Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 16:6 (2025) ► pp.806–827

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

The metapragmatic act of debating in the media

ORCiD logo with link | University of Southern Denmark
Published online: 23 January 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21061.jac
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to lay the theoretical foundation of the metapragmatic act of debating, and to present evidence that it provides a better approach to mediated debate than existing theoretical notions of metapragmatic acts and intertextuality in the media. To achieve this goal, it contrasts its notion with Bublitz, Wolfram. 2015. “Introducing Quoting as a Ubiquitous Meta-Communicative Act.” In The Pragmatics of Quoting Now and Then, ed. by Jenny Arendholz, Wolfram Bublitz, and Monika Kirner-Ludwig, 1–26. Berlin/Bosten: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar metapragmatic act of quoting, and analyses a simple and a complex exchange from the First 2004 US presidential debate. The theory proposed and data analyzed suggest two things: (1) that the metapragmatic act of debating is best conceived of as a combination of Caffi, Claudia. 2006. “Metapragmatics.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.), ed. by Keith Brown, 82–87. Oxford: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar third sense of metapragmatics and Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. (2nd ed.). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar notion of pragmatic act, (2) operationalizing the theoretical notion of a metapragmatic act means adapting it to a specific context, for example, there is no such thing as a general metapragmatic act.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Initial illustration: Formulating an opponent’s criticism
  • 3.Theoretical foundation: metapragmatic acts and intertextuality
  • 4.Debating across space, time, and reality: the ‘war on terror’ and the intertextual constitution of debate
    • First case
    • Second case
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (27)
References
Arendholz, Jenny, Wolfram Bublitz, and Monika Kirner-Ludwig (eds.). 2015. The Pragmatics of Quoting Now and Then. Berlin/Bosten: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bächtiger, Andre, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren. 2018. “Deliberative Democracy: An Introduction.” In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, ed. by Andre Bâchtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren, 1–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Billig, Michael. 1996. Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Briggs, Charles L., and Richard Bauman. 1992. “Genre, Intertextuality, and Social Power.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 21: 131–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram. 2015. “Introducing Quoting as a Ubiquitous Meta-Communicative Act.” In The Pragmatics of Quoting Now and Then, ed. by Jenny Arendholz, Wolfram Bublitz, and Monika Kirner-Ludwig, 1–26. Berlin/Bosten: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2006. “Metapragmatics.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.), ed. by Keith Brown, 82–87. Oxford: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1999. “Negation, ‘Presupposition’ and Metarepresentation: A Response to Noel Burton-Roberts.” Journal of Linguistics 351: 365–389. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 1995. “Defining Moments, Presidential Debates, and the Dynamics of Quotability.” Journal of Communication 45(3): 118–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deschrijver, Cedric. 2021. “On the Metapragmatics of ‘Conspiracy Theory’: Scepticism and Epistemological Debates in Online Conspiracy Comments.” Journal of Pragmatics, available online March 3, 2021. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2019. “The Limits of Meaning: Social Indexicality, Variation, and the Cline of Interiority.” Language 951: 751–776. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2020. “‘And I Quote’: Forms and Functions of Quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1571: 89–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Elisabeth Reber. 2015. “Quoting in Political Discourse: Professional Talk Meets Ordinary Postings.” In The Pragmatics of Quoting Now and Then, ed. by Jenny Arendholz, Wolfram Bublitz, and Monika Kirner-Ludwig, 97–124. Berlin/Bosten: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freelon, Deen, and David Karpf. 2015. “Of Big Birds and Bayonets: Hybrid Twitter Interactivity in the 2012 Presidential Debates.” Information, Communication & Society 18(4): 390–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gal, Susan. 2006. “Linguistic Anthropology.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.), ed. by Keith Brown, 171–185. Oxford: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haberland, Hartmut. 1999. “Text, Discourse, Discours: The Latest Report from the Terminology Vice Squad.” Journal of Pragmatics 311: 911–918. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Pragmatics as a Component vs. Pragmatics as a Perspective of Linguistics.” Studies in Pragmatics 121: 54–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, Stuart. 1980. “Encoding/Decoding.” In Culture, Media, Language, ed. by Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Love, and Paul Willis, 128–138. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel, and Wolfram Bublitz. 2007 (eds.). Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Ronald R. 2020. “Evasion, Distortion and Interruption in US Presidential Debates.” PhD diss. University of Southern Denmark, SDU.
Kirner-Ludwig, Monika. 2020. “Creation, Dissemination and Uptake of Fake-quotes in Lay Political Discourse on Facebook and Twitter.” Journal of Pragmatics 1571: 101–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koller, Veronika, and Marlene Miglbauer. 2019. “What Drives the Right-Wing Populist Vote? Topics, Motivations and Representations in the Online Vox Pop with Voters for the Alternative für Deutschland.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 67(3): 283–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. “Activity Types and Language.” Linguistics 171: 365–399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. (2nd ed.). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, Joseph S., and Mary Bucholtz. 2009. “Public Transcripts: Entextualization and Linguistic Representation in Institutional Contexts.” Text and Talk 291: 485–502. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rancière, Jacques. 1995. La Mésentente. Paris: Galilée.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheinheit, Ian, and Cynthia J. Bogard. 2016. “Authenticity and Carrier Agents: The Social Construction of Political Gaffes.” Sociological Forum 31(4): 970–993. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue