Coxn.Mun.L.Ca-Tion. and Conflict in Calls to a 'Talk Radio' Show
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Opimionata Dicoure: Coxn.mun.l.ca-tion. and Conflict in Calls to a 'Talk Radio' Show 1Dy Ian. Hutch-by D 1 s 1----ta--t. ion. ulz)na i-t.-t.d. f or -th q_ual if ica-tion of DPla I 1 in. Sociology Un.ivrsity of York IDpartmrit of Sociology Augut 1993 This research focuses on interactional processes involved in the management of arguments about public issues in the context of public access 'talk radio' broadcasts. The work has two principal thematic directions. One involves the study of argument itself. Here the concern is to analyse strategies for building oppositions and alignments in disputes over competing versions of reality. The second direction involves the application of an interactionist approach to the discourse of the mass media. Here a main concern is with social forces at work in the discourse which situate the participants on the asymmetrical footings of 'host' and 'caller s , and related asymmetrical distributions of resources for intiating, sustaining and terminating disputes. The study utilises the methodology of conversation analysis. Beginning with a discussion of how this method can be used to analyse argument as a social activity in both conversation and institutional interaction (Ch. 2), we proceed to detailed analyses of the opening sequences of calls (Ch. 3), uses of persuasive language in the presentation of opinions (Ch. 4), modes of sceptical discourse (Ch. 5), the role of interruption in arguments and verbal confrontations (Ch. 6), and the way in which interactional asymmetries and power are involved in the argumentative nature of the closings of calls (Ch. 7). In all these chapters, connections are sought between the ways participants conduct their arguments and constraints imposed by institutional features of the setting. 1 Acknowledgements 4 1. On Talk and 'Talk Radio' 6 Methodological preliminaries 8 The focus on talk 10 Conversation analysis: Action and context 14 Talking: The business of the talk radio show 20 Data used in the study 25 Some background context for calls 28 The organisation of the study 32 2. Talk and the Kanagement of Conflict in Conversation and Institutional Interaction 35 Approaching argument: Arguments as 'Action-Opposition' sequences 37 Parameters of opposition in conversational argument 39 Comparative approaches to the study of disputing in institutional contexts 51 Won-formal' institutional interaction 58 Foregrounding opposition: Aspects of conflict talk on talk radio 63 Opinionated discourse 75 3. Organising Participation: The Structure of Opening Exchanges 78 The work of opening sequences 80 The conventional opening 87 Breakdown repairs 92 Interactional routine and institutional process 98 Concluding remarks 102 2 4. Call Validations as Opinionated Discourse 105 Baling an argument 107 Basic elements of call validations 109 First sentences: Focusing attention on an 'issue' 118 Vocabularies of opinion: Baling the case for a strong view 126 Instigating an argument: Baking the point and inviting a response 133 Concluding remarks 140 5. The Pursuit of Controversy 142 Resources for arguing: Attributing a position and building a contrast 145 'Finding fault' 149 Ad hoc doubt 155 Recipients' work: Recognising and resisting 159 'They said it wouldn't _happen here' 165 6. Confrontation Talk: Aspects of 'Interruption' in Argument Sequences 170 Perspectives on 'interruption' 172 Interruption and confrontation 175 Pressing the point _home 181 Uses of interruption I: !Reining back' 187 Responding to interruption: Retrieving the line 192 Uses of interruption II: Interruption and control 195 Concluding remarks 201 7. Closing the Call: Structural Asymmetry in Conflict Termination 203 Closings as interactional achievements 206 Closing the call: Preliminary observations 210 Terminating conflict episodes 216 'Cooperative' call closings 219 Confrontational closings: The 'power of the last word' 974 Structural asymmetry in conflict termination 231 8. Conclusion 235 Appendix A: Transcription conventions 239 Appendix B: Data sample 244 Notes 270 References 291 3 A cow ecig- exi-ts The original impetus for this project stems from a period I spent as Research Assistant to Dr Colin Sparks in the School of Communication, University of Westminster. During that time I engaged in writing a study of talk on radio call-in shows, the research for which was unrelated and in addition to the work I was carrying out for Dr Sparks. The ideas in that original study* developed over the next year or two eventually to lay the basis for the present work. My thanks go to Colin Sparks for his generosity in allowing me the time and intellectual space to engage in this research project, with the underlying theoretical standpoint of- wtich he himself, I am certain, would want to take serious issue. Also at the University of Westminster, Paddy Scannell was of great help and encouragement to me during my first fumbling encounters with the literature of conversation analysis. His numerous and absolutely unselfish donations of personal time, advice, and intellectual enthusiasm were invaluable. My greatest debt is to my research supervisor over the last three years at the University of York, Dr Paul Drew. His careful, considered, and unfailingly incisive commentaries and criticism of my work have been instrumental not only in improving the structure and content of individual chapters, but also in shaping my own abilities as a researcher to develop and sustain the arguments those chapters contain. His patience has no doubt been sorely tested by my endless, compulsive tinkering, but if so, his professionalism has prevented him from showing it. 4 I acknowledge also the efforts of Laurie Taylor, Professor of Sociology at the University of York, in assisting me to gain access to the studios of the BBC in order to do some background ethnographic observation of a radio call-in studio at work, during the period of my research. Professor Emanuel A. Schegloff, of the University of California at Los Angeles, was kind enough to supply me with a significant amount of recorded and transcribed 'talk radio' data from his own library, which usefully supplemented my own corpus of recordings. Finally I wish to acknowledge the assistance of the Economic and Social Research Council, who funded the research on which this study is based. Two of the Chapters presented herein are based on publications which have appeared elsewhere. Chapter 5, 'The Pursuit of Controversy', is a revised version of my paper, The Pursuit of Controversy: Routine Scepticism in Talk on Talk Radio, which appeared in Sociology, Vol. 26 (1992), pp.673-694. Chapter 6, 'Confrontation Talk', is a revised version of my paper Confrontation Talk: Aspects of 'Interruption' in Argument Sequences on Talk Radio, which appeared in Text, Vol. 12 (1992), pp.343-371. *This research was subsequently published as Hutchby (1991). 5 Q xi a. 3_ ic ix ci • "1" z3t. 1 Ic R.a 1 L a • This is a study of social interaction and the use of language in a particular cultural setting, in which restricted forms of talk are routinely produced. The social setting in question is that of telephone conversations between hosts and callers to a British open line radio phone-in show, a type of broadcast communication that I will refer to, following the policy of its practitioners, as 'talk radio'. On talk radio a kind of discourse' is produced which is characterised by the expression and exchange of personal opinions about public issues of various kinds. Typically, callers (members of the public) call in to discuss with thy show's host matters on which they hold a strong view, about which they want to complain, or, less frequently, extol. In the data with which we will be concerned, hosts respond to callers' views first by listening to them, then by instituting discussions which, very frequently, become arguments with callers, by expressing scepticism of their views, taking issue with their stances, undermining the rational grounds of cases, and ultimately, taking up positions explicitly counter to those of callers. I will use the term 'opinionated discourse' to refer to these types of tendentious exchange. The aim of the study is, broadly speaking, to describe and analyse the interactional processes involved in the management of the arguments about public issues that routinely occur on some kinds of talk radio show.2 This involves us in following two principal thematic directions. One of these concerns the study of argument itself as a social practice. Here the task will be to analyse verbal strategies for building oppositions and alignments in disputes over 6 On Talk and 'Talk Radio' competing versions of reality. As we will see as the work progresses, questions such as these have been the subject of a significant body of recent sociological and sociolinguistic research, on which the present inquiry draws and to which, hopefully, it has something to contribute. The second thematic direction concerns the application of an interactionist approach to the discourse of 'mass media'. Although this is not a study in 'mass communication' per se, it is, nonetheless, about communication in a mass media setting: communication between members of the public and professional broadcasters which goes out via the radio to be received by an indefinitely large 'overhearing' audience. As I discuss below, mass communication analysts have in the past asked particular kinds of questions about talk radio: for instance, how effectively democratic is it, or in what ways might it function as an element in the shaping of, or else as a reflection of, 'public opinion'? These kinds of questions do not directly concern us here, however. My interest is in analysing the actual forms of talk through which the key activities of broadcast talk radio discourse - such as expressing opinions and arguing about them - are accompaished. But the fact that the discourse in question takes place in the context it does will still be treated as significant in a number of respects throughout the study.