Roles and identities in news interviews: The Israeli context

Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Roles and identities in news interviews: The Israeli context Elda Weizman Department of Translation Studies, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel Received 1 November 2002; received in revised form 1 November 2003; accepted 1 June 2005

Abstract The paper discusses the complex interrelations between social roles, interactional roles and personal identities in mediated political talk, focusing on news interviews in the Israeli context. Following Goffman’s (1974) notion of multiplicity of roles and the person-role continuum, I propose to explore role-perception in media-talk in contexts other than news interviews, and to analyse the negotiation of role within the framework of news interviews. The discussion draws on two sets of data: (a) an open corpus of meta-comments made by prominent journalists and leading political figures in the Israeli media (radio, dailies and television); (b) a 24-h corpus of news interviews, i.e., 48 half an hour shows of the daily program erev xadash (‘‘New Evening’’), broadcast daily at 5 p.m. on Israel national television, channel one. The analysis shows that television critics, leading journalists, prominent TV hosts and political figures are highly concerned with interactional as well as social rights and obligations, and with potential clashes between them and their personal identities. The corpus of meta-talk outside news interviews indicates that personalities and situations are commonly evaluated by public figures in terms of the duality of personal identity and social obligations, and that the requirements of interactional and social roles in news interviews are often seen as conflicting. Within news interviews, the corpus indicates explicit references to interactional expectations, slightly attenuated, either in response to violations or in order to set the contract of communication. Social expectations are set up at the interviewers’ opening turns. In the course of the interview, implicit role-negotiations are at the heart of the interview, but only rarely are they put on record. # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Roles; Identities; News interviews; Challenge; Israeli television

E-mail address: [email protected]. 0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.018

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

155

1. The conceptual paradigm There is a huge difference between who I am in reality and who I am on television, she admits. ‘‘Yes, I know that this is work and this is home. But just the same, I really feel almost every day that the moment I open the door, I remove almost consciously not only some injustice, but also some . . .

Yesh hevdel atsum ben mi sheani bametsiut umi sheani batelevisia’’, hi moda. ‘‘Ken, ani yodaat shezot avoda veze bayit, aval bexol zot ani be’emet margisha kimat kol yom shebarega she’ani potaxat et hadelet, ani poreket me’alay kim’at bemuda lo rak eyzeshehu avel, ele gam eyzeshehem . . .

Masks?

masexot?

Not masks, screens. There are a few layers of Ilana.

lo masexot,masaxim. Yesh kama shxavot shel ilana.

(Dana Spector, xasifa – Ilana Dayan, Yedioth Aharonoth, shiv’a yamim, November 3, 2000, p. 34). News interviews have widely been analysed as a highly rule-governed discourse activity, whereby discourse patterns are determined, to a large extent, by expectations for a division of roles between interviewer and interviewee (e.g., Heritage, 1985, 1998; Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991; Greatbatch, 1988; Drew and Sorjonen, 1997). The division of labour thus conceived pertains mostly to the asymmetry in the speakers’ interactional rights and obligations, such as asking questions, making statements, interrupting and addressing each other, etc. Less attention has been devoted to the interrelations between interactional expectations and the social roles by virtue of which interviewees are invited to take active part in news interviews (politicians, intellectuals, journalists etc.), although they seem to be consequential in more than one way for this activity type. Moreover, questions pertaining to the relevance of participants’ personal identities have not been systematically raised. This contribution focuses on the complex relationships between roles and identities in news interviews, as they are explicitly referred to in meta-talk (sections 2 and 3), and implicitly negotiated in news interviews (section 4). The discussion draws on Goffman’s (1974) notion of role as an aspect of personal identity: What Smith possesses as a person or individual is a personal identity: he is a concrete organism with distinctively identifying marks, a niche in life. He is a selfsame object perduring over time and possessing an accumulating memory of the voyage. He has a biography. As part of this personal identity, he claims a multitude of capacities or functions – occupational, domestic, and so forth. [. . .] I shall use the term ‘‘role’’ as an equivalent to specialized capacity or function, understanding this to occur both in offstage, real life and in its staged version. (Goffman, 1974:128–129) This multiplicity of roles will be shown to be directly relevant to mediated political discourse, with a special emphasis on the range of relevant social roles (sections 2.2 and 3.2),

156

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

as well as the differentiation between them and the interactional roles (sections 2.3 and 3.1). Goffman is further concerned with the interrelations between role and personal identity, as pointed out in his discussion of the person-role formula: ‘‘One can never expect complete freedom between individual and role and never complete constraint’’ (Goffman, 1974:269). The implications of this continuum to news interviews will also be discussed (section 2.1). It is beyond the scope of the present discussion to outline the differences and the overlap between the concepts of role, identity, performed identity and membership category in various paradigms (for a discussion see, for example, Antaki and Widdicombe, 1998). Suffice it to point out that for the purpose of our analysis, I see the notion of role as presupposing in many ways membership categorization, such that a person realizes a role if she conceives of herself as a member of a given category (and see, for example, Sacks’ (1995 [1979]) famous category of ‘hotrodder’), and consequently assumes the obligations entailed by this category membership. The emphasis on role-obligations is very much in line with Labov and Fanshel’s (1977:95) reading of Goffman, ‘‘There are many obligations that a person must fulfill in order to be seen as performing his normal role in society with full competence’’. Whereas it is clear that the notion of role is central to the analysis of news interviews, it is the study of role which poses a few methodological problems. Thus, for example, Greatbatch and Dingwall’s (1998:121) note that ‘‘it poses the question of how professional analysts can establish which, if any, of the social identities that can be applied to participants are relevant to understanding their interactional conduct’’. The answer proposed by CA researchers, following Sacks (1995 [1979]) and Schegloff (1991, 1992), is that identities should be investigated to the extent that they are ‘‘made relevant’’ by the speakers, and have consequences for the interaction. Roles can be made relevant in many ways, and in varying degrees of explicitness. In my previous studies of challenge in news interviews (Weizman, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, in preparation), I suggested, following Labov and Fanshel (1977), to view as challenging any verbal behavior which might be interpreted as saying or implying that the addressee has not fulfilled his or her role appropriately, or failed to fulfill any component thereof. Role, for that matter, included both interactional and social (which I then labeled ‘‘institutional’’) obligations, and a distinction between the two was drawn. I further proposed (Weizman, 2001) that, through the use of ironic criticism, interviewers and interviewees conversationally negotiate their implicit interactional roles. It could be argued, then, that by challenging her addressee, the speaker orients towards the (interactional or social) role she plays, and that by having recourse to irony one orients toward the interactional role of one’s target. Challenge and ironic criticism are therefore indirect ways of making roles relevant. There are, however, more explicit ways to establish the relevance of certain roles or rolecomponents. This paper will be devoted to them. My initial investigation led me to realize that whereas within news interviews participants meta-refer mostly to certain aspects of their interactional roles, media-references in other contexts, mostly in mediated talk with experienced journalists and political figures, may enrich the investigation with illuminating comments about other role-types and role-components. The discussion in this paper will

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

157

therefore focus on role-awareness manifest in media-talk in contexts other than news interviews, as well as on the notion of role as it is put on the record within the framework of news interviews. Accordingly, the discussion draws on two sets of data: an open corpus of metacomments made by interviewers and by experienced interviewees, mostly journalists, in the Israeli media (radio, dailies and television); (b) a 24-hour corpus of news interviews, i.e., 48 half an hour shows of the daily program erev xadash (‘‘New Evening’’), broadcast daily at 5 p.m. on Israel national television, channel one. It will be shown that mismatches between social role and personal identity commonly concern journalists and other public figures outside the interviews, and that interactional roles are explicitly referred to both outside the interviews and within them, following criticism and violations. Social roles, on the other hand, are explicitly discussed outside the interviews, and only seldom put on the record within the interviews themselves. One such case will be closely analyzed.

2. Role references in mediated talk 2.1. Social role and personal identity Consider the following example: (1) I always knew that Hana Zemer had a lot of friends who were not the friends of the editor of Davar, and the moment I was no longer the editor of Davar, they would not be around. That didn’t happen.

tamid yadati sheyesh harbe xaverim shel xana zemer shehem lo xaverim shel orexet davar, uvarega shelo eheye orexet davar hem lo yihiyu. Ze lo kara.

