CONFIDENTIAL 819301

This paper presents a spoken discourse analysis of a conversation between a host

(representing Sri Lankans) and a guest (representing Malaysians) on a television show in Sri

Lanka. The analysis includes the rationale of the language use by examining its texture and

context, and will be further developed with the overall importance of the discourse examined.

The context is a media interview In the Hot Seat on Sri Lanka Live, interviewing Tun

Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia on several issues. According

to Gary Dessler (2007), “an interview is a procedure designed to obtain information from a

person’s oral response to oral inquiries.” While Thill and Bovee, define “an interview is any

planed conversation with a specific purpose involving two or more people”. Dr. S. M.

Amunuzzaman also describes “interview is a very systematic method by which a person

enters deeply into the life of even a stranger and can bring out needed information and data

for the research purpose.”

The ultimate goal of the interview is to discover and clarify certain political and

economic issues which have arisen in current days in Malaysia as well as Sri Lanka. Due to

limited airtime, all the issues highlighted could not be discussed in details. Nevertheless, Tun

Dr. Mahathir Mohamad gave his best to respond every question posed by the host remarkably

amazing. Later, this paper explains in details with examples of what rhetorical devices Tun.

Dr. Mahathir Mohamad used and how he utilised them to influence and persuade his

audience.

In media interviews, the host can use pragmatic techniques to elicit agreement and

maintain the question-answer format. Two prominent features of the media interview are its

overhearing audience and pre-allocation of roles (Montgomery 2008). The host is expected to

elicit information from the guest objectively, reserving the formation of personal opinion for

the audience. The host achieves this objectivity by restricting himself to the role of asking

CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL 819301

questions so that his own personal values and opinions are not foregrounded. Despite this,

personal attitudes can be implied in various ways, sometimes so subtly that the audience is

hardly aware of the underlying ideologies (Wodak 2007; van Dijk 2000; Fairclough 1985).

As van Dijk (2000) points out, ‘media discourse is the main source of people’s knowledge,

attitudes and ideologies, and despite freedom of the press, media elites control these sources

of information’. Therefore, this paper also explores how media interviews are manipulated by

the host.

Since interviews are unequal interactions (Fairclough, 1985), the host has the power

to open and close the interview and initiate turns. The guest, on the other hand, is expected to

cooperate by answering the host’s questions. The smoothness of this interaction and the

adherence to the interview format, achieved by the participants’ fulfilment of their assigned

roles is, what Fairclough (1985) calls orderliness. Thus, if the guest answers the questions in

accordance with the host’s expectation, the interaction is orderly because the host is left with

nothing to ‘repair’. As a result, the overhearing audience accepts any implicit ideology as

taken-for granted background knowledge. However, in the case of disorderliness, the conflict

between ideologies rises to the surface, threatening the power of the host within his media

institution.

Malaysia and Sri Lanka were former British colonies and both of them, since

independence, national unity has been made top priority involving unity in education, culture,

socio-economy, political and regional affairs. The leaders of both countries seek an effective

way to improve the relations of all nations, regardless of racial, religious or cultural

backgrounds. The quest for national unity has become a leadership challenge for them. While

the two countries record significant differences in contexts and background, the similarities

are equally striking. Therefore, the essence of the interview is to explore and learn about

CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL 819301

Malaysia’s achievement after independence especially during the ruling of Tun Dr. Mahathir

Mohamad.

Tun Dr. Mahathir served in the government of the second Malaysian Prime Minister,

Tun Abdul Razak from 1970-1976; as Minister of Education from 1974 – 1977 and under the

third Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn; as Deputy Prime Minister from 1976 –1981; and

Minister of Trade and Industry from 1977 – 1981. In 1981, he succeeded Hussein Onn as

Prime Minister and President of UMNO and served the country for about 22 years. As Prime

Minister, he brought a new energy to government and economic management.

Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the first Malaysian Prime Minister, who did not come

from the Malay aristocracy and was not educated in Britain, tilted at the special relationship

with Britain and the constitutional privileges of Malaysia's king and sultans, while his then

radical "Look East" policy was inspired by Japan's economic success. Receiving education

only in Asia, makes his English accent sounds more Malaysian. His English-Malay accent

has become an advantageous to his powerful speech. Throughout the interview session, we

have encountered problems in transcribing the host’s English-India accent but not for Tun Dr.

Mahathir Mohamad as his utterances in the television show live from Sri Lanka are always

clear and his speech rate is also at a slow pace to attract more audience whereby it is

reflecting the fulfillment of Maxim of Manner as suggested by Grice’s (1975 cited in Cole

and Morgan, 1975).

Furthermore, as the former prominent leader, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s choice of

words reflects his ability to influence and control the audience not by force but by mind

management. Since the interview broadcasted live on Sri Lanka television show, when he

was questioned by the host about Sri Lanka, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad immediately

complimented the Sri Lanka’s government officers and ministers with positive words for

CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL 819301

being such focused6G and very keen6G to have the development carried out in their country.

As a politician and a leader himself, his discourse might create or cause negative perceptions

of the other (Macionis, 2001), that is why he needs to be very careful whenever he speaks in

public especially on national television. His compliments would encourage unity and

solidarity between Malaysia and Sri Lanka, thus help to tighten the relationship in the long

run. As Wodak and Meyer (2009) proclaim that “power does not necessarily drive from

language but language can be used to challenge power, subvert it, or alter the distribution of

power in the short and the long term…”.

