Difference between revisions of "Pinatih2020"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Anisa Pinatih |Title=Third turn position in British election phone-in conversations |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation analysis; phone-in conver...")
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 11:05, 1 June 2020

Pinatih2020
BibType ARTICLE
Key Pinatih2020
Author(s) Anisa Pinatih
Title Third turn position in British election phone-in conversations
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Conversation analysis, phone-in conversations, third turn position, question answer sequence
Publisher
Year 2020
Language English
City
Month
Journal Text & Talk
Volume 40
Number 3
Pages 325-251
URL Link
DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-2064
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

An election radio phone-in program is designed for questions and answers, thus providing a context for direct interaction where lay-participants can engage with politicians’ responses. The current study aims at examining the third position that follows a question-answer sequence in a phone-in conversation, when radio hosts and/or callers evaluate politicians’ answers. Previous research has shown that radio hosts may offer a comeback to the caller, terminate the call, or ask their own question; and that a caller may come back on their own initiative. The aim of this article is to discover if there are patterns that underlie this diversity in the third position in radio phone-in conversations. The data consist of 4 hours and 20 minutes of transcribed conversations from election phone-ins from the Leading Britain’s Conversation (LBC) radiobroadcast prior to the 2015 general election. Using Conversation Analysis, this study looks at the sequential context and the substantive content of utterances to examine if the design and the content of the question and answer have bearing on the third position. The findings show that hosts either offered a comeback to callers or terminated the call right away when the politician’s answer was non-evasive and lacking opposition; that hosts or callers pursued an answer when evasion and opposition were apparent, and that callers pursued only when they showed oppositional stance taking in the questioning position.

Notes