Advertisement

Reporting Controversy in Constructed Dialogue

  • Peter A. Cramer
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 19)

Abstract

Journalists use constructed dialogue to narrate controversies in their reporting. They develop interlocutor profiles, constructing dialogues among participants whom they nominate and voice through reported speech. These are extended pragmatic event formulas, and through them, journalists provide a narrated location for public controversies. They regularly narrate dialogue among interlocutors who have not necessarily shared physical proximity, addressed one another directly, provided public, on-the-record statements that are relevant, nor engaged a common issue. While they do construct decision making dialogues, journalists do not necessarily narrate controversy according to the norms and standards promoted in the discourse arts. In most cases, doing so would tend to put journalists at odds with their own professional norms, which stress the reporting of events through assiduous display of empirical grounding in the statements of sources. By narrating controversy in constructed dialogue, journalists share with the discourse arts the use of a dialogue model.

Keywords

News Article News Event Matrix Clause Authoritative Source Narrate Event 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Agha, A. 2007. Language and social relations, Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Associated Press. 2007, June 24. Man throws a log at a bear, killing it. The New York Times. New York.Google Scholar
  3. Associated Press. 2009, July 19. Jet crashes, killing 2 in Afghanistan. The New York Times, A10. New York.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, A.L. 1988. Language in particular: An essay. In Linguistics in context, 17–36. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, A. 1991. The language of news media. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Bergler, S. 2006. Conveying attitude with reported speech. In Computing attitude and affect in text: Theory and applications, 11–22. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berkenkotter, C., and D. Ravotas. 2002. New research strategies in genre analysis: Reported speech as recontextualization in a psychotherapist’s notes and initial assessment. In Discourse studies in composition, 229–255. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  8. Birnbaum, J. 1989, Oct 27. Democrats plan tactic to block tax-cut vote. The Wall Street Journal, A18. New York.Google Scholar
  9. Blair, J.A. 1998. The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argumentation 12: 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blommaert, J. 2004. Writing as a problem: African grassroots writing, economies of literacy, and globalization. Language in Society 33(05): 643–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croft, W. 1998. The structure of events and the structure of language. In The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 67–92. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Dascal, M. 1990. The controversy about ideas and the ideas about controversy. In Scientific and philosophical controversies, 61–100. Lisboa: Fragmentos.Google Scholar
  13. Dijk, T.A.V. 1988. News as discourse. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Dijk, T.A.V. 2008. Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Du Bois, J.W. 1980. Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production, 203–274. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  16. Fillmore, C.J. 1977. The case for case reopened. In Grammatical relations, Syntax and semantics, vol. 8, 59–81. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Galtung, J., and M. Ruge. 1965. The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research 2: 64–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geisler, C. 1994. Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Halliday, M.A.K., and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, J. 1996, June 8. White House admits having background files; administration ‘blunder’ sets off rhetorical firefight with hill republicans. The Washington Post. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, R. 2004. The linguistics of history. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Haviland, J.B. 1996. Text from talk in Tzotzil. In Natural histories of discourse, ed. M. Silverstein and G. Urban, 45–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hopper, P.J. 1995. The category ‘event’ in natural discourse and logic. In Discourse, grammar, and typology, Studies in language companion series, vol. 27, 139–152. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  24. Hopper, P.J., and S.A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoyt, C. 2007, Nov 11. Taint by association: Rules for ‘questions’. The New York Times, 12. New York.Google Scholar
  26. Irvine, J.T. 1996. Shadow conversations: The indeterminacy of participant roles. In Natural histories of discourse, ed. M. Silverstein and G. Urban, 131–159. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kaufer, D., and B. Butler. 1996. Rhetoric and the arts of design. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Kaufer, D., S. Ishizaki, B. Butler, and J. Collins. 2004. The power of words: Unveiling the speaker and writer’s hidden craft. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Lieberman, D., and R. Moran. 2008, July 10. Phila. man shot to death outside his house. The Philadelphia Inquirer, B5. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  30. Linell, P. 1998. Discourse across boundaries: On recontextualization and the blending of voices in professional discourse. Text 18: 143–157.Google Scholar
  31. Macdowall, I., and Reuters Ltd. 1992. Reuters handbook for journalists. Oxford/Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  32. Mardh, I. 1980. Headlinese: On the grammar of English front page headlines. Lund: Liberlèaromedel/Gleerup.Google Scholar
  33. Ochs, E. 1992. Indexing gender. In Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 335–358. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Park, J.S., and M. Bucholtz. 2009. Public transcripts: Entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts. Text and Talk 29(5): 485–502.Google Scholar
  35. Puxley, C. 2008, Nov 19. ‘Great’ polar bear dies at 41. The Toronto Sun. Toronto.Google Scholar
  36. Roshco, B. 1975. Newsmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Schegloff, E.A. 1997. Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society 8(2): 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schudson, M. 1978. Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Sinclair, J.M., and D. Brazil. 1982. Teacher talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1985. Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 86: 153–171.Google Scholar
  41. Tannen, D. 1986. Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational narrative. In Direct and indirect speech, 311–332. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tuchman, G. 1980. Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York/London: Free Press/Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Urban, G. 1996. Entextualization, replication, power. In Natural histories of discourse, ed. M. Silverstein and G. Urban, 21–44. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Van Leeuwen, T. 1996. The representation of social actors. In Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis, 32–70. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Walton, D.N. 2004. Relevance in argumentation. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations