M A I N E V E N T
When a Political Scientist inspects public oral discourse, he or she begins with examining the scenario for geopolitical considerations of which there are two: location of the (1) Podium, and (2) the Stage. The Podium is perceivable as either one of two things --- First, it typically pertains to a physical structure which abstractly separates the speaker from the audience as it gives the impression of authority. This holds true for the Stage as well, being an elevated structure also insistent of authority. Secondly, in terms of conversation analysis, Podium is the variable name given to the person who addresses inquiries being posed. Though it is recognized that the Questioner (Journalist) regularly wields more power in the sense that their inquiries direct the flow of the discussion, the power wielded by the podium involves the shaping of the flow, where there could be the limitation, non-restriction, or illusion of information. In both cases defining the podium, the podium is initially neutral dependent upon who is standing at it. The illusion of information is a point of fascination for the Political Scientist, as it is a strategy employed by most political figures and popular personalities who recognize the rights of people to information --- the task at hand would then be to attempt to provide while not providing information. This is a trick frequently employed, and will be discussed in full in the succeeding discussion.
Briefings as Institutional Talk
The exchanges which occur during a press briefing are classifiable under the rubric of institutional talk. How this differs from the basic activity of conversation is dependent upon the linguistic contexts of the conversation contains elements of the strategic [Harris: 1995]. Further, participants of the conversation are oriented towards the achievement of a core goal that has to do with the institution that is subjected to question [Drew & Heritage: 1992]. The sides have working goals which they attempt to achieve at the expense of each other.
Institutional settings also predictably impose particular limitations on the kind of language behavior which can be produced. The interaction may involve special and particular constraints on what one or both of the participants will treat as allowable contributions to the business in hand [Drew & Heritage: 1992]. More simply, there is the necessity to establish the distinction between highly formal settings and informal ones [Partington: 2003]. Press briefings are typically classified as less formal as there is the possibility of interpersonal communication between the participants on more than one social level, a ‘business level’, but also on more unofficial conversational levels. This has been reflected in the kinds of language used. Further, in the briefings the participants are often acquainted with each other. Partington [2003] maintains that one of the interesting aspects of the genre is the way that the talk transforms from one kind into another, from one social register to another. Press briefings may also become formal if the subject satisfies either one or both conditions where: (1) the subject involves a hot-button nationalistic, sentimental issue (e.g. Remembering 9/11) therefore abstract considering how constraints based on propriety apply, or (2) physical, observant of the formality or the sanctity of the surroundings (e.g. Church, banquet hall).
Institutional settings also predictably impose particular limitations on the kind of language behavior which can be produced. The interaction may involve special and particular constraints on what one or both of the participants will treat as allowable contributions to the business in hand [Drew & Heritage: 1992]. More simply, there is the necessity to establish the distinction between highly formal settings and informal ones [Partington: 2003]. Press briefings are typically classified as less formal as there is the possibility of interpersonal communication between the participants on more than one social level, a ‘business level’, but also on more unofficial conversational levels. This has been reflected in the kinds of language used. Further, in the briefings the participants are often acquainted with each other. Partington [2003] maintains that one of the interesting aspects of the genre is the way that the talk transforms from one kind into another, from one social register to another. Press briefings may also become formal if the subject satisfies either one or both conditions where: (1) the subject involves a hot-button nationalistic, sentimental issue (e.g. Remembering 9/11) therefore abstract considering how constraints based on propriety apply, or (2) physical, observant of the formality or the sanctity of the surroundings (e.g. Church, banquet hall).
Actors & Identities: On the Nature of Exchanges in Press Briefings
The general typification of participants is under the character of Questioner or Podium. Both actor classifications are capable of posing questions. The Institutional genre differs principally in terms of the goals and roles of the participants, the participants’ rights and obligations, permitted types of interaction, permitted contributions to the business in hand, and the long-term symmetry and or asymmetry of opportunity between participants [Partington: 2003].
