佛兰德新闻媒体政治访谈中的问题设计和立场选择

IF 1.3 2区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Wout Van Praet, Lutgard Lams, Karel Naulaers
{"title":"佛兰德新闻媒体政治访谈中的问题设计和立场选择","authors":"Wout Van Praet,&nbsp;Lutgard Lams,&nbsp;Karel Naulaers","doi":"10.1016/j.langcom.2024.10.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This contribution proposes a hybrid methodological framework to study stance-taking in political interviews, combining a granular grammatical analysis of question design with a discursive analysis of ‘active questioning’. Focusing on political interviews in the Flemish current-affairs programme <em>Terzake</em>, the study applies this analytical framework to examine journalistic stance-taking in different contexts, based on the topic of the interview and the role of the interviewee. The findings indicate that while journalistic stance-taking is standard practice across contexts, specific differences emerge at finer linguistic levels (cf. grammatical question types). The topic of the interview is found to be a more important factor in the likelihood of interviewers expressing stance than the role of the interviewee. We link this to the different intents (i.e., exploration, systematisation, or explanation) that interviews can have, which influence the dynamics of the question-answer exchange and, hence, how active a role the interviewer might take within that exchange. Finally, the study emphasises the usefulness of combining a grammatical and a discursive analysis of interviewer questions, as the specific ‘design’ of questions (i.e., their grammatical form and function) can point to subtly different ways in which interviewers position themselves vis-à-vis interviewees that may be glossed over at the discursive level of linguistic analysis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47575,"journal":{"name":"Language & Communication","volume":"99 ","pages":"Pages 212-228"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Question design and stance-taking in political interviews in Flemish news media\",\"authors\":\"Wout Van Praet,&nbsp;Lutgard Lams,&nbsp;Karel Naulaers\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.langcom.2024.10.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This contribution proposes a hybrid methodological framework to study stance-taking in political interviews, combining a granular grammatical analysis of question design with a discursive analysis of ‘active questioning’. Focusing on political interviews in the Flemish current-affairs programme <em>Terzake</em>, the study applies this analytical framework to examine journalistic stance-taking in different contexts, based on the topic of the interview and the role of the interviewee. The findings indicate that while journalistic stance-taking is standard practice across contexts, specific differences emerge at finer linguistic levels (cf. grammatical question types). The topic of the interview is found to be a more important factor in the likelihood of interviewers expressing stance than the role of the interviewee. We link this to the different intents (i.e., exploration, systematisation, or explanation) that interviews can have, which influence the dynamics of the question-answer exchange and, hence, how active a role the interviewer might take within that exchange. Finally, the study emphasises the usefulness of combining a grammatical and a discursive analysis of interviewer questions, as the specific ‘design’ of questions (i.e., their grammatical form and function) can point to subtly different ways in which interviewers position themselves vis-à-vis interviewees that may be glossed over at the discursive level of linguistic analysis.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47575,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language & Communication\",\"volume\":\"99 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 212-228\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"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/S027153092400065X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language & Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027153092400065X","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

摘要

这篇论文提出了一个混合方法框架来研究政治访谈中的立场取向,将对问题设计的语法分析与对 "积极提问 "的话语分析结合起来。本研究以佛兰德时事节目 Terzake 的政治访谈为重点,根据访谈主题和受访者的角色,运用这一分析框架来研究不同语境下的新闻立场。研究结果表明,尽管在不同语境中,记者的立场表述是标准做法,但在更细的语言层面(如语法问题类型)上却出现了具体差异。在采访者表达立场的可能性方面,采访主题比被采访者的角色更为重要。我们将此与访谈的不同意图(即探索、系统化或解释)联系起来,这些意图影响着问答交流的动态,从而影响着访谈者在交流中可能扮演的积极角色。最后,本研究强调了将语法分析与访谈者提问的话语分析相结合的有用性,因为提问的具体 "设计"(即语法形式和功能)可以指出访谈者相对于受访者的微妙的不同定位方式,而这些方式在语言分析的话语层面可能会被忽略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Question design and stance-taking in political interviews in Flemish news media
This contribution proposes a hybrid methodological framework to study stance-taking in political interviews, combining a granular grammatical analysis of question design with a discursive analysis of ‘active questioning’. Focusing on political interviews in the Flemish current-affairs programme Terzake, the study applies this analytical framework to examine journalistic stance-taking in different contexts, based on the topic of the interview and the role of the interviewee. The findings indicate that while journalistic stance-taking is standard practice across contexts, specific differences emerge at finer linguistic levels (cf. grammatical question types). The topic of the interview is found to be a more important factor in the likelihood of interviewers expressing stance than the role of the interviewee. We link this to the different intents (i.e., exploration, systematisation, or explanation) that interviews can have, which influence the dynamics of the question-answer exchange and, hence, how active a role the interviewer might take within that exchange. Finally, the study emphasises the usefulness of combining a grammatical and a discursive analysis of interviewer questions, as the specific ‘design’ of questions (i.e., their grammatical form and function) can point to subtly different ways in which interviewers position themselves vis-à-vis interviewees that may be glossed over at the discursive level of linguistic analysis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
67
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.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信