Cover not available

In:Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures
Edited by Cornelia Ilie
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 323] 2021
► pp. 109–144

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

Pragmatic functions of question-answer sequences in Italian legal examinations and TV interviews with politicians

ORCiD logo with link | University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli"
Published online: 26 July 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.323.04gni
Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to identify the sequential relationship between coerciveness of questions and equivocation of answers when the same 11 politicians were interviewed on TV, and also examined during a criminal trial. Two observers codified each of the 2,757 question-answer sequences of the sample (37 h of video recordings) for coercion and equivocation. The results show that the coerciveness of questions interacts with the context to determine the equivocation of the answer, and so does the equivocation for determining the coercion of the following question. The interactional asymmetry between politicians and questioners displays opposite patterns in the two contexts: in courtrooms, coercion depends strongly on the equivocation of the answer, but the answer depends more on the coercion exerted by the type of the context; on TV, however, equivocation depends strongly on coercion. The subsequent implications are discussed.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Courtroom examinations and political interviews
    • 1.2Literature review
      • 1.2.1Sequential analysis: Implementing theories with a sequential approach to interaction
  • 2.Aim and research questions of the study
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Sampling strategy
    • 3.2Final sample
    • 3.3Observation procedure
    • 3.4Category systems
      • Coercion of the question
      • Equivocation of the answer
    • 3.5Sequential data analysis
  • 4.Corpus analysis and discussion
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Does the effect of the coerciveness of the question on the equivocation of the subsequent answer differ in the two contexts under consideration?
      • 5.1.1Discussion
    • 5.2Does the effect of the equivocation of the answer on the coercion of the subsequent question differ in the two contexts?
      • 5.2.1Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (51)
References
Adelswärd, Viveca, Karin Aronsson, Linda Jönsson, and Per Linell. 1987. “The Unequal Distribution of Interactional Space: Dominance and Control in Courtroom Interaction.” Text 7: 313–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkinson, Maxwell and Paul Drew. 1979. Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakeman, Roger, and John M. Gottman. 1997. Observing Interaction. an Introduction to Sequential Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakeman, Roger, and Augusto Gnisci. 2005. “Sequential Observational Methods.” In Handbook of Multimethod Measurement in Psychology, edited by Michael Eid, and Ed Dieneer, 451–470. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakeman, Roger, and Vicenç Quera. 2011. Sequential Analysis and Observational Methods for the Behavioural Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bavelas, Janet B., Alex Black, Lisa Bryson, and Jennifer Mullett. 1988. “Political Equivocation: A Situational Explanation.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7: 137–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bavelas, Janet B., Alex Black, Nicole Chovil, and Jennifer Mullett. 1990. Equivocal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bavelas, Janet B. 2009. “Equivocation.” In Encyclopedia of Human Relationships, edited by Harry T. Reis, and Susan Sprecher, 537–539. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bull, Peter, and Kate Mayer. 1993. “How Not to Answer Questions in Political Interview.” Political Psychology 4: 651–666. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bull, Peter. 1994. “On Identifying Questions, Replies and Non-Replies in Political Interview.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13: 115–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. "Equivocation theory and news interview.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 17: 36–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Communication under the Microscope: The Theory and Practice of Microanalysis. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. The Microanalysis of Political Communication: Claptraps and Ambiguity. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 1988. “Displaying Neutrality in Television News Interviews.” Social Problems 35: 474–492. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1992. “Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News Interview Discourse.” In Talk at Work, edited by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. “Tribune of People: Maintaining the Legitimacy of Aggressive Journalism.” Media, Culture & Society 24: 197–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1986. Intonation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danet, Brenda, Kenneth B. Hoffman, Nicole C. Kermish, H. Jeffrey Rafn, and Deborah G. Stayman. 1976. “An Ethnography of Questioning in the Courtroom.” In Language Use and the Uses of Language, edited by Roger W. Shuy, and Anna Shnukal, 222–234. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danet, Brenda, and Nicole C. Kermish. 1978. “Courtroom Questioning: A Sociolinguistic Perspective.” In Psychology and Persuasion in Advocacy, edited by Louis N. Massery, 413–441. Washington, DC: National College of Advocacy.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danet, Brenda, and Bryna Bogoch. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage (eds). 1992. Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Di Conza, Angiola, Augusto Gnisci, Linda Scognamiglio, and Lucia Abbamonte. 2012. “Accommodation Strategies in Italian Courtroom Examinations: A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of the Reciprocal Effects of Questioning–Answering.” US-China Law Review 9: 330–341.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunstan, Robert. 1980. “Context of Coercition: Analyzing Propriety of Courtroom Questions.” British Journal of Law and Society 7: 61–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gnisci, Augusto, and Clotilde Pontecorvo. 2004. “The Organization of Questions and Answers in the Thematic Phases of Hostile Examination: Turn-by-Turn Manipulation of Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 36: 965–995. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gnisci, Augusto. 2005. “Sequential Strategies of Accommodation: A New Method in Courtroom.” British Journal of Social Psychology 44: 621–643. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gnisci, Augusto, and Roger Bakeman. 2007. “Sequential Accommodation of Turn Taking and Turn Length: A Study of Courtroom Interaction.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26: 134–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gnisci, Augusto, and Marino Bonaiuto. 2003. “Grilling Politicians. A Study on Politicians’ Answers to Questions Comparing Televised Political Interviews and Legal Examinations.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22: 384–413. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gnisci, Augusto, Linda Scognamiglio, and Angiola Di Conza. 2010. “Do Coercion and Pertinence in Hearings Examinations Depend on Sexual Gender?” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of the Group on Speech Communication, Naples, 2009, 383–394. Naples: University of Naples L’Orientale.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gnisci, Augusto, Angiola Di Conza, and Pierpaolo Zollo. 2011. “Political Journalism as a Democracy Watchman.” In Democracy in Theory and Action, edited by Peter Herrmann, 205–230. New York: NOVA Science Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gnisci, Augusto, Roger Bakeman, and Fridanna Maricchiolo. 2013. “Sequential Notation and Analysis for Bodily Forms of Communication.” In Body, Language, Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, Vol. 1, edited by Cornelia Müller, Alan J. Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill, and Sedinha Teßendorf, 892–903. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gnisci, Augusto, Fridanna Maricchiolo, and Marino Bonaiuto. 2013. “Reliability and Validity of Coding Systems for Bodily Forms of Communication.” In Body, Language, Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, Vol. 1, edited by Cornelia Müller, Alan J. Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill, and Sedinha Teßendorf, 879–892. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gnisci, Augusto, Pierpaolo Zollo, Marco Perugini, and Angiola Di Conza. 2013. “A Comparative Study of Toughness and Neutrality in Italian and English Political Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 50: 152–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gnisci, Augusto, and Antonio Pace. 2016. “Italian Politicians Hauled over the Coals: The Pragmatic Effects of Questions on Answers in TV Interviews and in Courtroom Examinations.” Journal of Pragmatics 93: 32–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gnisci, Augusto, Howard Giles, and Jordan Soliz. 2016. “CAT on Trial: Organizational, Legal, and Enforcement Contexts.” In Communication Accommodation Theory: Conjuring Identities, edited by Howard Giles, 169–191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1955. “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry 18: 213–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems. Three Models of Media and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heyman, Richard E., Michael F. Lorber, J. Mark Eddy, and Tessa V. West. 2014. “Behavioral Observation and Coding.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology, 2nd ed., edited by Harry T. Reis, and Charles M. Judd, 345–372. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 1999. “Question-Response Argumentation in Talk Shows.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 975–999. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015a. “Questions and Questioning.” In The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, edited by Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie, and Todd Sandel, 1257–1271. Boston: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015b. “Follow-ups as Multifunctional Questioning and Answering Strategies in Prime Minister’s Questions.” In The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-ups, edited by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence N. Berlin, 195–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Questioning the Questionable: Arguments and Counter-Arguments in Political Accountability Interviews.” In Argumentation Across Communities of Practice: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, edited by Cornelia Ilie, and Giuliana Garzone, 73–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. “Activity Types and Language.” In Talk at Work, edited by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewin, Kurt. 1938. The Conceptual Representation and Measurement of Psychological Forces. Contributions to Psychological Theory. Vol. 1. Durham: Duke University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linell, Per, Lennart Gustavsson, and Päivi Juvonen. 1988. “Interactional Dominance in Dyadic Communication: A Presentation of Iniziative-Response Analysis.” Linguistic 26: 415–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M. 1993. Reproducing Rape. Domination through Talk in the Courtroom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Philips, Susan U. 1984. “The Social Organization of Questions and Answers in Courtroom Discourse. A Study of Changes of Plea in an Arizona Court.” Text 4 (1–3): 225–248.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1987. “On the Use of WH Questions in American Courtroom Discourse: A Study on the Relation between Language Form and Language Function.” In Power through Discourse, edited by Leah Kedar, 83–112. Norwood: Ablex.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 for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, Paul and Sally Thomas. 2008. “Linguistic Style Matching and Negotiation Outcome.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 1: 263–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valdés, Guadalupe. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woodbury, Hanni. 1984. “The Strategic Use of Questions in Court.” Semiotica 48 (3–4): 197–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Zainal Abidin, Najah, Veronica Lowe & Jariah Mohd Jan
2023. Evasion in Malaysian Parliamentary Question Time. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 31:3 ► pp. 1057 ff. DOI logo
Gnisci, Augusto, Margherita Asterope, Rosa Casapulla, Maria D’Agostino & Gaetano Perillo
2022. Threat to Face and Equivocation in Televised Interviews of Italy’s Politicians For and Against the 2016 Constitutional Referendum. In Adversarial Political Interviewing, ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue