Difference between revisions of "Romaniuk2009"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Tanya Romaniuk; |Title=The “Clinton Cackle”: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Laughter in News Interviews |Tag(s)=EMCA; Laughter-in-intera...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Journal=Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture | |Journal=Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture | ||
|Volume=7 | |Volume=7 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=17–49 |
| − | |URL=https:// | + | |URL=https://www.academia.edu/21077483/The_Clinton_Cackle_Hillary_Rodham_Clintons_Laughter_in_News_Interviews |
| − | |Abstract=This paper discusses a previously undescribed phenomenon in broadcast news interviews, namely the practice of interviewees laughing in response to an interviewer’s question | + | |Abstract=This paper discusses a previously undescribed phenomenon in broadcast news interviews, namely the practice of interviewees laughing in response to an interviewer’s question prior to providing a substantive response. Specifically, it does so through an investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (HRC) use of laughter in news interviews during her 2007 campaign for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Drawing on a conversation analysis framework, I consider two dimensions of HRC’s laughter: first, the retrospective dimension, arguing that HRC’s laughter acts as an implicit commentary on the interviewers’ questions, which also functions to undermine them; second, its prospective consequences—how laughter establishes a relevant context for a responsive next action. Ultimately, I demonstrate how both dimensions are relevant in varying degrees and given particularized features of the interactional context. Furthermore, it offers some important implications for subsequent analyses of laughter in broadcast news interviews as well as other interactional contexts. |
| − | prior to providing a substantive response. | ||
| − | of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s | ||
| − | campaign for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Drawing on a | ||
| − | conversation analysis framework, I consider two dimensions of HRC’s laughter: | ||
| − | retrospective dimension, arguing that HRC’s laughter acts as an implicit commentary on | ||
| − | the interviewers’ questions, which also functions to undermine them; second, its prospective consequences—how | ||
| − | Ultimately, I demonstrate how both dimensions are relevant in varying degrees and given | ||
| − | particularized features of the interactional context. Furthermore, it offers some important implications for subsequent analyses of laughter in broadcast news interviews as well as other interactional contexts. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:56, 23 November 2019
| Romaniuk2009 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Romaniuk2009 |
| Author(s) | Tanya Romaniuk |
| Title | The “Clinton Cackle”: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Laughter in News Interviews |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Laughter-in-interaction, News interviews |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture |
| Volume | 7 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 17–49 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper discusses a previously undescribed phenomenon in broadcast news interviews, namely the practice of interviewees laughing in response to an interviewer’s question prior to providing a substantive response. Specifically, it does so through an investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (HRC) use of laughter in news interviews during her 2007 campaign for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Drawing on a conversation analysis framework, I consider two dimensions of HRC’s laughter: first, the retrospective dimension, arguing that HRC’s laughter acts as an implicit commentary on the interviewers’ questions, which also functions to undermine them; second, its prospective consequences—how laughter establishes a relevant context for a responsive next action. Ultimately, I demonstrate how both dimensions are relevant in varying degrees and given particularized features of the interactional context. Furthermore, it offers some important implications for subsequent analyses of laughter in broadcast news interviews as well as other interactional contexts.
Notes
