Freedoms and constraints in semi-institutional television discussions: The case of mixed format panel discussions

Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Freedoms and constraints in semi-institutional television discussions: The case of mixed format panel discussions Marie-Noe¨lle Guillot * School of Language, Linguistics and Translation Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Received 10 April 2007; received in revised form 26 April 2007; accepted 2 July 2007

Abstract Like panel interviews, panel discussions, i.e. discussions involving a host mediating between several guests, appear constrained by expectations and attendant turn-taking practices which give them distinctive sequential and discourse characteristics, and make them in principle a safe context in which to promote lively debate. The format, however, is not necessarily adhered to strictly or consistently. It may convert to hybrid forms generating an equivocal modus operandi for participants. This is what this paper will consider, against the methodological backdrop of interactional discourse and conversation analysis, with a case study of a TV discussion in French initiated as a panel discussion, but lapsing out of the format. It will identify features of the organization of turns, turn-design and participants’ roles in the discussion, to account for resulting opportunities and uncertainties for participants and to map out features of the particular interactional genre established, as distinct from other forms of semi-institutional types of verbal interactions. # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Conflict talk; Panel discussion; Hybridization; Interactional genre; Talk-show; French

1. Introduction This study, part of a project researching conflict talk in oppositional interactions in French and English, is interested in a particular type of discussion, the television panel discussion, and, more specifically, in hybrid forms of the genre representing a crossover between panel discussion and the talk-show genre. It will explore how a particular interactional genre is established: how the opportunities and constraints that it produces for participants in the confrontation of their points * Tel.: +44 1603 592136; fax: +44 1603 250599. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.016

180

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

of view shape their modes of involvement and verbal behaviour; and how the paradoxical tensions that this type of mixed media discourse creates for, and between, participants serve the interests of their host, and of the genre. Panel discussions, i.e. discussions involving a host mediating between several guests representing different viewpoints, are a popular medium in broadcasting for bringing debates about topical issues to the public. They have been a vehicle for people of influence to promote their views to the wider community, and a critical means of achieving public exposure and influence. They also have critical advantages for broadcasters. Research into institutional verbal interactions has shown that the way talk is organized in mediated interactions makes them a unique medium for setting conflicting points of view against one another while safeguarding the neutrality of the presenter and, equally crucially, the face of participants. As Greatbatch (1992) demonstrates for panel interviews, i.e. interviews involving one interviewer and two or more interviewees advocating different positions, they promote lively debate, but in a controlled framework in which risk to reputations is kept in check, and litigation at bay. Like the panel interviews studied by Greatbatch in a British context, panel discussions appear constrained by distinctive interactional expectations and turn-taking practices, which give them similarly distinctive and face-saving sequential and linguistic characteristics. The British discussion programme Question Time, which will be used below to document features of television panel discussions, is a typical example. The mediated format, however, is not necessarily adhered to strictly or consistently. It may evolve into hybrid forms combining different types of turn-taking systems, in mixed format discussions generating an equivocal modus operandi for participants. This is what this paper is interested in, and will consider through a case study of a French television discussion initiated as a panel discussion but shifting out of this particular format, while retaining some of its characteristics. The discussion will identify features of the organization of turns, turn-design and participants’ roles in the discussion, against the methodological backdrop of interactional discourse and conversation analysis, with two objectives: to account for resulting opportunities and uncertainties for participants, and to map out features of the particular interactional genre established, as distinct from other forms of semi-institutional types of verbal interaction. The study’s background and data will be presented in the opening section. The discussion will then harness Greatbatch’s (1992) account of panel interviews to the analysis of the archetypal English language BBC panel discussion programme Question Time, to document features of this type of mediated interaction. This will be followed by the analysis of the French discussion, and of the paradoxical impact of the initial panel discussion framing on the way it is construed and constructed by participants, with respect to the organization of talk and conflict management, discourse features, roles and topic development. The implications of observations for the genre established in this example will be taken up in the concluding section. 2. Context and data The study was prompted by methodological issues arising from the comparison of features of conflict talk in broadcast debates in French and English, during the exploratory phase of a project investigating oppositional talk across the two languages, and ultimately concerned with crosslinguistic variations in non-native speech. Two kinds of data were available for this first part of the project: television panel discussions in English (from the Question Time series), and discussions in French, from a series called Ciel mon mardi, presented and initiated as panel discussions, but inconsistent in their adherence to the constraints of the framework and producing

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

181

their own hybrid system of practices. This had methodological implications for the analysis of features to be investigated in the two datasets, notably affiliative and non-affiliative interruptive phenomena and turn-design in adversative turns. The emergent genre manifest in Ciel mon mardi was also an interesting phenomenon in its own right, comparable to, yet also distinct from, other hybrid genres. The critical relationship between the interactional practices of discussion and the institutional features of the types of broadcasts in which they are observed have been underscored by studies focusing, within a CA framework, on their sequential organization in relation to participants’ footings. It is demonstrated in Hutchby’s work on interactions in radio phone-in settings and broadcast debates, for example (Hutchby, 1992, 1996, 1997 inter alia), where it serves to address questions of asymmetries and alignment and attendant issues of power relations. It is a central theme in Greatbatch’s (1992) study of the management of disagreement between news interviewees in panel interviews, which will be taken up in greater detail in the next section, as in CA-driven studies of interactions in institutional settings generally (cf. Drew and Heritage, 1992 pioneering volume on the question). The affinities between panel interviews, as discussed by Greatbatch, and panel discussions, make Greatbatch’s study a natural methodological backdrop for reviewing features of panel discussions in the dataset, and contrasting them with mixed format discussion. The analysis will also make reference to membership category analysis (MCA), presented by Fitzgerald and Housley (2002) as a critical tool for supplementing sequential analysis and defining the complex multidimensional workings of interaction. In their application of a combined CA/MCA approach to radio phone-in programmes, they show that members are oriented not only to the sequence of conversation but also to the membership identities present, so that the texture of interactions combines both ‘‘the sequential actions and the membership category work carried out by participants’’ (Fitzgerald and Housley, 2002:583). This point will be taken up in the discussion of the hybrid format discussion. Much of interactional discourse and CA research, generally and in applications to institutional exchanges, has been devoted to interactions in the English language. In the now more common applications to other languages, many have used research frameworks for English to deal with cross-cultural or cross-linguistic issues, or to test universal claims (see for instance Be´al, 1993; Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1994, 1996 for French, and for panel interactions specifically studies like Tzanne (2001) (with application to Greek) and Yemenici (2001) (with application to Turkish)). Their findings, notably those pertaining to aspects of adversarial talk, are relevant to the concerns of this paper, as we shall see (e.g. observations about the form of disagreement in French). The main focus in this case study is not, however, on cross-linguistic aspects per se, but on interactional and discourse practices observed in the genre represented, albeit across two languages, and on their distinctiveness in relation to hybrid forms of (semi-)institutional TV discussion. Studies of television discussion programmes within broader interdisciplinary perspectives are predicated on the distinction between institutional programmes and talk-shows (or chat-shows in British English). The former are based on collective and performative talk and the confrontation of opinions, and are expected to provide information about topical social, political or moral issues. The latter are based on personal and narrative talk and designed for entertainment. The distinction is thus central to Ilie’s (2001) discussion of talk-shows as semi-institutional forms of programme, i.e. exhibiting an interplay of features of both casual conversation and institutional discourse, the shifts in and out of which Ilie documents with respect to a range of aspects: discourse goals (interplay of spontaneous and purposeful talk), topics and turn-taking (negotiated/non-controlled and monitored/host-controlled talk), roles (real-life roles and institutional roles as hosts, guests, audience members), message orientation (interlocutor-

182

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

oriented, message-oriented, multiple audience-oriented talk). The hybrid form of interactional discourse resulting from the interplay between these poles is presented as typically displaying ‘embedded’ and ‘mixed interdiscursivity’ (Ilie, 2001:224), a distinction derived from Fairclough’s notions of ‘embedded intertextuality’ (the containment of one text or discourse type within the matrix of another) and ‘mixed intertextuality’ (the merging of texts or discourse types into a more complex and less easily separable way) (Fairclough, 1998).1 The contrast between the two notions, which will help highlight specificities of Ciel mon mardi, will be taken up in later sections. The distinction between institutional debates and talk-shows and the notion of hybridization are central, too, in other examples of case studies of the talk-show genre, like Atifi and Marcoccia’s (2006) semio-pragmatic analysis of the political ‘television forum’ in a French context, in which lay participants on the show reject the talk-show frame proposed by the host and redefine it as a political debate, in shifts from personal narrative talk to collective, performative talk. They are shown jointly to construct the genre with the host, from their respective agendas (talk-show for the host, political debate for lay guests on the programme), in collective negotiations demonstrating reversal of identities and purposes, and the impact of the talk-show genre on political discourse. There are, however, significant differences between these examples and the data in this study. Both the examples above are based on shows involving celebrities/experts and ordinary people representing different perspectives on a particular question, and performing for a studio audience and the television viewing public (specifically the U.S. Oprah Winfrey and Geraldo Rivera shows in Ilie’s study, and a live discussion, presented as a talk-show and confronting students and ‘authorities’ (politicians and experts) in Atifi and Marcoccia’s French forum). In contrast, the programmes in the dataset for this study involves hosts and experts only, and both are introduced as panel discussions. The French programme, a 45-min discussion on the topic of anti-smoking campaigns (Ciel mon mardi series), involves eight participants in all, the host, the host’s (mostly silent) female assistant,2 and six male guests representing various specialist points of view (medical profession, anti-smoking lobby, tobacco industry, tobacco advertising, tobacco retailers, a writer). It is performed in the presence of a non-participating audience, i.e. one providing no verbal input, but able to contribute by clapping and making approving or disapproving noises, and now and again called upon to express an opinion through electronic polling. This is one of the differences with the (60-min) Question Time sample to be used to document features of panel discussions generally, in which the questions to be put to a panel of three politicians and a press magnate are elicited from the audience. This feature affiliates Question Time to talk-shows. Question Time, has, however, always been the locus of ‘serious’ political debate, with a strong institutional dimension enhanced by the panel discussion format. Ciel mon mardi is a more demotic series, devoted to non-political issues, and normally considered as a talk-show (e.g. by Atifi and Marcoccia, 2006). Its initial framing as an expert panel discussion, i.e. the institutional framing of controlled confrontational debate, and subsequent departure from, yet continued dependence on, this opening format, gives the discussion an equivocal status. It produces equivocal roles and discourse goals, and an interactional genre which set it apart from other examples, such as Atifi and Marcoccia’s forum. 1 Fairclough’s set of distinctions also include ‘sequential intertextuality’ (the alternation of texts or discourse types within a text/discourse). 2 The host’s assistant produces only 19 turns in all (as against 124 for the publicist, for example), 4 of which are false starts/requests for turns. Her contributions raise interesting issues, including gender issues. Pressures of space preclude including their analysis in this paper.

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

183

3. Features of panel discussions: the example of Question Time Like panel interviews, panel discussions are an opportunity to set points of view against each other and necessarily involve disagreements. The management by the host, acting as a neutral mediator, of disagreements between guests is thus a major activity, and significantly affects the turn-taking system and attendant features. As Greatbatch demonstrates for panel interviews, there is a close relationship between the institutional roles of participants, the turn-taking system adopted, the management of disagreements and, in the end, the formal and linguistic characteristics of turns (Greatbatch, 1992). Roles, and the attendant turn-taking system, appear in some cases to be adhered to quite strictly. This applies, for instance, to discussions from the Question Time series of the corpus which, in these respects, show similarities with what Greatbatch describes for panel interviews. The turn-taking system is based on the production of question/answer adjacency pairs, and is primarily managed by a host acting as an intermediary between individual members of the audience and guests on the one hand, and guests on the other, as represented below, and illustrated in example (1): host [S1] ! elicits question from audience member audience member [SA] ! asks question host ! allocates audience member’s question to guest guest [Sx] ! answers question (1) 1! 2 3! 4 5! 6!

QT / [01:19] (see transcription conventions in Appendix A) S1 [. . .] / I’ll ask for the first one [question] which comes from [SA1] who is an insurance technician / Mr. [SA1] / SA1 does the panel agree that last week’s bombing - of Iraq / demonstrates that Britain has greater allegiance to the United States / - than it does to Europe/ S1 last week’s and indeed yesterday’s / [S2]/ S2 no / what it demonstrates is our commitment to make sure that [. . .]

The host/guest question-allocation/answer pair may then be followed by a short host/guest exchange, with the host eliciting clarifications relating to the initial answer for example, and/or by the allocation of the initial question, or of a question arising out of the first guest’s answer, to another guest on the panel. The advantage of this system, as Greatbatch shows for panel interviews, is that it makes room for the emergence of overt disagreements, and thus the airing of conflicting views, but within a framework in which disagreements are attenuated, since they do not occur in adjacent turns and are mediated by a third party. This also makes redundant the forestalling and mitigating features shown by Pomerantz (1984) to be associated with disagreements as dispreferred actions in conversation: agreement prefaces and/or delaying pre-turn pauses or repair initiators (e.g. hm, well, yes I would agree with this but . . .) (see also Greatbatch, 1992:277–280, and examples in line 6 in (1) above [unmitigated no initiating a disagreement] and (4), (5) and (6) below). Evidence that guests share the sense of role definition and of the way turn-taking is regulated in this Question Time sample is found in various other clues, notably standard references to other

184

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

guests in the third person, as in examples (5) and (6) further on, as well as the host’s calls to order, as in (2) below: (2)QT 1 S1 2 3 4 5! 6

/ [12:36] ok fine [onset of audience applause] / now ar- us / we must move on / alright now / now we must move on / we we we we’ve [end of audience applause] taken up twelve minutes of our time with that / and I want to go on to some - e- mo- many other issues on Europe / and I want to bring - all of you who’ve had your hands up in much more / if - I can ask the panel / to Zlisten to what you say and answer / - as much as er: engage in passioned debate with them- with each other / - - - it would be good /

Interaction in this setting should, then, to take up one of Greatbach’s observations about panel interviews (Greatbatch, 1992:271), properly be conducted within a framework of host or hostallocated questions and panel members’ responses to these questions, roles to which all are in principle confined. There are departures from this basic structure, as flagged in example (2) above, which suggest that panel members do at times engage in debate with each other directly, i.e. in answers or sequences not elicited or mediated by the host. These departures, resulting in upgradings of disagreements, here again largely coincide with Greatbatch’s account for panel interviews. They are produced in three different ways, shown below in order of seriousness as subversions of the standard turn order: (i) in the context of the answer to a question, as in the following example, in which a panel member postpones responding to the question allocated to her by the host in order to introduce unrelated matter, and is promptly called to order by the host: (3) QT / 1 ! S4 2 3 S1

[11:17] right / let me let-let me- let / I’ll deal with that in a minute but let me say {first that // {not in a minute / brief- / more briefly XX / hm /

(ii) directly at the end of another panel member’s turn, i.e. without mediation by the host (4) QT / S1 1 S2 2 3 ! S3

[22:58] [. . .] [. . .] in that real world / some great majority / of our manufactured exports and goods / Zgo the the countries of - the Euro zone / not true /

(iii) by overlap with and/or interruption of another panel member’s turn (5) QT / S1 1 S2 2 3 ! S3

[10:07] [. . .] er / first of all / it Zis - firmly anchored within Nato / at Zevery Zstep / on those documents that we Zapproved {at Nice / first of a- // {you just haven’t} read the paper properly /

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

185

Unmediated disagreements initiated in this way may then escalate into unmediated disagreement sequences with the following characteristics:  they usually involve two of the guests only;  they are not usually encoded in dispreferred turn structures, i.e. with forestalling and mitigating features: since they are strongly connected with the escalation of conflict, preference features normally associated with the mitigation of conflict in ordinary conversation are redundant in these sequences, as they are in mediated disagreements (Greatbatch, 1992:284);  they are of limited duration, i.e. are not allowed to escalate out of control, and are cut short by the host/mediator. This last feature is again in line with what Greatbach shows for panel interviews, but out of line with ordinary conversation, where, as Pomerantz shows for English, disagreement sequences are routinely de-escalated through a gradual process of participants moderating their positions in order to save face. What gives guests the option of escalating conflict in this way, as in lines 3–15 in (6) below, is precisely that they know that, as in panel interviews, the mediator will take responsibility for exiting a conflict sequence (as S1 does in line 16 in (6) below, after an earlier failed attempt (line 9)), that it is part and parcel of the mediator’s role. As Greatbatch demonstrates, not doing so would require that they abandon their institutional footing and the right to direct the topical focus of the panel members’ talk. Since this kind of panel discussion involves a host acting as mediator, it thus has the built-in potential to stimulate lively debate by providing for both the escalation yet also the limitation of overt disagreements, as in panel interviews (Greatbatch, 1992:298–300). (6)

QT / [23:01] S1 1 S2 [. . .] in that real world / some great majority / of our manufactured exports 2 and goods / Zgo to the countries of - the Euro zone / ----------------------------------------------------------------------3 ! S3 not true / [onset of audience uproar /comments] 4 S2 that i- / no it is true / it is true / {it is true / XXX / 5 S3 {not true / - - - / not true / 6 S2 I’m very sorry X F[S3] / it Zis true / fifty-eight percent of our exports of goods / 7 go to the Eurozone countries / [end of audience uproar/ comments] 8 S3 [{XXX go elsewhere /} 9 ! S1 [{export and and / hold on / X} [inaudible background overlaps] 10 S3 less than half of our {exports in total go to the Eurozone - / let’s get the facts right /} 11 S2 {[snigger] wait a min- wait a minute / C [S4][sic] / you ar- / 12 i- inverting it / you s-} / in (re-verting it?) still leaves the fact that ‘fifty-three 13 percent / I mean fifty-eight percent of manufactured exports / ‘go the Eurozone / 14 and ‘fifty-three percent / a majority of {goods and services go there / 15 S? {XXX - - X / ----------------------------------------------------------------------16 ! S1 yeah but what about the / {what about the question which was about control / [. . .] => S2/S1 exchange

186

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

The point about this basic account from the point of view of the present paper, however, is the following: whether guests conform to, or depart from, the constraints of their roles and of the turn-taking system, there are always clear signposts in the organization of turns identifying the type of sequences or turns being enacted, all the more so as they are also flagged by associated discourse features. The shift from third person to second person reference in guests’ turns thus almost always heralds the onset of a conflict sequence, as in example (7) below (where RC is S2): (7) 1 2

QT / [08:50] S1 but just explain [end of audience applause] what you mean / S3 well wha- / the reality is / that what er T-Tony Blair and R C signed up to at Nice / 3 was something which creates a ZEuropean rapid reaction force / 4 a ZEuropean army / which is Zwholly separate from Nato / which has its own Zmilitary 5! staff / its own Zmilitary committee / its own headquarters / well R - shakes his head / 6 it may suggest R this is yet Zanother occasion when you Zdidn’t Zread : what {it was 7 S2 {oh: / 8 S3 = you were signing / [audience ‘yeahs’; onset of applause] 9 S1 b- but where did (he, you?) // [interrupted by audience applause] 10 S2 I wrote {most of them / 11 S3 {and nor / and nor ha- have / [. . . ] => conflict sequence S3/S2 As in interviews, the panel format in discussion, as documented with this Question Time example, appears to institute a recognizable, and comparable, framework of opportunities and constraints for members, with readily identifiable organizational, turn design and discourse markers. 4. Features of a panel discussion/talk-show hybrid: the example of Ciel mon mardi Things are not so clear-cut in the Ciel mon mardi discussion programme. In this case, there are two co-occurring turn-taking systems and sets of roles, the interaction of which results in shifts of points of reference and a concomitant disorientation or reorientation for participants. The presence of what may be considered either as competing or complementary systems generates complex ongoing readjustments, exploited more or less successfully by individual participants. The first system, instituted at the beginning of the discussion, largely coincides with what Greatbatch describes for panel interviews and with what is observed in the Question Time panel discussion, even though the audience is not, in this case, called upon to put questions to the guests. This feature affects the sequential organization of the discussion, but its main impact for the present argument relates to the overall set-up of the discussion, or the way it is initially projected, i.e. as a discussion among expert guests introduced in their institutional roles as experts, involving exchanges of points of views mediated by a host.

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

187

Host and guests initially interact in regular sequences of host/guest question/answer adjacency pairs, as plotted in the following basic sequence (S1 is the host, S8 and S4 are two of the guests): (8) CMM [Introductory S1 turn with acknowledgement tokens from the guests] S1 question to S8 / S8 answer / S1question to S8 / S8 answer / S1 question to S8 / S8 answer / S1 question to S4 / S4 answer / S1 question to S4 / S4 answer - interrupted by S1 (see below for comments on this) [. . .] As the bracketed details indicate, and as in the Question Time panel discussion example, the opening question/answer sequence follows on directly from a short introduction during which the host introduces the topic and each guest in turn (with acknowledgment receipts from each). This can be seen to define the ‘membership category’ of the host as host and introducer at this point, and of the guests as authorities in their respective special fields, in line with Fitzgerald and Housley’s discussion (2002). As they show for radio chat-shows, the ‘job’ of the host is ‘‘to perform certain actions at various relevant times’’ (introducing the programme/topic and the callers, inviting callers to speak and managing caller transitions), which operate at an organizational and at a more immediate level; he thus has membership and sequential predicates attributable to him (Fitzgerald and Housley, 2002:584–585). There are various clues confirming that host and guests share a common understanding of what their roles, and sequential and categorial predications are at this point, and of how the system in place should operate, i.e. that the host should confine his role to asking questions and allocating turns/mediating between guests, and that the guests should confine themselves to responding to the host’s invitations to talk, in actions performed at certain organizationally relevant times. These can be observed directly, but also in departures from the system set up at the onset of the discussion, as illustrated in example (9) below: (9) CMM / [09:20] 1 ! S8 je peux re´pondre sur ce point la` / 2 ! S1 oui mais tre`s rapidement parce que je voudrais que tout le monde s’exprime / 3 avant que: chacun: // Back translation 1 ! S8 2 ! S1 3

can I answer on this point / yes but very quickly because I would like everyone to express themselves / before each of you: //

In this example, S8’s request for a turn underscores the fact that he is speaking out of turn (in what is the first example of this in the discussion) and implicitly recognizes that turns are in principle allocated by a host, initially serially. The host’s answer likewise confirms that his role is to deal with the management of turns and that the discussion should, in principle, conform to a particular sequence of phases, with each participant at this point called upon to express him/ herself in turn on the question to be debated. There is still at this point convergence between the host’s categorial and sequential roles. The host/guest question/answer sequential and categorial format is, however, departed from early on. This is initiated by the host himself, in the first instance with an interruption which occurs in the second host/guest question/answer sequence in the discussion (see S1/S4 sequence

188

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

in (8) above), in contravention of his role and formally neutral stance so far, and of the turn-taking provisions established. It is an interruptive adversative assertion overtly expressing the host’s own view, as his subsequent first person turn in the ensuing conflict exchange with S4 confirms. It is thus a breach of his discourse identity and institutionalized footing as host, as defined at the beginning of the discussion, of which there are many subsequent examples. By speaking in his own name, he is, in line with Fitzgerald and Housley’s MCA analysis, shifting out of his categorial predication. He is also shifting out of the sequential organisation of the exchange, i.e. of the question /answer format initially instituted. (10) CMM 1 S4 2 3 4 ! S1 5 S4 6 ! S1 7 8 S4 9

1 2 3 4! 5 6! 7 8 9

/ [06:44] [. . .] mon combat - est - pour - - la publicite´ / [. . .] / parce que de deux choses l’une / Zou - le tabac est une Zdrogue - - / et pourquoi est-il en vente libre / comment se fait-il / {que les gens qui nous gouvernent // {oh si si si c’est une drogue / c’est une drogue le tabac / alors pourquoi ne l’interdit-on pas / (ben, quand?) moi j’e´tais fumeur je pou{vais dire que c’est une drogue doucement doucement hein /} {si c’est une drogue} [SLOW] / si c’est une drogue il faut - Zavoir la volonte´ - Zd’interdire la vente libre de cette drogue / [. . .]

S4 [. . .] my fight - is - for - - advertising / [. . .] / because it’s one of two things / /Zeither - tobacco is a Zdrug - - / and so why is it sold freely / how is it / {that those who govern us // S1 {oh yes yes yes it is a drug / it is a drug tobacco / S4 so why is it not banned / S1 (well, when?) me I was a smoker I {could say that it is a drug hang on hang on here /} S4 {if it is a drug} [SLOW] / if it is a drug we must -‘have the will - to ban it from being sold freely / [. . .]

The shift from third person statement (line 4) to first person statement (line 6) also marks a shift to a witness-like statement, the implications of which will be taken up in subsequent sections. A second significant shift from the system implemented at the beginning of the discussion is manifest in the following sequence, produced shortly after the example (10) sequence above: (11) 1 2! 3 4 5 6 7

CMM / [10.13] {[. . .] S7 {moi je} suis euh / pardon // S1 allez-y / vous {avez les micros / tout le monde peut s’exprimer / si si ils fonctionnent ils fonctionnent / {[multiple inaudible overlaps] S7 {bon je suis extreˆmement frappe´ // {[multiple inaudible overlaps] S5 je pensais a` une chose a` propos de sexualite´ parce que / bon j’ai fait ce [. . .] {[. . .]

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

1 2! 3 4 5 6 7

S7 S1

S7 S5

189

{me I} am er / sorry // go ahead / you all {have microphones / everyone can speak / yes yes they do work they do work / {[multiple inaudible overlaps] {well I am extremely struck // {[multiple inaudible overlaps] I was thinking of something about sexuality because / now I did this [. . .]

S7’s first turn in this sequence is here again an example of an out-of-turn turn, with the apology/repair for this violation ( pardon [sorry]) and message abandonment confirming his sense of roles and of the turn-allocation system still in place at this point. S1’s response in the next turn at lines 2–3 is what produces the sequential (but not categorial) shift: having first called on S7 to proceed with his self-interrupted turn, he invites everyone to express themselves freely, i.e. without being called upon to do so by him. This is in contravention of the sequential system instituted up till then, and of his own earlier point of order (see (9) above), since at this point only two of the guests have been allocated turns at talk. Everyone on the panel immediately takes advantage of this opening: S7, who takes up his self-interrupted turn, is cut short almost straightaway, with everyone starting to talk at once, and S5, self-selecting as next speaker, subsequently managing to take the next non-overlapped turn. The ‘free-talk’ option thereby introduced, whereby all may take turns without necessarily being called upon to do so by the host, makes room for exchanges very different in structure and design from those observed where the format is adhered to, as also in the example of Question Time (i.e. mostly two-party exchanges, including in conflict sequences), notably multi-party unmediated sequences, in which, as we shall see, the main activity appears to be to take or keep turns rather than develop argument. Yet there is also, throughout the discussion, evidence that guests continue to share a common institutionalized framework of reference, i.e. to recognize that another system is still in place as a backdrop, whereby turns ought to be allocated by a third party, the host is in charge of managing turns and conflict sequences are exited by the host in his role as de facto mitigator. This is manifest in the series of examples below (of host’s calls to order, turn allocation, guests’ requests for a turn, exits from disagreement sequences), taken from various points throughout the discussion after the free-talk option was introduced: (12) CMM / [11:18] - Host’s call to order and turn allocation 1! S1 attendez / moi j’aimerais qu’on qu’on donne la parole a`: a` a` monsieur / 2 vous eˆtesle PDG [pre´sident-directeur ge´ne´ral]de [. . . ] 1! 2 (13) 1 2! 3 4 5! 6

S1

wait / me I would like the opportunity to speak to be given to: to to Mr. / you are the managing director of [. . .]

CMM / [20:19] - Guest’s request for a turn; host’s turn allocation and call to order {[. . .]/ S3 {si vous permettez // S4 c’est ce qu’il faut lui demander de faire / {on va pas / imaginez // {[multiple inaudible overlaps] S1 {monsieur F / attendez / monsieur F n’a rien dit encore / attendez XXX /

190

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

1 {[. . .] 2 ! S3 {if you please // 3 S4 that’s what he should be asked to do / {we’re not going / imagine // 4 {[multiple inaudible overlaps] 5 ! S1 {Mr. F / wait / Mr. F has not 6 said anything yet / wait XXX / (14) CMM / [23:38] - Host’s topic management, question, turn allocation 1 [.] {[. . .]/ 2 !S1 {alors / alors / ne parl- ne parlons plus de la publicite´} un un un petit moment / 3 parlons des lieux publics / parce que c¸a je crois que c¸a concerne beaucoup / moi je 4! voudrais aussi qu’on parle des fumeurs passifs / c’- - alors - euh:: / Zvous vous dites 5 euh::je je je crois / que le non-fumeur / n’est - pas - intoxique´ / monsieur F / 6 S3 un non-fumeur n’est pas intoxique´ / Zaucune e´tude ne le prouve / et [...] 1 {[. . .]/ 2 !S1 {so / so / let’s not ta- let’s not talk about advertising any more for a a a bit / 3 let’s talk about public spaces / because that I think concerns many / me I 4! would like also to talk about passive smokers / it- - so - erm:: / Zyou you say 5 erm:: I I I think / that the non-smoker / is not intoxicated / Mr. F / 6 S3 a non-smoker is not intoxicated / Zno study shows this / and [. . .] (15) CMM/ [39:29] - Host’s exiting of disagreement sequence by turn allocation 1 [.] {[. . .]/ 2 S4 {et e´videmment / et d’ailleurs / depuis} / - depuis qu’il y a {des campagnes // 3 S8 {c’est aberrant / 4 S4 depuis une dizaine d’anne´es / ont commence´ - euh le le les campagnes - de 5 limitation du tabac et contre le tabagisme / [. . .] et donc - euh: c’est6 c’est- c’est un acte - euh de vandalisme enfin voyons / 7 S8 [{je peux poser une question monsieur S [S4] / ----------------------------------------------------------------------8 ! S1 [{monsieur F [S3] / - et apre`s monsieur T [S6]/ 1 [.] {[. . .]/ 2 S4 {and of course / and in any case / since} / - since there have been {campaigns // 3 S8 {it’s absurd / 4 S4 ten years or so ago / have started - erm the the the campaigns - to 5 limit tobacco and against tobacco smoking / [. . .] and so - erm: it’s- it’s6 it’s an act - erm of vandalism isn’t it come on / 7 S8 [{can I ask a question Mr. S [S4] / ----------------------------------------------------------------------8 ! S1 [{Mr. F [S3] / - and then Mr. T [S6]/ There are then, in the Ciel mon mardi panel discussion sample, two systems in place, the first exhibiting constraints akin to the constraints observed in panel discussions, e.g. in Question Time, the second, embedded in the first and harnessed to it, instituting a more direct, unmediated format in which individuals’ footings depart from those initially established. The host’s sequential and/ or categorial role thus alternates between two poles: neutral information elicitor/turn allocator,

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

191

mediator and conflict mitigator/limiter on the one hand; and, on the other, partner in the discussion/information giver on the same footing as the guests, yet also, as will become clear, mouthpiece of the non-participating audience. The guests, overtly freed from the constraints of the host-mediated questions/answer turn-taking provision of the beginning, yet with the option of still being guided by it, have, as we shall see, scope to exploit, or merely accommodate, the interdependent co-incidence of the two systems in a variety of ways. The resulting adaptations to sequential and categorial predication and their implications, notably for conflict management, will be considered in the next section for a subset of features, from three different angles: discourse features, participants’ accommodation, and development of topics. 5. Members’ adaptations and implications 5.1. Discourse features 5.1.1. Address and conflict management As was noted earlier, references to other guests in panel interviews, and also observed in the Question Time panel discussion, are, in mediated sequences, always made in the third person, also a marker of distance. Evidence of this principle is found in Ciel mon mardi, as illustrated in the following example (lines 6 and 7): (16) 1 2 3 4 5 6! 7! 8 1 2 3 4 5 6! 7! 8

CMM / [08:47] S1 S4 S1 S4 [. . .] / cre´e - une loi liberticide / parce que / je les connais messieurs les censeurs / et c’est pas la premie`re fois - que je rencon- rencontre le professeur G / aujourd’hui / ils interdisent la publicite´ sur le tabac parce que cancer / demain - / et il a de´ja` commence´ / ce sera la publicite´ sur les automobiles / parce qu’accidents de la route / [. . .] S1 S4 S1 S4

[. . .]/ introduce - a freedom-killing law / because / I know them those gentlemen the censors / and it is not the first time - that I mee- meet Professor G / today / they ban tobacco advertising because of cancer / tomorrow - / and he has already started /it will be car advertising / because of road accidents / [. . .]

Correspondingly, shifts to the second person, because they signal that turns are no longer mediated by a third party, flag departures from the mediated system, and escalations of disagreement. They make speakers who initiate them peculiarly vulnerable, even when the changes are not produced as overt acts of provocation or within an already ongoing conflict sequence: shifts to the second person are an incitement for those thus addressed to respond directly, without mediation, and almost invariably result in an unmediated response or an interruption – as is manifest in the following example (see S7’s shift from the third person at line 3 [passive] to the second at line 4, and S4’s ensuing interruption at line 7):

192

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

(17) CMM / [13:45] [. . .] 1 S1 [monsieur A / docteur A / 2 S7 [XXX /oui / - - je voudrais dire un certain nombre de choses qui me - choquent tre`s 3! profonde´ment dans ce qui vient d’eˆtre e´voque´ / la premie`re chose c’est 4! qu’[. . .] / moi je suis quand meˆme tre`s frappe´ / par le fait que: d’abord vous eˆtes 5 Zmanifestement tre`s inquiet(s) / de cette loi / et que pour une fois / on a un 6 ministre de la sante´ qui a un Zcour{age Zfantastique / un // 7 ! S4 {arreˆtez-vous / il s’agit de la liberte´} et vous 8 vous {inquie´tez que nous soyons inquiets / 9 S7 {vous permettez /} [. . .] 1 2 3! 4! 5 6 7! 8 9

