The use of persuasive repetitions by Russian and American presidents during press-conferences

The use of persuasive repetitions by Russian and American presidents

during press-conferences

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Communication and Information Studies

Discourse and Argumentation Studies

Table of Contents

1 Introduction...4

2 Figure of persuasive repetition as part of strategic maneuvering in political deliberation.7 2.1 The place of persuasive repetitions in presidential press-conferences and the reasons to use them ...8

2.2 Types of persuasive repetition...10

2.3 Functions of persuasive repetition...12

2.4 The positive and negative effects of persuasive repetition...15

2.5 Conclusion...17

3 The presidential press conference as an argumentative activity type...18

3.1 The relation between the questioner, answerer and the audience...21

3.2 Characterization of press conference activity type and the usage of repetition from an argumentative perspective of a critical discussion...25

3.2.1 Persuasive repetition in the confrontation stage of the press conference activity type ...28

3.2.2 Persuasive repetition at the opening stage the press conference activity type....30

3.2.3 Persuasive repetition in the argumentation stage of the press conference activity type ...32

3.2.4 Persuasive repetition in the concluding stage of the press conference activity type ...34

3.3 Conclusion...36

4 A comparative analysis of persuasive repetition in Russian and American presidential press conferences...37

4.1 Types, functions and the place of persuasive repetition in Obama’s press-conference

...38

4.2 Types, functions and place of persuasive repetition in Putin’s press-conference...44

4.3 Conclusion...52

5 Conclusion...53

References...56

Appendix A. The possible positive and negative effects of persuasive repetition in Obama’s press conference...59

Appendix B. The possible positive and negative effects of persuasive repetition in Putin’s press conference...62

1 Introduction

Politics plays an important role in people’s daily lives and the political events are being broadcasted in the news, on TV and radio programs, magazines and newspapers. In all the politician’s performances persuasive repetitions hold an important role in the delivery of the messages. Although the political discourses are always aimed at having a persuasive effect on the audience, the figure of persuasive repetitions in politics has never been entirely elucidated (Koch and Zarback, 2013). A number of researchers including Cacioppo and Petty (1979) have conducted various experiments regarding the effect of the repetition on the audience through which it has been concluded that the overall study of the effect of repetition and its figure seems to be incomplete. As it is a common occurrence that the speakers make use of iteration in order to persuade the audience this phenomenon can be studied and evaluated as an element of strategic maneuvering (van Eemeren and Houtlosser, 2002). With the help of pragma-dialectical theory the role of the persuasive repetition as part of strategic maneuvering in the answers of presidents during their press-conferences can be identified. I believe it is important to study the figure of persuasive repetition in presidential press-conferences firstly because the presidents are the leaders of the countries and people tend to believe and follow their points of view. Secondly, because during press-conferences, the presidents have the advantage of opening and closing the discussion, as well as choosing the questions to be answered; and these may enhance their ability of persuading the audience. Moreover, having the opportunity to choose the questions that they want to answer and eliminating the possibility of the journalists to interrupt their flow of thoughts (because of the format of the press-conference) the presidents therefore create more freedom, time and ability for themselves to convince the audience in their point of view. It is therefore important to identify the types of persuasive repetitions that are being used by the speakers and the functions that these repetitions pursue, which will help identifying the presidents’ persuasive attempts in the future. It is also important to identify the place of persuasive repetitions used in the discourse as the placing of the repetition might in itself strengthen its persuasive functions, making the audience withdraw their doubt and accept the president’s point of view. Persuasive repetitions do not only convince the audience about a certain point of view, they may also increase the liking towards the speaker. It is important to study the figure of persuasive repetition in order to broaden the knowledge about its types and functions that it pursues, as well as places where it occurs in the discourse.

The aim of this study is to identify the types of persuasive repetitions used by presidents in their press conferences, as well as to determine the persuasive functions that these types pursue. Following the theory of pragma-dialectics I aim to establish the places of repetitions that are being used by presidents in their answers and analyze them according to the stages of critical discussion described by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984; 2004). The experiments on the attitude of the listeners towards the repeated message conducted by Cacioppo and Petty (1979) have established that a frequent repetition may increase both the positive and negative reaction towards the information provided by the speaker. Koch and Zerback (2013) have examined the impact of persuasive repetitions on speaker’s credibility and have found that it might have two counteracting effects. On the basis of abovementioned researches conducted in this field the current study observes and analyzes the persuasive repetition aimed at persuading the audience used by Russian and American presidents during their press-conferences. Giving an analysis of possible persuasive repetitions performed by the presidents, this study elaborates on the types and functions of persuasive repetition, its places of occurrence in the discourse and the possible effects it can have on the listeners. The possible effects of the persuasive repetitions performed in presidential press conferences will be discussed in the appendices of this research and not in its main body as the study of these effects provides a qualitative effect analysis which I based on the data collected by other authors during their quantitative experiments. As these elaborations are purely qualitative and still need to be validated by means of a quantitative research, this might be a next step for future investigations. Following the answers of the Russian president Vladimir Putin during his press-conference (December 18, 2014) and the answers of American presidents Barack Obama (August 01, 2014) and George Bush (January 12, 2009), this research investigates the persuasive repetitions used by the presidents, their emplacement and their functions in the argumentation. The analysis will be provided on the basis of observations made in the transcripts of Russian and American presidents giving answers to the journalist’ questions at selected press-conferences.

In order analyze the usage of persuasive repetitions in presidential press-conferences, this study will provide answers to the following research questions: 1. What are the various types and

functions of persuasive repetitions used by the presidents during their press-conferences? 2. What kind of insight does the activity type of a press conference provide for the analysis of persuasive repetitions in an argumentative context? 3. How does persuasive repetition manifest itself in Obama and Putin’s press-conferences? It is expected that the presidents will make a frequent use of

persuasive repetitions giving answers to important issues where the speakers believe a difference of opinion might occur. It is also expected that the presidents will make use of a variety of types of persuasive repetitions which pursue different functions. Because of the character of the press-conferences, the speakers are expected to make use of self-repetitions more often than any other types.

Following the outline of this study, the second chapter gives a description of the persuasive repetition as part of strategic maneuvering and provides insights regarding the figure of repetition (Tannen, 1987) and its effectiveness in the political domain. The subsections of this chapter establish the place of persuasive repetitions in political speeches and the reasons for the speakers to use them (Koch and Zerback, 2013), the types and functions of the persuasive repetition (Johnstone, 1986; Cacioppo and Petty, 1979) and their possible positive and negative effects (Arkes, Hackett and Boehm, 1989). Chapter three gives a description of the character of presidential press conferences and gives an insight into why the persuasive repetitions occur more often in this type of discourses. It is expected that the presidents make use of the repetition of the same idea at the beginning and at the end of the conference in order to ensure that the message is being effectively adopted by the audience. Following the pragma-dialectical theory of a critical discussion (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1984; 2004) the analysis of the usage of persuasive repetitions in presidential conferences according to each stage of a critical discussion will be provided. Chapter four gives a comparative analysis of the types, functions and place of the persuasive repetitions used by the Russian and American presidents during the press-conferences. The conclusion of the research is accompanied by a discussion of the investigated data.

2 Figure of persuasive repetition as part of strategic maneuvering in political deliberation The repetition of persuasive messages is commonly and frequently used by politicians in their speeches, conferences, interviews and debates. Making use of persuasive repetitions during press-conferences the presidents can draw the audience’s attention towards their arguments thus convincing the audience in their accurateness. Moreover, presidential press conferences gain a large number of viewers who are potential targets to be persuaded by the president and performing persuasive repetitions the presidents can convince the audience in the accuracy of their point of view. As mentioned by Tannen (1987:559) the figure of repetition has a persuasive character. Every time a word or phrase is being repeated, it increases the chance of remaining in the memory of the hearer. Presidents actively use the strategy of persuasive repetition in order to achieve their goals, whatever those might be. In my opinion, the presidents have many more possibilities to persuade the audience by means of repetition during the press conferences as they have more time and freedom in expressing themselves. It is interesting to detect and establish what different types and functions of repetitions are being used by the presidents in order to achieve a certain persuasive effect on the audience and what effects they actually reach.

Repetition is a figure of speech that aims at focusing attention or emphasizing an important element. Persuasive repetitions are regarded as semantic repetitions because they tend to accentuate some elements of the speech in order to give them a heavier and stronger value. Repetition used in deliberations can become an effective strategic move of the speaker in order to achieve the desired effect. According to Aristotle, there are three ways the speaker can persuade an audience: 1. appealing to speaker’s character and reputation (ethos), 2. making an appeal to emotions (pathos) and 3. appealing to reason (logos). Making use of repetition the speaker attempts to emphasize or reinforce a key idea producing an amplification of the emotional effect (pathos). For amplifying this effect the speaker repeats the earlier mentioned words to add more information to the key idea. Here, the persuasive purpose of repetition is to focus the audience’s attention on the important elements of the speech. Raising the emotionality, the speaker makes the audience memorize the needed information (Adeishvili, 2013:440). Similarly, the informative part is strategically repeated for those listeners that missed the important part in the first place, thus increasing the chance of sharing the necessary information with a larger number of listeners.

Political deliberations give room to speakers to use strategic maneuvering in order to convince the audience of their points of view. As mentioned by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984:23), the language users do not only want their speeches to be understood, but they also want them to be accepted. This effect is being achieved by communication and interaction with the audience. According to van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2002:295), strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse refers to the strategic moves that the speaker performs trying to equilibrate between effectiveness and reasonableness. Making use of repetition is one of the strategic moves that a speaker can perform during a deliberative discourse. This phenomenon is considered to be pervasive in so many types of practices that it is being discussed by many researchers in different domains: law, politics, advertisement, etc. As already emphasized, this study discusses the use of the figure of repetition that has a persuasive aim in the political deliberations. Making use of the maneuver of repetition during press-conferences the presidents aim to convince the audience and achieve their political goals. Giving answers to the journalists’ questions during press-conferences the presidents make strategic use of repetition in order to make the audience adopt their point of view. Political deliberation is viewed as primarily strategic (Bobbio, 1984:24) and making use of the figure of repetition helps politicians to achieve their communicative interests. I believe persuasive repetition to be a good strategic maneuver used by politicians because it can make the audience adopt their point of view, making them think that it was their decision, while actually adopting the one actively promoted by the speaker. It is important to study the persuasive repetition in presidential press-conferences because people need to build their own point of view and not adopt the one that was imposed. The next section will elaborate on the places in the discourse where the presidents make use of persuasive repetitions and their reasons to use them.

2.1 The place of persuasive repetitions in presidential press-conferences and the reasons to use them

The answers of the presidents during press-conferences are aimed not only at informing, but at persuading the audience as well. The answers are organized and performed in an audience-directed way. This type of presidential discourse has the nature of a monologue, where mainly only the president’s attitude and points of view are spoken, aimed to impose the speaker’s point of view on the listeners. Considering this aspect of the political deliberation during the press conferences it might be concluded that persuasive repetition can be used by the president in the standpoint itself or

in the argumentation supporting the standpoint. From a pragma-dialectical perspective, advancing a standpoint is the first step performed by the protagonist in a confrontation stage of a critical discussion. Firstly the speaker repeats the key information in the standpoint (he might as well repeat the whole standpoint in order to be more persuasive) and if the speaker believes that the information does not have a proper effect on the audience, he might use repetitions in the argumentation given in support of that standpoint. As mentioned by Koch (1983:48), this phenomenon is called “presentation as proof” – the speaker attempts to convince his listeners using all means.

The following example reflects the repetition of a part of the standpoint used by president Obama. The standpoint reflects the message that the US administration invests an enormous amount of effort into resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The second utterance reflects the repetitions of the standpoint partially consisting of a word for word repetition:

Obama: “But with respect to, let’s say, the Israeli-Palestinian issue, this administration

invested an enormous amount to try to bring the parties together around a framework for peace and a

two-state solution. John Kerry invested an enormous amount of time.”

Here “John Kerry” stands for the US “administration” mentioned in the standpoint and “time” stands for the “effort” implied in the original standpoint. Thus, there is a direct repetition of the standpoint. Moreover, the repetition is performed right after the original standpoint strategically aimed to reinforce the effect of the standpoint on the audience.

The next example expresses the repetition of the argumentation used to support the standpoint expressed by president Obama. The standpoint reflects the idea that the US economy is getting stronger. The subordinate argumentation used in support of the standpoint reflects the indirect repetition of that standpoint. The used forms of repetition reflect the grammatical and semantic repetition. First of all, in order to emphasize the standpoint the arguments used in its support reflect a repetition of present continuous tense (the verb “to be” in addition to a verb with suffix “–ing”). The adverbs that accompany the present continuous tense are used in a comparative form (with an “–er” ending). In this context, the verbs “stronger”, “better” and “louder” semantically have a synonymous relation.

