Article published In: Language and Dialogue
Vol. 7:3 (2017) ► pp.336–359
Expanding factors in threat to face
Assessing the toughness/equivocation connection in Japanese televised political interviews
Published online: 27 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.7.3.02fel
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.7.3.02fel
Abstract
This paper details aspects related to the “face” – one’s social standing, reputation, and dignity – during interactions between interviewers and interviewees (both politicians and nonpoliticians) in more than 5,000 questions posed during three different broadcast interview programs aired throughout 2012–2013 in Japan. The interactions between interviewers and interviewees are also considered as a dialogic phenomenon in which interlocutors are actors who act and react. By examining the toughness of questions posed in these programs the paper explores their extent of threat to face of the interviewees and the facets associated with this threat, including features related to the interviewees themselves. The results indicate strong evidence of socio-cultural norms and values that affect interviewers’ relationship with politicians and other sources.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theories of face
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1The interviews
- 3.2Procedure
- 3.2.1Type, style, and mode of the questions posed during televised interviews
- 3.2.1.1Prefaced and nonprefaced questions
- 3.2.1.2Distinguishing the syntactic structure of questions
- 3.2.1.3Identifying grammatically complete and incomplete questions
- 3.2.1.4Identifying questions that seek personal opinions versus prevalent views within a group
- 3.2.2Assessing the questions’ level of threat
- 3.2.1Type, style, and mode of the questions posed during televised interviews
- 3.3Coding
- 4.Results
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Concluding remarks
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (24)
Bavelas, Janet Beavin, Alex Black, Nicole Chovil, and Jennifer Mullett. 1990. Equivocal Communication. Newbury Park: Sage.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” In Questions and Politeness, ed. by Ester N. Goody, 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bull, Peter. 1994. “On Identifying Questions, Replies and Non-Replies in Political Interview.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 131: 115–131.
Bull, Peter and Ofer Feldman. 2011. “Invitations to Affiliative Audience Responses in Japanese Political Speeches.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 301: 158–176.
Bull, Peter and Pam Wells. 2012. “Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 311: 30–48.
Bull, P. E., Judy Elliott, Derrol Palmer, and Libby Walker. 1996. “Why Politicians are Three-Faced: The Face Model of Political Interviews.” British Journal of Social Psychology 351: 267–284.
Cohen, Jacob. 1960. “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 201: 37–46.
Feldman, Ofer. 1998. “The Political Language of Japan: Decoding What Politicians Mean from What They Say.” In Politically Speaking: A Worldwide Examination of Language Used in the Public Sphere, ed. by Ofer Feldman and Christ’l De Landtsheer, 43–55. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
Feldman, Ofer and Peter Bull. 2012. “Understanding Audience Affiliation in Response to Political Speeches in Japan. Language and Dialogue 31: 375–397.
Feldman, Ofer and Ken Kinoshita. 2017. “Do Important Questions Demand Respectful Replies? Analyzing Televised Political Interviews in Japan.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 271: 121–157.
Feldman, Ofer, Ken Kinoshita, and Peter Bull. 2015. “Culture or Communicative Conflict? The Analysis of Equivocation in Broadcast Japanese Political Interviews.” Journal of Language & Social Psychology 341: 65–89.
. 2016. “‘Ducking and Diving:’ How Political Issues Affect Equivocation in Japanese Political Interviews.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 171: 141–167.
Goffman, Erving. 1955/1967. “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry 181: 213–231.
. 1959/1990. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Harmondsworth. (Reprinted, London: Penguin Books, 1990).
. 1967. “Where the Action Is.” In Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour, ed. by Erving Goffman, 149–270. Garden City, New York: Anchor.
Haugh, Michael. 2007. “Emic Conceptualizations of (Im)politeness and Face in Japanese: Implications for the Discursive Negotiation of Second Language Learner Identities.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 657–680.
Hirokawa, Randy Y. 1987. “Communication Within the Japanese Business Organization.” In Communication Theory From Eastern and Western Perspectives, ed. by D. Lawrence Kincaid, 137–149. New York: Academic Press.
Holtgraves, Thomas M. 2002. Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Jucker, Andreas. 1986. News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Nakatsugawa, Satomi and Jiro Takai. 2013. “Keeping Conflicts Latent: «Salient» versus «Non-Salient» Interpersonal Conflict Management Strategies of Japanese.” Intercultural Communication Studies 221: 43–60.
Weigand, Edda. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 2016. “How to Verify a Theory.” Language and Dialogue 61: 349–369.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
Göktan, Ayşe Deniz Ünan
2025. Review of Kinoshita (2023): Japanese Politicians’ Rhetorical and Indirect Speech: Verbal and Nonverbal Communication Usage. Language and Dialogue 15:2 ► pp. 339 ff.
Kinoshita, Ken
Kinoshita, Ken
Kinoshita, Ken
Zainal Abidin, Najah, Veronica Lowe & Jariah Mohd Jan
Feldman, Ofer
Feldman, Ofer
Gnisci, Augusto, Margherita Asterope, Rosa Casapulla, Maria D’Agostino & Gaetano Perillo
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
