“The people watching at home”

Tom W. Underwood, J. Angouri
{"title":"“The people watching at home”","authors":"Tom W. Underwood, J. Angouri","doi":"10.1075/jlac.00068.und","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis paper explores disagreement practice in political discourse, specifically in the under explored public inquiry communicative event and more specifically in the select-committee hearing. We revisit earlier work on theorising disagreement to expand our understanding of its contextual nature, particularly in relation to the making of ideology.\nPublic inquiries combine the characteristics of professional meetings with characteristics of political discourse. They are typified by hybridised and ambiguous role expectations which participants negotiate in and through (potentially competing) practices in doing the ideological work demanded by the policy process. In this context, disagreement emerges as key to the performance of the interactants’ situated and explicit/semi-permanent roles as professional politicians.\nBy applying Critical Interactional Sociolinguistic analysis within a wider frame of audience design, we demonstrate the importance of the ideological role of disagreement to the policy process. We argue that further attention needs to be given to the policy talk in meso-level political events, such as the public inquiry, which connect the ideological (macro) political domains of human activity with the (micro) here and now of talk. We close the paper with directions for further research.","PeriodicalId":280087,"journal":{"name":"Thematic issue: New perspectives on conflict","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thematic issue: New perspectives on conflict","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00068.und","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper explores disagreement practice in political discourse, specifically in the under explored public inquiry communicative event and more specifically in the select-committee hearing. We revisit earlier work on theorising disagreement to expand our understanding of its contextual nature, particularly in relation to the making of ideology. Public inquiries combine the characteristics of professional meetings with characteristics of political discourse. They are typified by hybridised and ambiguous role expectations which participants negotiate in and through (potentially competing) practices in doing the ideological work demanded by the policy process. In this context, disagreement emerges as key to the performance of the interactants’ situated and explicit/semi-permanent roles as professional politicians. By applying Critical Interactional Sociolinguistic analysis within a wider frame of audience design, we demonstrate the importance of the ideological role of disagreement to the policy process. We argue that further attention needs to be given to the policy talk in meso-level political events, such as the public inquiry, which connect the ideological (macro) political domains of human activity with the (micro) here and now of talk. We close the paper with directions for further research.
“在家看电视的人们”
本文探讨了政治话语中的分歧实践,特别是在未被探索的公共探究交际事件中,更具体地说,是在特别委员会听证会中。我们回顾了早期关于将分歧理论化的工作,以扩大我们对其上下文性质的理解,特别是与意识形态的形成有关。公众质询结合了专业会议的特点和政治话语的特点。它们的典型特征是参与者在进行政策过程所要求的意识形态工作时,在(潜在竞争的)实践中进行协商,从而产生混合和模糊的角色期望。在这种背景下,分歧成为互动者作为职业政治家的定位和明确/半永久性角色表现的关键。通过在更广泛的受众设计框架内应用批判性互动社会语言学分析,我们证明了分歧对政策过程的意识形态作用的重要性。我们认为,需要进一步关注中观政治事件中的政策谈话,例如公共调查,它将人类活动的意识形态(宏观)政治领域与谈话的(微观)联系起来。最后,我们提出了进一步研究的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信