Obama: “So the good news is the economy clearly is getting stronger. Things are getting

The rules of the model described by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984:31) explain what particular speech acts need to be performed during each of the four stages of a critical discussion. During the confrontation stage, according to Searle’s taxonomy of speech acts (1979:13), for expressing the standpoints and advancing argumentation in its support the protagonist can use all kinds of assertives. In order to produce an effective and persuasive speech act, the discourse must be performed according to the Principle of Communication. The audience expects the speaker to perform a clear, honest, efficient and to the point speech (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1984:40). As mentioned by Cacioppo and Petty (1979:98), people tend to react negatively to sophisticated, unclear and irrelevant utterances and the repetition of those only increases the risk of the speaker to be disproved. Making use of repetition strategy, in order not to appear unreasonable, the speaker needs to find a delicate balancing between his persuasive interests and rational argumentation (van Eemeren and Houtlosser, 2002:297). In order to further elaborate on the characteristics of persuasive repetitions, the next section will elaborate on the various types of persuasive repetitions.

2.2 Types of persuasive repetition

In rhetoric there are several types of repetition, making use of which the speaker intends to convince the audience: 1. repetition of letters, syllables and sounds; 2. repetition of words; 3. of clauses; and 4. ideas. The persuasive repetition, a maneuver that is widely used by presidents in press-conferences is mainly focused on the last type, repeating the main idea, which in practice includes the repetition of words and clauses. In political deliberations, this persuasive repetition can be executed by the speaker in three forms: 1. self-repetition, when the speaker repeats himself; 2. a word for word repetition of another person’s statement; and 3. repetition of shadowing, which might include some additional words and can be produced with some delay in time (but following the same subject) (Tannen, 1987:578-592).

I expect Self-repetition to be the most frequently used type of repetition in press-conferences. This is caused by the usual setting of a press-conference, which is conducted in a question-answer form, where the questioner is entitled to speak only once, afterwards giving the turn to the president to answer the question. The answers of the presidents usually have a character of prolonged monologues which allow them to repeat themselves. Attempting to make the utterance more effective and accepted by the audience, the president uses the move of repeating the most important part of the information that he wants to be acknowledged by the listeners. In the following example

the American president Barack Obama (August 01, 2014) has made use of self-repetition form emphasizing the point of view that the countries with which USA have diplomatic relations understand the America’s input only after a period of time, when the relationship brings fruitful progress. Making use of self-repetition the president increases the chance of the utterance to be heard and accepted by a larger number of the listeners, reaching the attention of the audience that has not heard the utterance in the first instance:

Obama: “That’s been true in the Middle East. That’s been true in Europe. That’s been true

in Asia”

The word for word type of repetition of another person’s statement can have both persuasive and non-persuasive effect (Tannen, 1979:588). Although I believe the word-for word repetition of another person’s words might be strategically used by politicians in their answers aiming to have a persuasive effect on the audience, analyzing the earlier mentioned press-conferences, I have not yet observed this type of repetitions having a persuasive effect. I have noticed that in press-conferences this type of repetition is often meant as a linking utterance that is used by the speaker in order to produce a fluent speech while thinking what to say next. The term of “linking repetition” was used by Tannen (1979:167) defining a repetition that does not add new information to the discourse, but aids in performing a more fluent and well-thought answer. The following example presents a linking repetition used by the American president George Bush during his last presidential press conference (January 12, 2009). Here the president makes use of a word for word linking repetition reduplicating the words of the questioner. This fragment represents an informal interaction between the president and the journalist where the repetition of the years of collaboration acts as a joke.

“Bush: Yes, Suzanne. Finally got your name right, after how many years? Six years?

Q: Eight years. (Laughter.)

Bush: Eight years. You used to be known as Suzanne. Now you're "Suz-ahn."”

In this fragment the word for word type of repetition of another person’s words I believe does not have a persuasive effect and as already mentioned, no examples of this type of repetition aiming to have a persuasive effect on the audience have yet been identified. The reason to this might be the nature of press-conferences, where the speaker aims to persuade the audience repeating his own words and not the words of the antagonist (in this case, the questioner). I believe that this may lead to the conclusion that word for word repetitions of another person’s statement are uncommon or are rarely used in the press-conferences following a persuasive character. Nonetheless, this type of

repetition is common in other kinds of political deliberations where a conversation among more interlocutors is taking place (Tannen, 1987:588).

The third type is the repetition of shadowing where the speaker can repeat his standpoint later in the discourse and with some variation in wording (Tannen, 1987:592). This type of repetition I found to be commonly used in press-conferences especially because of the duration of the presidents’ answers to the questions. This allows them to repeat the key information multiple number of times in order to make the audience adopt the statement. In the following example president Putin at his press-conference, which took place in December 18, 2014, is repeating an idea that he needs the audience to accept. Answering to the concern expressed by a journalist regarding the current crisis in the Russian economy the president reassures the audience that even in such difficult times the country will be able to escape from this situation without significant trouble. To reinforce this effect of encouragement, the message that the speaker wants the audience to receive and to adopt is being repeated, thus increasing its effectiveness:

Putin: “Will we be able to handle this situation? I have already said that we will inevitably emerge from this situation with positive results. Inevitably!”

In the next example the president uses the repetition of shadowing, repeating the previously mentioned information with a slight delay. Repetition is performed a bit later in the discourse but along the lines of the same topic. Making use of the repetition “inevitably return to normal”, the speaker attempts to convince the listeners that the situation in the country is not critical, thus reinforcing their wishful thinking, as people tend to believe what they would like to be true, thus denying the evidence (Adeishvili, 2013:439):

Putin: “[…] and I will repeat that inevitably the situation will return to normal.”

In order to detect the intentions that persuasive repetitions might pursue, the next section will describe the functions of the abovementioned types of repetitions.

2.3 Functions of persuasive repetition

The persuasive repetition performed by the presidents during their press-conference has multiple functions. The first function of the persuasive repetition that the speaker is pursuing by reduplicating his earlier mentioned words, phrases or main ideas is to emphasize a standpoint with the aim of enhancing the effect of the speech (Mulholland, 1994:312). Here, the speaker aims at

pointing the listener’s attention toward the required piece of information. In the following example George Bush (January 12, 2009) gives an answer to the journalist’s question about a black president taking the post of the ruler of the country. He makes use of repetition in order to emphasize the idea that the country is going through changes and will always go in order to make it a better place to live:

Bush: “But there's still work to do. There's always going to be work to do to deal with people's hearts.”

