{"title":"“I don't mean extradimensional in a woo-woo sense”: Doing non-explanation in discussions of unidentified aerial phenomena","authors":"Chris McVittie , Andy McKinlay","doi":"10.1016/j.langcom.2022.11.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In everyday talk, speakers commonly provide explanations that “make plain” or “make intelligible” prior talk. Little work, however, has examined talk in which speakers offer no explanation for what is being described. We consider talk about “unidentified aerial phenomena” (UAPs) from news media interviews. Interviewees distanced themselves from accountability for explaining UAPs or proposed multiple candidate explanations. Interviewers tabled their own potential explanations. Participants’ talk did not “make plain” or “make intelligible” phenomena being discussed. These findings show that explanations are a participants’ concern. These interactions allow discussion of topics of broad public interest, thereby “doing news”.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47575,"journal":{"name":"Language & Communication","volume":"88 ","pages":"Pages 90-98"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language & Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271530922000969","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In everyday talk, speakers commonly provide explanations that “make plain” or “make intelligible” prior talk. Little work, however, has examined talk in which speakers offer no explanation for what is being described. We consider talk about “unidentified aerial phenomena” (UAPs) from news media interviews. Interviewees distanced themselves from accountability for explaining UAPs or proposed multiple candidate explanations. Interviewers tabled their own potential explanations. Participants’ talk did not “make plain” or “make intelligible” phenomena being discussed. These findings show that explanations are a participants’ concern. These interactions allow discussion of topics of broad public interest, thereby “doing news”.
期刊介绍:
This journal is unique in that it provides a forum devoted to the interdisciplinary study of language and communication. The investigation of language and its communicational functions is treated as a concern shared in common by those working in applied linguistics, child development, cultural studies, discourse analysis, intellectual history, legal studies, language evolution, linguistic anthropology, linguistics, philosophy, the politics of language, pragmatics, psychology, rhetoric, semiotics, and sociolinguistics. The journal invites contributions which explore the implications of current research for establishing common theoretical frameworks within which findings from different areas of study may be accommodated and interrelated. By focusing attention on the many ways in which language is integrated with other forms of communicational activity and interactional behaviour, it is intended to encourage approaches to the study of language and communication which are not restricted by existing disciplinary boundaries.