Home Chapter 4. Questioning the questionable
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Chapter 4. Questioning the questionable

Arguments and counter-arguments in political accountability interviews
  • Cornelia Ilie
View more publications by John Benjamins Publishing Company
Search
Argumentation across Communities of Practice
This chapter is in the book Argumentation across Communities of Practice

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to identify and scrutinize the mechanisms of overt and covert argumentation and counter-argumentation that underlie the question-answer turn-taking structure in a political accountability interview conducted as part of the BBC HARDtalk programmes. The political accountability interview (Montgomery, 2011) can be regarded as an interviewer-mediated hybrid dialogue genre that combines inquiry dialogue and persuasion dialogue in varying degrees. As an inquiry dialogue it exhibits a question-and-answer pattern of information-seeking and information-sharing, and as a persuasion dialogue it functions as a consistent pursuit on either side to advance argumentation-supported interpretations and evaluations of targeted facts and events. While an interviewer is normally supposed to assume a neutral and impartial role in questioning the interviewee, there is increasing evidence (Bell & van Leeuven, 1994; Clayman, 2002; Heritage, 2002) that during the interview interaction, both interviewer and interviewee compete to assume control over meaning negotiation about the (re)interpretation and (re)contextualisation of controversial issues under discussion in order to impact the perceptions and beliefs of a multi-layered and diverse audience. The analytical focus of the present investigation is twofold: on the one hand, the interplay of questions and answers used by the interviewer and the interviewee to articulate argumentative and counter-argumentative claims meant to legitimize or delegitimize the relevance and validity of debated standpoints in an interview about controversial political events (Russian interventions in Ukraine) and related international reactions; on the other hand, the argumentation strategies used by the interviewer and the interviewee to justify or to challenge the relevance and validity of competing definitions and (re)definitions of keywords central to the discussion.

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to identify and scrutinize the mechanisms of overt and covert argumentation and counter-argumentation that underlie the question-answer turn-taking structure in a political accountability interview conducted as part of the BBC HARDtalk programmes. The political accountability interview (Montgomery, 2011) can be regarded as an interviewer-mediated hybrid dialogue genre that combines inquiry dialogue and persuasion dialogue in varying degrees. As an inquiry dialogue it exhibits a question-and-answer pattern of information-seeking and information-sharing, and as a persuasion dialogue it functions as a consistent pursuit on either side to advance argumentation-supported interpretations and evaluations of targeted facts and events. While an interviewer is normally supposed to assume a neutral and impartial role in questioning the interviewee, there is increasing evidence (Bell & van Leeuven, 1994; Clayman, 2002; Heritage, 2002) that during the interview interaction, both interviewer and interviewee compete to assume control over meaning negotiation about the (re)interpretation and (re)contextualisation of controversial issues under discussion in order to impact the perceptions and beliefs of a multi-layered and diverse audience. The analytical focus of the present investigation is twofold: on the one hand, the interplay of questions and answers used by the interviewer and the interviewee to articulate argumentative and counter-argumentative claims meant to legitimize or delegitimize the relevance and validity of debated standpoints in an interview about controversial political events (Russian interventions in Ukraine) and related international reactions; on the other hand, the argumentation strategies used by the interviewer and the interviewee to justify or to challenge the relevance and validity of competing definitions and (re)definitions of keywords central to the discussion.

Chapters in this book

  1. Prelim pages i
  2. Table of contents v
  3. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on context-specific argumentation practices 1
  4. Section I. Theoretical perspectives on argumentation – revisited
  5. Chapter 1. Uncontroversial arguments 21
  6. Chapter 2. Connection premises 39
  7. Chapter 3. Argumentative and non-argumentative rhetorical content 57
  8. Section II. Argumentation practices in political discourse environments
  9. Chapter 4. Questioning the questionable 73
  10. Chapter 5. Reason and passion in political rhetoric 99
  11. Chapter 6. Interpersonal style(s) in diplomatic argumentation online 127
  12. Section III. Argumentation practices in legal discourse environments
  13. Chapter 7. The interpreter-mediated police interview as argumentative discourse in context 151
  14. Chapter 8. Context and genre in judicial argumentation 177
  15. Section IV. Argumentation practices in debates on societal and family issues
  16. Chapter 9. Caught between profitability and responsibility 197
  17. Chapter 10. Multi-participant TV debate as an argumentative activity type 229
  18. Chapter 11. The transmission of what is taken for granted in children’s socialization 259
  19. Section V. Argumentation practices in multi-modal discourse environments
  20. Chapter 12. Visual arguments in activists’ campaigns 291
  21. Chapter 13. Attacks on the cartoonist’s strategic manoeuvring 317
  22. Subject index 341
  23. Name index 339
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.05ile

Chapters in this book

  1. Prelim pages i
  2. Table of contents v
  3. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on context-specific argumentation practices 1
  4. Section I. Theoretical perspectives on argumentation – revisited
  5. Chapter 1. Uncontroversial arguments 21
  6. Chapter 2. Connection premises 39
  7. Chapter 3. Argumentative and non-argumentative rhetorical content 57
  8. Section II. Argumentation practices in political discourse environments
  9. Chapter 4. Questioning the questionable 73
  10. Chapter 5. Reason and passion in political rhetoric 99
  11. Chapter 6. Interpersonal style(s) in diplomatic argumentation online 127
  12. Section III. Argumentation practices in legal discourse environments
  13. Chapter 7. The interpreter-mediated police interview as argumentative discourse in context 151
  14. Chapter 8. Context and genre in judicial argumentation 177
  15. Section IV. Argumentation practices in debates on societal and family issues
  16. Chapter 9. Caught between profitability and responsibility 197
  17. Chapter 10. Multi-participant TV debate as an argumentative activity type 229
  18. Chapter 11. The transmission of what is taken for granted in children’s socialization 259
  19. Section V. Argumentation practices in multi-modal discourse environments
  20. Chapter 12. Visual arguments in activists’ campaigns 291
  21. Chapter 13. Attacks on the cartoonist’s strategic manoeuvring 317
  22. Subject index 341
  23. Name index 339
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 30.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/aic.10.05ile/html
Scroll to top button