As the political deliberations are usually aimed to persuade the audience, repetition can be performed as an effective strategic move following several persuasive functions. Besides the function of emphasizing a standpoint, the speaker uses repetitions to make the listener adopt and

memorize the idea. The effect that the speaker intends to achieve by using this move is to imprint the

necessary information into hearer’s minds. As mentioned by Johnstone “repetitions make things believable by forcing them into the affective field of the hearer and keeping them there” (Johnstone, 1987:208). Here, by means of repetitions the speaker makes an attempt not only to influence people’s memory but to implement in people’s minds a positive attitude towards the informational object. If the listeners hear the same information a number of times, their minds get used to the message and ultimately find it comforting. Making use of this strategy, President Barack Obama makes use of multiple repetitions in order to make the audience adopt and memorize his point of view. The following example is an excerpt from the opening speech of the president at the press conference held in the summer of 2014. The president tries to persuade the audience to agree with the idea that the country would do much better if the Congress would work properly:

Obama: “And the fact is we could be much further along and we could be doing even better, and the economy could be even stronger, and more jobs could be created if Congress would do the job that the people sent them here to do.”

In this fragment, president Obama repeats the words “could be” in the future tense, followed by adjectives in the comparative form (with the suffix “-er”). Using this self-repetition, I believe the president aims to implement in audience’s mind the idea that the congress slows down the development of the country. Making use of repetitions, he makes the audience adopt and memorize this idea.

This move also relates to the third function of the persuasive repetition, where the speaker attempts to increase the liking of the audience to the reproduced information. As shown by Cacioppo and Petty (1989:11) the strategy of repetition can have a positive effect on peoples’ attitudes and reasonable repetition of the same information seems to generate understanding of the statement argued and a better attitude towards this statement. I believe this type of repetition works only when the message of the statement is relevant; and does not have this persuasive effect on the audience if it is otherwise. If the statement does not have a high ranking of importance, there is a strong chance that the listeners will skip the information thus not paying enough attention to it. Attempting to make the utterance more effective and accepted by the audience by increasing its liking, the Russian president uses the move of repeating the most important part of the information that he wants to be acknowledged by the listeners in the argumentation supporting the standpoint. Here, the speaker made use of the self-repetition form, increasing the chance of the utterance to be heard and accepted by a larger number of the listeners, reaching the attention of the audience that has not heard the utterance in the first instance and make it believe that the Chinese contract in question is beneficial for Russian Federation thus trying to increase the audience’s linking towards the object of information:

Putin: “About the Chinese contract – it is not a loss-making project. It enjoys privileges on

both sides – on both sides, I must stress. This is true.”

The fourth function of the persuasive repetition is to reinforce a point or idea. The speaker believes that repeating a key idea multiple times will make the audience comprehend the importance of the discussed object and make it adhere and agree with the statement (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969:19). Moreover, to strengthen this reinforcement, the president concludes the sentence with the words that express his strong belief “this is true”. Although the functions of emphasizing an idea and reinforcing seem to be alike, they are still different. Repetition with the function of emphasis is merely related to highlighting a point of view that the president possesses while aiming to achieve the function of reinforcement. I believe the president tries to persuade the audience in a more extreme way, either raising their positive or negative attitude towards the subject of interest. As shown by Cacioppo and Petty (1979:105) in their experiments on the effect of repetition on the audience, it is beneficial if the speaker repeats only the relevant and important messages for the listeners, reinforcing the audience’s attitude towards the stronger arguments. If the speaker tries to reinforce audience’s attitude towards the weak arguments, the effect might be undesirable. The

experiments conducted by Cacioppo and Petty have shown that when the audience had heard a repetition that was irrelevant for them, their agreement with the source and the message was noticeably decreasing (Cacioppo and Petty, 1989:5). In the following example the American president Barack Obama makes use of repetition in order to reinforce his point of view that some issues between the Democrats and Republicans could have been easily resolved if they would only start acting on this point:

Obama: “On the supplemental, we agreed on 80 percent of the issues. There were 20 percent of the issues that perhaps there were disagreements between Democrats and Republicans. As I said to one Republican colleague who was down here that I was briefing about some national security issues, why wouldn’t we just go ahead and pass the 80 percent that we agree on and we’ll try to work to resolve the differences on the other 20 percent? Why wouldn’t we do that?”

In order to make an effective persuasive speech the speaker makes use of repetition either to emphasize or reinforce a point; make it likable to the audience and try to make the listeners remember it. In practice, the speakers often apply repetitions aiming to use all their positive functions in order to convince the audience in the adequacy of the statement. The next section will elaborate on effects that the speakers aim to achieve on the audience and the intentions they pursue using persuasive repetitions in their deliberations.

2.4 The positive and negative effects of persuasive repetition

Conducting experiments on the topic of frequent repetition of persuasive messages, Cacioppo and Petty (1979:3) have found that a multiple repetition can have two different effects on the audience: either increase credibility towards the subject or have an adverse effect, thus making the subject repelling. In this way, Cacioppo and Petty related both positive and negative effects to the credibility and agreement of the audience with the repeated message (Cacioppo and Petty, 1979:104). Further these effects are referred to as the first effect (increasing credibility) and the second effect (adverse, reducing credibility).

The first effect is described by Koch and Zerback (2013:993) as a “truth effect”, having a positive relationship between the repetition and credibility of the statement. They have established that people tend to rely on the messages that have been repeatedly encountered. Recipients rely easier on messages that sound familiar (Arkes, Hackett and Boehm, 1989:82). The repetition of a statement increases the familiarity and leaves a false impression that the message has been heard

earlier in another context. This unconsciously leads the listeners to an increased belief in the truth of the statement (Hasher, Goldstein and Toppino, 1977:108).

Arkes et al. have established that the strength of the truth effect depends on such factors as recipient characteristic, engagement with the topic and the structure of the topic (Arkes et al., 1989:81-89). The authors have concluded that it is very important that the listeners possess certain prior knowledge about the object of the discussion. If the listeners are confronted with the statements they have no knowledge about the truth effect weakens. The structure of the topic must be deliberative, clear and not sophisticated, as mentioned earlier: people react negatively to the unknown subjects and feel more familiar if it is otherwise (Arkes et al., 1989:85).

