| This study analyzes political television interviews (PTI) conducted by American interviewers with Arab and Israeli interviewees. The dynamics of (PTI) and the variation in interactants' manipulation of language are investigated.; It is demonstrated that (PTI) are highly structured speech events governed by discourse rules and norms. In (PTI) the operating forces are interviewers' opening and interviewees' Responding Moves which are governed by specified discourse interconnectedness rules. According to certain structural and functional criteria, interviewers' Moves are classified as Original, Bound, and Re-opening Moves and those of interviewees' into Supportive and Non-supportive Responding Moves.; Questions and responses, which are the linguistic realization of Opening and responding Moves, are qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed. The form, multilayeredness, and content of questions; primary and secondary response features; the relationship among these features; and the effect of questions on responses are all investigated. It has been found that questions (especially their content) have a great deal of influence on responses.; These investigations, generalizations and conclusions constitute the bases on which a comparison and contrast were conducted between the two groups of interactants: Arab interviewees and American interviewers, and American interviewers and Israeli interviewees. It has been found that Israelis are more successful than Arabs in communicating their ideas. The reason for this asymmetry in communicative power lies in the imbalance in the content of questions and the discourse strategies interviewers use with each group of interviewees.; Among the contributions of this study to linguistics and discourse analysis is the comprehensive treatment of questions and responses, and the modification of Sinclair and Coulthard's model. In another study, based on the data analyzed, the researcher showed that those interviews can be utilized for teaching advanced EFL students.; This study shows interviewers and interviewees what has gone wrong. They could learn from it and produce more balanced, effective, and informative interviews. The audience, who are the main target of the interaction, could also learn about something they take for granted. They can now spot distortion in what, otherwise, would appear to be an objective interview. |
