Non-replies in interviews with Iranian politicians
List of Authors
  • Bahman, Masoumeh , Lowe, Veronica

Keyword
  • Non-replies, Iran, political interviews, nuclear programme, human rights,

Abstract
  • Iran has been at the centre of international controversies since 1979 when the Islamic Republic of Iran was established. The controversial issues that Iran is associated with include its involvement in nuclear programme and the violation of human rights in Iran. Iranian politicians are often criticised for the Iranian government’s non-conformity with Human Rights Council and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In this study we examine what strategies or non-replies Iranian politicians employ to respond to interviewers’ face-threatening questions. The data consist of thirty political interviews conducted from 2001 to 2015 with a total of twelve hours of talk involving journalists working for western broadcasting companies and Iranian politicians collected from YouTube packaged for public consumption. It was explored that Iranian politicians employed eight kinds of superordinate non-replies to avoid answering the interviewers’ face-threatening questions to save, protect or enhance their face. The findings of this study can shed light on the avoidance strategies of Iranian politicians.

Reference
  • 1. Afshari, R. (2011). Human rights in Iran: The abuse of cultural relativism. University of Pennsylvania Press.
    2. Alhuthali, M. (2018). Equivocation in political discourse: How do we know when it ishappening? International Journal of English Linguistics, 8, 6.
    3. Anchimbe, E. (2009). That’s a myth: Linguistic avoidance as a political face-saving strategy in broadcast interviews. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 96-111). Equinox.
    4. André, J. St. (2013). How the Chinese lost ‘face’. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 68-85.
    5. Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Bryson, L. & Mullet, J. (1988). Political equivocation: A situational explanation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7(2), 137-145.
    6. Bavelas, J.B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Sage.
    7. Blitvich, P.G-C. (2010). The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness and Polarization. In R. Taiwo (Ed.) Handbook of research on discourse behavior and digital communication: Language structures and social interaction. (pp. 540-563). IGI Global.
    8. Borger, (2010, May 17). Text of the Iran-Brazil-Turkey deal. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/may/17/iran-brazil-turkey-nuclear
    9. Brewer, M. B. & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identityand self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83-93.
    10. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomenon. In: P. Brown & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. [Originally published in 1978 as Universals in language usage: politeness phenomenon. In: E. Goody, (Eds.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.
    11. Brown, P., & S. C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
    12. Bull, P. (1998). Equivocation theory and news interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17(1) 36-51.
    13. Bull, P. (2003). The microanalysis of political communication: Claptrap and ambiguity.Routledge.
    14. Bull, P. (2008). Slipperiness, evasionand ambiguity: Equivocation and facework in non-committal political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(4) 324-332.
    15. Bull, P., Elliot, J., Palmer, D.& Walker, L. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 267-284.
    16. Bull, P. & Fetzer, A. (2010). Face, facework and political discourse. International Review of Social Psychology, 23(2/3), 155-185.
    17. Bull, P. & Mayer, K. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology, 14(4), 651-666.
    18. Bull, P. & Strawson, W. (2020). Can’t answer? Won’t answer? An analysis of equivocal responses by Theresa May in Prime Minister’s questions. Parliamentary Affairs, 73(2) 429-449. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsz003
    19. Çakir, S., Kaya, E. K. & Kara, A. (2016) . Evasion strategies used in Turkish political discourse. The Journal of International Social Research, 9(46) 58-64.
    20. Clayman, S. E. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society, 30(3) 403-442.
    21. Clayman, S.E (2002). Disagreements and third parties: Dilemmas of neutralism in panel interviews panel interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1385-1401.
    22. Clayman, S. & Heritage. J. (2002). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge University Press.
    23. Emmertsen, S. (2007). Interviewers’ challenging questions in British debate interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 570-591.
    24. Feldman, O. & Kinoshita, K. (2017). Do important questions demand respectful replies?Analyzing televised political interviews in Japan. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 27(1), 121-157.
    25. Feldman, O., Kinoshita, K.& Bull, P. (2015). Culture or communicative conflict? The analysis of equivocation in broadcast Japanese political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 65-89.
    26. Feldman, O., Kinoshita, K. & Bull, P. (2016). ‘Ducking and diving’: How political issues affect equivocation in Japanese political interviews. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 17, 141-167.
    27. Galasinski, D. (2000). The Language of deception: A discourse analytical study. Sage Publications, Inc.
    28. Gialabouki, L. & Pavlidou, TH.-S. (2019). Beyond answering: Interviewees’ use of questions in TV political interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 151,18-29.
    29. Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18, 213-231.
    30. Goffman, E. (1967). On face work. interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour (pp.5-45). Pantheon.
    31. Goffman, E. (1972). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Penguin.
    32. Greatbatch, D. (1986). Aspects of topical organization in news interviews: The use of agenda-shifting procedures by interviewees. Media, Culture and Society, 8, 441-455.
    33. Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of talk for an overhearing audience. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol.3) (pp. 95-119). Academic Press.
    34. Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1427-1446.
    35. Jucker, A. H. (1986). News interviews: A pragmalinguistic analysis. John Benjamins.
    36. Katzman, K. (2017). Iran: Politics, human rights, and U.S. policy. Congressional Research Service: Informing the legislative debate since 1914. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL32048.pdf
    37. Khodadadi, M. (2016). A new dawn? The Iran deal and the future of Iranian tourism industry. Tourism Management Perspectives, 18, 6-9.
    38. Kienzle, B. (2012). Between human rights and non-proliferation: norm competition in the EU’s Iran policy. Revista UNISCI, 30, 77-91.
    39. Rorrison, D. (2012). Iran’s nuclear ambitions. E-International Relations Studies. https://www.e-ir.info/2012/04/19/irans-nuclear-ambitions/
    40. Waddle, M., & Bull, P. (2016). Playing the man, not the ball: Personalisation in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(4), 412–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15592443
    41. Weilin, D. & Xiaoying, Z. (2008). Cross-cultural pragmatic analysis of evasion strategy at Chinese and American regular press conferences - with special reference to the North Korean nuclear issue’, Intercultural Forum, 1(2). https://www.revistas.usp.br/caligrama/article/viewFile/65490/68106