Community Web Version Now Available
Sri Lestari
Professional Teacher
Could anyone explain this? Responses to challenges Since attributed assertions are often introduced in the spirit of devil's advocacy, interviewees generally seek to refute them, but as Clayman (1992), Greatbatch (1998) and Clayman and Heritage (2002) point out, they do so in such a way so as not to challenge the interviewer's naturalistic posture. They do it in three distinctive forms of response: firstly, by citing the same party as responsible for the previously expressed viewpoint; secondly, by simply referring to the disputed viewpoint without attributing it to anyone in particular either by means of using a general word such as 'premise', or by using the passive ' if that is being said'; lastly, interviewee may simply present a contrasting argument without referring to the prior viewpoint in a direct way, but rather indirectly. Thank you very much in advance.
11 de ene de 2016 9:33
Answers · 5
Hi Sri, Are the specific phrases which are throwing you off, or is it a case of dealing with the academic-speak of the text? Basically, the writer is talking about when "words are put into someone's mouth", eg. a celebrity didn't actually say anything specific, but the interviewer implied that the celebrity had a certain viewpoint. The writer goes on to describe three methods of rejecting the suggestion that the interviewer is trying to make, without directly opposing the interviewer.
11 de Enero de 2016
Sri Lestari
Language Skills
English, Indonesian, Other, Russian
Learning Language
English, Russian