Difference between revisions of "McKenzie2005"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Kevin McKenzie; |Title=Te institutional provision for silence: On the evasive nature of politicians’ answers to reporters’ questi...") |
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Kevin McKenzie; | + | |Author(s)=Kevin McKenzie; |
| − | |Title= | + | |Title=The institutional provision for silence: On the evasive nature of politicians’ answers |
to reporters’ questions | to reporters’ questions | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; dialogue; context; collaboration; evasive rhetoric; social structure; | |Tag(s)=EMCA; dialogue; context; collaboration; evasive rhetoric; social structure; | ||
|Key=McKenzie2005 | |Key=McKenzie2005 | ||
|Year=2005 | |Year=2005 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Journal of Language and Politics | |Journal=Journal of Language and Politics | ||
|Volume=4 | |Volume=4 | ||
Revision as of 07:39, 24 October 2017
| McKenzie2005 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | McKenzie2005 |
| Author(s) | Kevin McKenzie |
| Title | The institutional provision for silence: On the evasive nature of politicians’ answers
to reporters’ questions |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, dialogue, context, collaboration, evasive rhetoric, social structure |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2005 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Language and Politics |
| Volume | 4 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 443–463 |
| URL | |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper explores how what is both appropriate to and excluded from consideration in a given episode of talk involving question-and-answers between a speaker and audience is the outcome of complex negotiation. We consider the details of such collaborative work in talk at a press conference with the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in discussion concerning his own and other countries’ military involvement in the Middle East. What gets excluded from consideration in the talk is itself established in dialogic inter- action where the problematic nature of inferences potentially made relevant to the discussion is highlighted by reporters and brought to account by the Prime Minister. Tis feature of dialogue is related to recent scholarly debate regarding the place that context of controversy and the implicit availability of meaning should play in an analysis of talk, where what does not get said features as of equal importance as what does get said. We explore how the questions at issue in just such debates get taken up as participant concerns, pursued as a practical order of business in efforts where principal speakers work to foreclose the inferential potential otherwise opened up by audience scrutiny.
Notes
