“Slipperiness, Evasion, and Ambiguity”

Abstract

Noncommittal political discourse in televised political interviews is examined in the context of Bavelas, Black, Chovil, and Mullett's theory of equivocation. The two central propositions of this theory are shown to be well supported. Bull and others' reconceptualization of the theory in terms of face and face management is also discussed. It is argued that the latter is more parsimonious in its explanation of equivocal discourse in political interviews. Furthermore, it may be extended to those instances in which politicians do reply to questions, and to the assessment of the interview performance of both interviewers and politicians. In addition, it provides a useful conceptual framework for future research on nonequivocal political discourse. Overall, it is proposed that in the analysis of political discourse, the main propositions of equivocation theory can be subsumed within the wider conceptual framework of face and face management.