We illustrate the definition above by giving an example from the political interview conversational setting. In Section2.5 of the previous chapter we discussed a range of empirical studies on the nature of political interviews. Heritage, Greatbatch and Clayman analyse the distinctive organization of news and political interviews and describe how the institutions associated to each speaker restrict their roles (Clayman, 1988;Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991; Heritage, 1998; Greatbatch, 1988; Clayman and Heritage, 2002;Her- itage, 2005). They note that in practice these restrictions are occasionally not observed, but only as departures from the expected behaviour and of- ten resulting in problematic and even sanctionable courses of action. These sanctionable courses of action correspond with what we defined above as non-cooperative behaviour.
These insights and the literature on the analysis of political interviews discussed in Chapter2indicate that there is a consensus regarding the speak- ers roles in terms of what is acceptable during the conversation and what is not. An operational definition of non-cooperative behaviour specific to the roles of interviewer and interviewee in political interviews can thus be as follows:
• Non-cooperation of interviewers with respect to the political in- terview conversational setting happens whenever they:
2. argue, debate with or criticise the positions of the interviewee; 3. agree with, support or defend the positions of the interviewee; 4. criticise or attack the interviewee or their organisation;
5. after a response from the interviewee, they neither: – move on to the next question; nor
– state that the response is not a relevant answer; 6. interrupt or speak simultaneously with the interviewee; 7. end the exchange abruptly or threaten to do so.
• Non-cooperation of interviewees with respect to the political in- terview conversational setting happens whenever they:
8. ask questions of the interviewer (with the exception of CRs); 9. provide incomplete answers;
10. make unsolicited comments; 11. initiate changes of topic;
12. criticise or attack the interviewer or their organisation; 13. after a question from the interviewer, they neither:
– provide a suitable answer; nor
– state that the question will not be answered; 14. interrupt or speak simultaneously with the interviewer; 15. end the exchange abruptly or threaten to do so.
For illustration, consider the fragments in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. The utter- ances of each speaker are numbered and annotated with the behaviours they exhibit from the list above.
Turn Speaker Utt. Speech Features (11) paxman ir.1 (overlapping) Did you threaten to overrule
him?
6 (12) howard ie.1 Mr. Marriot was not suspended. 10,13 (13) paxman ir.2 Did you threaten to overrule him? 5 (14) howard ie.2 I have accounted for my decision to dismiss
Derek Lewis-
(15) paxman ir.3 (overlapping) Did you threaten to overrule him?
5,6 (16) howard ie.2 (overlapping) -in great detail before the House
of Commons-
10,13,14 (17) paxman ir.4 I note that you’re not answering the question
whether you threatened to overrule him. (18) howard ie.3 Well, the important aspect of this which it’s
very clear to bear in mind-
11,13 (19) paxman ir.5 (interrupting) I’m sorry, I’m going to be
frightfully rude but-
6 (20) howard ie.4 (interrupting) Yes, you can- 14
(21) paxman ir.6 (overlapping) I’m sorry- 6
(22) howard ie.4 (overlapping) - you can put the question and I will give you, I will give you an answer. (23) paxman ir.6 (overlapping) -it’s a straight yes-or-no ques-
tion and a straight yes-or-no answer: ir.7 did you threaten to overrule him? (24) howard ie.5 I discussed the matter with Derek Lewis.
ie.6 I gave him the benefit of my opinion.
ie.7 I gave him the benefit of my opinion in strong language, but I did not instruct him because I was not, er, entitled to instruct him. ie.8 I was entitled to express my opinion and that
is what I did.
9 (25) paxman ir.8 With respect, that is not answering the ques-
tion of whether you threatened to overrule him.
(26) howard ie.9 It’s dealing with the relevant point which was what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do,
11,13
ie.10 and I have dealt with this in detail before the House of Commons and before the select com- mittee.
10
Figure 3.1: Fragment of the Paxman-Howard interview (Example 1.1
in Chapter 1) annotated with the behaviours in the definition of non-
cooperation in political interviews. The numbers in the right-most column correspond with those in the definition on Page64.
Turn Speaker Utt. Speech Features (01) paxman ir.1 We’re joined now from his count in Bethnal
Green and Bow by George Galloway. ir.2 Mr Galloway, are you proud of having got
rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?
4
(02) galloway ie.1 What a preposterous question.
ie.2 I know it’s very late in the night, but wouldn’t you be better starting by congrat- ulating me for one of the most sensational election results in modern history?
8,11
(03) paxman ir.3 Are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?
4,5 (04) galloway ie.3 I’m not- Err, Jeremy, move on to your next
question.
(05) paxman ir.4 You’re not answering that one?
(06) galloway ie.4 No, because I don’t believe that people get elected because of the colour of their skin. I believe people get elected because of their record and because of their policies. So move on to your next question.
(07) paxman ir.5 Are you proud- 4,5
(08) galloway ie.5 (Interrupting) Because I’ve got a lot of people who want to speak to me.
10,14 ie.6 If you ask that question again, I’m going, I
warn you now.
15 (09) paxman ir.6 Don’t try and threaten me Mr Galloway,
please.
5
( . . . )
(28) galloway ie.7 You are actually conducting one of the most, even by your standards, one of the most ab- surd interviews I have ever participated in.
12
ie.8 I have just won an election. 10 ie.9 Can you find it within yourself to recognise
that fact?
8, 11 ie.10 To recognise the fact that the people of
Bethnal Green and Bow chose me this even- ing.
10,11
ie.11 Why are you insulting them? 8
(29) paxman ir.7 I’m not insulting them, I’m not insulting you 1,5 (30) galloway: ie.12 You are insulting them, they chose me just
a few minutes ago.
ie.13 Can’t you find it within yourself even to con- gratulate me on this victory?
11 (31) paxman: ir.8 Congratulations, Mr Galloway. 5 (32) galloway: ie.14 Thank you very much indeed. 15
(Waves, removes microphone and leaves)
Figure 3.2: Fragment of the Paxman-Galloway interview (Example 1.3
in Chapter 1) annotated with the behaviours in the definition of non-
Preliminary studies based on a similar definition lead to encouraging results (Pl¨uss, 2009; Pl¨uss, 2010). A fully cooperative dialogue is regarded as the ideal situation in which participants always do what is best to pre- serve the functioning of the conversation. In a political interview, this would refer to cases in which questions are answered directly and in a complete way, these answers are accepted without comments by the interviewer who goes on with the next question on the agenda, interlocutors speak in turn without interruption or overlapping, etc. The degree of non-cooperation of each participant was measured as the ratio between the utterances exhibit- ing one or more of the behaviours in the definition and the total number of utterances of the speaker. The rationale behind this measure was to capture the proportion of cases in which a speaker had made a decision on what to say and the contribution displayed at least one of the behaviours defined as non-cooperative. In the example in Figure3.1, for instance, these values are 5/8 = 0.625 for the interviewer (Paxman) and 7/10 = 0.7 for the inter- viewee (Howard). The respective values for the interviewer and interviewee in the fragment in Figure3.2are 6/8 = 0.75 and 10/14 = 0.714. Subsequent attempts to apply the scheme reliably on a larger corpus of interviews, how- ever, showed that the definition required a higher level of detail. Some of the shortcomings include:
• Ambiguity: for example, a personal opinion expressed by the inter- viewer in support of the views of the interviewee could be classed as 1 or 3 (or both);
• Non-exclusive categories: an interviewee avoiding a question by shift- ing the agenda, for instance, falls under three categories (10, 11 and 13), and even four if the shift is introduced by asking a question of the interviewer (8);
• Imprecision: for example, it is not clear what constitutes a question or an answer, the criteria for determining relevance and suitability of the contribution are underspecified, etc.;
• False positives: interruptions can be cooperative, for instance, when the listener detects an error or misunderstanding in the speaker utter- ance, a timely interruption can help preserve the flow of the conversa- tion1;
• Forced ratio: utterances are not the best unit for computing the degree of non-cooperation as one utterance can exhibit more than one of the behaviours in the definition;
• Coarse granularity: all the behaviours contribute the same towards non-cooperation, with an interruption, for instance, being equally non- cooperative as an attack or the covert avoidance of a question.