S1 S7

S4 S7

{Mr. A / Dr. A / {XXX / yes / - - I would like to say a certain number of things which - shock me very deeply in what has just been suggested / the first thing is that [. . .] /me I am I have to say very struck / by the fact that: first you are ‘clearly very worried / about this law / and that for once / we have a health minister who has a Zfant {astic courage / a // {wait / you’re talking about} freedom and you {are worried that we should be worried / {if you please /}

In host-sanctioned ‘free-talk’ sequences, on the other hand, the interplay of second/third person should not, in principle, have the same kind of conflict-escalating impact. The second person is the expected form of address between individuals addressing one another directly without mediation, in everyday exchanges as in other types of broadcast interactions not involving a mediating third party. Yet the second person remains used almost exclusively in sequences with the modality of conflict escalation (e.g. attacks, accusations). In other words, recourse to the second person form of address remains, throughout the discussion, overtly conflictual, even in contexts in which it could be deemed legitimate, i.e. not to operate as a feature of system violation. It is as though the initial system, in which direct address between guests marks a departure from the turn-taking provisions of the panel discussion and heralds escalation of disagreement, has set the norm for the whole of the discussion. Second-person address, it seems, carries on being a feature of conflict upgrading, with ‘non-conflict-escalating’ contributions conveyed through use of general third-person impersonal statements. Secondperson address is frequent throughout the discussion, and this frequency, by virtue of the value it is thus assigned from the outset and keeps throughout, reinforces the perception of the overall discussion as conflictual. 5.1.2. Form of disagreements The sense of conflict is compounded by limited recourse, in these ‘free-talk’ oppositional sequences, to the kind of forestalling or mitigating features manifest in unmediated disagreements in ordinary conversation (see Pomerantz, 1984; also earlier in this paper, for English). These are few in these sequences, hardly more frequent than in disagreement sequences framed in mediated exchanges, in which they are redundant (see earlier section). Disagreement prefacing features are restricted to a few adversatives markers (mais [but] and non [no] for

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

193

example, i.e. turn-initial polarity features (Hutchby, 1996:33), and the majority of disagreements are produced directly as in (18) below (line 5): (18) CMM / [32:31] [. . .] { 1 S8 {vous n’avez toujours pas / vous n’avez toujours pas re´pondu a` ma question / comment 2 de´finissez-vous une Zdrogue / quand un produit / - cre´e une accoutumance / qu’on ne 3 peut plus s’en Zpasser / qu’il modifie le psychisme {des gens/{et qu’il peut provoquer}// 4 S1 {c¸a XX/ 5 !S3 {c’est pas vrai / quatre6 vingt- quinze} pour-cent des gens peuvent {s’arreˆter de fumer/ . . . [. . .] 1 S8 {you still haven’t / you still haven’t answered my question / how 2 do you define a Zdrug / when a product / - creates a habit / when you can’t 3 do without it anymore / when it changes the psychology of {people / {and can cause}// 4 S1 {it XX / 5 !S3 {that’s not true / 6 ninety five} per cent of people can {stop smoking / . . . There is evidence to suggest that in everyday conversation, modulating features are used to a lesser extent in French than in English and that French speakers do not as often encode disagreements in a dispreferred turn structure, although there are topical variations (with more ‘sensitive’ topics, e.g. of a personal nature, generating hallmark forestalled/mitigated disagreements; see for instance Myers and Guerrero Bonikowski, 2003). Mitigated disagreements and attendant modulating features are nonetheless widely observed (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1992; Traverso, 1996). In other words, it looks as though, here again, the conventions established from the outset have set the norm for the whole of the discussion, including sequences in which occurrence of some mitigating features to moderate disagreements could be expected, and in which, here again, their absence contribute to producing a pervasive sense of overall belligerence. 5.1.3. Host’s role(s) and audience The ambivalence of, and shifts in, the host’s role are evidenced, from a discourse point of view, in the presence in his turns as ‘participant’ of acknowledgement or receipt tokens (e.g. hm, oui/ yes; oh, c’est vrai/really), normally withheld in hosts’ turns in panel exchanges, as they are by and large in S1’s turns as host. As Greatbatch notes for panel interviews, the withholding of such tokens, by signaling that the host declines the role of ‘‘report recipient’’, ‘‘casts the audience in the role of primary addressees as opposed to eavesdroppers on a putatively private interchange’’ (Greatbatch, 1992:270). In this case, the interplay of roles alternatively casts the audience as primary addressees (when the host keeps to his host’s role) and eavesdroppers (when he turns participant). Other features suggest that the shifts to a participant’s stance could also be construed as giving the audience a voice. The host’s routine encoding of his turns in demotic language (e.g. familiar idioms such as mettre la cle´ sous la porte in line 4 in example (19) below [put the key under the mat, i.e. pack one’s bags and leave]), and recourse to commonsense arguments, most notably in responses to turns in which guests draw on the specialist language of their professional trade to

194

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

assert their authority, lends support to this point (see example (19) below); it is also confirmed by shifts to first person witness-like statement (see (10) in the previous section). Crossovers in categorial and sequential predication likewise compound the ‘host-as-audiencevoice’ effect. When the host, having shifted out of his sequential and categorial predication as host, e.g. with assertions expressing his opinions as an individual - as noted in the previous section with example (10), resorts, within sequences in which he has departed from his categorial footing, to types of turns which define his sequential predication, e.g. questions, as he does recurrently (as in example (19) below for instance (line 4)), there is a further blurring and blending of his roles. Together with the demotic linguistic bending to the audience, this may, because of the way it aligns against participants, reinforce the identification/bonding with the audience, and places the participants themselves in equivocal positions. (19) CMM / [21:46] [. . .] 1 S3 {non} / la publicite´ est un Zinstrument de compe´tition Zcommerciale entre 2 les marques_/ c’est c¸a que nous oublions {aujourd’hui / 3 S1 {si demain c’est Zvraiment 4! Ztotalement - interdit - Zpartout / est-ce que - vous mettez la cle´ sous la porte / [short stunned silence] [. . .] 1 S3 2 3 S1 4!

{no} / advertising is an instrument of commercial competition amongst brands / that is what we are forgetting {today / {if tomorrow it Zreally is Zcompletely - banned - Zeverywhere / will you put the key under the mat / [short stunned silence]

5.2. Members’ accommodation The co-incidence of the two (mediated/free-talk) formats, and the ambivalence of the host’s role, now question/turn allocator-cum-mediator/conflict mitigator, now participant in his own right and audience voice, with categorial/sequential crossovers between these different positions, have a significant impact on participants’ footing. They result in a breaking down of turn and role specialization, accommodated more or less happily by the various participants. S4 (publicist), thrives on it, for example, and capitalizes on the freedom to self-select as next speaker at every opportunity and assert his dominance. For S7 (physician and president of the national antismoking committee), however, the disruptions in sequential organization, blurring of role definition and the periodic abandonment by S1 of his footing as host are more problematic, as the S4/S7 exchange in example (20) below demonstrates. (20) CMM / [13:45] [. . .] 1 S1 [monsieur A / docteur A / 2 S7 [XXX /oui / - - je voudrais dire un certain nombre de choses qui me - choquent 3 tre`s profonde´ment dans ce qui vient d’eˆtre e´voque´ / la premie`re chose 4 c’est qu’[. . .] / moi je suis quand meˆme tre`s frappe´ / par le fait que: d’abord 5! vous eˆtes Zmanifestement tre`s inquiet(s) / de cette loi / et que pour une fois /

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

195

on a un ministre de la sante´ qui a un cour{age Zfantastique / un // {arreˆtez-vous/ il s’agit de liberte´} et vous vous {inquie´tez que nous soyons inquiets / {vous permettez /} monsieur S / {s’il vous p- // {mais enfin mais c’est extreˆmement grave / comment vous {osez dire c¸a / {monsieur S {s’il vous plaıˆt/ {vous n’eˆtes pas au courant de la lo- / [mon- // [mais il s’agit de la liberte´ / enfin voyons / mais je // c’est la liberte´ qui est attaque´e quand {vous touchez a` la publicite´ / {non / je ne parlais Zque} de la liberte´ contre la publicite´ / et c’est de cela {dont Zmoi je parle / {mais la publicite´ c’est l’expression de la {liberte´ monsieur/ c’est justement la diffe´rence entre la la publicite´ {mais non moi // = et {la propagande / {c’est pour c¸a qu’on s’est battu / {l’express- / {la publicite´ // monsieur S s’il vous plaıˆt / {s’il vous plaıˆt/ [. . .]

6 7! 8 9! 10 11 12 ! 13 14 ! 15 16 ! 17 18 ! 19 20 21 22 ! 23 24 25 !

S7 S4 S7 S7

[. . .] 1 2 3 4 5! 6 7! 8 9! 10 11 12 ! 13 14 ! 15 16 ! 17 18 ! 19 20 21 22 ! 23 24 25 !

S1 [Mr. A / Dr. A / S7 [XXX / yes / - - I would like to say a certain number of things which - shock me very deeply in what has just been suggested / the first thing is that [. . .] / me I am I have to say very struck / by the fact that: first you are ‘clearly very worried / about this law / and that for once / we have a health minister who has a Zfant{astic courage / a // S4 {wait /we’re talking about} freedom and {you’re worried that we should be worried / S7 {if you please /} Mr. S / {plea- // S4 {but this is extremely serious / how {dare you say that / S7 {Mr. S {please / S? {you are not familiar with the law / [in the background] S7 [mis// S4 [but it’s a question of freedom / really / S7 but I // S4 it’s freedom that’s being attacked when {you attack advertising / S7 {no / I was talking only about freedom against advertising / and that’s {what ‘I am talking about / S4 {but advertising is the expression of {freedom sir / that’s precisely the difference between advertising S7 {but no I // S4 = and {propaganda / {that’s what we have fought for / S7 {the express- / {advertising // S7 Mr. S please / {please / [. . .]

S4 S7 S4 S7 S? S7 S4 S7 S4 S7 S4

196

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

The sequence is a (S7/S4) conflict sequence set in motion by S7 himself, with the shift to the second-person mode of address noted earlier (line 5), and escalated by S4 with an interruption sanctioned by the shift (line 7). S7 is then observed to substitute himself for S1, the host, by immediately calling S4 to order for violating his (S7) speaker’s right to complete his turn (vous permettez / monsieur S / s’il vous p- // (if you please / Mr. S / plea- //) (line 9)). Significantly, he does so sooner than might have been expected from the host in an unmediated conflict sequence, as observed earlier, arguably implying, on the strength of earlier instances, that the host may not fulfill his responsibility as host and step in to maintain order or initiate an exit. The call goes unheeded, and is followed by a series of similarly ignored appeals for the right to take a turn, doubling as rebukes (cf. the repetition of monsieur S / s’il vous plaıˆt / [Mr. S / please] at line 12 and variants at lines 14, 25, and again at line 1 in example (21) below - a typical S7 strategy). S7’s self-imposed role of turn regulator is not, however, recognized by other participants, either in this or in the many other sequences in which S7 seemingly attempts to (re-)impose some order on the sequential organization of turns (see further examples in (22) below; lines 16, 20, 23, 26) – not surprisingly: the institutional discussion format instituted at the beginning imposes an asymmetrical role distribution which participants are expected not to breach, as Ilie also notes, albeit in different contexts (Ilie, 2001:234). In the end, S7 has little choice other than to interact, or attempt to interact, with others on their terms, notably S4’s terms, i.e. through self-selection as self-speaker, as in line 18 in (20) and through (more or less productive) violations of other speakers’ right to speak (e.g. by interrupting them). S7 appears now and again to be operating according to a double standard, i.e. explicitly and implicitly calling others to order for their violations of speakers’ rights and shifts in footing, yet reserving the right to do as they do, when it is expedient for him. But mostly he is, as his contributions in example (22) below also confirm (lines 16, 20, 23, 27), neither comfortable with the shift to a free-talk format, nor as successful as S4, the publicist, in taking advantage of its turn-taking opportunities. His background and professional activities as physician and president of the national anti-smoking association, in which controlled institutional debate is presumably the norm, may arguably make departures from the controlled panel discussion format instituted at the beginning all the more difficult to accommodate. The effect produced is palpable. S7, by drawing attention to what sequential and categorial order he thinks should prevail, and to the host’s and other participants’ failings in maintaining it, yet also availing himself, or having to avail himself, of the option to violate other speakers’ rights, as they do, also constantly draws attention to, and reinforces, the tensions produced by the mixing of formats, and foregrounds the sense of conflict. The host (S1)’s contributions a little later in the sequence, reproduced below in (21), are further revealing of the ambiguities and inconsistencies of his role, but also confirm its fundamental nature. (21) [. . .] 1 2 3 4 5 6

CMM (continued from (20) with a few turns edited out) - [15:06] S7 monsieur / s’il vous plaıˆt / on ne- jamais nous avons force´ un fumeur a` s’arreˆter de fumer / [. . .] et c¸a je crois que c’est un Zdevoir de - [onset of audience clapping] Zrespecter le non-fumeur // S4 mais la` on est d’accord la` dessus / [in background] S7 je termine - / et d’autre part / [end of audience clapping] c’est de notre devoir / aussi / de proposer aux Zquatre-vingt-pourcent de fumeurs qui

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

197

7 Zveulent s’arreˆter /- / de les aider - Zs’ils le de´sirent / {- -} / et je dis bien - s’ils 8 S? {(mais?)} // 9 S7 le de´sirent / Zet / si vous le per{mettez / la publici- // 10 !S1 {(ben/ cela dit?) la publici- la publicite´ n :::/ 11 {la publicite´ n’ intoxique pas les non-fumeurs/} 12 S5 {mais faites de la pub Zcontre le tabac /} 13 S4 je {voudrais // 14 S7 {non / mais la publicite´ / ne donne {pas la Zliberte´ au(x)_fumeur(s) de choisir / 15 S1 {c’est XXX qui intoxique(nt) / 16 S5 mais {faites de la pub contre le tabac / 17 S7 {actuellement // 18 S4 mais faites de la pub {contre le / (enfin ?) / 19 S5 {XXX d’interdire la pub {Zsur le tabac / 20 S4 {je voudrais je voudrais vous 21 raconter une histoire -Zsymptoma{tique / vraie / il y a quelque(s) // 22 !S1 {oui- est-ce que - / atten- attendez / est-ce 23 que vous eˆtes / est-ce que vous seriez d’accord a` c¸a- a` c- d’accord pour c¸a / 24 faire de la publicite´ / [...] [. . .] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ! 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ! 23

S7

S4 S7

S? S7 S1 S5 S4 S7 S1 S5 S7 S4 S5 S4 S1

sir / please / we’v- never have we compelled a smoker to stop smoking / [. . .] and that I think it is a ‘duty to - [onset audience clapping] ‘respect the non-smoker // but here we agree on that / [in background] I’ll finish / and on the other hand / [end of audience clapping] it is our duty / also / to propose to the Zeighty percent of smokers who Zwant to stop / - / to help them - if they wish /{--} / and I mean - if they {(but?)} // wish / Zand / if you plea{se / advertis- // {(well / having said that?) advertis- advertising d::: / {advertising doesn’t intoxicate non-smokers /} {but advertise against tobacco /} I’d {like to // {no / but advertising doesn’t give {smokers the freedom to chose / {it’s XXX that intoxicate(s) / but {advertise against tobacco / {at present// but advertise {against t- / (X ?) / {XXX to ban advertising {on tobacco / {I’d like I’d like to tell you a story - ‘symptoma{tic / true /a few (months) ago // {yes- are - / wai- wait / are you / would you agree at that a- agree to do that / to do some advertising / [. . .]

S1’s turn at line 10, by virtue of its positioning after the two-party S4/S7 conflict exchange, could have been anticipated to initiate an exit for the exchange, in keeping with his role as moderator and with the principles set up at the beginning of the discussion. His assertion (i.e. that advertising does