Cacioppo and Petty have found that the second effect of repetition had a negative impact on the audience leading to a decrease in the credibility and agreement of the audience with the statement (Cacioppo and Petty, 1979:97). This happens when the speaker overuses the repetition of the same idea. According to Koch and Zerback (2013:996), the speaker overuses the repetition of an idea when he makes use of more than 4-5 repetitions in a short period of time. They have described that the persuasive effect weakens if the speaker repeats the same idea more than three times in a period of three minutes. The audience perceives the statement as an attempt to persuade, thus evoking a negative reaction to it and a decrease in statement credibility. In turn, this reduces the listeners’ trust both in the source and in the message (Koch and Zarback, 2013:994). Usually it happens if the listener recognizes the speaker’s attempt to persuade or when the speaker’s persuasive intention is mentioned in advance.

Though both positive and negative effects depend on the relevance of the subject and attachment of the audience towards the speaker, it is difficult to examine these effects properly without providing a quantitative research on this matter. Either way, I believe it is important to emphasize the possible positive and negative effects that a persuasive repetition might have on the audience. In my opinion, it would be biased to analyze and review all the persuasive repetitions used by the presidents in their press-conferences as successful persuasions. Using the quantitative data on the effects of persuasive repetitions received in the experiments conducted by Cacioppo and Petty (1979; 1989), Koch and Zerback (2013), Garcia-Marques and Mackie (2001) and other researchers, I will try to analyze the possible effects that frequent repetitions could have achieved on the

audience. As this analysis will be purely qualitative, although based on the quantitative data received in experiments conducted by the abovementioned researchers, the analysis of possible positive and negative effects of repetitions will be provided in Appendices A and B. The analyses will be based on the repetitions performed by the Russian president Putin and the US president Obama during their press conferences. The research will follow the analyses provided in chapters three and four. 2.5 Conclusion

Aiming to persuade the audience, the speaker can often make use of self-repetition, word for word repetition and repetition of shadowing and there are many reasons to do that. Depending on the situation the reasons may vary, but the aim is always to: 1. make the audience accept his standpoint; 2. raise credibility towards the source and the message; 3. withdraw potential doubt of the audience. To convince the audience in the credibility of their standpoints the speakers use persuasive repetitions in order to emphasize and reinforce a point or idea, make the audience accept and memorize their point of view and increase the liking of the audience towards the discussed subject. Koch and Zerback (2013:995) in their experiments on the frequency of repetitions have demonstrated that repetitions indeed increase the statement credibility. This gives an insight on the reason why politicians use frequent repetitions of their assertives. It gives them a possibility to perform a more effective speech aiming at making the audience accept their point of view. Making use of strategic moves, the speaker must always evaluate the reasonableness and relevance of the argumentation in order to reach the persuasive effect. The line between the positive and negative effect of a persuasive message imposed on the audience is very thin and performing a repetition more often, not enough implying reasonableness in the message might lead to aggressiveness of the audience which is directly related to the image of the speaker. As has been already mentioned, the persuasive repetitions during the press conferences are only performed by the presidents during the confrontation and argumentation stages, advancing the standpoints and argumentation in its support. In order to analyze and evaluate the press conferences, the model of critical discussion should be applied. This is being described in the next chapter of this study.

3 The presidential press conference as an argumentative activity type

A presidential press conference is a media event where the journalists are invited to hear the presidents speak and the press can ask questions and receive an immediate response. Such press conferences are of a great value because these meetings are usually held for hours during which the presidents publicly discuss current political events (Eshbaugh-Soha, 2012:473). The conference is covered by TV news, radio stations, national newspapers and newsmagazines. During crisis situations press conferences have a special value as the presidents provide answers to burning questions regarding particular events and press-conferences give them an opportunity to explain their policy decisions (Kumar, 2007:256).

Press conferences usually begin with the president’s opening statement; continue with answers to the journalists’ questions and end with a concluding statement from the president (Eshbaugh-Soha, 2012:472). This activity type is of great importance as it differs from political interviews where the presidents are face-to-face with one of the press representatives and where the journalist plays as an active antagonist, having the opportunity to raise doubt and question the protagonist until obtaining the desired effect. It is also different from the political speeches where the presidents reproduce discourses prepared in advance. The press conference gives the listeners an opportunity to hear quasi-spontaneous speeches, but because of the different format from the political interviews, it still gives the presidents a possibility to perform a well thought response to the journalists’ questions (Smith, 1990:65). As during the news conferences the correspondents can ask only one question and are not supposed to bring forwards the follow-up questions, in order to give the president the possibility to answer as many questions from different media channels as possible, it also gives the president the opportunity to produce a well thought answer that can steer the discussion into the direction effective for him.

Despite the abovementioned differences between press-conferences, political speeches, political interviews and debates, there are similarities as well. The introductory and closing speeches as well as the president’s answers have a structure of short monologues as in the political speeches, while the implicit doubts expressed in the questions and presidents’ defense of their points of view might have similarities with debates and political interviews. Some press conferences might be held only between the president and the journalists, while others are held with a chairman acting as an

intermediary and maintaining a logical order of questions. A chairman is also present in debates, giving opponents the right to speak and defend their points of view. A press conference is a perfect place to make use of persuasive repetitions as the speakers have more freedom to appeal to listeners’ emotions (Smith, 1990:65). In a political interview, it is more likely that the speaker will be attacked by the journalist who by playing the role of antagonist will try to decrease the persuasiveness of the speaker’s answer. In a debate, the protagonist and antagonist are always involved in a conflict of interest where the strict timeframe considerably decreases their possibility to freely perform a persuasive speech. Following the mentioned differences and similarities between such activity types as press-conferences, debates, political speeches and interviews, it is easier for the president to perform a more persuasive speech during a press-conference. Because of the restrictions imposed by the format of the press-conference presidents have more possibilities to use persuasive repetitions in order to convince the audience of their points of view.

Not only the structure of the press conference differs from other activity types, but the press-conference itself changes over time and the way of holding it varies from country to country1_. Trying to analyze repetitions used by the Russian and American presidents during news conferences I have observed that there is a number of differences in the way these meetings are conducted. Although the design of the press conference has a similar question-answer form in both countries, it has been observed that both during Bush and Obama’s answers to journalists’ questions the follow-up questions were allowed. Moreover, some sort of dialogue could be conducted between the president and the same correspondent that has advanced the previous question. This gives an opportunity to both parties to accomplish their goals of persuasion and accountability (Smith, 1990:93). When the follow-up questions are asked and the president continues providing answers to them, it allows the journalist to properly act as antagonists and cast doubt of the president’s words or even present a new standpoint that counteracts with the president’s point of view. When the follow-up questions are allowed, they provide more freedom to the press and can stagger the protagonist’s position.

