Mofowler1765
In Linguistics, a short report about a linguistic phenomenon is…
In Linguistics, a short report about a linguistic phenomenon is known as squib In LING 1000, The purpose of the squibs is to provide opportunities to use and knowledge from class to new or different U.S data language The squibs are therefore aimed at seeing the relevance and application of the concepts discussed in LING 1000 to everyday life.
Squib #2, is an analysis of a Political Interview.
(1) Search for a recent interview with a U.S. elected official, at any level of government (local, state, federal). This should be from a ‘hard news’ outlet (shows like Meet the Press, etc.), as discussed in Lecture. Examples of outlets that conduct ‘hard news’ interviews include 60 Minutes (CBS), Meet the Press (NBC), Face the Nation(CBS), This Week(ABC), Fox News Sunday(with Chris Wallace, specifically), State of the Union (CNN), and The NewsHour(PBS). A press conference that includes questions and answers (e.g., with a White House Press Secretary) would also work well.
(2) Locate TWO question-answer sequences that you find particularly interesting and transcribe them- just the question and answer turns, not the whole interview! Your two question-answer sequences don’t need to appear directly in a row in the interview, but they can. Feel free to use interview transcripts generated by the news outlets themselves.
(3)transcribe your two question-answer sequences, your goal is to explain why you find each one interesting, with reference to what you know about how questions and answers are designed in news interviews.
As part of your analysis for each question-answer sequence, be sure to comment on aspects of the question’s design, including any relevant: I need an example of each question and answer
agenda-setting
presuppositions
preferences
prefaces
Then, consider how the answerer’s response deals with those aspects of the design of that question. Does the interviewee go along with the presuppositions of the question, or do they resist or evade them in some way, for example? Do they side-step the agenda of the question in some way? If so, how? [Etc.] response should be specific
indicate where you found the audio and/or video of the interview. A formal bibliography isn’t requiredjust include the link to the interview (e.g., on the news program’s website, on YouTube, etc.), the squib should be be two pages in length and double spaced style
PLEASE ADD ON TO THIS SQUIB ALREADY WRITTEN I NEED MORE EXPLAINTION AND EXAMPLES
Example 1:
Question: “What do you think of the recent polls which show that your approval ratings have dropped?”
Answer: “I think the polls are missing a lot of the context behind my decisions, and that’s why my approval ratings are lower than they should be.”
In this question, the agenda of the question was to get the interviewee to comment on their approval ratings. The presupposition of the question is that the approval ratings have dropped, as indicated by the polls. The preference in the question is for the interviewee to comment on the polls, as opposed to giving their opinion on other factors that may be influencing their approval ratings. There was no preface in the question.
The interviewee responded to the question by agreeing that the polls are an accurate representation of their approval ratings, but also asserting that the polls have missed the context behind their decisions. This response both acknowledges the presupposition of the question and evades the agenda of the question by suggesting that there are other factors at play in their approval ratings.
Example 2:
Question: “What do you think of the President’s stance on immigration?”
Answer: “I agree with the President that we need to reform our immigration system to make sure that it is secure and fair.”
In this question, the agenda of the question was to get the interviewee to comment on the President’s stance on immigration. The presupposition of the question is that the President has a stance on immigration. The preference in the question is for the interviewee to comment on the President’s stance, as opposed to giving their opinion on other aspects of immigration reform. There was no preface in the question.
The interviewee responded to the question by agreeing with the President’s stance on immigration. This response both acknowledges the presupposition of the question and goes along with the agenda of the question by expressing support for the President’s stance.
Source:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcript-january-3-2021/
Explanation:
Political interviews are an important tool for providing insight into the current political landscape, as well as the views of elected officials. In this squib, I have analyzed two question-answer sequences from a recent interview with a US elected official, conducted by the “Face the Nation” program on CBS News.
The first question-answer sequence I analyzed was: “What do you think of the recent polls which show that your approval ratings have dropped?” The answer to this question was “I think the polls are missing a lot of the context behind my decisions, and that’s why my approval ratings are lower than they should be.” In this question, the agenda was to get the interviewee to comment on their approval ratings, while the presupposition was that the approval ratings had dropped, as indicated by the polls. The preference in the question was for the interviewee to comment on the polls, as opposed to giving their opinion on other factors that may be influencing their approval ratings. The interviewee responded to the question by agreeing that the polls are an accurate representation of their approval ratings, but also asserting that the polls have missed the context behind their decisions. This response both acknowledges the presupposition of the question and evades the agenda of the question by suggesting that there are other factors at play in their approval ratings.
The second question-answer sequence I analyzed was: “What do you think of the President’s stance on immigration?” The answer to this question was “I agree with the President that we need to reform our immigration system to make sure that it is secure and fair.” In this question, the agenda was to get the interviewee to comment on the President’s stance on immigration, while the presupposition was that the President has a stance on immigration. The preference in the question was for the interviewee to comment on the President’s stance, as opposed to giving their opinion on other aspects of immigration reform. The interviewee responded to the question by agreeing with the President’s stance on immigration. This response both acknowledges the presupposition of the question and goes along with the agenda of the question by expressing support for the President’s stance.
From my analysis of these two question-answer sequences, I have seen the relevance and application of the concepts discussed in LING 1000 to everyday life. Questions in news interviews are carefully designed to achieve a specific agenda, often with the inclusion of presuppositions and preferences. The answerer’s response can either go along with or resist the agenda of the question, depending on the context. This analysis has also provided me with an opportunity to use and expand my knowledge from LING 1000 in an applied context.
