This document provides an analysis of the 2010 televised UK general election debates between Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron. It examines aspects of politeness, facework, turn-taking, inclusive/exclusive pronouns, interruptions, and interrogatives. The analysis finds that turn-taking was relatively equal between the candidates. Brown and Clegg engaged in the most interruptions and mentions of other candidates by name. All candidates made heavy use of inclusive plural pronouns. Polls after each debate showed varying results with Clegg and Cameron often close together and Brown trailing further behind.

1. UP663052
Page 1
Analysing Media Discourse
Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................2
Analysis........................................................................................................................................3
Turn taking............................................................................................................................... 3
Facework and Politeness...........................................................................................................4
Inclusive and exclusive pronouns............................................................................................ 4
Interruptions......................................................................................................................... 5
Interrogatives........................................................................................................................... 5
Discussion....................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................7
Bibliography.................................................................................................................................8
Appendix......................................................................................................................................9
Appendix 1 – First Debate poll results ........................................................................................ 9
Appendix 2 – Second Debate poll results.................................................................................... 9
Appendix 3 – Third Debate poll results..................................................................................... 10

2. UP663052
Page 2
Introduction
Thisanalysiswill be lookingata corpusof data compiledfromthe 2010 televisedGeneralElection
debatesbetweenNickClegg,GordonBrownandDavidCameron usingSketchEngine.
The data will be analysedbylookingatboththe individualdebates,andthe speakerstotal
contributionstothe debates. Inparticular,thisanalysiswillcentre onaspectsof politeness
(Culpeper,1996; Brown & Levinson,1987) that can be foundin political language, andfacework
(Goffman,1967) – the waysin whichthe individualspresentthemselves,if the speakersmake any
face-threateningactsand,if so,what face-savingmethodsare usedtoregainface. Due tothe texts
beinganalysedbeing transcriptionsof spokentexts, some aspectsof conversationanalysiswill be
applied,suchasturn taking (Liddicoat,2007).
As well asthis,the functionof inclusive/exclusivepronouns (Harwood,2005; Wales,1996) in
political debate,andthe role interrogativesplayinpoliticalspeechesandpolitical faceworkwillbe
exploredtosome degree (Wang,2006).

3. UP663052
Page 3
132
141
124
0 20 40 60
Clegg
Brown
Cameron
Turns Taken
Speaker
Turns taken in the 2010 televised general
election debates.
First Debate
Second Debate
Third Debate
Figure 1.
Analysis
Turn taking.
Throughall 3 debates,Cameron,BrownandCleggall hadrelativelysimilarwordcounts - Cameron
spoke 19,439 words,Brownspoke 19,524 and Cleggspoke 19,907 words – withlessthana 2.5%
difference betweenthe highestandlowestnumberof wordscontributedtothe debate.
Turn takingisagreedby mostto be a keyelementinconversationandthe analysisof it
(Sacks,Schegloff,&Jefferson,
1974), so thiswas the next
aspectof the texts to be
analysed.Intotal Cameron
had 124 turns throughoutall
3 debates,Brownhad141
and Clegghad132 [Figure 1].
Whencomparingthe number
of wordseachcandidate
spoke throughoutall the
debates,we cansee that
whilstCleggspoke the most
words,on average eachof his
turns wouldhave been
shorterthan that of Cameron’s despite himspeakingthe fewestwordsacrossall the debates [Figure
2].
In the debates there is aform of mediatedturn
taking(Heritage &Clayman,2010) – an
interviewercontrolsthe topicsandwhogoesnext
intakingthe floor– howeverthere issome
instance of self-selection (Liddicoat,2007)
particularlyafteranaudience memberhasaskeda
questionorwhen the mainquestionshave beenasked/answered andthe 3 political leadersargue
theirpoints.Interruptionscanalsobe foundinthe text,andon a few occasionsthe candidateswill
selecteachotherto speaknextbyposingquestionstoone another.
Cameron Clegg Brown
turns 124 132 141
words 19439 19907 19524
156.7661 150.8106 138.4681
average turn length in words
Figure 2.

4. UP663052
Page 4
Facework and Politeness
In the contextof the political debatesmuchof whatissaidcouldbe perceivedasa formof facework.
The speechesare designedasaway forpoliticianstopresentthemselves/theirpartyandtheir
policies,andto challenge otherspolicieswhilstdefendingtheirown.Assuch,inthese textsthere are
numerous face savingandface threateningactspresent.
As youcan see fromthe table [Figure 3], the
political leadersfrequentlymentionedtheir
fellowcandidates duringtheirspeeches.In
contextthese resultsare perhapsnot
surprising,inparticularBrown’suse of the
other’snames.Atthe time he was the Prime
Ministerandthe debates were hiswayto
gainthe public’sfavourand stayinpower.
His biggestopponentwasDavidCameron,
and so the use of these namescouldbe an impolitenessstrategyto“explicitlyassociate the other
witha negative aspect”(Culpeper,1996) and attack Cameronto make himseemthe lesser
candidate.A similartheorycanbe appliedwhenlookingatClegg’suse of names;he wasthe
underdoginthe run forleadership,andsoaccordinglyattackedBrownandCameron’sface ina
directmannera relativelyequal numberof times.
Inclusiveandexclusivepronouns
The plural pronouns we,us,our,ours and ourselves are usedtocreate inclusivity betweenaspeaker
and theiraudience,ortoexclusively referto the speakerandthose directlyinvolvedwiththe topicof
discussion. Inpolitical discourse,these pronounsare oftenusedinclusively –thoughtheymaynot
alwaysbe interpretedassuch (Wales,1996). These plural pronounscanalsobe usedto show
solidaritybetweenspeakerandaudience andthusbe usedas a methodof enhancingthe speakers
positive face,orcan evenbe usednegativelytoprotectthe speakersface (e.g.torefertomore than
one individualtotake the blame foran event,spreadingthe blame amongstmore thanone person
and lesseningthe damage tothe individualsface)(Harwood,2005).
As political texts,the 3party
leadersall make heavyuse of plural
pronounsintheirdebate speeches.
Cameronand Brownuse 697 and
674 respectively,whilstClegguses
considerablyfewerwithjust504
[Figure 4]. Whensearchingforthe phrase “we will”inacorpus of all the debates,alarge portionof
themare usedexclusivelytorefertothe speakerandtheirpolitical party.Inseveral of these
instancesthere isexampleof an“us andthem” type structure forexample –“We’ll getyou the
training…”.Goffman (1967) says thatthis can be an example of face threateningbehaviour,though
inthiscontextitis usedas an attemptto reassure the audience thattheywill be supported bythat
speakerspartyandpolicies.
Figure 3. Instances otherpolitical leaderswere mentioned by
name
Cameron Clegg Brown
Cameron x 21 35
Clegg 35 x 37
Brown 65 40 x
Figure 4. Plural pronounusage
we us our ours ourselves Total
Cameron 533 37 126 0 1 697
Clegg 394 26 82 0 2 504
Brown 511 41 120 0 2 674

5. UP663052
Page 5
Interruptions
In the transcribedtextsinterruptionsare written“…”followedbythe nextspeakertakingthe floor.
Thismade it easyto identifythe interruptionswithinthe corpus. Below [Figure 5] isa table of that
compileddata.Itshowsthat Cameronmade nointerruptionsacrossall the debates,whilstCleggand
Brownboth made a similarnumberof interruptions. Goffman (1967) says that “interruptions…may
conveydisrespect”andbe seenasa face threateningact.
Figure 5. Number of interruptions by debate and interrupter
1st debate 2nd debate 3rd debate
Cameron Clegg Brown Cameron Clegg Brown Cameron Clegg Brown
Cameron x 0 0 x 0 0 x 0 0
Clegg 1 x 1 2 x 5 1 x 0
Brown 3 2 x 1 3 x 0 0 x
Interrogatives
Wang (2006) saysthat questionsare usedasa methodtogainpower,andthat theyare usedbythe
powerful toexpress theirdominance in
conversation. Takingthisintoconsiderationitis
interestingthenthatClegguses53 interrogatives
whilstCameronandBrownusedonly38 and25
respectively [Figure 6],againdue to Cleggbeingthe
leaderof the smallestpolitical partyoutof the
groupof candidates,andas suchprobably withthe
leastpower.
38
53
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cameron Clegg Brown
Numberofquestionsasked
Speaker
Questions asked by the
participants of the 2010 general
election debates.
Figure 6.