Not only that, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad also delivers his ideologies; political

ideologies, economic ideologies explicitly throughout the interview. Wodak and Meyer

(2009) define ideology as a “coherent and relatively stable set of belief or values”. Ideology

are generally expressed, understood, challenged and even produced through discourse which

serves as the vehicle to carry ideologies. In fact, discourses make ideologies observable in the

sense that only in discourse can ideologies be explicitly expressed and formulated (Van Dijk,

2006).

Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, along the interview, expressed his ideologies for

example economic ideologies, when the host asked about the most critical factors for the

country to be investor-friendly, he answered the country “should be firstly very stable,

peaceful and also of course the government should be business-friendly …”4G. The use of

sequence connector “firstly” in the beginning of his point shows that he is particular,

organised and be very clear about what he wants to say next. Based on Petty and Cacioppo

(1981) state that the term persuasive “refers to any instance in which an active attempt is

made to change a person’s mind.” Therefore, he uses the modal of “should” to persuade or

advise the government to put more effort in captivating foreign investors to invest in Sri

CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL 819301

Lanka, hence to develop the economy in their country. Also, by using “should” in the

sentence, it expresses a strong necessity and directness in attitude.

In terms of coherence of the utterances, the sentences, ideas and details should fit

together so that the listener or reader can follow along easily and the ideas should tie together

smoothly and clearly, for example, during the interview, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad

responded to all the questions posed by the host in coherence. In terms of cohesion, it is about

the grammatical and lexical relationship within a text. It can be defined as the links that hold

a text together and give it meaning, for example, Tun Dr, Mahathir Mohamad, responded

“…they want to know the country where they are investing…”10G, instead of saying the

word “investor”, he replaces it with the pronoun “they”. He uses anaphoric reference when

he refers back to the question asking about the investor.

As the former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad still represents his

country, Malaysia. Rather using the pronoun “I” to represent himself, in his discourse, he

uses the pronoun “we” in presupposing shared values with the audience for example, “we

have to correct that…”26G, and “we had to accept the fact that…”24G. Pronouns have been

considered as textual elements of merely grammatical values, currently they are widely

studied as elements which reflect pragmatic, ideological, and social values such as solidarity,

power relations, status, self-positioning and self-presentation (Brown and Gilman, 1960; De

Fina, 1965; Shelby and Reinsch, 1995). Hahn (2003) mentions that politicians use pronouns

as part of their persuasive tools. Politicians would also manipulate pronouns in image-making

to provide a positive image of themselves and negative image of the opponents. Nonetheless,

Tun Dr. Mahathir only uses the pronoun “I” when he shares his personal opinions or

experiences to the audience.

CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL 819301

During the interview, we also analyse both the host and guest use the fillers in

between their utterances, in which symbolising to pause to carefully think of the ideas before

continue speaking for example, “he played an integral role in aaa the country’s…”1H,

“well, emmm (clearing throat) in the first place…”2G.

Since the conversations in the interview need to be organised, there are rules or

principles for establishing who talks and who talks next. Obviously, the host will start the

conversation first then come the guest. Therefore, in the interview we can see that the host

plays his important role to control the whole session by turn-taking and the transition between

him and Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad must be as smooth as possible and without a break.

Even so, there was a situation where the host interrupted Tun Dr. without letting Tun Dr.

finished his speech by asking another question for example, “…is friendly even to foreign

investors, so”6G, “so, that is when it comes...”7H. There are two possibilities why the host

cuts off Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad from continuing his point. Perhaps, the host presupposes

the next points or he tries to control the airtime of broadcasting as he has a lot of questions

prepared.

Furthermore, we also examine that the host starts his questions with conjunctions for

example “So, do you think…”5H, “But when it comes to the…”11H, “And aa how

about…”29H. By chance, he tries to overlap as a way to take turn and also to show his

enthusiasm of the topic in the conversation. Overlap tends to be a positive way to make the

conversation more interesting to watch compared to interruption is more negative way of

turn-taking.

In conclusion, this paper examines how the host uses the techniques to control the

conversations in the interview and how the public figure, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad uses

rhetoric devices to influence and persuade the audience specifically the Sri Lankans of his

CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL 819301

political and economic ideologies. Also, as a former Prime Minister and a politician himself

he shares his personal opinions and experiences, in which he wishes to keep good relations

with Sri Lanka and promises to help in whatever way which can benefit both countries.

REFERENCES

Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In A.T. Sebeok (Ed)
Style in language. Cambrigde: MIT Press.

Cole, P., & Morgan, J. L. (1975). Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.

Coulthard, M. (1992). Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.

De Fina, A. (1995). Prominal choice, identity, and solidarity in political discourse. Text.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow:
Longman

Hahn, D. F. (2003). Political communication: Rhetoric, government, and citizens (2nd ed),
Pennsylvania: Strata Publishing

Ochs, E., Schelegoff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interaction and Grammar.
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. New York: Continuum.

Schelegoff, E. A. (1996). Turn Organization: On Intersection of Grammar and Organisation.

Retrieved 26 June, 2016 from
http://icar.univyon2.fr/ecole_thematique/idocora/documents/Turn_Organization.pdf

Shelby, A., & Reinsch, L. (1995). Positive emphasis and you-attitude. Journal of Business
Communication.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Politics, ideology, and discourse. In K. Brown (Ed.) Encyclopedia of
language and linguistics (2nd ed.). oxford: Elsevier.

Wodak R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and
methodology. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (Eds.) Methods of critical discourse analysis
(2nd ed.). London: Sage

CONFIDENTIAL