Cover not available
Part of
The Construction of ‘Ordinariness’ across Media Genres
Edited by Anita Fetzer and Elda Weizman
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 307] 2019
► pp. 237–267

Ordinary people’s political discourse in old and new French media

Evolution and problems

| Tech-CICO / ICD, Université de technologie de Troyes, France
| Tech-CICO / ICD, Université de technologie de Troyes, France

This chapter deals with the evolution of ordinariness in French media by highlighting two phenomena: the emergence of a new form of ordinary discourse defined as ‘ordinary political discourse’, ordinary but also militant and/or expert, and the questioning of this ordinariness, sometimes denounced as imposture. The study falls within the scope of the semio-pragmatics of media discourse, combining the methods of discourse analysis with research questions in media studies. The data are composed of emblematic case studies: TV programs (two French political talk-shows where guests are confronted with ‘ordinary people’) and a Facebook video. The chapter focuses on the way participants position themselves as ordinary (conversational style, self-presentation, visual and non-verbal markers, emotional discourse, illocutionary values, etc.). It also analyzes how these ‘ordinary participants’ are defined by the media and the audience and it shows that the ordinariness of these participants can be questioned by media and audiences, trigger public debates and institutional calls to order.

Keywords: ordinariness, political discourse, computer-mediated discourse analysis, media studies
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Ordinariness, political discourse and media
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Transformation of ordinariness
      • 4.1.1Wiam Berhouma: Transformations of TV ordinariness
      • 4.1.2Hélène: Ordinariness in Facebook video
    • 4.2Questioning ordinariness
      • 4.2.1Who is really Wiam Berhouma?
      • 4.2.2Who is really Hélène?
  • 5.Discussion: What is ordinariness?
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.307.10ati
References
Atifi, Hassan, and Michel Marcoccia
2006 “Television Genre as an Object of Negotiation: A Semio-Pragmatic Analysis of French Political “Television Forum.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 250–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Exploring the Role of Viewers’ Tweets in French TV Political Programs: Social TV as a New Agora.” Discourse, Context and Media 19: 31–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aubert, Aurélie
2009 La société civile et ses médias. Quand le public prend la parole. Paris: Le bord de l’eau / INA.Google Scholar
Babeau, Franck
2014 “La participation politique des citoyens « ordinaires » sur l'Internet. La plateforme Youtube comme lieu d'observation.” Politiques de communication 2 / 3: 125–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, W. Lance, and Alexandra Segerberg
2011 “Digital Media and the Personalization of Collective Action.” Information, Communication and Society 14 (6): 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre
1996 Sur la télévision, Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardon, Dominique, and Fabien Granjon
2013 Médiactivistes. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
Cardon, Dominique
2010 La démocratie internet. Promesses et limites. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Casetti, Francesco, and Roger Odin
1990 “De la paléo- à la néo-télévision.” Communications 51 : 9–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Champagne, Patrick
1993 “La vision médiatique.” In La misère du monde, ed. by Pierre Bourdieu, 61–79. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Charaudeau, Patrick, and Rodolphe Ghiglione
1997 La parole confisquée. Un genre télévisuel: le talk show. Dunod: Paris.Google Scholar
Darras, Eric
1999 “Télévision et démocratisation. La « télévision forum » en France et aux Etats-Unis.” In Espaces publics mosaïques. Acteurs, arènes et rhétoriques des débats publics contemporains, ed. by Bastien François and Erik Neveu, 61–84. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deleu, Christophe
2006 Les anonymes à la radio. Usages, fonctions et portée de leur parole, Louvain-La-Neuve: De Boeck. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flichy, Patrice
2010 Le sacre de l’amateur. Sociologie des passions ordinaires à l’ère numérique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Grosjean, Michèle
1993 “Etude de la vocalité. ”, In Ethologie des communications humaines, ed. by Robert Pléty, 85–96. Lyon : Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Higgins, Michael
2008 Media and Their Publics. Open University Press: Maidenhead.Google Scholar
Hubé, Nicolas
2008 “Le courrier des lecteurs. Une parole journalistique profane ? “Mots. Les langages du politique 87, (2): 99–112.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Oreccchioni, Catherine
1996 “La construction de la relation interpersonnelle : quelques remarques sur cette dimension du dialogue.” Cahiers de Linguistique Française 16: 69–88.Google Scholar
Leadbeater, Charles and Paul Miller
2004 The Pro-Am Revolution: How Enthusiasts are Changing our Economy and Society. Londres: Demos.Google Scholar
Livingstone, Sonia and Peter Lunt
1994 Talk on Television. Audience Participation and Public Debate. London / NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mabi Clément and Anaïs Theviot
(eds.) 2014 “S'engager sur Internet.” Politiques de communication 3: 5–25.Google Scholar
Marcoccia, Michel
1994 Le rôle de porte-parole dans le discours politique. Analyse sociopragmatique, Thèse de doctorat en Sciences du Langage, Université Lumière – Lyon 2 (sous la direction de C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni).Google Scholar
2004 “Le paradoxe du porte-parole.” In Les médiations langagière, Volume 2 : des discours aux acteurs sociaux. Actes du Colloque international « La Médiation. Marquages en langue et en discours », ed. by Régine Delamotte-Legrand, 145–155. Rouen: Publications de l’Université de Rouen.Google Scholar
Mehl, Dominique
1996 La télévision de l’intimité. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
1998 “La parole profane.” In Penser la télévision. Actes du coloque de Cerisy, ed. by Jérôme Bourdon and François Jost, 205–215. Paris: Nathan-INA.Google Scholar
2003 “Le témoin, figure emblématique de l’espace public/privé.” In Les Sens du public. Publics politiques, publics médiatiques, ed. by Daniel Cefaï and Dominique Pasquier, 489–502. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Ofori, Emmanuel Amo
2017 “The Use of Insults to Challenge Political Authority: A Critical Discourse Analysis.” Language, Discourse and Society 5(1): 129–143.Google Scholar
Olivesi, Aurélie and Nicolas Hubé
2016 “Des « vraies gens » aux « followers ». Médias numériques et parole politique.” Politiques de communication 6(1): 5–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poster, Mark
2007 “Internet Piracy as Radical Democracy?” In Radical Democracy and the Internet. Interrogating Theory and Practice, ed. by Lincoln Dahlberg and Eugenia Siapera, 207–225. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouquette, Sébastien
2002 Vie et mort des débats télévisés. Louvain-La-Neuve: De Boeck Université. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1984 “On Doing “Being Ordinary.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 413–429. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scopsi, Claire, Valérie Gouet-Brunet, Louis-Pierre Guillaume, Lise Nayrolles, and Michèle Battisti
2010 “Les nouveaux territoires de la vidéo.” Documentaliste-Sciences de l'Information 4 / 47: 42–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, James C.
1992 Domination and the Arts of Resistance. Hidden Transcripts. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Weizman, Elda
2008 Positioning in Media Dialogue: Negotiating roles in the news interview. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wojcik, Stéphanie
2011 “Prendre la démocratie électronique au sérieux. De quelques enjeux et controverses sur la participation politique en ligne.” In Internet, machines à voter, démocratie, ed. by Elsa Forey and Christophe Geslot, 111–141. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar