Cover not available

In:Media as Procedures of Communication
Edited by Martin Luginbühl and Jan Georg Schneider
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 348] 2024
► pp. 68–97

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

Chapter 4
“Do you have an idea what this clown is doing?”

Multimodal media staging in the first presidential debate and the vice presidential debate 2020

 | University of Basel
 | University of Kaiserslautern-Landau
Published online: 21 November 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.348.04lug
Abstract
This article examines how the medium TV shaped the first presidential and the vice presidential debate in the 2020 US election. We will argue that different dimensions of human communication, like medium and semiotic modes, interact and that therefore the use of semiotic modes like spoken language, moving images or movements of body parts is shaped by the medial procedure from the outset. Media are therefore more than just technical infrastructures in a narrow sense, they include the constitution of signs, including their materiality and processuality. The article will illustrate corresponding media procedures and their interdependence with semiotic modes, analyzing selected sequences of the two debates. The analysis will show how structural aspects of the medium shape aspects of the conversation (turn-taking, topic management etc.), of the use of the body (gestures, gaze), and of camera work (split screen, switched screen). In a last section, we will relate our findings to the conceptualization of ‘medium’ and ‘canvas’ by Bateman et al. (2017).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical approach
  • 3.“Do you have an idea what this clown is doing?” Analysis of examples from the first presidential debate
  • 4.“Mister Vice President, I’m speaking!” Analysis of examples from the vice presidential debate
  • 5.On the relation between semiotic modes and media
  • 6.Questions, results and connections
  • Notes
  • References
References (51)
References
Barnhurst, Kevin G., and Catherine A. Steele. 1997. “Image-Bite News: The Visual Coverage of Elections on U.S. Television, 1968-1992.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 2(1): 40–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bateman, John. 2021. “What Are Digital Media?” Discourse, Context, Media 4: 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bateman, John, Janina Wildfeuer, and Tuomo Hiippala. 2017. Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis. A Problem-Oriented Introduction. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bavelas, Janet Beavin, Linda Coates, and Trudy Johnson. 2002. “Listener Responses as a Collaborative Process: The Role of Gaze.” Journal of Communication 52(3): 566–580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Becker-Mrotzek, Michael. 2009. “Mündliche Kommunikationskompetenz.” In Mündliche Kommunikation und Gesprächsdidaktik, edited by Michael Becker-Mrotzek, 66–83. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bender, Michael, Ruth M. Mell, and Janina Wildfeuer. 2022. “Zur Spezifik digitaler Medien als Diskursraum: Materialität, Daten, Affordanzen.” In Diskurse — digital. Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungen, edited by Eva Gredel, 27–45. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blitvich, Pilar Garcés-Conejos. 2009. “Impoliteness and Identity in the American News Media: The “Culture Wars”.” Journal of Politeness Research, 5(2): 273–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. 2020. Film Art. An Introduction. 12th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brock, Alexander, and Peter Schildhauer. 2017. “Communication Form: A Concept Revisited.” In Communication Forms and Communicative Practices. New Perspectives on Communication Forms, Affordances and What Users Make of Them, edited by Alexander Brock, and Peter Schildhauer, 13–44. Bern, Berlin: Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Esser, Frank. 2008. “Dimensions of Political News Cultures: Sound Bite and Image Bite News in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States.” International Journal of Press/Politics 13: 401–428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fricke, Ellen. 2015. “Die (ab-)geschnittene Hand in der Talkshow: Zur Fortschreibung antiker rhetorischer Traditionen in Bildwahl und Schnitt.” In Polit-Talkshow — Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf ein multimodales Format, edited by Heiko Girnth, and Sascha Michel, 145–168. Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, James. 1977. “The Theory of Affordances.” In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing. Toward an Ecological Psychology, edited by John Bransford, and Robert Shaw, 67–82. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, James J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grewenig, Adi. 2017. “TV-Diskussionen/Politische Talkshows.” In Handbuch Sprache und Politik. Band 2, edited by Thomas Niehr, Jörg Kilian, and Martin Wengeler, 553–575. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haumer, Florian, and Wolfgang Donsbach. 2009. “The Rivalry of Nonverbal Cues on the Perception of Politicians by Television Viewers.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 53: 262–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hausendorf, Heiko. 2003. “Nähe, Vertrautheit und Spontaneität. Eine Beispielanalyse zu linguistischen Aspekten der Einbeziehung des Zuschauers in die Sendung.” In Neue Sprachmoral. Medien, Politik, Schule, edited by Anne Betten, Richard Schrodt, and Andreas Weiss, 42–61. Wien: Praesens.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hermanns, Fritz. 2012. “Sprache, Kultur und Identität.” In Der Sitz der Sprache im Leben. Beiträge zu einer kulturanalytischen Linguistik, edited by Heidrun Kämper, Angelika Linke, and Martin Wengeler, 235–276. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B. 2014. “TV-Gespräche als Medientextsorte ritualisierter Selbstinszenierung. Zur Simulation politischer Debatten in Sendeformaten wie Club und Arena.” In Musterwandel — Sortenwandel. Aktuelle Tendenzen der diachronen Text(sorten)linguistik, edited by Stefan Hauser, Ulla Kleinberger, and Kersten S. Roth, 121–156. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horton, Donald, and Richard R. Wohl. 1956. “Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance.” Psychiatry 19: 215–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 2014. “Communicative Affordances and Participation Frameworks in Mediated Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 72: 86–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keppler, Angela. 2015. “Das Gesagte und das Nichtgesagte. Was die Dramaturgie politischer Talkshows zeigt.” In Polit-Talkshow. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf ein multimodales Format, edited by Heiko Girnth, and Sascha Michel, 169–188. Stuttgart: ibidem.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia. 2012. “Repair.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 229–256. Chichester: Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krämer, Sybille. 1998. “Das Medium als Spur und als Apparat.” In Medien, Computer, Realität — Wirklichkeitsvorstellungen und Neue Medien, edited by Sybille Krämer, 73–94. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.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
. 2014. “News Genres as Cultural Forms.” Anglistik 25(2): 51–79.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luginbühl, Martin, and Dorothee Meer. 2022. “Parainteraktion in den Medien — Zur Einführung.” In Parainteraktion in den Medien. Linguistische Studien zu Formen medialer Pseudo-Interaktion, edited by Martin Luginbühl, and Dorothee Meer, 7–20. Bern: Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luginbühl, Martin, and Jan Georg Schneider. 2020. “Medial Shaping from the Outset: On the Mediality of the Second Presidential Debate, 2016.” Journal for Media Linguistics (jfml) 3(1): 57–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1949. “La double articulation linguistique.” Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 5: 30–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meier, Stefan. 2021. “‘Affordanzen als mediale Dispositive’. Neue Anregungen zur Konzeptualisierung des Interdependenzverhältnisses von Zeichen, Medien und kommunikativer Praxis.” Zeitschrift für Semiotik 41(1–2): 37–62.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montgomery, Martin. 2007. The Discourse of Broadcast News. A Linguistic Approach. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pentzold, Christian, and Bischof, Andreas. 2019. “Making Affordances Real: Socio-Material Prefiguration, Performed Agency, and Coordinated Activities in Human — Robot Communication.” Social Media + Society 5(3): 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pentzold, Christian, Claudia Fraas, and Stefan Meier. 2013. “Online-mediale Texte: Kommunikationsformen, Affordanzen, Interfaces.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 41(1): 81–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Postman, Neil. 1985. Amusing Ourselves to Death. Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Havey. 1984. “On Doing ‘Being Ordinary’.” In Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 413–440. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50(4): 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scannell, Paddy. 1991. “Introduction. The Relevance of Talk.” In Broadcast Talk, edited by Paddy Scannel, 1–13. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. Radio, Television and Modern Life. A Phenomenological Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheufele, Dietram A., Eunkyung Kim, and Dominique Brossard. 2007. “My Friend’s Enemy: How Split-Screen Debate Coverage Influences Evaluation of Presidential Debates.” Communication Research 34(1): 3–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, Margret et al. 2009. “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (Gat 2).” Gesprächsforschung 10: 353–402.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stetter, Christian. 2005. System und Performanz. Symboltheoretische Grundlagen von Medientheorie und Sprachwissenschaft. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stewart, Patrick A., and Spencer C. Hall. 2016. “Microanalysis of the Emotional Appropriateness of Facial Displays during Presidential Debates: C-SPAN Coverage of the First and Third 2012 Debates.” In Exploring the C-SPAN Archives: Advancing the Research Agenda, edited by Robert X. Brownin, 103–129. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stewart, Patrick A., Austin D. Eubanks, Reagan G. Dye, Scott Eidelman, and Robert H. Wicks. 2017. “Visual Presentation Style 2: Influences on Perceptions of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Based on Visual Presentation Style During the Third 2016 Presidential Debate.” American Behavioral Scientist 61(5): 545–557. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stöckl, Hartmut. 2020. “Linguistic Multimodality — Multimodal Linguistics: A State-of-the-Art Sketch.” In Multimodality. Disciplinary Thoughts and the Challenge of Diversity, edited by Janina Wildfeuer, Jana Pflaeging, John Bateman, Ognyan Seizov, and Chiao-I Tseng, 41–68. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strömbäck, Jesper, and Frank Esser. 2014. “Mediatization of politics: Transforming Democracies and Reshaping Politics.” In Mediatization of Communication, edited by Knut Lundby, 375–403. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tienken, Susanne. 2015. “Neue Medien, neue Formate? Hybridisierung als Aspekt sozialen Wandels.” In Hybridisierung und Differenzierung. Kontrastive Perspektiven linguistischer Medienanalyse, edited by Stefan Hauser, and Martin Luginbühl, 31–56. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wicks, Robert H., Patrick A. Stewart, Austin D. Eubanks, Scott Eidelman, Reagan G. Dye. 2017. “Visual Presentation Style 1: A Test of Visual Presentation Styles and Candidate Evaluation During the First 2016 Presidential Debate.” American Behavioral Scientist 61(5): 533–544. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winkler, Hartmut. 2008. Basiswissen Medien. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1984. “Philosophische Untersuchungen.” In Werkausgabe in 8 Bänden, Bd.1, by Ludwig Wittgenstein, 225–580. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue