Algunos usos de las formulaciones en la entrevista en las noticias

Carles Roca Cuberes

doi:10.4185/RLCS-63-2008-796-463-472

Authors

Carles Roca Cuberes Pompeu Fabra University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-63-2008-796-463-472

Keywords:

Conversation analysis, Media discourse, The news interview, Formulations, Institutional interaction, Qualitative methodology, Adjacency pairs, Question-answer sequences, Speech exchange systems, Television

Abstract

This article focuses on the study of discourse in television. To carry out this study, I analyse the interaction that takes place in a particular program: the news. This type of program often includes interviews, which have become the main object of analysis. This study reveals certain aspects – pragmatic, interactional and audiovisual – that are specific of media discourse. I analyse two different types of discourse devices: the recurring question-answer sequences and a particular type of ‘adjacency pair’: formulations. The results of the analysis of a news interview fragment show, on the one hand, that the implementation of question-answer sequences may confer the interviewer the control of the thematic agenda; on the other hand, formulations are shown to allow the interviewer the achievement of certain goals: clarify, transform and propose alternatives to the interviewee’s statements, or challenge them. Hence, formulations are useful to accomplish a journalistic style which is more penetrating, flexible, dynamic and lively, that is better designed to engage the audience. The qualitative methodology employed in this study is conversation analysis.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Carles Roca Cuberes, Pompeu Fabra University

Doctor in Sociology from the University of Manchester (Great Britain), Master in Social Research Methods from the University of Manchester (Great Britain) and a degree in Psychology from the Autonomous University of Barcelona.

He has dedicated a good part of his work to the investigation of interaction in institutional settings, with special attention to the study of media discourse. This work has been presented at various national and international conferences.

He has recently published the article "Membership Categorization and Professional Insanity Ascription", in the journal Discourse Studies. At present he is part of the team of researchers of, among others, the research project directed by Teun A. van Dijk and funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation ‘Epistemic strategies in discourse, interaction and Communication’.

References

Antaki, C., Barnes, R. y Leudar, I. (2005): “Diagnostic formulations in psychotherapy”. Discourse Studies, 7, pp. 627-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605055420

Balsebre, A., Mateu, M. y Vidal, D. (1998): La entrevista en radio, televisión y prensa. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra.

Barnes, R. (2007): “Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk'”. Text & Talk. 27(3), pp. 273-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.011

Benson, D. y Hughes, J. (1991): “Method: Evidence and inference for ethnomethodology”. En Button, G. (Ed.). Ethnomethodology and the human sciences. (pp. 109-136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611827.007

Clayman, S. y Heritage, J. (2002): The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623

Drew, P. (1995): “Conversation analysis” . En Smith, J. A., Harré, R. y Van Langenholve, L. (Eds.). Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage, pp. 64-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221792.n5

Drew, P. y Heritage, J. C. (1992): “Analyzing talk at work: An introduction”. En Drew, P. y Heritage, J. C. (Eds.). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. (pp. 3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frankel, R. M. (1990): “Talking in interviews: A dispreference for patient-initiated questions in physician-patient encounters”. En Psathas, G. (Ed.). Interactional competence. (pp. 231-262). New York: Irvington Publishers.

Garfinkel, H. y Sacks, H. (1970): “On formal structures of practical actions”. En McKinney, J. C. y Tiryakian, E. A. (Eds.). Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments. (pp. 337-366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Heritage, J. C. (1984a): Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heritage, J. C. (1984b): “A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement”. En Atkinson, J. M. y Heritage, J. C. (Eds.). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. (pp. 299-345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020

Heritage, J. C. y Greatbatch, D. (1991): “On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews”. En Boden D. y Zimmerman, D. H. (Eds.). Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. (pp. 93-137). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heritage, J. C. y Raymond, G. (2005): “The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-Interaction”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, pp. 15-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103

Heritage, J. C y Watson, D. R. (1979): “Formulations as conversational objects”. En Psathas, G. (Ed.). Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. (pp. 123-162). New York: Irvington Publishers.

Jefferson, G. (2002): “Is ‘no’ an acknowledgment token? Comparing American and British uses of tokens”. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, pp. 1345-1383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00067-X

Martínez Vallvey, F. (1995): La entrevista periodística desde el punto de vista conversacional. Salamanca: Publicaciones Universidad Pontificia.

Mengo, R. I. (2005): "Incidencia de los golpes de estado de los 60 en la prensa de Córdoba – República Argentina". Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 59. Recuperado el 21 de mayo de 2008 de: https://www.revistalatinacs.org/200501mengo.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-200501

Moreno Espinosa, P. (1998): El discurso de la televisión en España. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 4. Recuperado el 21 de mayo de 2008 de: https://mdc.ulpgc.es/utils/getfile/collection/rldcs/id/488/filename/576.pdf

Peräkylä, A. (2004): “Making links in psychoanalytic interpretations: A conversation analytic view”. Psychotherapy Research,14, pp. 289-307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ptr/kph026

Pomerantz, A. (1984): “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes”. En Atkinson, J. M. y Heritage, J. (Eds.). Structures of Social Action. (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008

Roca Cuberes, C. (2001): Mental illness and the practice of psychotherapy: A conversation analytic study. (Tesis doctoral). Manchester: University of Manchester.

Roca Cuberes, C. (2008): “Membership categorization and professional insanity ascription”. Discourse Studies, 10(4), pp. 543-570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608091886

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. y Jefferson, G. (1978): “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn‑taking in conversation”. En Schenkein (Ed.). Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. (pp. 7-55). New York: Academic Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2006): Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208

Schenkein, J. N. (1978): “Sketch of an analytic mentality for the study of conversational interaction”. En Schenkein, J. N. (Ed.). Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. (pp. 1-6). New York: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50007-0

Vehviläinen, S. (2001): "Evaluative advice in educational counseling: The use of disagreement in the 'stepwise entry' to advice". Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(3), pp. 371-398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI34-3_4

Vehviläinen, S. (2003): “Preparing and delivering interpretations in psychoanalytic interaction”. Text, 23, pp. 573-606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.022

Watson, R. (2000): “The character of ‘institutional talk’: A response to Hester and Francis”. Text, 20, pp. 377-390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.3.377