1 As mentioned by Kumar (2003:223) the way of holding a press conference changes over time: some presidents use to go publicly quite often, others try to decrease the number of conferences or conduct the conferences without giving answers to the press; some presidents require the reporters to submit the questions in advance and answer only selected questions. Along with these and other differences that are mainly caused by the preferences of the current president, there are some cultural differences in conducting a press conference as well.

Contrary to the American way of conducting press-conferences, I have noticed that in Russia the journalists are not allowed to bring follow-up questions and if they do, the president or the chairman remind them about it, implying that there are other correspondents that are also willing to have their questions answered. The following example is the reaction of president Putin to one of the follow-up questions:

Journalist: May I ask my second question now?

Putin: Ms. Sobchak, let’s show some respect for others and have one person ask one question.

It makes clear that the president does not want to answer more than one question, backing it up with the fact that others have questions as well and the president’s aim is to give answer to questions coming from as many different sources as possible. There were two attempts during Putin’s three hour conference, where the correspondents tried to advance more than one question and only one of them succeeded to get the second answer. The next example illustrates the president’s strong position to multiple questions:

Putin: Well, do you have one question or two? Journalist: I have three.

Putin: Three! What will the others do while we debate all this until morning?

The journalist from the previous example did not succeed in his attempt of getting multiple answers as the president made clear that only one question per journalist is allowed. Since I have noticed that follow-up questions are a usual occurrence during press conferences of American presidents, no such examples will be provided as there are too many and they evolve into the form of short dialogues. In the transcripts of both Bush and Obama’s press conferences I have noticed that the interrogation of the presidents was conducted in the question-answer form often performed in short dialogues where the same journalist could continue bringing follow-up questions aiming to receive a full picture of the president’s opinion on the topic. Though the presidents were choosing whom to give the next word to, no such aggressive position as aiming only for one question per journalist as found in the Russian way of holding press conference was identified by me in the American conferences.

For these reasons, I may conclude that in the Russian presidential press conferences the speakers have many more possibilities to persuade the audience by means of repetition. If the president has more freedom in expressing himself, eliminating the possibility of the journalists to interrupt their chain of arguments, then it is expected that they will repeat the key ideas that they

want the audience to accept. By means of repetition they will emphasize and reinforce the information aiming for the audience to adopt and increase the liking towards the particular piece of information.

3.1 The relation between the questioner, answerer and the audience

Following the format of the press conference as an activity type, it is important to emphasize that the question-answer relation between the president and the journalists also includes a third party – the audience that inactively acts as a judge (van Eemeren, 2010:154). In this relation, both the protagonist and antagonist, performing their strategic moves aim to persuade this audience and convince it to take their side. From this point of view it can be concluded that there is a difference of opinion between the questioner and the answerer. Although the correspondents’ questions are not always aimed at arguing with the president, the frequency of putting questions that doubt president’s point of view is rather high.

The pragma-dialectical theory to argumentation provides a framework that helps analyzing the relationship between the antagonist, protagonist and the audience; both speakers aim at persuading the audience to share their position in the arisen difference of opinion (van Eemeren, 2010:112). The duty of the questioner, who plays the role of the antagonist in the press conference, is by means of asking the question to express the doubt in the protagonist’s words or deeds. In the scenario when follow-up questions are acceptable, the antagonist can proceed on questioning the protagonist’s argumentation or aiming to refute his standpoint. Alongside, the duty of the protagonist, in this case - the president, is to withstand the criticism and convince the antagonist and the audience in the correctness of the standpoint and argumentation put forward. The protagonist will make use of different strategic maneuvers in order to convince the audience and the antagonist of his rightness (van Eemeren, 2010:112).

As mentioned by van Eemeren (2010:1) the participants of the discussion have to conduct the argumentative discourse with each other as if it is aimed at resolving the arisen difference of opinion on merits, which is very important in order to appear reasonable in front of the audience. Analyzing the argumentation provided during the press conference as described by Smith (1990:110) it is important to take into account the nature of a “good” press conference question and a “good” press conference answer (Smith, 1990:110). I believe that under “good” the author implies

a relevant question and answer, both based on reliable evidence. Journalists often bring forward a critical topic question aimed at putting the answerer in a challenging position. Answering such a question in a straight manner conveying the information that an audience would like to hear - plays a crucial role in the persuasion of the audience. The journalist’s “good” question must be tricky and creative so that the president could not avoid answering it.

The president’s answer must be well organized bearing no shade of inconsistency, as journalists are so impatiently seeking it in order to point it out. I believe a good answer consists of not just showing the understanding and giving substantial information on the topic, but also seeks to be persuasive. The president must always take into account the complexity and importance of the question and answer accounting for the current situation of the country. If the president decides to answer extensively to a less relevant question, this response could jeopardize his leadership image (Smith, 1990:110). Such example of less relevant answer was detected in Putin’s press conference, where answering to important crisis related questions and the questions of national currency instability, the president decided to emphasize the importance of one of the questions related to the selling of “Vyatka kvass” (a fermented drink, commonly made from black or rye bread). Along with this, the questioner took a turn that was not given to him, but to his colleague from Turkey. This move has already made the situation inappropriate and politically incorrect:

Putin: Let’s give the floor to the gentleman from Turkey and then to Georgia, alright?

Journalist: Good afternoon, Mr Putin. Vladimir Mamatov, Reporter newspaper, from Kirov, which used to be Vyatka.

Chairman: But you are not from Turkey.

Journalist: Well, true, it’s just happened… Thank you for the applause. Compared to the global macroeconomic issues and my colleague’s aunt, my question is really insignificant. […] My question is minor but still important. You see, my region produces kvass. […] But the problem is neither Auchan nor other major retail chains will buy it even though the taste and price are better than Coke, Pepsi and whatever else they make. What should we do about Vyatka kvass and the supermarket chains? Is there a way to get it on the shelves?

Putin: Well, you know, jokes aside, this is a very good question.

This question and answer would not rise that much doubt and attention during some other press conferences, but taking into consideration the economic instability of the country and other economic problems that the nation was facing at that moment; such an emphasis of this less relevant topic does not give credit to the president. Moreover, the length of this answer was not much shorter in comparison to the length of some other answers related to more hot and important topics. This leads to the assumption of the president’s encouragement and eagerness to answer less significant

questions. Not all the questions are equal and a president must take this into account whenever he has to answer one. If the president mistakably answers an unwarranted question, this leads him to acting and responding unreasonably (Smith, 1990:115).

