Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 7:3 (2016) ► pp.391–412
Reformulating the question in US Presidential debates
A device for adjusting the question and the subsequent answer to one's audience
Published online: 15 September 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.3.03jac
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.3.03jac
This paper analyzes the role of question reformulations in the 2004 US presidential debates. While formulations used for questioning have received quite some attention in the literature, no studies, to my knowledge, with the exception of Clayman (1993), have been concerned with question reformulations, that is, formulations given in response to questions. In contrast to Clayman (1993) who examined the ‘directness/evasiveness’ of a reformulation as a collaborative achievement involving a question-answer-pursuit sequence, this paper analyzes it as a collaborative achievement involving a question-answer-answer sequence (like a panel news interview). The analysis shows that the reformulations in the 2004 US presidential debates involve a device for adjusting the question and the subsequent answer to the candidate’s (actual and presumed) audience. Thus, the relative ‘directness/evasiveness’ of a candidate’s answer depends on which of the ‘three’ perspectives (/positions) presented by the question-answer-answer sequence that the overhearing audience is most willing to adopt.
References (13)
Caffi, Claudia. 2006. “Metapragmatics.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd edition), ed. by Keith Brown, 82–87. Oxford: Elsevier.
Clayman, Steven E. 1993. “Reformulating the Question: A Device for Answering/Not Answering Questions in News Interviews and Press Conferences.” Text 13(2): 159–188.
Emmertsen, Sofie. 2007. “Interviewers’ Challenging Questions in British Debate Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 570–591.
Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey Sacks. 1970. “On Formal Structures of Practical Action.” In Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments, ed. by John C. McKinney and Edward A. Tiryakrian, 337–366. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Greatbatch, David. 1992. “On the Management of Disagreement between News Interviewees.” In Talk at work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 268–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John. 1985. “Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience.” In Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Vol. 3. Discourse and Dialogue, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 95–117. London: Academic Press.
Heritage, John, and Rod Watson. 1979. “Formulations as Conversational Objects.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 123–162. New York: Irvington.
. 1980. “Aspects of the Properties of Formulations in Natural Conversations: Some Instances Analyzed.” Semiotica 30(3): 245–262.
“Memorandum of Understanding” (Signed by Bush-Cheney, ‘04, Inc. and Kerry-Edwards, ‘04, Inc., September 20, 2004), FindLaw.com, accessed January 3, 2014. [URL].
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1980. “Preliminaries to preliminaries: ‘Can I Ask You a Question’.” Sociological Inquiry 501: 104–152.
. 1988. “Presequences and Indirection: Applying Speech Act Theory to Ordinary Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 121: 55–62.
“The 2004 US Presidential Debates between John F. Kerry and George W. Bush” (Sound recordings). The Internet Archieve, accessed September 16, 2014. [URL].
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Alroumi, Abdulrahman & El Mustapha Lahlali
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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.