198

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

not intoxicate non-smokers), however, aligns with S4, one of the two protagonists in the conflict sequence, in what is a departure from the neutral stance expected from him in his role as mediator. So that the turn, far from cutting short the S7/S4 conflict sequence, as a host-initiated exit would have, instead gives it a new momentum, by giving other participants (including S1 himself in this role; see line 15), an opportunity to join in, by self-selection, in the alignment against S7. The ensuing exchange becomes disjointed and unproductive, however, and is, in the end, cut short by S1, now reverting to his mediator role with a turn that fulfils his turn management functions (oui- est-ce que - / atten- attendez/ est-ce que vous eˆtes / [. . .] yes- are - / wai-wait / are you / [. . .] (line 22)). This is typical of what can be observed in conflict exchanges in the free-talk sequences of the discussion. Most become unruly and unmanageable, even by free-talk standards, and the host reverts to his role of moderator to re-impose order. This role-reversal option in this sense works as a safety net and regulatory device. This would argue for the retention of the initial framework as framework of reference, i.e. to guard against the pitfalls of free talk. It may, however, have other functions, or implications. These will be taken up in the concluding section, after a last few observations about topic development. 5.3. Topic development In mediated sequences of question/answer adjacency pairs and controlled disagreement sequences conforming to the norms of the host-mediated format, the relationship between adjacent turns is always clear (as it is, too, in the Question Time example). It is defined by the sequential or pragmatic nature of adjacency pairs (e.g. question/answer, argument/counterargument, accusation/refutation), and/or made plain by coherence/cohesion. With very few exceptions, each turn serves to define the next, or provides a syntactic, lexical or topical platform for the construction of the next, and for the selection of the next speaker. Example (22) below illustrates what happens in Ciel mon mardi, when participants depart from the host-mediated system and engage in free-talk unmediated multi-participant exchanges, i.e. exchanges in which they are in direct competition to take and keep turns. Typically, individual turns no longer scaffold the next, either from a sequential or from a topical, lexical or syntactic point of view. Continuity is established instead from one turn/contribution to the next of the same speaker, sometimes at several turns’ interval (e.g. see lines 6, 10, 13, 17, 24, 29 for S3; 23, 26, 28, 30 for S5), and the sequential organization of turns appears to become largely opportunistic. Turns are not only produced out of turn, but also, as it were, ‘out of topic’. This is, for example, manifest in (22), in S5’s persistent return to the ‘cachou’ topic (a small liquorice sweet, which S5 likens to a nastily addictive drug), first introduced at line 22 without, at this point, a very clearly perceptible reference to the current topic (i.e. smokers’ ability or inability to stop smoking), and taken up at lines 26, 28, 30 with complete disregard of other speakers’ contributions — a typical turn-taking strategy in free-talk sequences in Ciel mon mardi. (22) CMM / [32:31] I [. . .] {. . . 1 S8 {vous n’avez toujours pas / vous n’avez toujours pas re´pondu a` ma question / 2 comment de´finissez-vous une Zdrogue / quand un produit / - cre´e une 3 accoutumance / qu’on ne peut plus s’en Zpasser / qu’il modifie le psychisme 4 {des gens / {et qu’il peut provoquer} // 5 S1 {c¸a XX / 6! S3 {c’est pas vrai / quatre-vingt-quinze} pour-cent des gens peuvent

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

199

7 {s’arreˆter de fumer / 8 S? {monsieur / 9 S8 et qu’il p- // 10 ! S3 = sans l’aide d’une me´thode {quelconque / ----------------------------------------------------------------------II 11 S4 {attendez / je voudrais // 12 => S1 hin hin hin hin hin / [doubts S3 assertion] 13 ! S3 quatre-vingt-quinze {pour-cent XX // 14 => S1 {ah non:: non:: mais non / non non non XXX / [multiple overlaps] 15 S8 {alors demandez a` // 16 S7 {excusez-moi}/ excusez-moi / 17 ! S3 quatre-vingt-quinze {pour-cent des gens // 18 S7 = {je suis responsable // 19 => S1 mais tout le monde s’arreˆterait / [multiple overlaps] 20 S7 si vous le permettez / 21 => S1 [{la la XXX /} 22 > S5 [{le cachou est une horrible drogue /} 23 S7 si vous permettez / [multiple overlaps in background] 24 ! S3 [{XXX} parce que les les gens ont besoin de fumer / 25 [{XXX/} [multiple inaudible overlaps] 26> S5 [ {le cachou est tre`s grave /} 27 S7 [{monsieur F} / monsieur F / [multiple overlaps] 28 > S5 {XX qui sont habitue´s au cachou ne s’en passent passent plus /} [multiple overlaps] 29 ! S3 e´coutez ce sont les e´tudes ame´ricaines / {aux Etats-Unis // 30 > S5 {les gens habitue´s} au cachou 31 ne s’en passent plus / 32 => S1 c’est vrai / 33 S? [{je mais mons-} // 34 S7 [{monsieur F /} [multiple overlaps] ----------------------------------------------------------------------35 => S1 [{ch ch ch /] pas toujours {en meˆme} temps / ----------------------------------------------------------------------III 36 S4 {je: / je voudrais eˆtre constructif / {on s’est} 37 S8 {oui /} 38 S4 beaucoup creˆpe´ le chignon / le de´bat est . . . [. . .] ----------------------------------------------------------------------(I (End of) S3/S8 [two-party] exchange; II Multi-party sequence; III (Beginning of) S4/S8 exchange following the host’s initiation of an exit to II [S1]) I [. . .] 1 S8 2 3 4

{ {you still haven’t / you still haven’t answered my question / how do you define a Zdrug / when a product / - creates a habit / when you can’t do without it anymore / when it changes the psyche {of people / {and can cause}//

200

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

5 S1 {it XX / 6 S3 {that’s not true / ninety five} percent of people can {stop smoking / 7! {stop smoking / 8 S? {sir/ 9 S8 and can c- // 10 ! S3 = without help {of any kind / ----------------------------------------------------------------------II 11 S4 {wait / I’d like to // 12 => S1 hin hin hin hin hin / [doubts S3 assertion] 13 ! S3 ninety five {percent XX // 14 => S1 {ah no:: no:: but no / no no no XXX /[multiple overlaps] 15 S8 {then ask} // 16 S7 {excuse me} / excuse me / 17 ! S3 ninety five {percent of people // 18 S7 = {I am responsible for // 19 => S1 but everyone would stop / [multiple overlaps] 20 S7 if you please / 21 => S1 [{the the XXX} 22 > S5 [{cachous [a sweet] are a horrible drug /} 23 S7 if you please / [multiple overlaps in background] 24 ! S3 [{XXX} because people need to smoke / 25 [{XXX/}/[multiple inaudible overlaps] 26 > S5 [{cachous are a very serious problem /} 27 S7 [{Mr. F} / Mr. F [multiple overlaps] 28 > S5 {XX who are used to cachous can’t do without them anymore /} [multiple overlaps] 29 ! S3 listen it is research carried out in America / {in the United States} // 30 > S5 {those used to} cachous 31 can’t do without /} 32 => S1 that’s true / 33 S? [{I but s-} // 34 S7 [{Mr. F /} [multiple overlaps] ----------------------------------------------------------------------35 => S1 [{ch ch ch / no all always {at the same time / ----------------------------------------------------------------------III 36 S4 {I: / I would like to be constructive / {we} 37 S8 {yes /} 38 S4 rubbed one another the wrong way a lot / the discussion is [. . .] ----------------------------------------------------------------------The wider context of these types of polyadic sequences makes it possible to (re-)trace the progression of individual speakers’ contributions, and provides examples of what Mondada

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

201

describes as ‘the collective elaboration of topic’ (Mondada, 1995),3 with, for instance, subsets of speakers aligning against others. All the same, points of reference in the organization of turns and topic are elusive, and difficult to keep up with, far more so than in the various types of mediated or non-mediated exchanges sanctioned in the straight panel format two-party sequences. The contrast itself reinforces the sense of unruliness in these sequences. As was indicated in the previous section, these kinds of exchange are rarely productive, and the system set up at the beginning of the discussion in the end prevails, as a fallback option when exchanges deteriorate to the point of collapse. But they also have an entertainment value which draws attention to fundamental ambiguities in the discussion and to specificities of the genre, which will be reviewed below. 6. The talk-show cast as panel discussion—a distinct interactional genre? A key feature of panel discussions, as observed in the examples considered, is that, like panel interviews, they promote the confrontation of points of view and lively debate, but in a controlled framework in which conflict is kept in check, and the face of participants and the neutrality of the host are safeguarded. These are the expectations that are set at the onset of Ciel mon mardi, both by its introduction by the host as an expert panel discussion, and by its adherence to the panel discussion format in its early stages. These expectations, and the expectations that they themselves produce, i.e. of verbal exchanges with a strong institutional dimension and the authoritativeness normally associated with expert opinion, are maintained, at least to some extent, throughout the discussion, by the panel format continuing to operate as backdrop and anchorage for the discussion. The embedding of an unmediated ‘free-talk’ frame within the overall panel discussion frame has, accordingly, paradoxical and pervasive effects. This distinctive dual format goes one step beyond the panel discussion in providing for the escalation of disagreement and conflict. It makes room for multi-party unmediated sequences that free participants from the institutional constraints of the panel discussion, yet retain features of conflict and disagreement upgrading typical of panel discussion (e.g. impact of second-person mode of address, redundancy of disagreement forestalling and mitigating features). In other words, a format in which turn-taking, conflict escalation and conflict management are tightly regulated, with sequential organization and discourse features providing clear signposts of what types of sequence and verbal contribution are being enacted, gives way to conversation-like unregulated exchanges, in which conflict would normally be expected to be mitigated and disagreements encoded in dispreferred turn structures, but are not. Their productions, and attendant discourse features, continue instead to be guided by the conventions of the opening format. The effect of role shifts on participants, and the loss of sequential and topical bearings likewise play a role in intensifying conflict, and in producing a sense of unruliness not unusual in conversation, but seemingly uncharacteristic in (institutional) panel discussions. The guests appear to engage in excessively conflictual and uncontrolled verbal behaviour, in a way which undermines their authority as experts, and in contrast, enhances the status of the host, as the ultimate arbitrator. 3 Mondada demonstrates that even when speakers are in competition to develop their own topics, their doing so is intimately dependent on others’ contributions: «Meˆme en cas de de´veloppement topical concurrentiel, il y a e´laboration mutuelle de l’e´nonciation en cours, a` travers les manifestations de l’interpre´tation que chaque locuteur fait des e´nonce´s des locuteurs pre´ce´dents et a` travers l’e´laboration ulte´rieure de son propre apport. Meˆme si l’on veut imposer un topic on doit s’ajuster a` l’autre.» (Mondada, 1995:124) (‘‘Even when locutors are in competition to develop topics, ongoing talk is constructed jointly, through the interpretation that each speaker brings to bear on the contributions of previous speakers and the subsequent construction of their own contributions. Imposing one’s own topic entails adjusting to others.’’).

202

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

The overall format continues to provide for the limitation of the conflicts that it otherwise helps to upgrade, in a way which safeguards the respectability of the discussion yet accentuates the guests’ predicament. They are still ultimately guarded from the consequences of conflict escalation, or of unproductive multi-party exchanges, by the host’s recourse, when conflict or unruliness escalates beyond repair, to the conflict exiting procedures of the panel discussion format - a reminder that the initial format continues to obtain. The host is thus cast as the only person able to restore order, over guests expected to display argumentative orderliness, de facto by virtue of their expert status, and by virtue of the institutional panel discussion framing, but exposed by their ostensibly uncontrolled verbal behaviour as not doing so. They find themselves in a peculiar bind. In Atifi and Marcoccia’s case study of the television forum, lay guests and host are shown jointly to negotiate and construct the genre, with lay guests rejecting the host-instituted talk-show genre and redefining it as debate. The stronghold of the initial panel discussion format means that, in contrast, guests in Ciel mon mardi are denied the option of negotiating their predication, and fail when they do so (e.g. as in S7’s case; see example (20)). The host ultimately remains in control, and is also the only one who, unlike the other participants, has effective control over his footing. Another significant feature of the embedding of one format into the other is indeed the latitude that it gives the host for shifts in his sequential and categorial predication, and equivocal alignments. His roles encompass neutral mediator/moderator, and participant on the same footing as the guests. The shift to a participant stance also gives him the opportunity, as the only nonexpert on the set (with his mostly silent deputy host), to participate as a lay member in the group and mouthpiece of the non-participating audience, and to align now with some guests and against others, now with the audience against the guests. This is something which the panel discussion format had not prepared the guests for and which, together with the embedding of free-talk exchanges into the discussion, affiliates it to a talk-show, i.e. a show with functions different from the functions of panel discussions, and in particular a strong entertainment function. A key characteristic of the talk-shows discussed by Ilie as examples of a mixed type of media discourse (i.e. oscillating between the poles of conversation and institutional dialogue), is that they are a form of entertainment programme, as are talk-shows generally – whatever other types of discourse types may be instantiated at the same time (news interviews where they provide information about current issues, and/or debate programmes, where they encourage the exchange and confrontation of opinions, for example, or doctor–patient dialogue, where the focus is on people’s physical or mental health). Because of the mix of ingredients, they are, as Ilie notes, often referred to a subcategory of ‘infotainment’ (Ilie, 2001:211). The characteristics of the Ciel mon mardi sample in this case study places it in this category, but give it an ambiguous status. The embedding of ‘free-talk’ within institutionally set up talk, is different, in its effects, from the interplay between two poles observed in the talk-shows discussed by Ilie, and described as displaying, as far as discourse is concerned, embedded and mixed discursivity. Discursive and institutional strategies are shown to acquire different functions depending on who they are used by and when, but in fluctuating and locally negotiated combinations producing overtly even ‘infotainment’ merges. The standing of Ciel mon mardi is more covert, and equivocal. Although it is ostensibly set up as a panel discussion, with all the respectability and authoritativeness that this entails, it arguably remains essentially a talk-show, whose entertainment value derives not just from a mixing of frames, as in Ilie’s talk-shows, but from the opportunities that the subordination of one frame to another gives the host, in tacit collusion with the audience, to expose the guests and undermine their authority as experts. This, as it were, ‘dependent’ form of hybridization, and harnessing of the features of the institutional

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

203

panel discussion format in the service of what is seemingly a talk-show offshoot, but in effect defines the primary function of the discussion, produces a very distinct interactional genre. Acknowledgements This paper is based on a paper presented at the Eighth International Pragmatics Conference at the University of Toronto, Canada, in July 2003, with support of a British Academy overseas conference grant. My thanks also to the reviewers of the paper for their most helpful comments. Appendix A. Transcription conventions / -xx: xx// { = [ [laugh] X (xxx,xxy) (xxx?) Zxxx

tonal group boundary short pause longer pause (number of - increases with length) lengthened syllable truncated word interruption overlapping speech latching simultaneous turn taking nonverbal vocal sounds; prosodic information; contextual comments unclear passage ( syllable/sound up to 1 word, 2 unclear words, more than 2) choice of spelling or words transcriber’s best guess emphasis (noted at the beginning of words, including in cases where the accent falls on syllables other than the first [coding constraint])

References Atifi, Hassan, Marcoccia, Michel, 2006. Television genre as an object of negotiation: a semio-pragmatic analysis of French political ‘‘television forum’’. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 250–268. Be´al, Christine, 1993. Les strate´gies conversationnelles en franc¸ais et en anglais. Langue Franc¸aise 98, 79–106. Drew, Paul, Heritage, John (Eds.), 1992. Talk at Work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Fairclough, Norman, 1998. Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press, Cambridge. Fitzgerald, Richard, Housley, William, 2002. Identity, categorization and sequential organization: the sequential and categorical flow of identity in a radio phone-in. Discourse & Society 13 (5), 579–602. Greatbatch, David, 1992. On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In: Drew, P., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at Work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 268–301. Hutchby, Ian, 1992. Confrontation talk: aspects of ‘interruption’ in argument sequences on talk radio. Text 12 (3), 343– 371. Hutchby, Ian, 1996. Confrontation Talk. Asymmetries and Power on Talk Radio. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Hutchby, Ian, 1997. Building alignments in public debate: a case study from British TV. Text 17 (2), 161–179. Ilie, Cornelia, 2001. Semi-institutional discourse: the case of talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 209–254. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine, 1992. Les Interactions Verbales. Tome 2: Variations culturelles et e´changes rituels. Armand Colin, Paris.

204

M.-N. Guillot / Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 179–204

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine, 1994. Les Interactions Verbales. Tome 3: Variations culturelles et e´changes rituels. Armand Colin, Paris. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine, 1996. La Conversation. Seuil, Paris. Mondada, Lorenza, 1995. La construction interactionnelle du topic. In: Mondada, L. (Ed.), Formes linguistiques et dynamiques interactionnelles. Cahiers de l’ILSL no. 7, Lausanne, pp. 1–136. Myers, Lindsy, Guerrero Bonikowsky, Heather, July 2003. Oui, oui, oui! Non, non, non! The structures and functions of agreement and disagreement in French conversation In: Paper Presented at the Eighth International Pragmatics Conference, University of Toronto. Pomerantz, Anita, 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57–101. Traverso, Ve´ronique, 1996. La Conversation familie`re. Presses Universitaires de Lyon, Lyon. Tzanne, Angeliki, 2001. ‘‘What you’re saying sounds very nice and I’m delighted to hear it’’. Some considerations on the functions of presenter-initiated simultaneaous speech in Greek panel discussions. In: Bayraktarog˘lu, A., Sifianou, M. (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 271–306. Yemenici, Alev, 2001. The use of politeness maxims in interruptions in Turkish political debates. In: Bayraktarog˘lu, A., Sifianou, M. (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 307–338.

Further reading Bayraktarog˘lu, Arin, Sifianou, Maria (Eds.), 2001. Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Guillot, Marie-Noe¨lle, 2005. Revisiting the methodological debate on interruptions: from measurement to classification in the annotation of data for cross-cultural research. Pragmatics 15.1, 25–47. Marie-Noe¨lle Guillot is a lecturer at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Her current research relates to aspects of oppositional talk in French and English, and to the development of oppositional talk in advanced L2 French, with particular reference to interactional aspects and factors affecting participation in polyadic exchanges.