The use of key in projecting face-threatening acts in televised political debate
-
Gerard O’Grady
Gerard O’Grady is Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Language and Communication Research in Cardiff University. He is the author of
A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse (London: Continuum, 2010) andKey Concepts in Phonetics and Phonology (London: Palgrave, 2012). His chief research interests are CDA, investigating connections between intonation and the lexicogrammar, examining differences between language as process and product, and linear models of grammar.
Abstract
Before the 2010 UK general election the leaders of the three major political parties engaged in three televised debates. In the debates they were prohibited from directly engaging with one another and from infringing on their rivals’ speaking rights. The leaders attempted to exercise power through positive face attacks. Previous evidence has indicated that in the United Kingdom quality face attacks are more severe than social-identity face attacks. I investigate the communicative value of key, the pitch height of the initial onset syllable, in which the leaders pitched their face attacks, and illustrate that the type, amount, and key of face attacks changed across the debates. In the final debate there was an increased use of high key, which added salience to positive face attacks. It was noticeable that only the candidate behind in the polls consistently selected high key to boost his quality face attacks. The others tended to pitch quality face attacks with mid key. I illustrate that selection of key established the context in which the face attack was to be understood and show that a fuller understanding of face work in political debate requires an account of the implicatures generated by prosodic selections such as key.
About the author
Gerard O’Grady is Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Language and Communication Research in Cardiff University. He is the author of A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse (London: Continuum, 2010) and Key Concepts in Phonetics and Phonology (London: Palgrave, 2012). His chief research interests are CDA, investigating connections between intonation and the lexicogrammar, examining differences between language as process and product, and linear models of grammar.
References
Arndt, Horst & Richard WayneJanney. 1987. Intergrammar: Toward an integrative model of verbal, prosodic, and kinesic choices in speech acts. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110872910Search in Google Scholar
Arundale, Robert B. 2006. Face as relational and interactional: A communicative framework for research on face, facework and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research2. 193–216.Search in Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca. 2003. Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics35. 1453–1469.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00173-XSearch in Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, ElisabethReber & MargretSelting. 2010. Prosody in interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Nicole Dehe & Anne Wichmann. 2009. Where prosody meets pragmatics. Bingley: Emerald.10.1163/9789004253223Search in Google Scholar
Blas Arroyo, Jose L. 2003. Perdóneme que se lo diga, pero vuelve usted a faltar a la verdad, señor González’: Form and function of politic verbal behaviour in face-to-face Spanish political debates. Discourse & Society14(4). 395–423.10.1177/0957926503014004001Search in Google Scholar
Brazil, David. 1997. The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Winnie, ChrisGreaves & MartinWarren. 2008. A corpus-driven study of discourse intonation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Coleman, Stephen. 2000. Televised election debates. New York: St. Martin’s Press.10.1057/9780230379602Search in Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1986. An introduction to English prosody. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2001. Interactional prosody: High onsets in reason-for-the-call turns. Language in Society38. 29–53.10.1017/S0047404501001026Search in Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Cecilia E.Ford (eds.). 2004. Sound patterns in interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.62Search in Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & MargretSelting. 1996. Prosody in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511597862Search in Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166973Search in Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1969. Prosodic systems and intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, DerekBousfield & AnneWichmann. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics35. 1545–1579.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2Search in Google Scholar
Forrest, James & Gary N. Marks. 2003. The mass media, election campaigning and voter response. Party Politics5(1). 99–114.Search in Google Scholar
Galasinski, Dariusz. 1998. Strategies of talking to each other: Rule breaking in Polish presidential debate. Journal of Language and Social Psychology17(2). 165–182.10.1177/0261927X980172002Search in Google Scholar
Garcia-Pastor, Mariá D. 2008. Political campaign debates as zero-sum games: Impoliteness and power in candidates’ exchanges. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, 101–123. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110208344.2.101Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. On face work. In Interactional ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior, 5–45. New York: Pantheon.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Footing. In Forms of talk, 124–159. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511616983Search in Google Scholar
HallidayMichael A. K. & William S. Greaves. 2008. Intonation in the grammar of English. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 2001. Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse & Society12(4). 451–472.10.1177/0957926501012004003Search in Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1996. The nursery tale as genre. In C. Cloran, D. Butt & G. Williams (eds.), Ways of saying: Ways of meaning: Selected papers of Ruqaiya Hasan, 51–72. London: Cassell.Search in Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia. 2004. Pragmatics and intonation. In L. R. Horn & GWard (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 515–537. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756959.ch23Search in Google Scholar
House, Jill. 2006. Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics38. 1542–1588.10.1016/j.pragma.2005.07.005Search in Google Scholar
Kaimaki, Marianna. 2011. Transition relevance and the phonetic design of English call openings. Journal of Pragmatics43. 2130–2147.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.008Search in Google Scholar
Kern, Friederike. 2010. The prosody of live radio commentary of football matches. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber & M. Selting (eds.), Prosody in interaction, 217–237. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.23.18kerSearch in Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808814Search in Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110926552Search in Google Scholar
Nolan, Frances. 2003. Intonational equivalence: And experimental evaluation of pitch scales. In M. J.Solé & J.Romero (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, 771–774. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Search in Google Scholar
O’Grady, Gerard. 2010. A grammar of spoken English discourse: The intonation of increments. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kieran. 2003. Critical discourse analysis and language cognition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet & JuliaHirschberg. 1990. The meaning of intonation contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan & M. E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in communication, 271–312. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0016Search in Google Scholar
Schrott, Peter R. 1990. Electoral consequences of winning televised campaign debates. Public Opinion Quarterly54(4). 567–585.10.1086/269228Search in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Rapport management: Framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures, 11–48. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2005. (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpacking their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research1. 95–119.Search in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2007. Threats of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics39. 639–656.10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & DeirdreWilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and context, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice. 2011. Analysing conversation: An introduction to prosody. London: Palgrave.10.1007/978-1-137-04514-0Search in Google Scholar
Tench, Paul. 1996. The intonation systems of English. London: Cassell.Search in Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2008. Toward unified theory of politeness, impoliteness and rudeness. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, 45–74. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110208344.1.45Search in Google Scholar
Watts, Richard, J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wennerstrom, Ann. 2001. The music of everyday speech: Prosody and discourse intonation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2012. Prosody and meaning: Theory and practice. In J. Romero-Trillo (ed.), Pragmatics and prosody in English Language Teaching, 97–116. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_7Search in Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2000. Intonation in text and discourse: Beginnings, middles and ends. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & TomokoMatsui. 2012. Recent approaches to bridging: Truth, coherence and relevance. In D. Wilson & D. Sperber (eds.), Meaning and relevance, 187–209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139028370.012Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & TimWharton. 2006. Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics38. 1559–1579.10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012Search in Google Scholar
Zellers, Margaret & BrechtjePost. 2012. Combining formal and functional approaches to topic structure. Language and Speech55(1). 119–139.10.1177/0023830911428872Search in Google Scholar
©2014 by De Gruyter Mouton
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Multi-voiced assessment in a mental health final statement
- The use of key in projecting face-threatening acts in televised political debate
- Balancing multiple roles through consensus: making revisions in haircutting sessions
- What is meant by hybridity? An investigation of hybridity and related terms in genre studies
- Moves and steps to sell a paper: a cross-cultural genre analysis of applied linguistics conference abstracts
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Multi-voiced assessment in a mental health final statement
- The use of key in projecting face-threatening acts in televised political debate
- Balancing multiple roles through consensus: making revisions in haircutting sessions
- What is meant by hybridity? An investigation of hybridity and related terms in genre studies
- Moves and steps to sell a paper: a cross-cultural genre analysis of applied linguistics conference abstracts
