Search

The phenomenon of political evasiveness in the genre of a political interview has been the focus of several discourse studies employing conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis and the social psychology approach. Most of the above-mentioned studies focus on a detailed qualitative analysis of political discourse identifying a wide range of communication strategies that permit politicians to ambiguate their agency and at the same time boost their positive face. Since these strategies may change over time and also be subject to a culture specific environment, the aim of this paper is to discover a) which evasive communicative strategies were employed by Slovak politicians in 2012–2016, b) which lexical substitutions were most frequently used by them to avoid negative connotations of face-threatening questions, and finally, c) which cognitive frames formed a frequent conceptual background of their evasive political argumentation. The paper will draw on a combination of quantitative and qualitative approach to the analysis of non-replies devised by Bull and Mayer (1993) and critical discourse analysis in the sample of five Slovak radio interviews aired on the Rádio Express. The selection of interviews was not random- in each interview the politician was asked highly conflictual questions about bribery, embezzlement or disputes in the coalition. Based on qualitative research of Russian-Slovak political discourse (2009) by Dulebová it is hypothesized that a) the evasive strategy of ‘attack’ on the opposition and ‘attack on the interviewer’ would occur in our sample with the highest prominence in the speech of the former Prime Minister Fico, and b) the politicians accused of direct involvement in scandals would be the most evasive ones.

EKC and its sub‐techniques, such as MEKC and microemulsion EKC, have attracted wide interest in recent years. Investigations on this topic have covered several analytical applications, but attention has also been paid more and more to basic studies. This review provides an overview of the different approaches to calculating retention factors, which express the ratio of the amount of sample component in the pseudostationary and mobile phases. Special attention is given to the selection of markers for the determination of the electrophoretic mobility or migration time of a marker describing the behavior of the pseudostationary phase in EKC. Introduction of a hydrophobic marker is by far the most common approach, but the use of a homologous series of compounds is also quite popular. In addition, other possible approaches found in the literature will be described.

Teicoplanin, teicoplanin aglycon, and methylated teicoplanin aglycon chiral stationary phases (CSPs) have been compared on the basis of the regression coefficients calculated from the linear free energy relationship (LFER) equation. The parameters have been obtained from the measurements of a set of 34 structurally diverse solutes. Influence of mobile phase composition – variation of methanol (MeOH) content – on the participation of different interactions types in the retention mechanism has been evaluated. Retention of the various interaction forces in analytes differs with both the CSP and the mobile phase composition. Hydrophobic interactions play a major role in mobile phases for high buffer contents. The more hydrophobic the CSP, the more important are they in the retention mechanism. With increase of MeOH contents in the mobile phase the major role in the interaction mechanism is shifted to more polar forces in which basicity and dipolarity/polarizability dominate. Although the LFER model does not address chiral aspects, we have attempted to explore the importance of the individual interactions in chiral discrimination of amino acids and theirN‐tert‐butyloxycarbonyl derivatives.