This article examines one practice for challenging a co-participant, the use of polar interrogatives that are unanswerable. These are questions that are designed to receive a confirming answer of the same polarity as the question, so-called `Same Polarity Questions'. Speakers accomplish this bias by formatting the question in accordance with their state of knowledge. Based on the recipient's prior turns at talk, a speaker can infer what the recipient's stance towards some matter is and use a `Same Polarity Question' to (...) assert this inference and invite the recipient to confirm the stance. However, the sequential context in which these questions are produced means that with a confirming answer the recipient is heard to be in disagreement with the speaker and can subsequently be held accountable for this disagreement. Neither is a disconfirming response a real alternative, because this would contrast with the information provided by the recipient in prior talk. As this information is what leads the speaker to convey a certain belief about the recipient, the recipient is accountable for having misled the speaker. Because both confirming and disconfirming answers are accountable and hence problematic, recipients treat this type of question as unanswerable and instead orient to it as a challenge. (shrink)

In his classical paper C. Wright Mills suggests a novel view of the motives within the framework of sociology of knowledge. Contrasting an approach of sociology of knowledge to subjectivistic understanding of the motives as outer manifestation of the inner elements, Mills locates a particular types of action within typical frames of normative actions and socially situated clusters of motive. Motives is something that is imputed and avowed by actors, therefore it is necessary to consider, first, how different motives are (...) assigned by different actors to themselves and others in certain social and historical situations, and second, how different vocabularies of motive conflict with each other and replace each other over time. In this case motives are not a manifestations of some inner impulses but a justifications of the behavior. (shrink)

This article aims to examine journalists' adversarial challenges within the Australian political news interview. Within the Australian context, journalists tend to challenge interviewees: by challenging the content of the prior turn, by `interrupting' the prior turn, and by initially presenting their challenge as a freestanding assertion, not attributed to a third party. As a result, journalists could be interpreted as expressing their own perspective on the topic at hand, rather than maintaining a neutralistic stance. Although the challenging nature of journalistic (...) questions has been previously noted within the Australian context, there have been few analyses of such challenges. Using the framework of conversation analysis, the aim of the following article is to examine adversarial challenges in more detail. In particular, the article will focus on how interviewers and interviewees collaboratively produce the political news interview in such a way as to avoid accusations of bias or non-neutrality. First, the article will focus on the challenging nature of the IR's turn, by examining the various techniques used by journalists to ensure that they maintain a neutralistic stance. Second, it will examine the way in which IEs respond to such adversarial challenges. It will show how although politicians do not overtly accuse IRs of bias or impartiality, they clearly orient to the challenging nature of the journalists' turn. (shrink)

This article explores a question format consisting of `you say' plus a version of what the co-participant has said, which is used to ask for confirmation of something said in an earlier sequence. Questions using this you say x format often request not only confirmation but also accounts and can, on occasions, be taken as challenging the interactional balance, that is, be treated as disaffiliative. The article investigates the sequential, prosodic and grammatical conditions for affiliative and disaffiliative uses of you (...) say x questions and discusses the potential institution specificity of the phenomenon. It is found that the clearly disaffiliative you say x questions are parts of dispreferred and disaligning moves, that they have `marked' prosody, that they raise problems, and that they are most often prefaced by `objecting' particles. Affiliative you say x questions are aligning next sequences in environments where the focus is on information delivery. They have `unmarked' prosody and they contribute to getting information on record. You say x questions which call for accounts without being clearly disaffiliative, are also examined. Even though they often raise problematic issues, they are not sequentially disaligning and have less `marked' prosody than the disaffiliative cases. (shrink)

Human interaction and communication involve space in multiple ways. This paper examines the spatial and interactional order of a covertly video-taped police interrogation. When the participants enter the interrogation room and become engaged in the interrogation process, the room itself is a constraint and a resource for interaction. While interacting within a built environment, the participants appropriate their material surroundings in ways that constitute a spatial order and make possible certain arguments. This paper examines how the physical structure of the (...) interrogation room is differentially appropriated, used, and filled in by the participants''; territorial and postural manoeuvers over the course of their interaction; and how the spatial structures thus created by the bodily appropriation of the physical locale are subsequently formulated by talk and thereby used as a metaphorical resource to frame the participants'' situated experience. Through this embedded process, the interrogators move the suspect toward confession. (shrink)

Reflecting upon the lies that are tied to rebukes is a fundamental step in the analysis of interactions between health-care professionals and their clients. Our research focuses on questions that incite people to lie, namely, those for which a lying response avoids a rebuke or a judgment based on some type of behaviour. Our objectives are: 1) to characterize the `question/response' exchange that is interpreted as a `potential rebuke/ lie' exchange, and the questions that may induce lying; 2) to identify (...) the strategies that health-care professionals implement in order to obtain the information they seek when questioning their clients; and 3) to identify themes that refer to behavioural norms that clients might be inclined to lie about. The results are based on the assumption that there are ties between behaviour and speech acts, in this case between the transgression of behavioural norms and lying. (shrink)