atkinson, Maxwell J. and Paul Drew. 1979. Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M.. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. (Emerson, Caryl; Holquist, Michael, trans., ed.) Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blumler, Jay G. 1991. Broadcasting finance in transition: a comparative handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blumler, Jay G. and Stephen Coleman. 2010. “Political communication in freefall: The British case – and others?”. The International Journal of Press/Politics 15(2): 139–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohm, David. 1996. On Dialogue. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burger, Harald. 1995. “Konversationelle Gewalt in Fernsehgesprächen. In Hugger, P., Stadler, U. (eds), Gewalt. Kulturelle Formen in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Unionsverlag, 100–125. Zürich.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carpentier, Nico. 2001. “Managing Audience Participation. The Construction of Participation in an Audience Discussion Programme”. European Journal of Communication 16(2): 209–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carpignano, Paolo, Robin Anderson, Stanley Aronowitz, and William Difazio. 1990. “Chatter in the Age of Electronic Reproduction: Talk Show and the “Public Mind””. Social Text 25/261: 33–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. and John C. Heritage. 2010. Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cottle, Simon. 2002. “TV Agora and agoraphobia post-September 11”. In: Zelizer, B. and S. A. (eds) Journalism after September 111. London: Routledge: 178–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Čmejrková, Světla. 1999. “Televizní interview a jiné duely: Mediální dialog jako žánr veřejného projevu”. Slovo a slovesnost, 60 (4): 247–268.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. “Mediální rozhovor jako žánr veřejného projevu”. In Jazyk, média, politika, ed. by Světla Čmejrková, and Jana Hoffmannová, 80–115. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul and John Heritage. 1992. “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction”. In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekström, Mats and Eriksson, Göran. 2013. “Citizen Participation in Journalist Discourse: Multiplatform Political Interviews in the Swedish Election Campaign 2010”. In Media Talk and Political Elections in Europe and America, ed. by Mats Ekström and Andrew Tolson, 181–204. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freire, Paulo. 2000. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans G. 1989. Truth and Method. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, 21 vols. Frankfurt, Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Havlík, Martin. 2008. “Poznámky k práci moderátorů televizních politických debat a rozhlasových interview”. Jazykovědné aktuality, XLV (1–2): 4–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1998. “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analyzing Distinctive Turn-Taking Systems”. In Dialoganalyse VI (Volume 21) (Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of IADA – International Association forDialog Analysis), ed. by Světla Čmejrková, Jana Hoffmannová, Olga Müllerová, and Jana Svetlá, Tubingen: Niemeyer: 3–17.
Hess-Lüttich, Ernest. W. B. 2007. “(Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV-debates”. Journal of Pragmatics 391: 1360–1370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holly, Werner. 1994. “Confrontainment. Politik als Schaukampf im Fernsehen”. In Medienlust und Mediennutz. Unterhaltung als öffentliche Kommunikation, ed. by Bosshart, L., Hoffmann-Riem, W., 422–434. München: UVK.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction”. In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Layman, Charles S. 1999. The Power of Logic. Mountain View, CA, USA: Mayfield.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Livingstone, Sonia and Lunt, Peter. 1996. Talk on Television, Audience Participation and Public Debate. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lotman, Juri. 1990. Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luginbühl, Martin. 2007. “Conversational violence in political TV debates: Forms and functions”. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (8): 1371–1387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marková, Ivana. 2016. ”10. Dialogue and mutual understanding”. Verbal Communication, ed. by Andrea Rocci and Louis de Saussure, 181–202. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marková, Ivana, Per Linell, Michele Grossen and Anne Salazar-Orvig. 2007. Dialogue in Focus Groups: Exploring Socially Shared knowledge. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Máte, Slovo. 2021. Česká televize. Retrieved from: [URL]
Munson, Wayne. 1993. All talk: The talkshow in media culture. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller-Wood, Anja. 2022. “Introduction. When dialogue fails (and why)”. In Language and Dialogue 12 (1): 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Priest, Patricia J. 1995. Public Intimacies. Talk Show Participants and Tell-All TV. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rautajoki, Hanna. 2012. “Membership categorization as a tool for moral casting in TV discussion: The dramaturgical consequentiality of guest introductions”. Discourse Studies 14 (2): 243–260. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation”. Language 50 (4): 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1978. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation”. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Svoboda, Michal. 2019, September 27. “Drsná dohra včerejší Jílkové: Celý pořad zrušte. I vydlabaná dýně je chytřejší než Foldyna”. Eurozprávy.cz. Retrieved from: [URL]
Swearingen, Jan. 1990. Dialogue and dialectic: The logic of conversation and the interpretation of logic. In Maranhão (1990), 47–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Šťástková, Andrea. 2018, November 4. “Máte slovo s M. Jílkovou… když se o něj poperete”. E15.cz. Retrieved from: [URL]
Tolson, Andrew. 2007. Media talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Bijnen, Emma. 2019. “Dialogical power negotiations in conflict mediation”. Language and Dialogue 9 (1): 84–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vanhaeght, Anne-Sofie and Donders, Karen. (2021). “Audience participation in public service media. From an instrumental to a purposeful vision”. AdComunica, 45–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. 1999. “The fallacy of many questions: on the notions of complexity, loadedness and unfair entrapment in interrogative theory”. Argumentation 13 (4): 379–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue