Invoking time limits for managing responses in US Senate Judiciary Committee lower court nomination hearings
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 7750809 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Kristella Montiegel (0000-0002-2448-2951, University of Colorado, USA, autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 2024 |
| Volumen | 26 |
| Número | 6 |
| Páginas | 778-798 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2024-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Discourse Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 1461-4456 • E-ISSN: 1461-7080 |
| Editorial | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/14614456241252597 |
| OpenAlex | W4402937392 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 1 |
| Referencias citadas | 37 |
This study uses Conversation Analysis to investigate an interactional practice in US Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) lower court nomination hearings. Drawing from 13 hr and 36 min of data from Q&A rounds across 12 SJC hearings during 2020 and 2022, I document how senators’ invocations of the hearing’s time limits function as a resource for managing judicial nominees’ responses to their questions. I examine senators’ time invocations (TIs) in two main sequential areas: (1) When designing questions, and (2) when pursuing or challenging nominees’ responses. As a feature of question design, TIs help senators ‘move things along’ during their brief questioning time, as well as pin nominees to respond in ways preferable to the question. As a feature of pursuits or challenges, TIs help senators manage nominees’ off-topic, evasive, or unsound responses, thus ascribing different levels of accountability onto both nominees (for their inadequate responses to senators’ initial questions) and senators themselves (for the sequential and affiliative consequences associated with doing pursuing/challenging). Seven extracts are presented from a collection of 82 cases. Findings reveal how time limits can be leveraged by senators to advance various goals in this highly constrained and institutionalized context, including exhibiting and implicitly legitimizing partisan bias
Nomination · Political science · Conflict Management and Negotiation · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Law · Rhetoric and Communication Studies
Accounts of Conduct in Interaction
The News Interview
Power and affiliation in presidential press conferences
Chapter 2. The accountability interview, politics and change in UK public service broadcasting
‘OK, well, first of all, let me say …’
Analyzing the Rhetoric of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
Participants' orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction
Pop Quizzes” on the Campaign Trail
The Institutionalization of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
Pursuing Answers to Questions in Broadcast Journalism
Pursuing a Response by Repairing an Indexical Reference
Hypothetical Questions
Tactics and Styles in the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate
Conversation Analysis and the Study of Sociohistorical Change
First” matters
Time Reference in the Service of Social Action
Politically Speaking
One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch
I just need a yes or no
Questioning Presidents
Judging the “Vapid and Hollow Charade
Well-prefaced turns in English conversation
Polarization and the Judiciary
Announced refusal to answer
Conversation analysis in a US Senate Judiciary hearing
Questions of accountability
Grammar and Social Organization
Turn-taking and the structural legitimization of bias
The Increasing Senate Scrutiny of Lower Federal Court Nominees
Answers and evasions
Doing 'being interrupted' in political talk
| Obras citantes distintas | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 1 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Velocidad de citación | current |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 1 |