According to Smith (1990:110), the press conference questions seek several types of response:

The first type of response seeks for a president’s statement of attitude on a topic or event. As the president is considered to be the most important person in the country, it is very important for the people to know about president’s attitude towards different sort of issues and events. This does not mean that they disagree with the president, but they are just being curious or because they haven’t made their minds on that topic yet and seek to see the attitude of the president on it (Smith, 1990:94). Although it is possible that by means of putting this type of question the antagonist aims to cast doubt on the protagonist’s standpoint, it is presupposed that more often this type of questions seek the president’s personal attitude towards the event. But this can be sorted out only taking into account the context of the discussion. Depending on this, the president might either make use of persuasive repetition, or simple repetition that has nothing to do with persuasion or refrain from using repetitions altogether. The last variant is less likely as in the verbal, improvised live speech people make use of repetitions in order to gain some time to formulate the next idea or link one idea to another. Such repetitions are not of interest in this study as they do not have a persuasive function and people usually do not pay attention to them unless they are too frequent, which might make the listeners nervous.

The second type of response seeks for a resolution of an inconsistency that has earlier been identified in the president’s words. People do not like inconsistencies and in case the speaker has been accused to make one, then the antagonist will try to refute the protagonist’s words, thus forming a mixed difference of opinion in the discourse. If the president has been caught on performing an inconsistent answer, and is not ready to argue for it, then he will most likely use non-persuasive repetitions. But if the protagonist is ready to argue his point of view, he will most likely repeat the key ideas multiple times in order to make the audience adopt this point of view, decrease the caution towards the idea and if possible – increase the liking (Smith, 1990:95). The last point depends on the protagonist’s abilities to perform emotional and argumentative answers, directed towards the audience.

The third type of response seeks for a clarification on a policy or action – this does not immediately mean that the antagonist doubts the protagonist’s actions but rather seeks for more detailed information about the steps that had been taken (Smith, 1990:102). The persuasive repetition here might emphasize the arguments in support of the importance of the steps that had been taken. By means of repetition, the president reports on the work that has been done and trying to convince the audience that it was a right choice.

The fourth type of response seeks for some agreement or disagreement with a statement of

advocacy (Smith, 1990:110). This type of response is expected to be very argumentative as it has to

prove that the protagonist’s position towards the statement is the correct one. Here the protagonist does not only have to show it but to convince the listeners of its correctness. The protagonist is expected to make use of self-repetitions and repetitions of someone else’s words. In order to make his answer get the attention of the public the president will try to emphasize and reinforce by means of repetition the most important arguments that support his standpoint.

The fifth type of response seeks for some reaction to an attack (Smith, 1990:103). This means that there is a mixed difference of opinion where the president has to convince the antagonist and the audience in the correctness of his standpoint, thus eliminating the doubt and refuting the antagonist’s standpoint. By means of persuasive repetition in the argumentation provided in support of the standpoint, the president will try to convince the audience making use of repetition only of the relevant arguments aiming to have a positive effect on the listeners. As mentioned by van Eemeren (2010:113) the protagonist will try to make use only of those arguments that agree with the audience’s sphere of interest. This will help the protagonist convince the audience.

The sixth type of response seeks for elaboration on an earlier response (Smith, 1990:110). As the first and second type, it is anticipated that the protagonist is less likely to make use of persuasive repetition as this type of question does not immediately imply a difference of opinion. As in many other cases, the president is expected to bring more light on his earlier response. It is presupposed that the president will make use only of a few persuasive repetitions or will not use them at all, as he does not have to convince the audience of anything. On the contrary, if the question does imply a difference of opinion then the protagonist will have to use a line of arguments in order to convince the listeners, thus most likely making use of the persuasive repetitions.

Both the president and the audience must understand what type of response the journalist seeks. If the question is clear and the president answers not in accordance with what is anticipated, the audience will notice it and this will not play in the favor of the answerer as a consequence decreasing the attachment of the audience towards the source. The protagonist must always give answers to the relevant question and understand what the public expects him to do.

Regarding the audience, one of the complications in reconstructing a discussion, as van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004:99) describe, is identifying the audience, as it is not always clear who exactly has to be convinced by the protagonist’s standpoint. Although the interaction is being actively performed between the president and the correspondents, the questioners are not the only intended audience that the president seeks to convince. Van Eemeren and Grootendorst described that in the political debate there are two antagonists: the official antagonist and the real target group, who are in fact the listeners and readers (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004:99). I believe there are in fact more than two audiences that play an important role in the conclusion of the press conference. By convincing the journalists present at the conference, the president reaches other members of the media that are waiting for the news and will cover the event further on the radio, television and newspapers. Additionally the president aims to persuade the largest audience, which is the general population. In this way, in the press conference, there is in fact not one antagonist, but three: the official antagonists, the newsmakers and the general population. The persuasion of all these audiences and the creation of a good impression about the president during the press conferences are directly linked to the possibility of gaining these audiences’ votes during the next presidential campaign. If a critic aims to analyze the press conference, the questions and the answers produced together with all the attempts to persuade, he must not concentrate only on those individuals presented at the press conference, but also on the other, larger audiences (Smith, 1990:119) as in the end they are the ones that form the resolution of the difference of opinion between the politicians and general population.

3.2 Characterization of press conference activity type and the usage of repetition from an argumentative perspective of a critical discussion

The press conference activity type is essentially or predominantly argumentative which provides room for the use of strategic maneuvering. As described by van Eemeren (2010:147) the press conference activity type refers to the genre of deliberation in the domain of political

communication. There is a mixed or non-mixed difference of opinion between the protagonist, which is the president and the main antagonist, which is the correspondent. Though the interaction between the president and the questioners is explicit in the press conference, in reality both parties aim to gain the support of the audience, which consists of the listening, reading and watching citizens. Although the audience is not actively participating in the press-conference, it nevertheless determines the outcome of the deliberation. This is the reason why the presidents aim to be persuasive in their talks in order to eliminate the doubts of the journalists and the audience towards the topic of discussion. The difference of opinions can be regarded as resolved if the audience accepts the president’s point of view (van Eemeren, 2010:154).

There is room for strategic maneuvering during all four stages of deliberation. In order not to act unresponsive or non-cooperative and to keep a good image the presidents are forced to answer all the questions asked by the journalists. In order to make it work in their own favor, I have noticed that the presidents impose a set of constraints on the questioners participating in the deliberation. The constraints are part of strategic maneuvering that help presidents maintain the course of the discussion that is safe for their own image. One of such constraints that I have noticed is the ability of the president or of the chairman to choose who is going to ask the question next. In this way, I believe the speakers can ignore the journalists that they know will most likely ask tricky questions or questions that might show inconsistencies in the president’s words. Another noticed constraint applicable to some press conferences is the restriction of the journalists to ask only one question, this allows tailoring the response in a favorable way for the president. As mentioned earlier this constraint has been imposed by the Russian president, along with the constraint on the ability of putting follow-up questions. Such constraints allow presidents to more effectively persuade the audience and maintain a good image as the journalists are not allowed to continue their questioning on the same topic trying to contradict the president casting doubt on his words or providing a counter standpoint (Kumar, 2003:226).

As mentioned by Freeley and Steinberg (2008:287) there are several factors delivering the speech that will make persuading the audience easier. First of all, the speaker must understand the audience he is confronting and adapt his language according to the context and reflecting the tastes of the contemporary audience. The speaker must be very clear and use appropriate vocabulary.

Secondly, by painting a vivid picture in the minds of the listeners, the president increases the chance of persuading it (Freeley and Steinberg, 2008:289). Repetition plays an important role in it, as it guarantees a larger number of the listeners that heard the information and helps the audience adopt and memorize it.

Thirdly, the president must be able to use and repeat the words with emotional connotation (Freeley and Steinberg, 2008:290). This will help the president make the audience pay attention to the most important pieces of information and hold their attention longer.

Fourthly, it is very important for a speaker to develop his speech towards the culmination in order to keep the listeners focused, thus increasing the chance of persuading them (Freeley and Steinberg, 2008:291). All the used repetitions must build up to the most important idea, which is the main standpoint that the president tried to convince the audience during the whole press conference. At the end of the conference, the president might give a short summary of the most important arguments, thus once again emphasizing the standpoint.

The fourth point leads to the fifth, which is the importance of having an effective conclusion. It embraces the repetition of evidence and reasoning (Freeley and Steinberg, 2008:292) that help convincing the antagonist and the audience, thus eliminating the difference of opinion.

All the above mentioned factors help the protagonist deliver an argumentative and persuasive answer. As during the press conference the presidents perform argumentative answers in order to rule out potential doubt that the antagonist and the audience might have, it is important to analyze the way the difference of opinion is being resolved. The pragma-dialectical theory described by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004:59) provides a framework for analyzing and evaluating an argumentative discourse. Argumentation provided in the critical discussion aims at resolving the difference of opinion between the interlocutors. The pragma dialectical theory describes four stages of a critical discussion ensuring a rational resolution of the difference of opinion. The answers of the presidents during the analyzed press-conferences will be described in the next chapters according to the four stages of a critical discussion.

3.2.1 Persuasive repetition in the confrontation stage of the press conference activity type The initial situation in a press conference is related to the confrontation stage in the critical discussion and it establishes the difference of opinion between the president and the correspondent. As described by Andone, the difference of opinion in political interviews arises between the participants because the politicians always try to give positive evaluation of their performance, where the interviewer casts doubt on this evaluation (Andone, 2013:39). Following the similarities between the political interviews and presidential press-conferences it can be established that one of the main reasons why the difference of opinions arises is the president’s aim to persuade the audience by pointing at positive issues that often do not correspond to the reality. The presidents’ speeches often elucidate less relevant events that have a positive mindset, but are not related to other possibly critical issues that the audience and the journalists are worried about. This is the reason why the journalists have to extract the information from the presidents, often concomitantly advancing doubt on their prior words or deeds.

Although the discussion between the president and the correspondent takes place in a question-answer form, because of the press-conference format, the protagonist, who is the president, has plenty of room for deviation from the answer. As the format of questioning at the press conference is different from the one at political interviews for example, the journalists cannot interrupt or keep on questioning until they get the desired result. This gives the president an opportunity to give the answer to the question in his own way, even having the ability to strategically deviate from the tricky questions, steering the answer in a direction beneficial for them and creating room for persuasion (Smith, 1990:73). As the duration of the answers, depending on the complexity of the question, usually varies between three and five minutes, the presidents have an opportunity to present a reasonably prepared monologue, adapted to the liking of the audience. This gives the answerer a good opportunity to emphasize a point of view by means of repetition.

Freeley and Steinberg (2008:294) describe that it is very important to keep in mind the position of the emphasized idea. It is considered that the emphasized idea at the beginning or the end of a speech has a greater persuasive effect than in the middle. Thus, if the protagonist repeats the standpoint in the beginning and in the end of their answer, it will have a greater emphasis than if they repeat it in the middle of the answer. The positioning of the repetition plays an important role

in the discussion and by the end of the conference; this increases the possibility of the audience and the journalists to adapt the president’s point of view.

For both the journalist and the president the individuals that read, listen and watch the press conference are the primary targeted addressees. These are the people that in the concluding stage will determine the outcome of the deliberation (van Eemeren, 2010:148). For this reason the president’s aim is to not let the journalist address a more difficult and tricky question that could possibly lead the answerer to a deadlock or force him to make an inconsistency. On the other hand, the president’s task is to perform a reasonable, acceptable and persuasive answer that would increase the liking of the audience and make it accept his visions.

On the basis of the question-answer format of the press conference, the confrontation stage can be identified in various parts of the press-conference. First of all, the first confrontation stage can be identified in the introductory speech of the president, before he gives the journalists the right to put questions. If the president knows that many people do not agree with some words or actions taken recently by the president, he might start the conference already influencing people’s attitude to take his position. He will most likely use repetitions in support of his standpoint. The following excerpt is taken from the introductory speech of president Putin; it highlights the multiple repetitions of the standpoint that “The current difficult situation of the country was provoked by external factors”:

Putin: “I believe we all know that the main issue of concern to this country’s citizens is the state of the economy, the national currency and how all this could influence developments in the social sphere. […]The current situation was obviously provoked primarily by external factors. […]Now, as you may know, the situation has changed under the influence of certain foreign

economic factors, primarily the price of energy resources, of oil and consequently of gas as well.”

Here, by means of the repetition of shadowing the president has tried to persuade the audience to accept the standpoint that it is not the fault of the government’s ruling that the country experiences an economic crisis, but the issue is caused by some external factors. Further confrontation stages depend on the questions and whether they express a difference of opinion. It is anticipated that the maximum amount of confrontation stages presented during a press conference is the number of the questions, plus the confrontation presented in the president’s introductory speech.