(Hanna Zemer with David Gilboa, tik tikshoret, TV Channel 2, February 19, 2000, 12:30). Speaking about how her retirement may affect old friendships, Hanna Zemer, the editor of the (now closed) daily journal Davar and a prominent figure in the Israeli public scene, refers to her social role by her title (the editor of Davar), as opposed to another entity, which she designates by her own name (Hana Zemer). This discursive strategy is directly in line with Goffman’s observation: ‘‘[. . .] Whenever an individual participates in an episode or activity, a distinction will be drawn between what is called the person, individual, or player, namely, he who participates, and the particular role, capacity, or function he realizes during that participation’’. (Goffman, 1974:269) Since, as we have seen earlier, the notions person and individual are associated with personal identity1 (‘‘What Smith possesses as a person or individual is a personal identity’’ 1 Note, that this interpretation of identity is inconsistent with its meaning in Stigma (1963), where personal identity is contrasted with ego identity.

158

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

Goffman (1974:129), Goffman argues here for a distinction between role understood as a specialized capacity or function, and personal identity, understood as an off-stage biography and characteristics.2 The discussion presented here indicates that this distinction is not only an analytic one. Rather, it represents categories which are valid from the participants’ point of view. That this duality is intuitively conceived of as relevant for public discourse is evident from meta-comments often made by public figures, as illustrated in the following extracts. The following is another interesting example. MP Ms. Zehava Gal’on, an active member of the Merets left-wing party, responds to a statement made by Rabbi Ovadia Yossef, leader of the orthodox sephradic Shas party, condemning ugly women, on the grounds that they will give birth to ugly babies: (2) Ier Gal’on

Zehava Gal’on, you seem to be insulted by this saying. I am not insulted, neither personally nor publicly.

Zehava gal’on, nir’e shene’elavt miha’amira hazot. lo ne’elavti, lo beofen ishi velo beofen ciburi.

(hakol diburim, Israel Broadcast Authority, Channel 2, 1.4.01). Here, Gal’on explicitly construes a two-faceted persona, both public – being the representative of a secular, liberal party – as well as personal. Her use of language, however, and primarily the verb ne’elavti, (‘‘insulted’’), usually associated with children’s talk, as opposed to the unmarked-for-age nifgati (‘‘offended’’), enhances the personal overtones of Gal’on’s response. Whereas the conflict between identity and role is potentially there for every institutional setting based on pre-determined role-expectations, media discourse is particularly characterized by the ‘‘double articulation of identity’’ (Scannel, 1996:118). Indeed, my data shows that media celebrities are frequently preoccupied with the complex nature of their ‘‘identikit’’ (Scannel, 1996:118). In the quotation at the opening of this paper, TV host Ilana Dayan underlines the ‘‘huge difference between who I am in reality and who I am on television’’, and emphasizes that ‘‘there are a few layers of Ilana’’, separated by ‘‘screens’’. One may question the very credibility and authenticity of ‘‘being yourself’’, as does Tolson (2001) in his study of Geri Halliwell’s discourse, but in Dayan’s remark the relevance of this duality is made evident. The journalist Yaron London, too, is concerned by what he sees as a conflict (‘‘sixsux’’) between one’s essence (‘‘lemahutxa’’), one’s selfness (‘‘mihutxa’’[sic.]3) on the one hand, and one’s image (‘‘hatadmit’’, ‘‘hadimuy’’) and profession (‘‘mikcoaxa’’) on the other: 2 This distinction is important despite attempts to avoid it (and see, for example: ‘‘One of the virtues of SCT (Self Categorisation Theory) is that it has partially dissolved the distinction between ‘social’ and ‘personal’ identity that was used in social identity theory, Edwards in Antaki, 1998:31), precisely because it seems to hold in the spontaneous extracts discussed here. 3 Mihutxa (‘‘your selfness’’) is an irregular form, coined after mi ‘‘who’’, instead of the regular mahutxa (‘‘your essence’’), coined after ma ‘‘what’’.

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

(3) The problem of people like myself, who have been exposed to the public eye for so many years is the conflict they have between themselves and their image. This is no simple conflict. I settled the conflict a few years ago, and since then I have had it much easier. Settling the conflict is the result of a process known as maturation. You realize that your image is not alien to your essence and despite that it is phony, you cannot be responsible for what so very many people project onto you from their own worlds, loves, hates, frustrations. You cannot be responsible for all that. And then you make some kind of separation between your selfness (sic.) and your profession, your image and the things that you do to make a living, that you try to do without being too unfaithful to yourself and without having to be ashamed of yourself too often. Sometimes it is gratifying and sometimes a little more saddening, but never more than a little. Besides, and I don’t want this to sound like phony humility, I think that I am not really important.

159

habe’aya shel anashim misugi shexasufim la’ayin haciburit bemeshex shanim, hi hasixsux benam leven hadimuy o hatadmit. zehu enenu sixsux pashut. ani yishavti et hasixsux lifne kama shanim ume’az harbe yoter kal li. yishuv hasixsux hu toca’a shel tahalix hakaruy hitbagrut. ata mevin shehadimuy shelxa einenu zar lemahutxa velamrot zot hu mezuyaf, aval ata lo yaxol lihiyot axra’i lexol ma sheharbe me’od anashim mashlixim alexa me’olamam, ahavotehem, sna’otehem, tiskuleyhem. ata lo yaxol lihiyot axrai lexol davar. ve’az ata ose ezeshehi hafrada ben mihutxa [sic.] leven mikcoaxa, dimuyxa vehadvarim she’ata ose lefarnasatxa, she’otam ata menase la’asot bli livgod yoter miday pe’amim. ze kcat mesame’ax velif’amim kcat yoter meca’er, aval le’olam lo yoter mikecat. xuc mize, ve’ani lo roce sheze yishama kemo anava mezuyefet, ani xoshev she’ani lo xashuv be’emet.

(Neri Livne and Yaron London, Ha’aretz weekend magazine, July 14, 2000, p. 58). Obviously, in line with role expectations in interviews, an interviewer is expected to draw the line between those two facets of his identikit. Failure to do so is criticized: (4) Ron Mayberg’s well-known tendency to place himself on equal footing from the point of view of interest with those he interviews is indisputable. Objectivity is no longer the issue, but the relevance of his affection for the object of his article is unclear.

al netiyato hamefursemet shel Ron Mayberg lehaciv et acmo keshave el shave mibxinat ramat hainyan mul meruayanav ein orerin. obyektiviyut kvar eyna hainyan, ax harelevantiyut shel xibato lemusa katavato eyna brura.

(Adi Hamenaxmi, mifgash ego’im kasum [‘‘A Magical Meeting of Egos’’], Letters to the Editor, Ma’ariv, sofshavua, September 24, 1999, p. 2).

160

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

2.2. Multiplicity of roles So far, while differentiating between (personal) identity and (social) role, we ignored the heterogeneous nature of the latter. We have already seen that Goffman talks about ‘‘a multitude of capacities or functions – occupational, domestic, and so forth’’ (Goffman, 1974:129). So does Sacks in his discussion of the membership category of hotrodders: Now a first thing that one wants to be able to do, is to so construct appearances, and to so let out information, that members can take it that when they’re seen by whomsoever, they will be seen as a member of the category they want to be seen as a member of. That is, they’re not going to be seen as ‘teenagers in cars;’ they’re going to be seen as ‘hotrodders’ – or ‘beatnicks,’ or ‘surfers,’ or whatever else. (Sacks, 1995:173) Obviously, not every role, or category membership, is relevant at any given point in time. It is therefore of crucial importance to see how they get across (Sacks, 1995) or made relevant (Schegloff, 1991, 1992). In media discourse, a common way is to publicly and explicitly position oneself in one’s role. This, indeed is the case in the following examples. (5) Three days before the elections for the 15th Knesset, following the outgoing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attacks on the media, which he blamed for discriminating against him, the journalist Amnon Dankner makes a distinction between the opposing roleimplications entailed by ‘‘doing citizenship’’ vs. ‘‘doing professional journalism’’: Mr. Prime Minister [. . .] As a citizen, I have an opinion about what the results should be on Monday night [the elections] and I do not hide it, but I must tell you that as a journalist, my professional interest is actually that you win the elections.

adoni rosh hamemshala [. . .] Yesh li de’a ke’ezrax ma crixa lihiyot hatoca’a beyom sheni balayla [habxirot] ve’ani lo mastir ota, ax ani xayav lomar lexa sheke’itonay, ha’interes hamikco’i sheli hu shedavka tenace’ax babexirot.

(Amnon Dankner, ani lo mefaxed [‘‘I am not afraid’’], Ma’ariv, May 14, 1999, p. 2). A particularly interesting case is that of Rabbi Ovadia Yossef. On the one hand, the leaders of the sepharadic Orthodox party Shas and their voters consider him a spiritual leader, on behalf of his authority in matters of religious thought and practice. On the other hand, no political decision can be taken in this party without the Rabbi’s consent, and he is thus constantly involved in political power games. Against this background, the Rabbi’s frequent attacks on leading secular political figures, usually expressed in an offensive style, are often at the center of public debate. In the following extract, the journalist Adam Baruch, himself an intellectual an orthodox family background, explains his attitude towards Rabbi Ovadia Yossef. Note that not only does he make the distinction between the Rabbi’s two roles, he also goes as far as to suggest that the Rabbi’s followers make the same distinction, and that by orienting

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

161

towards his religious authority, they assign his talk different meanings than those assigned by the secular media: (6) ‘‘In the book I relate to Rabbi Yossef as a Rabbinical authority and not as a politician. The difference is crucial. The secular media and public relate to Rabbi Yossef mainly as a politician and they rely mainly on his comments concerning Shulamit Aloni, Yossi Sarid and so on. These are of course infuriating comments, and they indeed cloud the Israeli political climate. They do not have the same viability in the consciousness of the community of Rabbi Yossef himself. These are two separate phenomena – the one of the media and the one of Rabbi Yossef’s community’’.

basefer ani mityaxes larav ovadya yosef kefosek halaxa velo kepolitika’i. hahefresh maxri’a. hatikshoret vehacibur haxiloni mityaxasim larav yosef be’ikar kepolitika’i venish’anim be’ikar al hahitbat’uyot shelo beyaxas leshulamit aloni, yosi sarid vexayoce ba’ele. elu axen hitbat’uyot mekomemot, vehen axen ma’axirot et ha’aklim hapoliti beyisra’el. en lahen oto kiyum batod’aa shel kehilat harav yosef acmo. medubar bishte tofa’ot shonot. zo shel hatikshoret vehacibur haxiloni’im vezo shel kehilat yosef.

(Sarit Fuchs, Rahok Mehasrak – A very personal interview with Adam Baruch, Ma’ariv, sofshavu’a, August 4, 2000, p. 66). 2.3. Social and interactional roles Whereas multiplicity of social roles is inherent in any type of real life discourse, news interviews is one of a number of genres characterized by an additional set of interactional roles. Social roles have to do with the obligations pertaining to the speakers’ status and activities, such as being a politician, a physician, a friend, a colleague, a journalist, etc. As we have seen above, the interviewee, just like any other active member of society, fulfills more than one social role, but it is usually the case that only one role in this repertoire is relevant for a given situation, and it is by virtue of this role that the interviewee is invited to take part in the interview. Interactional roles, on the other hand, have to do with the speakers’ rights and obligations within the interaction.4 In institutional discourse where power relations are unequally distributed (e.g., employer–employee, doctor–patient, interviewer–interviewee exchanges), interactional roles are often asymmetrically distributed. News interviews in the English-speaking world (Britain, USA and Australia), for example, have been widely described as instances of asymmetry in terms of types of turns, their length, turn allocation and the use of address terms (e.g., Heritage, 1985, 1998; 4 Fetzer’s distinction between first-frame and second, media-frame (2001, 2002a,b, 2006) is another way of looking into this duality: Within the interview, social roles are negotiated as part of first-frame discourse, whereas interactional roles are construed as part of the media-frame discourse.

162

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991; Greatbatch, 1988; Owsley and Scotton Myers, 1984; Winter, 1993; Drew and Sorjonen, 1997). More specifically, news interviews in American and British English have been described as operating under a set of predetermined interactional constraints: In the news interview, turn-taking is organized through a distinctive normative procedure in which – unlike conversation – the types of turns that may be produced by each speaker are provided for in advance. [. . .] [These constraints] specify that news interview talk should proceed as sequences of IR questions and IE responses to those questions. Correspondingly, speakers who act as IRs may not properly engage in actions other than questions, while those who take part as IEs should refrain from initiating actions (such as unsolicited comments on prior talk) or sequences (for example, asking questions to which the IR or other IEs would be obliged to respond. (Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991:98–99) As I have previously argued (Weizman, 1996, 2003), in the Israeli context a less rigid pattern of role-assignment is observed, and a discrepancy is manifest between interlocutors’ normative expectations, which presuppose an asymmetrical division of labour on the one hand, and real-life practice, on the other. The meta-talk in the following fragment typically represents the normative expectations. In (7), the participants in the interviewing program esh colevet (‘‘Crossfire’’) are held accountable for the blurring of a clear-cut distinction between interviewers and interviewees and for replacing the required division of roles by solidarity among hosts and guests (and see (Cmejrkova, 1998:282) for one such example in the Czech written press), and even by ‘‘fraternity’’ (the Hebrew axva, used also in the collocation axvat loxamim, ‘‘fraternity of warriors’’, carries emotive connotations pertaining to camaraderie in war). In a deeper sense, the critic views this solidarity as a violation of interactional expectations, and furthermore – as a betrayal of the basic commitment of the press to alienate itself from governmental power. (7) The problematic concept of unprofessional journalism and of a friendly studio atmosphere is not new to the television screen. The IBA’s Channel 33 is an expert on the genre. The program Crossfire (Saturday 17:30) is an extreme example. Every Saturday, the hosts, Major General (Res.) Oren Shahor and Dr. Haim Misgav meet in the studio with different guests. This time, the two hosted the director-general of the Foreign Ministry, Dr. Alon Liel, on the occasion of his appointment to the ministry. Here, he did not just have a casual talk. Here they talked business. Here the ‘‘situation’’ was laid right on the table. And this is

hakonsepcia shel itonut lo mikco’it veshel avira yedidutit ba’ulpan eina xadasha al hamirka. aruc 33 shel rashut hashidur mitmaxa bazhaner. hatoxnit esh colevet hi dugma kiconit. bexol shabat nifgashim ba’ulpan hame’arxim, ha’aluf (mil) oren shaxor vehadoktor ha’im misgav, im orxim mitxalfim. hapa’am irxu hashnayim ben hashe’ar et mankal misrad haxuc, hadoktor alon liel, leregel knisato latafkid. kan kvar lo hayta zo sixa be’alma. kan dibru biznis. kan hamacav acmo hunax al hashulxan. vexan caram harbe yoter he’eder kol amot mida itonayiot ve’etika mikco’it. tishtush hagvulot ben meare’ax le’ore’ax, ben ‘‘anaxnu’’ le‘‘hem’’, vexax gam ben

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

where the total lack of any journalistic criteria or professional ethics was most disconcerting. The blurring of boundaries between host and guest, between ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘them’’, and subsequently between asking questions and taking a position was absolute and infuriating. The fraternity of ‘‘us’’ was present between both sides of the fence in the studio, more like a reunion between a crack commando unit and its much-admired commander. ‘‘At the conference of Islamic countries we are going to get smashed in the face again’’, said Misgav. ‘‘We have a new director-general here. Let’s hear how we are going to deal with this subject, how the guidelines are being set’’, said Shahor. Both forgot that they are not the state, the government or even the foreign ministry. They are not ‘‘us’’; they are ‘‘them’’ – the press, the barking dogs. At the end of the program Shahor goes far into the depths of ‘‘us’’; he shakes the new director-general’s hand, and says, ‘‘Good luck in your new job. You need it’’. That is not crossfire, it’s friendly fire. That is how it apparently is when those who are supposed to bark become part of the caravan.

163

she’ela lehaba’at emda, haya muxlat umekomem. axvat ‘‘anaxnu’’ sarera ben shney cidey hamitras ba’ulpan, kemo bifgishat maxzor shel bogrey sayeret muvxeret im mefakdam hane’erac. ‘‘beve’idat hamedinot hamuslemiyot anaxnu holxim laxtof sham od pa’am al hapanim’’, omer misgav. ‘‘yesh lanu po mankal xadash. bo nishma ex anaxnu metaplim banose haze, ex anaxnu matvim et haderex’’, omer shaxor. shneyhem shaxexu shehem lo hamedina, lo hamemshala ve’afilu lo misrad *haxuc. hem lo ‘‘anaxnu’’ ela ‘‘hem’’ – ha’itonut, haklavim hanovxim. besof hatoxnit marxik lexet shaxor le’omek ha‘‘anaxnu’’, loxec et yedey hamankal hanixnas ve’omer, ‘‘uvehaclaxa batafkid haxadash. ata zakuk laze’’. zo eyna esh colevet, ela esh koxotenu. kaxa ze, kanir’e, ka’asher mi shecarix linvo’ax hu xelek mehashayara.

(Esther Zandberg, esh koxotenu [‘‘Friendly Fire’’], This Week’s Television, Ha’aretz, November 24, 2000, p. B16). Not only are the hosts expected to refrain from taking positions, they are required to ask ‘‘difficult questions’’ and ‘‘sharpen the corners’’. Failure to do so, although compensated for by a highly intellectual discussion, is severely criticized: (8) In the spirit of Alma [a ‘‘Jewish bookshelf’’ Hebrew college], (which perceives the term culture in its widest sense, from plastic arts to politics) the series (Siha Be’alma, a series of programs

beru’ax alma [mixlala ivrit mimexonei ‘‘aron hasfarim hayehudi’’] (hatofeset et hamunax tarbut behora’ato harexava, me’omanut plastit ad politika) niftexa hasidra [‘‘sixa be’alma’’, sidrat toxniyot

164

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

on culture) began with a discussion of new religiosity and the combination of New Age and the world of halachic concepts’’. The host was Rami Reiner, a Talmud scholar on the faculty of the college. The guest was Rabbi Benny Kalmanzon, a doctoral candidate in Jewish history and the head of the Hesder yeshiva in Otniel in South Mount Hebron, described as a new wave or new age yeshiva.

tarbut] besixa al datiyut xadasha veshiluv ben ha‘‘new age le’olam hamusagim hahilxati’’. hame’are’ax haya rami rayner, xoker talmud misegel hamixlala. haore’ax haya harav beni kalmanzon, doktorant lehistoriya shel am yisra’el verosh yeshivat hahesder otni’el bidrom har xevron, hamugderet kiyishivat gal xadash or zman xadash.

[. . .] But, despite the comfortable field conditions, mistakes in the concept were apparent from the first moment. Most, it appears were reflected in the decision to choose an intellectual for the role of host-interviewer – and not an intellectual who is also a journalist who knows how to ask questions. Reiner is very well versed in the material the discussion focused on, but he did not appear to be much of an expert at asking questions. The lack of professional journalistic skills, and perhaps his previous friendship with his interlocutor, made it difficult for him to sharpen the corners and ask Kalmanzon the difficult questions an interviewer is expected to ask.

[. . .] aval, lamrot tna’ey hashetax hanoxim, hitgalu kvar meharega harishon keshalim bakoncepciya. ikaram, kax nidme, mitbat’im bahaxlata livxor latafkid hame’are’ax-mera’ayen be’ish ruax – velo be’ish ruax shehu gam itona’i hayode’a lish’ol. rayner baki heytev baxomer shehasixa sava alav, aval nidme she’eno mumxe behacagat she’elot. he’eder meyumanut itona’it mikco’it, ve’ulay gam yedidut mukdemet im ben sixo, hekshu alav lexaded pinot ulehakshot al kalmanzon kamecupe mimera’ayenim.

(Esther Zandberg, she’einam yod’im lish’ol (‘‘Those who don’t know how to ask’’), Television This Week, Ha’aretz, November 24, 2000, p. B16). Nisim Mish’al, a leading TV host, utterly agrees on the need to ask ‘‘difficult questions’’, but whereas the critic in (8) above sees it as an imperative requirement, he defines it as ‘‘the interviewer’s right’’, thus conveying apologetic overtones. In a comprehensive interview, published in the prestigious daily Ha’aretz, he weighs the pros and cons of aggressive style: (9) It is the interviewer’s right to ask the most difficult questions that the public wants to know. I don’t let anything go by and don’t let interviewees subjects give evasive answers, because I am sure that the viewers at home also want to hear

zxuto shel hamera’ayen lishol et hashe’elot haxi kashot shehacibur roce lada’at. ani lo mevater lemeruyan velo me’afsher lo kaxmok, ki ani batu’ax shegam hacofim babayit rocim lishmo’a tshuvot amitiyot velo merixot lo inyaniyot. micad sheni,

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

real answers rather than cliche´s that are not to the point. On the other hand, I am well aware of my reputation for being vicious and of the criticism, and I certainly wonder if I shouldn’t tone myself down a bit here and there, to lower the measure of aggressiveness and raise the level of sophistication. But then too, I assure you, there would be criticism.

165

ani muda heytev ladimuy hanaxshani velabikoret ve’ani behexlet tohe po vesham im ani lo carix lematen et acmi, lehorid et minun hatekifut uleha’alot et miflas hatixkum. aval gam az, ani mavti’ax lexa, tihiye bikoret.

(Esther Zandberg, Sheinam yod’im lish’ol [‘‘Those who don’t know how to ask’’], Television This Week, Ha’aretz, November 24, 2000, p. B16). The antithesis of Mish’al’s attitude is that of Dalya Yairi, the prominent host of a daily morning radio program, od xadashot veoreax (‘‘More News and a Guest’’). Here she advocates the recourse to comity and civility as interviewing strategies: (10) My style is a honey trap. [. . .] [The interviewee] says things that if he became defensive and I attacked him, he would not say. [. . .]

hasignon sheli hu malkodet dvash. [. . .] [Hame’ru’eyan] omer dvarim sheyaxol lihiyot she’im haya mitgonen vehayiti matkifa lo haya omer otam. [. . .]

(Dalya Ya’iri interviewed by Yair Lapid, Yair Lapid at 10, Cable Television Channel 3). A similar stance is taken by Ilana Dayan, host of the TV weekly show xasifa (‘‘Exposure’’). Like Ya’iri, she conceives of non-aggressive interviewing as a preconceived strategy; like Mish’al, she is aware of the distorted image of her personality in the eyes of the audience, when the latter does not draw the line between role and identity: (11) ‘‘Of course I know how to be pleasant when necessary’’, she says at the sight of my bulging fish eyes, a good interviewer can’t be aggressive all the time. ‘‘By the way’’, she adds with a sparkle in her eye, ‘‘didn’t you consider the possibility that I may be simply nice?’’

barur she’ani yoda’at lihiyot ne’ima kshecarix, hi omeret lemar’e enay hape’urot kedag, mera’ayen tov lo yaxol kol hazman lihiyot koxani. ‘‘agav’’, hi mosifa vezik ole be’eneha, ‘‘lo lakaxt bexeshbon she’ulay ani stam nexmada?

(Dana Spector, xasifa – Ilana Dayan, Yedioth Ahronoth, shiv’a yamim, November 3, 2000, p. 39). 3. Role-references within news interviews So far we have explored the nature of role-references in the meta-talk of journalists, TV critics and interviewers in contexts other than news interviews. We will now examine role

166

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

references within the interviews. As I have mentioned before (section 1), I believe that the implicit negotiations of both types of roles are in the heart of each and every interview, and are embedded, for example, in challenge strategies and in the recourse to irony (Weizman, 2001). In line with the purpose of this paper, however, in this section we focus only on onthe-record role-references. It will be argued that whereas within the interviews the interactional obligations are explicitly referred to by both interviewers and interviewees, social roles are defined mostly in the openings, and only rarely explicitly commented upon in the course of the interview. 3.1. Interactional roles Interactional expectations are spelled out by participants in the course of the interview in order to explicate the contract of communication between the participants (Charaudau, 1991, and see Atifi and Marcoccia, 2006), mostly in response to previous violations. Note, that both parties feel free to delineate their expectations (and see also Fetzer, 2006). The three first examples illustrate the speakers’ attempts to hedge their statements of expectations. In (12), the host reprimands the interviewee for refusing to cede the floor, attenuating his reproach by the impersonal perspective. In (13), the interviewee jokingly proposes his interpretation of the implicit accusation that politicians usually avoid the interviewers’ questions, hedging his implicit criticism of his fellow-politicians by the use of humor. And in (15), the interactional requirement of non-aggressive talk is explicated by the host of a radio phone-in program, softened by the inclusive ‘‘we’’ and the reciprocal ‘‘one another’’, which set both speaker and caller on equal footing, with the aim of establishing solidarity: (12) An interview is for asking questions too, it’s not just a speech.

reayon ze gam lish’ol she’elot, ze lo rak ne’um.

Amnon Levy and Riki Cur, a belly dancer, erev xadash, 30.6.97. (13) Iee: A good politician says: this is the answer, ask the question accordingly. (Shim’on Peres, TV Channel 2, [no date]). (14) You know that today we will talk calmly, trying to get people closer, without interrupting one another.

ata yode’a shehayom anaxnu medabrim benoxut, menasim lekarev levavot, lo mitparcim ha’exad ledivrey hasheni.

(Michael Miro, sixot im ma’azinim (‘‘Talking with Listeners’’), IBA, Channel 2, July 30, 1998). No such attenuation is apparent in (15). Here, the interviewee spells out the interviewer’s obligations to ask questions and refrain from representing absent guests (04). Thus, he rejects explicitly the implication that such a representation is within the interviewer’s rights, as conveyed by the latter’s ironic request for permission (03). Note, that the interviewer’s ironic

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

167

tone carries challenge potential (Weizman, 1998, in preparation),5 which, given the Israeli norm of reciprocity (Weizman, 2003), calls for an equally aggravated challenge: (15) 01

Ier:

02 03

Iee: Ier:

04

Iee:

But I will try to present his side All right If I [modestly] may Don’t state his views. Just ask questions, that’s fine with us

aval ani anase lehacig et emdato bevakasha bemidat yexolti hacnu’a al tenaseax et emdato., tish’al she’elot ze yaspik lanu.

(Dan Margalit and Mayor of Herzliya, Eli Landau, 1.12.91, talking about a second interviewee, who could not come to the studio). 3.2. Social roles As a rule, the relevant components of the interviewee’s social role – be they his or her political functions (for politicians), professional capacities (for experts) or personal identity (for lay persons) – are set in the opening of the interview, which, among other things, establishes the connections between the interview and the larger social world (Clayman, 1991), enhances the interviewee’s status (Blum-Kulka, 1983) and puts forward the news worthiness of the interview (Clayman, 1991). In the following extracts, the interviewees are introduced in their respective capacities as politician, expert and ‘‘the man on the street’’: (16) Ier:

Now to our Jerusalem studio former Israeli Ambassador to the US Moshe Arad good evening to you.

ule’ulpanenu biyrushala’yim mi shehaya shagrir israel bearcot habrit Moshe Arad erev tov lexa

(erev xadash (‘‘New Evening’’), Dan Margalit and Moshe Arad, erev xadash, 8.12.91) (17) Ier:

With us today is Ha’aretz Journalist, Natan, Dunevitch, who has been writing uh about music, for many years. Good evening to you.

be’ulpanenu haitonay Natan, Dunevic meha’arec, asher osek eh banose hamuzikali, shanim rabot. erev tov lexa.

(Dan Margalit and Natan Dunevitch, erev xadash, 12.12.91) 5

The challenge value of this example is discussed in Weizman (1998).

168

(18) Ier:

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

Well, our last guest is Jacqueline Elharar, uh mother to eighteen children, she even won an award for that especially since she raised them in the menacing shadow of an unfriendly border, in Kiryat uh Shmona, good evening to you Jacqueline.

tov, ha’oraxat ha’axrona shelanu hi Jacqlin Elharar, eh em lishmona asar, hi afilu zaxta al ze bifras beyixud shehi gidla et hayladim becilo shel gvul oyen, bekiryat eh shmona, erev tov lax Jacqulin.

(Rafi Reshef and Jacqueline Elharar, erev xadash (‘‘New Evening’’), 9.12.91). Whereas social roles are routinely explicated in the openings, the expectations pertaining to them are only rarely explicitly delineated in the course of the interview. The following section will be devoted to one such case of role-negotiations, whereby the obligations which constitute the interviewee’s role as politician play a major role in the management of the interview.

4. Negotiating the interviewee’s political role in context Background: At the time of the interview, the interviewee, Yossi Sarid is Chair of the Merets left-wing party, which formed a coalition with the Ma’arach (Labour) party in PM Yitshak Rabin’s government. The interview is conducted following a cabinet meeting which voted for the deportation of Hammas leaders, given their involvement in terrorist actions. The thrust of my argument here is that the interlocutors have two different agendas: whereas the interviewer focuses on the decisions made at the specific cabinet meeting under discussion, thereby indirectly questioning Merets’ consistency on the grounds that they did not make a demand for direct negotiations with the PLO, Sarid himself constantly shifts to Merets’ overall ideology, which does opt for such negotiations. In order to support their respective arguments, each of the speakers makes relevant different components of Sarid’s roles: whereas the interviewer orients to Sarid’s obligations as a politician, most notably to the expectation that he be involved in, or at least informed about, the political moves made by Ministers of his party, Sarid self-presents as an ideological leader, above and beyond such daily demands as the ones put forward by the interviewer. Let us examine carefully a few excerpts (the full text is given in the Appendix), each representing a different topical episode.6 6 In the transcribed interviews, the punctuation stands for transcription signs, as follows: , = a brief pause, the number of commas represents the length of the pause . = utterance falling intonation ? = utterance rising intonation (.) (?) = utterance mixed intonation, with a tendency towards a falling or a rising intonation, respectively { } = overlap of two utterances [laughs] = comments on paralinguistic features underlined = emphasis

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

(19) Episode 1: The cabinet meeting 01 Ier Thank you Michael Chairman of the Merets Faction Yossi Sarid is here at the studio good evening to you., 02 Iee Hello Rafi., 03 Ier Why did Merets ministers refrain from demanding direct negotiations with the PLO today at the cabinet meeting., 04 Iee I was not present at the cabinet meeting and I don’t know whether they refrained from doing so!, I think they did not, our demand is uh to start and conduct uh negotiations with the PLO, whether negotiations in stages whether sooner or later these, are serious questions {that must be discussed} but but uh 05 Ier {Could you possibly} not be informed as to what went on in the cabinet meeting?, Because I from political journalists h-heard simply on the radio I understood they didn’t discuss it today and Merets ministers did not bring up a demand for direct negotiations with the PLO. 06 Iee So I am not a Merets minister but I am Chairman of Merets, and I am giving you Merets’ official position, Merets’ official position is to start negotiations with the PLO, I can also tell you that what I am telling you now I said clearly maybe even more clearly, to the Prime Minister a few times uh in the past week or two and he knows our position well., Exactly what the wording was in the cabinet meeting I don’t know.

169

toda Michael yoshev rosh si’at Merets Yossi Sarid kan ba’ulpan erev tov lexa., shalom Rafi lama nimne’u hayom sarey Merets biyshivat hamemshala leha’a lot tvi’a lemasa umatan yashir im Ashaf., ani lo ha’yiti biyshivat hamemshala ve’eyneni yode’a im hem nimne’u!, ani xoshev shehem lo nimne’u, hatvi’a shelanu hi eh lehatxil ulenahel eh masa umatan im Asahf, ha’im medubar bemasa umatan sheye’arex bishlavim ha’im yihye mukdam o me’uxar ele, she’elot nixbadot {shecarix ladun bahen} aval aval eh {yaxol lihyot} sh’eata lo me’udkan biyshivat hamemshala?, ki ani mikatavim medini’im sh shama’ti pashut baradio hevanti shelo dibru hayom gam sarey Merets lo he’elu tvi’a, lemasa umatan yashir im Ashaf

az ani lo sar shel Merets aval ani yoshev rosh si’at Merets, veani omer lexa et emdat Merets hamusmexet, emdat Merets hamusmexet hi lehatxil lenahel masa umatan im Ashaf, ani gam yaxol lomar lexa she’et hadvarim ha’ele she’ani omer lexa axshav amarti baofen hameforash ulay afilu hameforash beyoter, beoznav shel rosh hamemshala bexama vexama hizdamnuyot eh shehayu li ba shavu’a shvuayim ha’axronim vehu yode’a heytev et emdatenu., ex haya bediyuk hanisuax hayom biyshivat hamemshala eineni yode’a.,

170

07

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

Ier

Do you have an idea whether today they accomplished anything practical?, Concrete?, After the meeting today?,

yesh lexa musag im efshar lehacbi’a al eizeshehem hesegim, ma’asiyim?, mamashi’im?, betom hayeshiva hayom?,

In the opening of the interview (turn 1) the interviewee is introduced by his formal title, construed as relevant in the next interviewer’s question (3): the interviewer expects the Chair of the faction to account for the motives of his ministers’ actions in the cabinet meeting, thereby presupposing the Chair’s awareness of these specific actions. In his response (4), Sarid explicitly rejects the latter presupposition, thus legitimizing the avoidance of the interviewer’s ‘why’ question. He then tries to replace the interviewer’s agenda by another one, i.e., Merets’ general ideology, pragmatically marking this agenda shift by the passage from the pronoun they designating Merets’ ministers (‘‘I don’t know whether they refrained from doing so’’,) to we, designating Merets’ members (‘‘our demand is . . .’’). The interviewer, on his part, interrupts the digression and challenges Sarid’s evasion of responsibility (‘‘could you possibly not be informed as to what went on in the cabinet meeting?’’, 5), implying, through the use of possibly (‘‘yaxol lihyot’’) his surprise at Sarid’s ignorance, further challenging him by stating that the facts are common knowledge (‘‘Because I from political journalists h-heard simply on the radio’’, 5). It is at this point that Sarid chooses to redefine his role, both negatively (‘‘I am not a Merets minister’’, 6) and positively (‘‘but I am chairman of Merets’’, 6). Against the background of interviewing norms, whereby the interviewee’s role is routinely defined by the interviewer, and given the formal introduction in the first turn, this dual role-construction ostensibly violates both maxims of manner and quantity (Grice, 1975), conversationally implicating dissatisfaction with the interviewer’s challenging implications. It further clears the way for Sarid to spell out another constituent of his role as ‘‘mega-spokesman’’7 (‘‘and I am giving you Merets’ official position, 6), and to mention his close contacts with the Prime Minister. Thus, against the interviewer’s expectations that the Chair be accountable to the public for the political moves of his faction, the interviewee proposes an alternative view whereby the chair is accountable to the public as well as to the Prime Minister for the faction’s official position and profound ideology. On this reading, Sarid’s final words ‘‘Exactly what the wording was in the cabinet meeting I don’t know’’, which misrepresent the facts (it was the ministers’ position, not only their words, that was unknown to him) and minimize his responsibility, are heard as questioning the relevance and newsworthiness of the issue put forward by the interviewer. The latter, however, is not convinced: from the high spheres of ideology he recaptures such earthly matters as practical, concrete achievements, all related to the same cabinet meeting: ‘‘Do you have an idea whether today they accomplished anything practical?, Concrete?, After the meeting today?’’, (7). As the interview progresses, Sarid pursues the ideological track, engaging in long, programmatic statements, ignoring the interviewer’s attempts to interrupt (e.g., in turns 9, 11, 17, 25), replying ironically (‘‘ I read I read journals from time to time’’, 12, see Weizman, 2002) and refusing to cede the floor (20, 22, 26). Then, in 27, the interviewer

7

For a pragmatic analysis of the notion of spokesperson, see Marcoccia (1994).

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

171

recaptures the topic of the cabinet meeting, this time focusing on the vote in favor of the deportation of Hammas members. This question opens a new episode. Episode 2: Leadership 27 Ier: [. . .] were you surprised by the extent of the response I suppose even in your closest milieu following the vote of Merets ministers in favor of uh the deportation of the Hammas members(?), 28 Iee: I don’t know but supposing I was surprised what what what difference does it make the the responsibility is solely ours since the important question is, whether in retrospect, but I did not take part in the resolution I was not present at the cabinet meeting I heard about it afterwards and I was not consulted beforehand, and I am telling you {that in retrospect, in retrospect . . .} 29 Ier: {Would you have voted differently?, Had you been there(?),} 30 Iee: I gave retroactively I gave my support to the resolution I still support it wholly, no apologies, no regrets, no discounts, no uh retroactive insights, which as you know amount to nothing(.) 31 Ier: Surprised? I don’t get it it only damaged your appeal to voters in your opinion?, 32 Iee: Even that doesn’t matter., Even that doesn’t matter if the measure is right it should be supported if the measure is not right it should not be supported, electoral considerations shouldn’t influence uh people who claim leadership uh – every uh every uh morning 33 Ier: Yes:

[. . .] huftata me’otsmat hatguva ani meta’er le’acmi gam bamilie hakarov elexa be’ikvot hacba’at sarey merets be’ad gerush anshey haxamas?

eineni yode’a aval naniax shehuftati az ma ma ma ze xashuv ha’axrayut hi eh kula alenu harey hashe’ela haxashuva hi ha’im bedi’avad, aval ani lo hayiti shutaf lahaxlata ani lo hayiti biyshivat hamemshala ani shamati al ze le’axar ma’ase velo no’acu iti kodem velo no’acu be kodem, veani omer lexa {shebediavad, bediavad}

{hayita macbi’a axeret ?, im hayita sham)?,} natati bedi’avad natati tmixa lahaxlata ani noten la et mlo hagibuy gam axshav, bli hitnacluyot, bli xaratot, bli hanaxot, bli eh xoxma sheleaxar ma’ase, shehi kayadu’a xoxma balayla(.) mufta? Lo hevanti rak garam laxem nezek electorali lefi da’atxa?, afilu ze lo xashuv.,afilu ze lo xashuv im haca’ad hu naxon carix litmox bo im haca’ad lo naxon lo carix litmox bo, shikulim electoralim lo yexolim lehanxot a anashim sheyes lahem yumra lemanhigut eh bexol eh bexol eh boker

ken

172

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

34 Iee: So that they get up and bend according to this whim which is an important whim it’s important we respect it but it is also a passing whim(.),

kdey shehem yakumu veyityacvu lefi mashav haruax shehu mashav haruax hu xashuv anaxnu mexabdim oto aval hu gam over(.),

Here, the interviewer raises the issue of the unexpectedness of the vote, thus implying its inconsistency with the overall credo of Merets (‘‘the extent of the response I suppose even in your closest milieu, 27; Would you have voted differently? 29; It only damaged your appeal to voters in your opinion? 31). The issue underlying these very questions is to what extent Sarid backs up this inconsistency. In other words, then, it is his authority in his role which the interviewer questions. Sarid’s answers conversationally implicate, through the flouting of the quantity maxim, his dissatisfaction with the vote: First (28) he says practically nothing about his own view, and says too much about not being consulted; and then (30) he emphasizes the retroactive nature of his support. Then (30), he gradually construes an image of the ideal leader, who is strong (‘‘no apologies, no regrets’’), assumes responsibility (‘‘I gave my support to the resolution’’), and has no afterthoughts (‘‘no uh retroactive insights, which as you know amount to nothing’’). This image building culminates in turns 32 and 34, where he expresses his credo as to the nature of leadership (‘‘electoral considerations shouldn’t influence uh people who claim leadership’’, 32). Unlike the self role-assignment in the previous episode (note the six occurrences of the first-person singular in turn six), here role reference is formulated as a generalization, without specific reference to the speaker (‘‘people who claim leadership’’, 32, ‘‘they’’, 34). Finally, it is the use of ‘‘we’’ in ‘‘we respect it’’ (34), which seems to be ambiguous: bearing in mind the previous use of the first person plural (‘‘the responsibility is solely ours, 28), this use too might be interpreted as designating ‘‘party leaders’’; but in view of the ‘‘leadership script’’ construed here, it may be more plausibly interpreted as ‘‘people who claim leadership’’. In the latter case, the self-referring ‘‘we’’ is read as exclusive, implying a distinction between the speaker on the one hand, and those who have trivial electoral considerations on the other (and compare Thatcher’s use of first-person plural pronoun to signal positive associations, Wilson, 1990:63). Does the interviewer accept Sarid’s self inclusion in the categories of ideolologists and leaders? Apparently not. As is evident from episode 3, an abrupt shift from Sarid’s general statements about leaders to the interviewer’s specific question about his own future plans shows that the interviewer does not relinquish his initial political agenda. The next episode elaborates on the question whether Sarid will be appointed minister. Episode 3: I have no idea 35 Ier: Is it reasonable to assume that this week you will not appear in Erev Xadash next week we will be saying Minister Yossi Sarid? 36 Iee: I haven’t the slightest idea I really don’t know [if this happens and you call me]

savir lehaniax shehashavu’a od lo titra’ayen be’erev xadash shavu’a haba kvar nagid hasar yossi sarid? ein li shemets shel musag ani mamash lo yode’a {im ze yikre vetazmin oti}

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

37 Ier:

38 Iee: 39 Ier:

40 Iee:

41 Ier: 42 Iee: 43 Ier: 44 Iee:

45 Ier: 46 Iee:

[So if it comes up on Sunday in the cabinet meeting] will you be surprised(?) Excuse me If it comes up on Sunday in the cabinet meeting will you be surprised Hmm I won’t be surprised but I don’t know whether it will come up in the cabinet uh you’re asking me if I know now I don’t know., Do you know what portfolio yet?, I have no idea., Will you demand to be made a member of the limited cabinet?, We will receive, an additional seat in the cabinet and it is certainly possible that I will be a member of the cabinet., Knesset Member Yossi Sarid thank you very much., Thank you.,

173

{klomar im ze yu’ale beyom rishon biyshivat hamemshala} tufta? slixa im ze yu’ale beyom rishon biyshivat hamemshala} tufta em ani lo ufta aval eineni yode’a im ze ya’ale biysivat ha ata sho’el oti im ani yode’a axshav eineni yode’a., ata yode’a kvar eize sar?, ein li musag., tidrosh lihyot xaver kabinet?, anaxnu nekabel, makom nosaf bakabinet veyitaxen me’od she’ani ehye xaver bakabinet., xaver hakneset yosi sarid., toda raba lexa., toda raba lexa.,

Here, it becomes evident that each of the interlocutors maintains his own role perception: the interviewer goes on asking Sarid about his political odds, thus implicating, through the violation of the maxim of manner (Grice, 1975), that he does not take Sarid’s rejection of electoral considerations (alluded to in turn 32) at face value. Sarid, on his part, further enhances the image of the ideal leader, by denying having any knowledge or interest in such matters as political nominations (‘‘I don’t know’’ used twice, ‘‘I haven’t the slightest idea’’, ‘‘I have no idea’’, ‘‘it is possible’’). Thus, up to the very last turn, each interlocutor orients towards a different perception of the interviewee’s obligations, and, less obviously, of his competence in his role.

5. Concluding comments Consider the Duke of Kent’s emotional appeal to King Lear, upon hearing the king’s condemnation of his daughter Cordelia: Kent:

Royal Lear, Whom I have ever honor’d as my king, Lov’d as my father, as my master follow’d, As my great patron thought on in my prayers,

(King Lear, Act I, Scene 1, lines 142–145)

174

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

Overwhelmed with sorrow, Kent skillfully frames his appeal as addressed at the King’s socially acknowledged roles (king and master), and at the same time construes the roles and identities which are subjectively relevant for him ( father, great patron). But then, confronted with the King’s offensive rage, he selects a personal attribute which might be painful to the King: Kent:

What wouldst thou do, old man?

(King Lear, Act I, Scene 1, lines 148) Role perception is part of our everyday life: we conceive of people in terms of their social rights and obligations and we form our expectations accordingly, we often try to decipher the nature of one’s ‘‘true self’’, or ‘‘true identity’’, and we construe situationally relevant roles as we speak. In news interviews, role relations are at play on at least two levels: the interactional and the social. Whereas the former has to do with the division of roles predetermined by discursive expectations pertaining to the communication event, the latter is concerned mostly with the interviewee’s status in the political arena. Interactional and social roles are not independent entities: they interrelate with each other. Furthermore, given their multiplicity and complexity, role-enactment in a given situation is highly dependent on the way it is construed in actual discourse. Its textual realizations range in degree of explicitness, and it is on the explicit end of the scale that I focused in this paper. For this purpose, I chose to analyze role-references in mediated discourse in the written and the electronic media, as well as in meta-talk within the news interviews themselves. As we have seen, the findings indicate that television critics, leading journalists, prominent TV hosts and political figures are highly concerned with interactional as well as social rights and obligations, and with potential clashes between them and their personal identities. In other words, the distinctions between role and personal identity, as well as the differentiation between social and interactional roles are not only analytical categories, pertaining to the analyst’s research interest and meta-talk. Rather, they are construed by the participants themselves, and are conceived of as valid from their own point of view. My corpus of meta-talk outside news interviews indicates that personalities and situations are commonly evaluated by public figures in terms of the duality of personal identity and social obligations (examples 1–6). More specifically, the requirements of interactional and social roles in news interviews are often seen as conflicting: critics blame interviewers for letting aspects of their social role or personal identity intrude on their interactional obligations (7–8); experienced interviewers, on the other hand, indulge into complex considerations about interactional constraints, focusing mostly on the issue of aggression (9–11). Within news interviews, the corpus indicates explicit references to interactional expectations, either in response to violations or in order to set the contract of communication (12–15). Social expectations are set up at the interviewers’ opening turns, when the interviewee is introduced (16–18). In the course of the interview, implicit role-negotiations are at the heart of the interview, but only rarely are they put on record. The interview analyzed in (19) is a case in point, since

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

175

its topic is the interviewee’s authority and commitments. In it, different perceptions of a given political role are strategically construed in discourse.

Acknowledgements This is a revised version of a paper read in a panel session at the International Conference on Language, the Media and International Communication, Oxford, 2001. I am grateful to the participants at the panel and to the reviewers of this article for their stimulating input. Appendix Interviewer: Rafi Reshef Interviewee: Yosi Sarid, Chair of the Merets faction erev xadash (‘‘New Evening’’), 23.12.92 1 Ier Thank you Michael Chair of the Merets Faction Yossi Sarid is here at the studio good evening to you., 2 Sarid: Hello Rafi., 3 Ier: Why did Merets ministers refrain from demanding direct negotiations with the PLO today at the cabinet meeting., 4 Sarid: I was not present at the cabinet meeting and I don’t know whether they refrained from doing so!, I think they did not, our demand is uh to start and conduct uh negotiations with the PLO, whether negotiations in stages whether sooner or later these, are serious questions {that must be discussed}but but uh 5 Ier: {Could you possibly} not be informed as to what went on in the cabinet meeting?, Because I from political journalists h-heard simply on the radio I understood they didn’t discuss it today and Merets ministers did not bring up a demand for direct negotiations with the PLO. 6 Sarid: So I am not a Merets minister but I am chairman of Merets, and I am giving you Merets’ official position, Merets’ official position is to start negotiations with the PLO, I can also tell you that what I am telling you now I said clearly maybe even more clearly, to the Prime Minister a few times uh in the past week or two and he knows our position well., Exactly what the wording was in the cabinet meeting I don’t know. 7 Ier: Do you have an idea whether today they accomplished anything practical?, Concrete?, After the meeting today?, 8 Sarid: W-we did not think that the change would occur in one day in one meeting in one discussion of course it would be naive to think that. But I think in any case something happened today in Israel!, For the first time in the history of the state of Israel in the holiest temple in the cabinet meeting, a demand was made, to talk to the uh PLO {and this discussion is taking place} . . .

176

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

9 10

Ier: Sarid:

11 12

Ier: Sarid:

13

Ier:

14 15

Sarid: Ier:

16

Sarid:

17

Ier:

18

Sarid:

19 20

Ier: Sarid:

21

Ier:

22 23

Sarid: Ier:

24

Sarid:

25

Ier:

{Was already found and vetoed the demand} so what., Oh I don’t think this is so what, I can tell you is that we have much respect for the Prime Minister he is clearly, first among equals., but we equals we, are uh not alone in our position, you know we have from that aspect allies in the Labor party itself I haven’t counted the ministers who are in favor of some form of negotiations with the PLO, but uh I think there are many ministers I {think there are I don’t want to speak on his behalf and I can’t speak on his behalf} {We can safely assume . . .} But I read I read papers from time to time and today I read the Foreign Minister’s opinion in Yediot Ahronot, uh the Foreign Minister did indeed refrain from mentioning the PLO, but he said any Palestinian organization that wants to talk to us to hold negotiations with us in Washington uh can {uh can can come} {But still you are a seasoned poli}tician first of all I think there is no majority {among the cabinet ministers no} {I don’t know I haven’t counted them} Even if we suppose there is it is unthinkable that Yitzhak Rabin will be coerced even if he is first among equals to hold direct negotiations with the PLO This is not this is not coercion, I tell you that we have uh in addition to our allies in the Labor party we have another ally, one, uh very strong ally, and that ally is reality itself, and reality, just as it l-lead us to the discussion today at the cabinet for the first time in history it will also lead us to negotiations with the PLO for the simple reason, that if it won’t be the PLO it will be the Hammas, and since there’s no talking to the Hammas, We will talk about that in a moment, {but if we return for a moment} to the meeting today . . . {So we will talk so we will} talk to the PLO because otherwise by the way, {what do you mean} {just a minute just a minute}allow me {for a moment to ask} {Excuse me} excuse me just a minute who are we talking to now if not the PLO(?), the Prime Minister Was there indeed no reason to bring it up at the meeting if in any case talks are already being held {perhaps there was no reason to} {Then I will explain to you then I} to bring it up but let’s allow me before that to refer only to the point, whether in fact this is not just a treat meant to relieve you from the pressure of your potential supporters who criticize from within(?), To let off steam(?), and in fact nothing practical(.), Why do you think so(?), this happens to be {our position} our declared and official position since . . . {I am asking. I am ask}

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

26

Sarid:

27

Ier:

28

Sarid:

29 30

Ier: Sarid:

31

Ier:

32

Sarid:

33 34

Ier: Sarid:

35

Ier:

36

Sarid:

37

Ier:

38 39 40

Sarid: Ier: Sarid:

41 42

Ier: Sarid:

177

the beginning, we certainly haven’t invented anything new(.), but we thought that this was the appropriate time why because if we strike the Hammas on the one hand, by striking alone you can’t., if you do half a job and you know that I am in favor of this half, in favor of the deportation, but if you do half a job sometimes half a job is worse than doing nothing., the other half should be to talk to whomever is willing to talk to us., {that’s why this was the appropriate time and action . . .} {I want your sincere answer Yossi} Sarid., were you surprised by the extent of the response I suppose even in your closest milieu following the vote of Merets ministers in favor of uh the deportation of the Hammas members(?), I don’t know but supposing I was surprised what what what difference does it make the the responsibility is solely ours since the important question is, whether in retrospect, but I did not take part in the resolution I was not present at the cabinet meeting I heard about it afterwards and I was not consulted beforehand, and I am telling you {that in retrospect, in retrospect} {Would you have voted differently?, Had you been there(?),} I gave retroactively I gave my support to the resolution I still support it wholly, no apologies, no regrets, no discounts, no uh retroactive insights, which as you know amount to nothing(.), Surprised? I don’t get it it only damaged your appeal to voters in your opinion?, Even that doesn’t matter., Even that doesn’t matter if the measure is right it should be supported if the measure is not right it should not be supported, electoral considerations shouldn’t influence uh people who claim leadership uh – every uh every uh morning, Yes. So that they get up and bend according to this whim which is an important whim it’s important we respect it but it is also a passing whim(.), Is it reasonable to assume that this week you will not appear in Erev Hadash next week we will be saying Minister Yossi Sarid?, I haven’t the slightest idea I really don’t know {if this happens and you call me} {So if it comes up on Sunday in the cabinet meeting} will you be surprised(?) Excuse me If it comes up on Sunday in the cabinet meeting will you be surprised Hmm I won’t be surprised but I don’t know whether it will come up in the cabinet uh you’re asking me if I know now I don’t know., Do you know what portfolio yet?, I have no idea.,

178

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

43 44

Ier: Sarid:

45 46

Ier: Sarid:

Will you demand to be made a member of the limited cabinet?, We will receive, an additional seat in the cabinet and it is certainly possible that I will be a member of the cabinet., Knesset Member Yossi Sarid thank you very much., Thank you.,

References Atifi, Hasan, Marcoccia, Michel, 2006. Television genre as an object of negotiation: a semio-pragmatic analysis of French political ‘‘television forum’’. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2), 250–268. Antaki, Charles, Widdicombe, Sue, 1998. Identity as an achievement and as a tool. In: Antaki, Charles, Widdicombe, Sue (Eds.), Identities in Talk. Sage, London, pp. 1–14. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, 1983. The dynamics of political interviews. Text 3 (2), 131–153. Clayman, Steven E., 1991. News interview openings: aspects of sequential organization. In: Scannel, P. (Ed.), Broadcast Talk. Sage, London, pp. 48–75. Charaudau, Patrick, 1991. Contrats de communication et ritualisation des de´bats te´le´vise´s. In: Charaudeau, Patrick (Ed.), La Television: Les De´bats Culturels ‘‘Apostrophes’’. Didier – Eruditon, Paris, pp. 11–35. Cmejrkova, Svetla, 1998. Is this my position? Teenagers’ response to mass media discourse. In: Cmejrkova, S., Hoffmanova, J., Mullerova, O., Svetla, J. (Eds.), Dialogue Analysis VI, vol. 2. Niemeyer, Tu¨bingen, pp. 281– 289. Drew, Paul, Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, 1997. Institutional discourse. In: van Dijk, T.A. (Ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, vol. 2: Discourse As Social Interaction. Sage, London, pp. 92–118. Fetzer, Anita, 2001. Negotiating validity claims in political interviews. Text 20 (4), 1–46. Fetzer, Anita, 2002a. Communicative intentions in context. In: Fetzer, A., Meierkord, C. (Eds.), Rethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 37–69. Fetzer, Anita, 2002b. ‘Put bluntly, you have something of a credibility problemı´. Sincerity and credibility in political interviews. In: Chilton, P., Scha¨ffner, C. (Eds.), Politics as Talk and Text: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 173–201. Fetzer, Anita, 2006, ‘‘Minister, we will see how the public judges you.’’ Media references in political interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2), 180–195. Goffman, Erving, 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Goffman, Erving, 1974. Frame Analysis. Harper, New York. Greatbatch, David, 1988. A Turn-taking System for British News Interviews. Language in Society 17, 401–430. Greatbatch, David, Dingwall, Robert, 1998. Talk and identity in divorce mediation. In: Antaki, Ch., Widdicombe, S. (Eds.), Identities in Talk. Sage, London, pp. 121–132. Grice, H. Paul, 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58. Heritage, John, 1985. Analyzing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In: van Dijk, T.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3. Academic Press, New York, pp. 95–119. Heritage, John, 1998. Conversation analysis and talk: analyzing distinctive turn-taking systems. In: Cmejrkova, S., Hofmanova, J., Mullerova, O., Svetla, J. (Eds.), Dialogue Analysis VI. Niemeyer, Tu¨bingen, pp. 3–17. Heritage, John, Greatbatch, David, 1991. On the institutional character of institutional talk: the case of news interviews. In: Boden, D., Zimmerman, D.H. (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure. Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 95–129. Labov, William, Fanshel, David, 1977. Therapeutic Discourse. Academic Press, London. Marcoccia, Michel, 1994. Le roˆle de porte-parole dans le discours politique: analyse pragmatique. The`se pre´sente´e en vue de l’obtention du Doctorat de Science du Langage sous la direction de Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Universite´ Lyon 2. Owsley, Heidi, Scotton Myers, Carol, 1984. The conversational expression of power by television interviewers. Journal of Social Psychology 123 (2), 261–271.

E. Weizman / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 154–179

179

Sacks, Harvey, 1979. Hotrodder: a revolutionary category. In: Psatahas, G. (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnometodolgy. Erlbaum, New York, pp. 7–14. Sacks, Harvey, 1995. Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell, Oxford. Scannel, Paddy, 1996. Radio, Television & Modern Life. Blackwell, Oxford. Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1991. Reflections on talk and social structure. In: Boden, D., Zimmerman, D. (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 44–70. Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1992. In another context. In: Duranti, A., Goodwin, Ch. (Eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 193–227. Tolson, Andrew, 2001. ‘Being yourself’: the oursuit of authentic celebrity. Discourse Studies 3 (4), 443–457. Wilson, John, 1990. Politically Speaking. Blackwell, Oxford. Winter, Joanne, 1993. Gender and the political interview in an Australian context. Journal of Pragmatics 20, 117– 139. Weizman, Elda, 1996. Shifting roles: a challenge strategy in news interviews on Israeli television. In: Schwarzwald, O., Shlesinger, Y. (Eds.), Hadassah Kantor Jubilee Book. Ramat Gan, (Language research papers (in Hebrew)), pp. 85–95. Weizman, Elda, 1998. Individual intentions and collective purpose: the case of news interviews. In: Cmejrkova, S., Hoffmanova, J., Mullerova, O., Svetla, J. (Eds.), Dialogue Analysis VI, vol. 2. Niemeyer, Tu¨bingen, pp. 269–280. Weizman, Elda, 1999. Discourse patterns in news interviews on Israeli television. In: Toury, G., Ben Shachar, R. (Eds.), Hebrew: A Living Language. Haifa University, Haifa, (in Hebrew), pp. 125–137. Weizman, Elda, 2000. Irony in news interviews. In: Schwarzwald, O., Blum Kulka, S., Olshtain, E. (Eds.), Rafael Nir Jubilee Book: Studies in Communication, Linguistics and Language Teaching. Carmel, Jerusalem, (in Hebrew), pp. 237–248. Weizman, Elda, 2001. Addresser, addressee and target: negotiating roles through ironic criticism. In: Weigand, E., Dascal, M. (Eds.), Negotiation and Power in Dialogic Interaction. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 125– 137. Weizman, Elda, 2003. News interviews on Israeli television: normative expectations and discourse norms. In: Bondi, M., Stati, S. (Eds.), Dialogue Analysis 2000. Niemeyer, Tu¨bingen, pp. 383–393. Weizman, Elda, in preparation. Challenge in institutional setting: news interviews in the Israeli context. Elda Weizman is an associate professor at Bar Ilan University, Israel, where she teaches cross-cultural pragmatics and the theory of translation. Her research interests focus on the interpretation of indirectness in written and oral discourse, with special emphasis on irony, hints and positioning in a cross-cultural perspective (Hebrew, English and French). She has previously participated in the CCSARP international cross-cultural project on requests and apologies, in which she explored the nature of requestive hints across cultures, and is currently writing a book on positioning in TV news interviews, based on a research supported by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. She is further involved in a research on the pragmatic aspects of self-advocacy by students with learning disabilities, as well as in the study of indirectness in the Bible and in the Talmud. Her latest publications focus on pragmatic aspects of media discourse and literary texts.