Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 269–287 | Cite as

“If you and I, if we, in this later day, lose that sacred fire...”: Perspective in Political Interviews

  • Camelia Suleiman
  • Daniel C. O'Connell
  • Sabine Kowal


It is argued in the following that the dialogical complexity of speaker perspective requires a broad empirical analysis. To date, such analyses, particularly of political discourse, have been couched in terms of narrower concepts, such as self-presentation and political positioning or involvement/distancing, and have been typically carried out by means of qualitative methods applied to pronominal usage. The present research applies complementarily both quantitative and qualitative analyses to BBC television interviews of Shimon Peres (January 29, 2001) and of Edward Said (October 18, 2000) by Tim Sebastian in a program entitled HARDtalk. In addition to pronouns, these analyses include a number of other hypothetical indicators of a broad concept of perspective on the part of both interviewer and interviewees: turn-initial words, hesitations, questions, use of yes and no, personal reference utterances (e.g., I think), interjections, number of syllables spoken, and interruptions and overlaps. Quantitative comparisons of interviewer with interviewee revealed important differences on all these measures. Qualitative analyses also confirmed subtle local dynamics of perspective. Accordingly, the findings are interpreted within a general theoretical concept of perspective, derived from Bakhtin's (1981) dialogicity.

perspective dialogue TV interview political discourse 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogical imagination: Four essays (trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist, ed. M. Holquist). Austin, TX: Texas University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1999). The problem of speech genres. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 121–132). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Benveniste, E. (1971). The nature of pronouns. In M. E. Meek (Trans.), Problems in general linguistics (pp. 217–230). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
  4. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blum-Kulka, S., & Liebes, T. (2000). Peres versus Netanyahu: Television wins the debate. In S. Coleman (Ed.), Televised election debates: International perspectives (pp. 66–91). London: Mcmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Bull, P, Elliott, J., Palmer, D., & Walker, L. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology, 335, 267–284.Google Scholar
  7. Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C. (1997). Discourse and politics. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (Vol. 2, pp. 206–230). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Clayman, S. E. (1988). Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems, 35, 474–492.Google Scholar
  9. De Fina, A. (1995). Pronominal choice, identity, and solidarity in political discourse. Text, 15, 379–410.Google Scholar
  10. Farr, R. M. (1984). Interviewing: An introduction to the social psychology of the interview. In C. L. Cooper & P. Makin (Eds.), Psychology for managers (2nd ed.; pp. 176–194). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
  12. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
  13. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  14. Graumann, C. F. (1990). Perspectival structure and dynamics in dialogues. In I. Markovà & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 105–126). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Greatbatch, D. (1998). Conversation analysis: Neutralism in British news interviews. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse (pp. 163–185). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Harris, S. (1991). Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 76–99). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Heritage, J., & Roth, A. L. (1995). Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 1–60.Google Scholar
  18. James, D., & Drakich, J. (1993). Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: A critical review of research. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 281–312). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kowal, S., Barth, H.-C., Egemann, H., Galusi, G., Kögel, C., Lippold, N., Pfeil, A., & O'Connell, D. (1998). Unterbrechungen in Medieninterviews: Geschlechtstypisches Gesprächsverhalten Germanistische Linguistik, 139-140, 279–299.Google Scholar
  20. Kowal, S., & O'Connell, D. C. (1997). Theoretical ideals and their violation: Princess Diana and Martin Bashir in the BBC interview. Pragmatics, 7, 309–323.Google Scholar
  21. Kowal, S., & O'Connell, D. C. (in press). Interjektionen im Gespräch. Zeitschrift für Semiotik. Google Scholar
  22. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  23. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Linell, P. (1990). The power of dialogue dynamics. In I. Markovà & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 147–177). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Lott, D. N. (1961). The inaugural addresses of the American presidents from Washington to Kennedy. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  27. Maitland, K., & Wilson, G. (1987). Ideological conflict and pronominal resolution. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 495–512.Google Scholar
  28. Markovà, I., & Foppa, K. (Eds.). (1990). The dynamics of dialogue. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. O'Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (1998). Orality and literacy in public discourse: An interview of Hannah Arendt. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 543–564.Google Scholar
  31. O'Connell, D. C., Kowal, S., Dill III, E. J., Cohen, K. L., Kolodziej, K. A., & Viola, J. C. (in press). Public discourse in dialogical perspective: Orality/literacy, role differences, and style. Journal of Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  32. Rommetveit, R. (1990). On axiomatic features of a dialogical approach to language and mind. In I. Markovà & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 83–104). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Schegloff, E. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 99–128.Google Scholar
  34. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Suleiman, C. (1999). Pronouns and self presentation in public discourse: Yasser Arafat as case study. In Yasir Suleiman (Ed.), Language and society in the Middle East and North Africa: Studies in variation and identity (pp. 104–121). London: Curzon.Google Scholar
  36. Suleiman, C. (2000). Pronoun use in television interviews: Social interaction and the Middle East peace process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  37. Urban, G. (1988). The pronominal pragmatics of nuclear war discourse. Multilingua, 7, 67–93.Google Scholar
  38. van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1993). Positioning and autobiography: Telling your life. In N. Coupland & J. Nussbaum (Eds.), Discourse and life-span development (Vol. 1, pp. 81–99). Newbury Park, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Wilson, J. (1990). Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Wold, A. H. (Ed.) (1992). The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Zimmerman, D., & Boden, D. (1991). Structure-in-action: An introduction. In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 3–21). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Camelia Suleiman
    • 1
  • Daniel C. O'Connell
    • 2
  • Sabine Kowal
    • 3
  1. 1.Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Loyola UniversityChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Technical UniversityBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations