This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 17 November 2014, At: 21:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Southern African Linguistics andApplied Language StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rall20

Co-constructing knowledge in newsinterviews: An application of Hardyand Palmer's (1998) discourse modelThinus Conradie aa Department of English , University of the Free State , PO Box339, Bloemfontein , 9300 , South AfricaPublished online: 19 Dec 2012.

To cite this article: Thinus Conradie (2012) Co-constructing knowledge in news interviews:An application of Hardy and Palmer's (1998) discourse model, Southern African Linguistics andApplied Language Studies, 30:4, 497-509, DOI: 10.2989/16073614.2012.750823

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2012.750823

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms

& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2012, 30(4): 497–509Printed in South Africa — All rights reserved

Copyright © NISC (Pty) Ltd

SOUTHERN AFRICAN LINGUISTICSAND APPLIED LANGUAGE STUDIES

ISSN 1607-3614 EISSN 1727-9461http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2012.750823

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies is co-published by NISC (Pty) Ltd and Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group

Co-constructing knowledge in news interviews: An application of Hardy and Palmer’s (1998) discourse model

Thinus ConradieDepartment of English, University of the Free State, PO Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa

e-mail: conradieMS@ufs.ac.za

Abstract: This article builds on previous research which suggests that news interviews represent a special form of dialogue, in which discourse is co-constructed between the interviewer and one or more interviewees, and aims to present for critical discussion, an analytic framework that could provide insight into the nature of such co-constructions. More specifically, Hardy and Palmer’s (1998) discourse model is applied to a corpus of news interviews, in order to investigate the negotiation of meaning in political interviews, and the subsequent construction of a platform on which audiences are encourage to accept or reject the knowledge that emerges from this process of negotiation. The analyses reported here, focus on televised interviews about contemporary political events.

Introduction and research aimsNews journalism is ‘among the most influential knowledge-producing institutions of our time’ (Ekström, 2002: 259; cf. Talbot, 1995). As a subcategory of news discourse, interviews represent one of the most common methods for collecting and reporting newsworthy information (Greer, 1999). As such, they have been a subject of scholarly interest from numerous fields, including Sociology and Applied Linguistics (Heritage, 2002a, 2002b; Johanssen, 2006; Emmertsen, 2007; Clayman, 1991, 2002).

This article begins by reviewing the conventions which underpin news journalism in general, before turning to the way these conventions influence the construction of knowledge during interviews. Based on this review, interviews are approached as a form of dialogue in which knowledge about specific topics are co-constructed between interviewers (IRs) and interviewees (ERs). Thereafter, the article aims to make its contribution by analysing the way IRs and ERs co-construct knowledge about political events. After collecting and reviewing the data in a qualita-tive fashion (cf. Seliger & Shohamy, 1989), it was decided to pursue this goal by applying Hardy and Palmer’s (1998) discourse analytic model to three news interviews. With regards to knowledge construction, the findings suggest that one element of this model – activity circuits – may be particu-larly useful for analysing the following elements: i) the way in which positive or negative perceptions are assigned to individuals and/or social groups on the basis of the co-constructed knowledge that emerges from the interview, ii) the way in which these perceptions are supported or criticised by IRs and ERs, and iii) the way in which a discursive platform is created on which viewers must decide whether to accept or reject the knowledge that has been co-constructed.

Theoretical backgroundThis section will review the literature which has influenced the study. Since news interviews are a subgenre of news discourse, the review will discuss: i) the news media as a social institution, ii) the conventions which underpin news journalism in general, iii) the manifestation of these conventions in television journalism (henceforth TV journalism), and finally iv) the conventions which underpin interviews.

The news media as a social institutionThe news media has become one of the most influential sources of information in contemporary societies (De Bruin, 2000; Ekström, 2001, 2002; Rayner et al., 2004; Boyer & Hannerz, 2006).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Conradie498

Its potential for forming public opinion and subsequent action has spurred academic interest in the perceived trustworthiness of news reports across different countries and cultures. In this regard, the literature on the topic reports the following dichotomy (Ekström, 2002): At times, the knowledge constructed by the news media is met with such scepticism that its reports are discounted and forgotten, while at other times such reports are perceived as sufficiently accurate to form the basis of public opinion and action (Ekström, 2002: 263). The factors that determine an audience’s response are legion and subject to extreme flux. Theories that have attempted to provide a framework for predicting audience response include the Uses and Gratifications, as well as the Situated Culture Theory of media consumption (Rayner et al., 2004: 138–140). Both theories propose that individuals respond to the mass media according to: i) their immediate needs, ii) personal values, and iii) cultural norms. Thus, whether or not an individual will accept the knowledge constructed in the news media as credible depends upon a variety of personal and social variables.

This article operates on the assumption that – whether met with scepticism or acceptance – news discourses play an essential role in the social construction and dissemination of knowledge.

Finally, as a social institution, news reporting is significantly influenced by economic concerns. Some media researchers note that strong commercial competition between news agencies may result in the promotion of sensational stories over accurate and informative ones (Rayner et al., 2004; De Bruin, 2000; Kurpius, 2003). In this vein, attention has also been drawn to the issue of media ownership, especially the degree to which corporate conglomerates may be able to manipulate media discourses for their own agendas (Boyer & Hannerz, 2006: 10–11; cf. Rayner et al., 2004: 184–188).

Conventions of news discourseThe business of news journalism involves the reformulation and delivery of large amounts of knowledge at frequent intervals (Ekström, 2002). To conduct this business effectively, and profit-ably, news agencies follow conventions, which are influenced by technological and socio-cultural developments, as well as the proposed function of news agencies (Ekström, 2001, 2002; Rayner et al., 2004; De Bruin, 2000). The following section summarises these conventions.

According to Ekström (2002) news stories should be: i) exciting, ii) unexpected, iii) based on ‘concrete events rather than complex processes’, iv) emotionally engaging, and v) reported in an unbiased manner (cf. Nel, 1998; Greer, 1999; Ekström, 2001; Clayman, 2002; Heritage, 2002a; Brokensha, 2002a; Emmertsen, 2007). With regards to the last point, it should be noted that various studies have called the objectivity of news reporting into question (Ekström, 2001; Weizman, 2006; Stenvall, 2008). In the case of political news, in particular, journalists may feel justified in adopting a more hostile approach, as noted by Nel (1994: 197): ‘[s]uccessful politicians did not get to be successful politicians by being dumb enough to tell reporters the truth’. Nevertheless, the pursuit of objectivity – whether successful or not – plays an essential role in the business of news journalism.

Conventions of TV journalismEkström (2002: 264–267) notes that TV journalism is primarily constructed for visual presentation. Consequently, the following conventions are adopted for the construction of knowledge.

Firstly, news stories – including interviews – are purposely designed to be ‘[p]owerful, emotive and simplified’. As opposed to a written text, viewers cannot simply review information they have missed. For this reason, information must be presented in a manageable or ‘immediately comprehensible’ format (Ekström, 2002: 265). Consequently, dramatic and emotionally moving impressions are preferred to long discussions on intricate processes. One potential result of this construction, according to Ekström (2002: 265), is that viewers’ criticism is mainly aimed at the characters/role players that have been presented, instead of the factuality of the story itself (see also Ekström, 2001).

Secondly, the construction of knowledge is ‘event-oriented’ (Ekström, 2002: 266). These ‘events’ do not only occur in the world outside the newsroom. For example, when experts are invited to participate in debates, news stories may be constructed on the views which were expressed in these debates (Ekström, 2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2012, 30(4): 497–509 499

Thirdly, knowledge is transient. This implies that – in addition to being dramatic and emotion-ally engaging – news stories are presented in quick succession. The narrative moves rapidly from one topic to the next, which might impede viewers’ ability to critically reflect on individual stories (Ekström, 2002: 266).

Interviews and news reportingInterviews are not conducted haphazardly. Instead they are purposely constructed to fit ‘into the dramaturgical structure of the narrative [of a news story]’ (Ekström, 2002: 264). As such, interviews have received extensive attention in contemporary research. Ekström (2001), for example, studies the manner in which journalists manipulate the answers gleaned from interviews with politicians in order to construct news stories. Heritage (2002a: 1427) investigates the use of various questioning strategies, especially ‘negative interrogatives’. Emmertsen (2007: 570) examines hostile trends in ‘debate interviews’. Clayman (2002: 1385) studies ‘neutralistic posture’, while Brokensha (2002b) examines opening sequences in business-news interviews.

This article will draw from the methodologies of several investigations. First, however, the main characteristics of news interviews are summarised.

Interviews represent a special form of dialogue in which knowledge is co-constructed between two or more participants (Ekström, 2001; Heritage, 2002a; Clayman, 2002; Weizman, 2006; Emmertsen, 2007). This form of dialogue differs markedly from everyday conversations. The distri-bution of power, for example, is normally balanced in favour of the IR (Weizman, 2006; Ekström, 2001).

Moreover, the participants are expected to adhere to specific rules and conventions that apply to their respective roles. For example, IRs ask questions, thus determining the topic and duration of the discussion. ERs, on the other hand, should only respond within the limits already demarcated by the IR (Weizman, 2006; Ekström, 2001). Exceptions to this norm, although prevalent, often prove that participants are aware of it. In this study, for example, one ER (Prime Minister Vladimir Putin) apologised for introducing and dwelling on a topic: ‘I apologize for the long monologue; I felt it would be of interest’ [U.S. spelling was retained]. This indicates his awareness that he had just violated a specific convention of news interviews.

In addition, the participants are aware of the fact that their interaction will eventually be viewed by the public (Nylund, 2000; Heritage, 1985). The co-construction of knowledge is therefore ‘meant for reception by absent audiences [which] has consequences on what can and cannot be said’ (Scannell, 1998: 260). In this vein, the behaviour of each participant is determined by the conventions of the institutions they represent. For example, journalists are required to maintain an unbiased position, as their institution requires them to deliver the news to the audience (Nel, 1998; Greer, 1999; Ekström, 2001, 2002; Clayman, 2002; Heritage, 2002a; Emmertsen, 2007; Stenvall, 2008). From this position they aim to elicit information that will be beneficial to the audience. Thus: ‘as long as they stick to questioning, journalists cannot be criticized’ (Heritage, 2002a: 1430), despite the fact that questioning is inevitably subjective (Heritage, 2002b). Politicians, on the other hand, must serve the institutions which they represent. This is a particularly salient point, as politi-cians have become increasingly reliant on the mass media as a channel for communicating with the public. Ekström (2001: 564) refers to this as the ‘mediate[s]ation of politics’.

This analysis will make reference to the way in which these conventions influenced the interac-tions under study.

MethodologyThis section discusses the framework of analysis employed in the article. Data collection procedures are discussed first. Thereafter, Hardy and Palmer’s (1998) model is described.

The data collectionThe texts for analysis were obtained from CNN’s website, where transcripts of interviews – which were recently aired on television – are made available to the public. Three interviews were randomly selected from the website’s section on political news.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Conradie500

Random sampling is defined as ‘a method of drawing a sample […] so that all possible samples of a fixed size n have the same probability of being selected’ (De Vos et al., 2001: 197–198). Although the external validity of this sample may be questioned, random sampling was consid-ered appropriate since the article employs a qualitative methodology, which is mainly hypothesis-generating in nature (Seliger & Shohamy, 1989). For this reason, however, it remains important for future studies to verify or reject the article’s findings.

It should also be noted that the CNN transcripts were not compiled in accordance with academic criteria. Therefore, the article’s research is limited in this regard.

The first interview had been conducted by W Blitzer (CNN journalist) with the former Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, on various issues in the Middle East (see Appendix B for source details). The second interview had been conducted by H Collins (journalist for CNN) with Dr Ziad Asali (a member of the American Task Force on Palestine) concerning the war between Israel and Gaza, which began in December 2008 (see Appendix B for source details). The third interview was held by M Chance (CNN journalist) with the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, and concerned the military engagement with Georgia, which began in August 2008 (see Appendix B for source details).

Due to the length of these interviews, the discussion will focus on specific sections.

Critical discourse analysisIn this article, critical discourse analysis (CDA) is conceptualised as an analytic method that ‘acknowledge[s] the social and ideological dimensions of language’ (Brokensha, 2007: 67). Interviews represent a form of discourse that is appropriate for CDA analysis, since it ‘function[s] as a particular representation of a particular aspect of the world’ (Fairclough, 2003: 26). As stated earlier, this article aims to apply Hardy and Palmer’s (1998) analytic model, which is outlined below.

Before describing this model, it is important to note one of the main limitations of a CDA approach, which is that analyses may become an ‘exegesis [by] the lone armchair critic’ (Wallace, 1999: 99) – thus reducing the validity of the findings. In an attempt to negotiate this limitation, the article concentrates specifically on finding patterns in the discourse of interviews which future studies may confirm or reject.

Hardy and Palmer’s (1998) modelThe foundation of Hardy and Palmer’s (1998) model revolves around the cyclical interaction of three elements, or ‘circuits’ of ‘activity […] performativity [and] connectivity’ (Hardy & Palmer, 1998: 1). For the purpose of this article, however, only the first circuit was used, as it is particularly relevant to the social construction of knowledge. Therefore, this section is devoted to activity circuits.

Activity circuits refer to efforts to connect concepts and objects. Concepts refer to abstract or theoretical notions which enable us to interpret and understand our world, even though they exist solely in ‘the realm of ideas’ (Hardy & Palmer, 1998: 3–4). The meaning of a given concept is determined by the historical, political and socio-cultural context in which it is produced. For example, the concept ‘revolutionary’ may have either pejorative or ameliorative associations in different contexts. As such, concepts are frequently associated with value judgements which may encourage positive or negative perceptions of the objects they are attached to. For example, different discourses may apply the concept ‘revolutionary’ to different objects (such as individual persons), in order to construct either positive or negative perceptions of the object.

As opposed to concepts, objects are tangible in nature. The example analysed by Hardy and Palmer (1998) clarifies the difference. These researchers applied their model to an international NGO (non-governmental organisation) working in Palestine. The NGO represents an object since it includes tangible elements, such as employees and buildings etc. Although the NGO employed local Palestinians, it was still viewed as a European organisation, since it received funding from a European country. Thus, the concept ‘European organisation’ had been applied to the object, which is the NGO itself.

Objects and concepts can be connected through a variety of strategies, including ‘symbols, stories and metaphors’ (Hardy & Palmer, 1998: 10). These connections are established by various stakeholders or ‘subjects’ (Hardy & Palmer, 1998: 10).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2012, 30(4): 497–509 501

In this article, activity circuits were used to analyse the way in which IRs and ERs attempt to connect pejorative or ameliorative concepts to various objects (such as politicians, terrorist organi-sations and other countries). To achieve this goal, the model was expanded by using elements of conversation analysis (CA). The use of CA methods allowed the researcher to focus on the linguistic strategies with which both IRs and ERs may connect, confirm or reject connections between concepts and objects (henceforth referred to as activity circuits). Emotive language, metaphors and idiomatic expressions, for example, were frequently used. Questioning strategies, such as negative interrogatives, were also found to play a significant role.

Conversation analysisDrew and Heritage (1992: 17–19) note that conversation analysis is a useful tool for analysing institutionalised talk. As such, it has been applied to various forms of institutionalised talk, including courtroom interactions (Gnisci & Pontecorvo, 2004), doctor-client interactions (Lehtinen, 2006), and news interviews (Brokensha, 2002a, 2002b). This section reviews the principles of this method.

CA views conversation as a natural yet organised social event (Psathas, 1995). As such, this method is particularly useful for analysing the way in which participants are oriented to meaning. This implies that the conventions of a specific context are not imposed from an external source. Instead, the participants co-construct these conventions by producing talk in accordance with these conventions (Psathas, 1995). In the context of an interview, for example, an ER may refuse to answer an IR’s question, by stating that it is not objective. Such an objection draws attention to the convention of neutrality in news interviews.

In this study, specific attention was paid to the way in which interlocutors suggest, confirm or contest the link between concepts and objects – within the context of news interviews.

It should be noted that CA is limited in the following way: although it aims to produce valid and reliable results for each instance analysed, it is less concerned with generalising these results to other interactions.

FindingsDue to page constraints, each case study cannot be discussed in detail. Consequently, the results will be discussed in the following manner. The first case study will illustrate how activity circuits were applied to interviews. The second case discusses specific discursive strategies, by focusing on the manner in which an ideologically loaded activity circuit is suggested by the ER, but contested by the IR. The findings suggest that interlocutors often use a strategy which involves the use of one activity circuit to strengthen or question another. The third case illustrates a situation in which a series of activity circuits are debated. In addition, it illustrates the way in which the participants are oriented to the structure of an interview. In each case study, the object and concept will be specified, as well as the means by which they are connected or disconnected.

First case study: Interview with Mr Tony BlairThis interview was aired on December 7th, 2008. It was conducted in the following context: Tony Blair had been appointed as a member of the ‘Middle East special envoy’. In this capacity, he was interviewed on the following topics: i) the terrorist attacks on Mumbai (India), which began on November 26, 2008, iii) the nuclear weapons programme in Iran, as well as iii) the conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip. As such, the interview is clearly event-oriented.

Although a series of activity circuits were uncovered in this interview, this section will focus on those which most clearly illustrate the application of Hardy and Palmer’s (1998) activity circuits.

Excerpt 1: 4. BLITZER: Is the Pakistani government right now doing enough to […] put a clamp down on these terrorist organizations that are based in Pakistan and seek to go after targets in India?5. BLAIR: I mean, I think the actual truth of the matter is, it’s really tough, Wolf. Because some of these organizations have roots deep within their society. My own view is that, you

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Conradie502

know — and maybe a lot of people will disagree with this — is we’ve got to start getting to the roots of this phenomenon. This has been growing a long time. And it’s not just India-Pakistan. You can take terrorist acts in Yemen, Algeria, half a dozen countries just in the last few weeks, and you’ve got to go down, for example, into the education system. […] But in the end, my view, this is a global movement, this terrorist movement, with an ideology, and the only way we will defeat it — whether it’s terrorist attacks in India or the potential for terrorist attacks in Europe or anywhere else in the world — is if we get to grips with the fundamental cause. [researcher’s emphasis]

The question in turn 4 contains the following activity circuit. A link is suggested between a concept – ‘ineptness’ – and the object ‘Pakistan’. This link is suggested by using a metaphor: ‘to put a clamp down’. Thus, a linguistic device (a metaphor in this case) is used during the construc-tion of a question, which invites the ER to either confirm or reject the connection. The question is ‘blame-implicative’ in nature (Gnisci & Pontecorvo, 2004: 965), as it implies that Pakistan is at least partially responsible for violence in India. With regards to knowledge construction, the interview might disseminate this pejorative view of Pakistan – if the ER’s response confirms the connection.

In turn 5, however, the ER casts doubt on this connection. This is achieved by pointing to what the ER considers to be ‘the actual truth’ – which is that: ‘it’s really tough’ to put a clamp down on terrorist organisations.

After making this statement, the ER introduces a new activity circuit, which aims to establish the notion that Pakistan’s challenge is a global problem. As a result, the concept ‘global problem’ is attached to the object ‘terrorist actions’. The latter is referred to as an object, as it is tangible in nature (it involves people and an infrastructure), while the former is not. The concept ‘global problem’ is attached to this object by listing a series of countries which have seen terrorist actions: ‘Yemen, Algeria, [and] half a dozen countries’. The link between ‘global problem’ and ‘terrorist actions’ is further reinforced when the ER observes that the underlying cause of terrorism remains the same: ‘whether it’s terrorist attacks in India or the potential for terrorist attacks in Europe’. As a result, ‘terrorist actions’ are branded as a global challenge that results from a single ‘fundamental cause’. As a consequence, Pakistan is not the only nation that struggles to clamp down on extremism.

In summary, the ER has successfully negated the IR’s proposed activity circuit, by introducing a new circuit. This was achieved by re-contextualising Pakistan’s ability to ‘clamp down’ on terrorist organisations as a global challenge. With regards to knowledge construction, blame for the attacks in India is not constructed as a failure on Pakistan’s part. This notion is supported by the fact that the IR does not pursue the matter any further. Instead, he moves to a new topic in turn 8.

Excerpt 2:8. BLITZER: And speaking of tensions, there’s lots of tension right now involving Iran and its suspected nuclear weapons program. I want you to listen to what the president-elect of the United States, Barack Obama , said earlier today on “Meet the Press.” Listen to this.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)9. OBAMA: We need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them that their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, that their funding of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, their threats against Israel are contrary to everything that we believe in and what the international community should accept, and present a set of carrots and sticks in changing their calculus about how they want to operate. [researcher’s emphasis](END VIDEO CLIP)10. BLITZER: Is that something you support?11. BLAIR: Absolutely.

In turn 8, the IR introduces a new question by presenting audio-visual material, and asking the ER to comment. In this case, the ER confirmed the activity circuit that was constructed by President-elect Barrack Obama. During this circuit, the concept ‘aggressor’ is connected to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2012, 30(4): 497–509 503

object ‘Iran’. This is achieved by using emotive language (note that although the metaphor of ‘carrots and sticks’ also depicts Iran in a negative light, it is more relevant to Obama’s proposed policy, than to the object ‘Iran’). In turn 11 the ER confirmed this connection by stating that he ‘Absolutely’ agrees. As a result, Iran is constructed as an aggressive nation.

Second case study: Interview with Dr Ziad AsaliThis interview was aired on the 5th of January, 2009. It was conducted with Dr Ziad Asali (a member of the American Task Force on Palestine), on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. In this interview, the ER attempts to establish an activity circuit, despite interference from the IR. This activity circuit is initiated in turn 2, where the concept ‘primary victims’ is linked to the object ‘Palestinians’, by using emotive language and a metaphor (paying a price).

Excerpt 3:1. COLLINS: […] Tell us a little bit more about your reaction to the ground attack that was launched on Gaza by Israelis this weekend.2. ASALI: Yes. Well, as usual, the most tragic part about this is that the Palestinian civilians suffer. No matter who makes decision on their behalf or on behalf of anybody else, the price is inevitably and always paid by the Palestinian people. Right now we really do have an exceptionally tragic situation in the humanitarian sense in the Gaza people where there is 1.5 million people living. [researcher’s emphasis]3. COLLINS: Well — it must be so very difficult — and you, you mentioned, you know, the women, the children, and even the men who want absolutely nothing to do with Hamas — or what its agenda may be. What choices do you have? Do you find yourself in the middle of this barrage of bombs overhead? I just — I wonder what that life is like and where you go and what you can possibly do to survive.

The IR’s second question (turn 3) draws a distinction between the Palestinian civilians and members of Hamas. The ER, however, fails to answer the question directly (excerpt 4). Instead, he attempts to reinforce the notion that Palestinians represent the primary victims of the conflict (turn 4). This is done by introducing a new activity circuit. Here the concept ‘solution to conflict’ is connected to the object ‘free/autonomous Palestinian state’. This circuit supports the previous one by continuing to focus on the needs of Palestinians.

Excerpt 4:4. ASALI: I — think people have to be exceptionally focused on the end result here. If the end result is not going to be a Palestinian state living alongside Israel, there will be more problems and everything that anybody does will eventually crash on this cycle of violence that is, that is fed by so much passion, a sense of injured dignity, a sense of victimization on […] [researcher’s emphasis]5. COLLINS: On both sides.6. ASALI: On — every side. On every side. And now, particularly, disproportionately, of course, on the Palestinian side. Radicals will always find a way to use this and build on it and to further pull the area into further conflicts on both sides, again.

In turn 5, the IR brings the first activity circuit into question (concept: ‘main victims’ – object: ‘Palestinians’). This is done by latching onto the ER’s last statement – ‘a sense of victimisation’ – with ‘On both sides’. This utterance introduces the notion that Israelis are also suffering. The ER responds by attempting to re-establish the connection with emotive language: ‘disproportionately, of course, on the Palestinian side’. Thus, with regards to knowledge construction, an attempt is made to construct the Palestinians as people who suffer ‘disproportionately’.

Turn 6 has also introduced ‘Radicals’ to the conversation. This prompted an exchange in which the journalist attempts to move to a new topic. At the end of turn 8, however, the ER revisits the suffering of Palestinians.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Conradie504

Excerpt 5:7. COLLINS: Do you believe that if Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel, there would be a chance of another cease-fire? There would be a chance for discussions regarding what you say is absolutely has to happen to the Palestinian state?8. ASALI: Yes. Well, you know the cease-fire is now a — humanitarian request, if not a political request for so many people. It is, it is hard for me to imagine that the Israelis would consent to a cease-fire now while they are in, in the process of an operation that is rolled out for some time, I’m afraid. On the other hand, there will be mounting pressure in the Arab, the Muslim world, in Europe and in the United States because, precisely, because of the humanitarian disaster situation and the pictures that will keep coming out of Gaza […] [researcher’s emphasis]

Turn 7 implicitly connects the concept ‘obstacle to peace’ to the object ‘Hamas’. The ER responds by reversing the circuit: ‘it is hard for me to imagine that the Israelis would consent to a cease-fire now’. This statement connects the concept ‘obstacle to cease-fire’ or ‘obstacle to peace’ to the object ‘Israel’. By doing so, the ER has attempted to divert a pejorative concept to another object. Then, having advanced this connection, the IR returns to his initial activity circuit, by drawing attention to the Palestinian people: ‘there will be mounting pressure […] because of the humani-tarian disaster […] and the pictures coming out of Gaza’. In subsequent turns, the IR turned to a new subject.

During the course of this interaction the notion that Palestinians suffer more than other groups has been proposed and contested by the IR and ER. In addition, the role that other groups – such as Israel and Hamas – play in this event was also contested.

Third case study: Interview with Prime Minister Vladimir PutinThe third case study concerns a lengthy interview with the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin (aired on the 28th of August, 2008). The interview is primarily concerned with the conflict between Russia and Georgia, which began in August 2008. Specific attention is paid to the following elements: i) the way in which the participants are oriented to the structure of interviews, ii) three strategies with which blame-implicative activity circuits may be addressed, and finally iii) the way in which supposedly concrete/unquestionable information (such as histor-ical events) may be used to advance a specific activity circuit. All three elements exerted an influence on the outcome of knowledge construction. Before proceeding to the findings, it should also be noted that – as opposed to the previous two interviews – this case study not only involves the attribution of blame to parties outside the interview, but also to the ER himself. Knowledge is therefore constructed about the character of the politician in question.

The journalist initiated this interview with a hostile accusation aimed at the ER. In keeping with the convention of neutrality, however, the hostile opinion was not posed as belonging to the IR.

Excerpt 6:1. CHANCE: Many people around the world, even though you’re not the president of Russia anymore, see you as the main decision maker in this country. Wasn’t it you that ordered Russian forces into Georgia and you who should take responsibility for the consequences?2. PUTIN: Of course that’s not the case. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the issues of foreign policy and defense are fully in the hands of the president. The president of the Russian Federation was acting within his powers. As is known, yours truly was at that time at the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing. This alone made it impossible for me to take part in preparing that decision, although of course, President Medvedev was aware of my opinion on that issue. […] But, I repeat, such a decision could only be taken by the president of the Russian Federation, the commander in chief of the armed forces, Mr. Medvedev. It’s his decision. [researcher’s emphasis]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2012, 30(4): 497–509 505

The question in turn 1 is event-oriented as it concerns Russia’s conflict with Georgia. Moreover, it illustrates the use of negative interrogatives: ‘wasn’t it you’. Research on this questioning strategy, by Heritage (2002a: 1430–1433) and Emmertsen (2007), notes that it is often used to assume, rather than suggest, criticism of the ER’s stance. When applying Hardy and Palmer’s (1998) activity circuits, the journalist’s question attempts to connect the concept ‘main decision maker’ to the object ‘Vladimir Putin’, by using a negative interrogative which presupposes this connection.

The ER attempts to cast doubt on this connection through two discursive devices. Firstly, in turn 2, he introduces a symbol: ‘the Constitution of the Russian Federation’ which notes that ‘issues of foreign policy and defense are fully in the hands of the president’. The second symbol revolves around Mr Putin’s absence from Russia when the conflict with Georgia commenced: ‘yours truly was […] at the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing’. Thereafter, the ER goes on to state that he merely advised the President on potential courses of action. As a result, the concept ‘main decision maker’ is diverted to the object ‘Medvedev’. This is done by using the contrast marker ‘But’ (see Lehtinen, 2006), followed by an elaboration: ‘such a decision could only be taken by the president of the Russian Federation, the commander in chief of the armed forces, Mr. Medvedev’.

Gnisci and Pontecorvo (2004) note that elaborations of this nature are frequently used to avoid blame. Furthermore, the title ‘commander in chief of the armed forces’ is used as an additional symbol, which is relevant since the incursion in Georgia involved military force.

Thus, the results suggest that one activity circuit can be weakened by introducing symbols which divert the concept to another object. As noted during the first and second case study, an additional strategy involves the introduction of new activity circuits. The following two excerpts illustrate the use of this strategy in the interview under study.

The co-construction/assignment of blame was not resolved at this stage. In turn 3 the journalist renews his attempt to solidify the connection between ‘main decision maker’ and ‘Vladimir Putin’. Once again, a negative interrogative is used to advance this circuit.

Excerpt 7:2. PUTIN: […] commander in chief of the armed forces, Mr. Medvedev. It’s his decision.3. CHANCE: But it’s been no secret either that for years you’ve been urging the West to take more seriously Russia’s concerns about international issues […] Wasn’t this conflict a way of demonstrating that in this region, it’s Russia that’s the power, not NATO and certainly not the United States? [researcher’s emphasis]

In response to this development (turn 4), Mr Putin introduces a new activity circuit in which the concept ‘aggressor’ is linked to the object ‘Georgia’. This goal is pursued by producing a long monologue on the history of ‘the peoples and ethnic groups of this region’.

Excerpt 8:4. PUTIN: […] When, after World War I, the Russian Empire broke up, Georgia declared its own state while Ossetia opted for staying within Russia; this happened right after the events of 1917. In 1918, as a result of this, Georgia conducted a rather brutal punitive operation there, and in 1921, it repeated it […] [researcher’s emphasis]

This circuit is supplemented with an additional one, in which the concept ‘peace loving’ is connected to the object ‘Russia’ through emotive language:

Excerpt 9:4. PUTIN: […] Yet, whatever has been happening recently and whatever the motives of those involved in the conflict, there is no doubt that all that we are witnessing now is a tragedy. For us, it is a special tragedy, because during the many years that we were living together the Georgian culture the Georgian people being a nation of ancient culture — became, without a doubt, a part of the multinational culture of Russia.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Conradie506

There is even a tinge of civil war in this for us, though of course Georgia is an independent state, no doubt about it. We have never infringed on the sovereignty of Georgia and have no intention of doing so in the future. And yet, considering the fact that almost a million, even more than a million Georgians have moved here, we have special spiritual links with that country and its people. For us, this is a special tragedy. And, I assure you, while mourning the Russian soldiers who died, and above all the innocent civilians, many here in Russia are also mourning the Georgians who died. The responsibility for the loss of life rests squarely with the present Georgian leadership, which dared to take these criminal actions. I apologize for the long monologue; I felt it would be of interest. [researcher’s emphasis]

The ER’s references to ‘a tragedy’, ‘a special tragedy’, ‘a tinge of civil war’ and ‘spiritual links’ support the notion that Russia is a peace-loving nation.

In the same turn, blame for the war is laid at the feet of the Georgian leadership, by referring to ‘innocent civilians’ and ‘criminal actions’. As symbolic expressions, both are receptive in a context where individuals and groups are still persecuted for war crimes against civilians.

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the last part of turn 4 indicates the politician’s awareness of the fact that interviews are dialogues, not monologues (see also excerpt 10).

Moreover, the citation of history is used as a strategy with which concepts and objects may be connected in order to construct a particular view. This strategy is not confined to ERs. As a token of the way in which interviews are a co-constructed form of discourse, the journalist also resorts to this device. By focusing on an alternative section of historical events, the journalist attempts to divert the concept ‘aggressor’ to the object ‘Russia’.

Excerpt 10:4. PUTIN: […] I apologize for the long monologue; I felt it would be of interest.5. CHANCE: It is very interesting that you are talking about Russia’s imperial history in this region because one of the effects of Russian intervention in Georgia is that other countries in the former Soviet Union are now deeply concerned that they could be next, that they could be part of a resurgent Russian empire […] Can you guarantee to us that Russia will never again use its militarily forces against a neighboring state?6. PUTIN: I strongly object to the way this question is formulated. It is not for us to guarantee that we will not attack someone. We have not attacked anyone. It is we who are demanding guarantees from others, to make sure that no one attacks us anymore and that no one kills our citizens. We are being portrayed as the aggressor. I have here the chronology of the events that took place on August 7, 8 and 9. On the 7th, at 2:42 p.m. […] [researcher’s emphasis]

In this excerpt the journalist’s strategy is unsuccessful. In turn 6 the ER signals his knowledge of the convention of neutrality and the implications of this convention for IRs (see Weizman, 2006). Moreover, he demonstrates knowledge of the way in which the possibility of a ‘resurgent Russian empire’ is used to divert the concept ‘aggressor’ to the object ‘Russia’ (‘We are being portrayed as the aggressor’).

Mr Putin devotes the rest of turn 6 to a ‘chronology of events’ which precipitated the conflict with Georgia. Once again, the citation of historical events is used to re-establish Georgia as the primary aggressor. As such, the results suggest that a supposedly concrete record of historical events cannot be contested. As a consequence, it is a useful device for connecting concepts and objects.

Therefore, as a co-constructed form of discourse, this interview has established that – by law – Mr Medvedev is the main decision maker in Russia. It has also established that Georgia – and particularly the Georgian leadership – is responsible for initiating the conflict. However, since the IR never overtly supports the ER’s assertions, these points remain contested. The degree to which viewers will accept or reject this knowledge cannot be determined in this article. At the very least, however, viewers are presented with a platform on which to decide what they will accept or reject – especially since the information remains contested.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2012, 30(4): 497–509 507

Whatever the case, the results suggest that interlocutors may pursue their goals by: i) referring to symbols, ii) diverting concepts to different objects, and iii) by introducing new activity circuits. In addition, since their role allows them to pose questions, IRs may also employ questioning strategies, such as negative interrogatives, to pursue their goals. ERs, on the other hand, may use knowledge of the conventions of news interview talk to manipulate the discussion. Finally, the results also suggest that the perceived factuality of historical events may provide a means to link concepts and objects. The following section is devoted to the implications of these findings.

Implications and recommendations for future researchThe results suggest that Hardy and Palmer’s (1998) activity circuits may provide a valid framework for analysing the process whereby knowledge about political events is constructed and contested by IRs and ERs. More specifically, the assignment of ameliorative or pejorative perceptions to various groups and individuals can be critically examined within this framework (for a summary of the main activity circuits of each case study, see Appendix A).

With regards to the audience, insight is gained into the construction of a platform on which they must decide what information they will accept and reject. This in turn may influence the way various groups, individuals and events are perceived.

Future research may investigate the value of this methodology by applying it to similar data. More importantly, since this study has focused on a specific feature of the co-construction of knowledge (the application of positive or negative perceptions to individuals or social groups), future investiga-tions may examine the relationship between this and other elements of knowledge construction – such as the role of personal and social identities (cf. Weizman, 2006).

ConclusionIn conclusion, this article has investigated news interviews as a special form of dialogue, in which the participants are required to observe the rules that apply to their roles as interviewers or interviewees. After reviewing the conventions which influence the genre under study, a critical discourse analytic model was used to investigate the strategies through which journalists and politi-cians attempt advance specific views. The findings suggest that these strategies include: i) the use of symbols, ii) the introduction of new activity circuits, iii) or the diversion of pejorative concepts to different objects.

ReferencesBoyer D & Hannerz U. 2006. Introduction: Worlds of journalism. Ethnography 7(1): 5–17. Brokensha SI. 2002a. South African news interview talk: The interviewer’s maintenance of a

position of neutrality. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 20(1–2): 13–23.Brokensha SI. 2002b. The sequential organisation of South African business-news interview

openings. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 20(1–2): 1–12.Brokensha SI. 2007. Employing constructivist-based principles in an Applied Language Studies

in English course with a focus on ideology in the media. Journal for Language Teaching 41(1): 65–80.

Clayman SE. 1991. News interview openings: Aspects of sequential organisation. In Scannell P (ed) Broadcast Talk. London: Sage, pp 48–75.

Clayman SE. 2002. Disagreement and third parties: Dilemmas of neutralism in panel interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1385–1401.

De Bruin M. 2000. Gender, organizational and professional identities in journalism. Journalism 1(2): 217–238.

De Vos AS, Strydom H, Fouché CB & Delport CSL. (2001). Research at grassroots: For the social sciences and human service professions. 3rd edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Drew P & Heritage J. 1992. Interaction in institutional settings: Analyzing talk at work. In Drew P & Heritage J (eds) Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 3–65.

Ekström M. 2001. Politicians interviewed on television news. Discourse and Society 12: 563–584.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Conradie508

Ekström M. 2002. Epistemologies of TV journalism: A theoretical framework. Journalism 3(3): 259–282.

Emmertsen S. 2007. Interviewers’ challenging questions in British debate interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 570–591.

Fairclough N. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.Gnisci A & Pontecorvo C. 2004. The organization of questions and answers in the thematic

phases of hostile examination: Turn-by-turn manipulation of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 965–995.

Greer G. 1999. A new introduction to journalism. Kenwyn: Juta.Hardy C & Palmer I. 1998. Discourse as a strategic resource. Working Paper in Human Resource

Management and Industrial Relations. University of Melbourne. Heritage J. 1985. Analysing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing

audience. In Van Dijk TA (ed.) Discourse and dialogue. London: Academic Press, pp 95–117.Heritage J. 2002a. The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile questioning

content. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427–1446.Heritage J. 2002b. Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interview. In Glenn

P, LeBaron C & Mandelbaum J (eds) Studies in language and social interaction. Mahwah: NJ Erlbaum, pp 57–90.

Johansson M. 2006. Constructing objects of discourse in the broadcast political interview. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 216–229.

Kurpius DD. 2003. Bucking a trend in local television news: Combating market–driven journalism. Journalism 4(1): 76–94.

Lehtinen E. 2006. Merging doctor and client knowledge: On doctors’ ways of dealing with clients’ potentially discrepant information in genetic counselling. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 389–427.

Nel F. 1994. Writing for the media. Cape Town: Southern Book Publishers.Nel F. 1998. Writing for the media: In South Africa. 2nd edition. Cape Town: Oxford University

Press Southern Africa.Nylund M. 2000. Staged interaction: Structures and strategies in political conversation in the

media. Helsingfors: Svenska litteratursallskäpet.Psathas G. 1995. Conversation Analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. California: Sage

Publications.Rayner P, Wall P, & Kruger S. 2004. AS Media Studies: The essential introduction. 2nd edition.

London: Routledge.Scannell P. 1998. Media-language-world. In Bell A & Garrett P (eds) Approaches to media

discourse. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp 252–267.Seliger HW & Shohamy E. 1989. Second language research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Stenvall M. 2008. On emotions and the journalistic ideals of factuality and objectivity – Tools for

analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1569–1586.Talbot M. 1995. A synthetic sisterhood. In Hall K & Bucholtz M (eds) Gender articulated: Language

and the socially constructed self. London: Routledge.Wallace C. 1999. Critical Language Awareness: Key principles for a course in critical reading.

Language Awareness 8(2): 98–110.Weizman E. 2006. Roles and identities in news interviews: The Israeli context. Journal of

Pragmatics 38: 154–179.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2012, 30(4): 497–509 509

Appendix A: a summary of the main activity circuits of each case study

Table 1: Interview with Mr Tony Blair

IR: proposes an activity circuit Concept: ‘Ineptness’ – (metaphor) – Object: PakistanER: introduces a new circuit that contradicts the previous

Concept: ‘Global problem’ – (reference to other nations with similar challenges) – Object: ‘terrorist actions’

Table 2: Interview with Dr Ziad Asali

ER: proposes an activity circuit Concept: ‘Primary victims’ – (emotive language and a metaphor) – Object: ‘Palestinians’

IR: introduces new circuit that contradicts the previous Concept: victims – (reference to ‘both sides’) – Objects: ‘Israelis and Palestinians’

Table 3: Interview with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin

ER: proposes activity circuit Concept: ‘Aggressors’ – (citing history) – Object: ‘Georgian leadership’

IR: diverts previous concept to new object Concept: ‘Aggressors’ – (symbol: ‘a resurgent Russian empire’) – Object: ‘Russia’

Appendix B: Source of interview transcripts

Transcripts of interviews published on the world wide web. Available at:http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/blair-cnn-interview-transcript-middle-east-obama-iran-terrorism [accessed 2 February 2009].

Transcripts of interviews published on the world wide web. Available at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0901/05/cnr.01.html [accessed 2 February 2009].

Transcripts of interviews published on the world wide web. Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/29/putin.transcript/index.html [accessed 2 February 2009].

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014