Search

In two experiments, we played an audio recording of a conversational exchange for N = 224 and N = 144 participants, manipulating the point of interruption (early, late or no interruption = control) and types of interruption (change of subject, disagreement, clarification and agreement) in order to understand their effects on naive observers' perception (Study 1) and evaluation of interruptions (Study 2). Results show that: early rather than late interruptions, changing the subject rather than disagreement, disagreement rather than clarification, and clarification rather than agreement were regarded more as interruptions and were evaluated more negatively; although both criteria—type and point of interruption—showed significant effects, naive observers used the point of interruption more than the type of interruption for identifying and evaluating the interruptions. Valence and perception of a conversational transition were correlated: in the interruption condition and even in non-interruption conditions, the more a turn taking was evaluated as negative, the more it was perceived to be an interruption. Finally, the results did not support the gender hypothesis. Results were interpreted in terms of politeness theory and considering cultural and contextual factors.

Courtroom and political broadcasts are institutional contexts in which activities and interactions are restricted by particular constraints and are well-suited to investigation of the pragmatic functions of politicians’ question–answer exchanges. This research aimed to: (a) investigate possible differences between question and answer exchanges in TV interviews and courtroom examinations; (b) improve understanding of the pragmatic and functional aspects of question–answer relationships and how such relationships are affected by context. Nineteen courtroom examinations and 48 TV interviews involving the same 11 politicians (37 h 18 m) were coded by two independent observers; they coded a total of 2757 exchanges in terms of level of coercion and confusion in the questions, and equivocation in the answers. Analysis showed that there is a similar level of coercion in the two contexts, the rhythm of the questioning is faster in the courtroom, and there is more equivocation on TV. The relationship between question and answer varies between the contexts (moderation) but, as expected, we found many other direct and mediated relationships linking questions, answers and context. The results support the view that we need multiple pragmatic effects for understanding political questioning and equivocation.

The article studies the manipulation of meanings between legal professionals and witnesses as it unfolds turn by turn in a hostile examination. Eleven hours of video-recording of the Italian criminal trial against Sergio Cusani were fully transcribed, resulting in 3700 turns of talk (1850 question turns and 1850 answers), which were analyzed on the basis of the conversational and discursive approach. Besides identifying the basic feature of the question and answers turns, our qualitative and quantitative data show how legal professionals and witnesses use different strategies to impose their own line of argument. In general, the more frequently the lawyers use a question the more it is coercive. Witnesses, on their side, prefer to provide elaborate answers. Moreover, the study provides evidence of the interconnection between the use of the strategies during the blame-implicative ‘thematic phases’ and the sequential organization of turns.