American Journal of Educational Research
ISSN (Print): 2327-6126 ISSN (Online): 2327-6150 Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/education Editor-in-chief: Ratko Pavlović
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
American Journal of Educational Research. 2015, 3(12), 1570-1578
DOI: 10.12691/education-3-12-14
Open AccessArticle

A Pragmatic Analysis of Impolite Interruptions of Selected Debates in the Opposite Direction of Al-Jazeera Channel

Hazim Hakkush Muarich Al-Dilaimy1 and Abed Shahooth Khalaf2,

1Mazoon University College (Affiliated with Missouri University of Science and Technology, USA), Muscat. Oman

2College of Education for Humanities University of Anbar

Pub. Date: November 30, 2015

Cite this paper:
Hazim Hakkush Muarich Al-Dilaimy and Abed Shahooth Khalaf. A Pragmatic Analysis of Impolite Interruptions of Selected Debates in the Opposite Direction of Al-Jazeera Channel. American Journal of Educational Research. 2015; 3(12):1570-1578. doi: 10.12691/education-3-12-14

Abstract

The present paper draws a conversational sketch of impoliteness strategies as employed by interlocutors in the "Opposite Direction" presented by Al-Jazeera satellite channel. In the heat of discussion, interlocutors resort to certain aggressive strategies to attack each other's face in an attempt to get the floor and instigate the other interviewee to react in a more offensive manner. This situation is usually triggered and intensified by the interviewer who is supposed to be neutral and works into managing the interview. The more offensive the debate is, the more interested the viewers will be. The study collates a corpus consisting of one translated episode into English [25] of the ‘Opposite Direction’ covering the topic of ‘The Clash of Civilization and the Class of Religions’ in which the interviewer Faisal Qasim (FQ), a famous journalist on Al-Jazeera Channel invites Wafa Sultan (WS), a writer and a researcher in Los Angles and Ibrahim Al-Khouli (IK), a lecturer at Al-Azher University. The paper adopts Culpeper's Model of impoliteness (1996) in the analysis of impoliteness instances in the selected corpus. Results show that the most common strategies of impoliteness interruptions employed by interlocutors include bold on record impoliteness, mock impoliteness, negative impoliteness, ignorance, showing disinterest and unconcern, using imperatives and direct sarcastic questions that do not seek answers, accusations and ridiculing and using profane language. They also show that the interviewer (FQ) has played a role in instigating the interviewees to resort to impolite interruptions.

Keywords:
impoliteness viewers conversation interlocutors face threatening acts mitigate

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]  Bogetic, K. (2009). Prosodic cues in turn-taking. University of Belgrade. Retrieved January 16, 2013, http://www.baal.org.uk/proco9/bogetic.pdf.
 
[2]  Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
 
[3]  Bull. P. & Mayor, K. (1988). “Interruptions in Political Interviews: A study of Margret Thatcher ad Neil Kinnock.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 7(1): 35-44.
 
[4]  Bull, P., & Wells, P. (2012). Adversial Discourse in Prime Minister's Questions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 31(1), 30-48.
 
[5]  Clayman, S. (1988). “Displaying neutrality in television news interviews.” Social problems 35 (4): 474-490.
 
[6]  Culpeper, J. (1996). “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics, 25: 349-367.
 
[7]  Culpeper, J, Derek B. & Anne W. (2003). “Impoliteness Revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (10/11): 1545-79.
 
[8]  Culpeper, J. (2005). “Impoliteness and the Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (I), 35-72.
 
[9]  Evison, J. (2013). “A Corpus Linguistics Analysis of Turn Openings in Spoken Academic Discourse: Understanding Discursive Specialization.” English Profile Journal. Vol, 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Accessed through IVSL on the 5th of March, 2013.
 
[10]  Feldman, O. & Christ D. L. (1998). Politically Speaking: a Worldwide Examination of Language Used in the Public Sphere. USA: An Imprint o Creenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
 
[11]  Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
 
[12]  Greatbatch, D. (1988). “A Turn-taking system for British news interviews.” Language and Society, 17: 401-430.
 
[13]  Greatbatch, D. (1992). “On the management of disagreement between news interviews” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds), 286-301, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 
[14]  Grice, H. P. (1975). “Logic and Conversation”. In Speech Acts [Syntax and Semantics 3], Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds), 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
 
[15]  Grice, H. P. (1978). “Further Notes on Logic and Conversation.” In Pragmatics [Syntax and Semantics 9], Peter Cole (ed.). New York: Academic Press.
 
[16]  Hanlon, B. (2010). Verbal aggression and neutrality in political interviews. Diffusion: the UCLan Journal of Undergraduate Research. 3 (2), 1-17.
 
[17]  Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse & Society, 12(4), 451-472.
 
[18]  Jay, T. (1992). Cursing in America: A Psycholinguistic Study of Dirty Language in the Courts, in the Movies, in the Schoolyards, and on the Streets. John Benjamins Publishing.
 
[19]  Kaye, B. K., & Sapolsky, B. S. (2004). Offensive language in prime-time television: Four years after television age and content ratings. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(4), 554-569.
 
[20]  Labov, W. and David F. (1977). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
 
[21]  Lachenchit, L. G. (1980). “Aggravating Language : A Study of Abusive and Insulting Language.” International language of Human Communication, 13 (4) : 607 – 688.
 
[22]  Lakoff, R. T. (1989). The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8(2-3), 101-130.
 
[23]  Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London : Longman.
 
[24]  Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 
[25]  Meph. (2006). www.aqoul.com, Al-Jazzerz Channel.
 
[26]  Mills, S. (2007). “Gender and Politeness.” In Studies in International Sociolinguistics. 13(4) : 607-687.
 
[27]  Murphy, J. (2014). (Im) politeness during Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK Parliament. Pragmatics and Society, 5(1), 76-104.
 
[28]  Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Longman 50: 696-735.
 
[29]  Watts, R, J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
 
[30]  Yemenici, A. (2001). “Analysis of Use of Politeness Maxims in Interruptions in Turkish Political Debates”. In Bayraktaroglu Arin and Maria Sifianou.(Eds). Linguistics Politeness Across Boundaries: the Case of Greek and Turkish. USA: John Benjamins B. V., pp307-339.
 
[31]  Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 
[32]  Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language. 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press.
 
[33]  Zimmerman, D. & West, C. (1975). “Sex roles, interruptions and sciences in conversations.” In Language and Sex.” B. Thomas and N. Henly (eds).105-129. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.