6. UP663052
Page 6
Discussion
The interruptionsinthe textare mostlybetweenBrownandClegg, whowere botharguablyinthe
weakestpositionsheadingintothe debates:Cleggwas leaderof the partywiththe smallerbacking,
whilstBrownwasPrime Ministerduringthe global financial crisis.Itmayhave beenthatboth were
aware the audience hadlesssupportforthem, andsocommittedmore face threateningacts
towardsthe othersto achieve amore powerful positionthemselves. Goffman (1967) saysthat
interruptionsshouldbe avoidedatall times,howeverinthe contextof apolitical debate itissimply
usedas a methodto make otherslose face andgainmore popularitywiththeiraudienceasa
consequence.
As mentionedearlier,there were afewinstanceswhereinterrogativeswereusedbythe speakers to
invite the recipientsof the questiontotake the floor.Thiscouldbe beingusedtothreatenthe face
of the speakersitisdirectedto,asinterrogativescanbe a signof power (Wang,2006). In the
debatesthe interviewerwouldhave the powertoaskthe questionswhilstthe 3 electioncandidates
wouldall be on the same level of powerandhave torespondtothe question.Byaskingquestions
themselves,theyare takingpowerfromthe interviewer,andalsoplacingthemselvesinaposition
higherthantheirfellowspeakerstowhomtheyare askingthe questions.
Brownand Levinson (1987) saythat
“Ingeneral, peoplecooperate (and assumeeach other'scooperation) in
maintainingfaceininteraction, such cooperationbeingbasedon the mutual
vulnerabilityofface. That is,normallyeveryone'sface depends on everyone
else'sbeing maintained,andsincepeople canbe expected to defend their
faces if threatened, and in defendingtheirown to threaten others’ faces, it is
in general in every participant'sbest interest to maintaineachothers' face ...”
(Brown & Levinson,1987)
However,itwouldbe surprisingtosee verymuchmaintainingof face betweenthe participantsina
contextsuchas this,as maintainingface wouldmeanthatnone of themwouldgainthe advantage,
whichwasthe whole ideaof the debatestobeginwith.

7. UP663052
Page 7
Conclusion
The use of facework inpolitical debate- inparticularface threateningactssuchas interrupting and
usingnamesto associate specificspeakerswithnegative aspects–isakeymethodintryingto gain
the supportof the audience. Aswell asthis,inclusivepersonalpronouns are amethodusedby
politicianstonotonlyexpressthe principlesof theirparties,buttoinclude the whole audience (or
nation) when, forexamplereferringtosomething suchas“we can have a prosperous,fairer,
greenerandbetterBritain”.Innearlyall the areaslookedat,oftenat least2 of the textswere similar
enoughtobe comparable.
Individually,itisunlikelythese factorswouldhave hadamajorimpact onthe resultsof the post-
debate polls[appendices 1,2 and 3], howevertogetheritcouldbe assumedthatthe aspects
coveredinthisanalysisall aide adebate speechinbeingmore persuasiveandappealingtoan
audience,notjustthe content.Fromthe poll resultsyoucansee that the resultsof Cameronand
Cleggare veryoftenquite close,justasthe data fromthe analysisoftenwas(Anycomparison
betweenthe analysisresultsandBrown’spoll resultsare unlikelytohave acorrelationdue tohim
beingsoout of favourwiththe publicas a whole atthe time).

8. UP663052
Page 8
Bibliography
Brown,P.,& Levinson,S.(1987). Politeness:some universalsin languageusage. Cambridge:
Cambridge UniversityPress.
Culpeper,J.(1996).Towards an anatomyof impoliteness. Journalof Pragmatics,25(3),349-367.
Goffman,E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essayson Face-to-Facebehaviour. New York:AnchorBooks.
Harwood,N.(2005). Inclusive andExclusive PronounsinAcademicWriting. Applied Linguistics,26(3),
343-375.
Heritage,H.,& Clayman,S.(2010). Talk in Action. Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.
Liddicoat,A.J.(2007). An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London:ContinuumInternational
PublishingGroupLtd.
Sacks,H., Schegloff,E.,&Jefferson,G.(1974, December).A SimplestSystematicsforthe
Organizationof Turn-TakingforConversation. Language,50(4),696-735.
Wales,K.(1996). PersonalPronounsin Present-Day English. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Wang, J.(2006, July).Questionsandthe exercise of power. Discourse&Society,7(4),529-548.

9. UP663052
Page 9
Appendix
Appendix 1 – First Debate poll results
Poll indicatingwhoviewersbelievedwonthe firstdebate on15th
April 2010.
Chung,A.(2010, April). Clegg Up:Lib Dem Leader Wins TV Debate. RetrievedfromSkyNews:
http://news.sky.com/story/773443/clegg-up-lib-dem-leader-wins-tv-debate
Appendix 2 – Second Debate poll results
Poll indicatingwhoviewersbelievedwonthe seconddebate on22nd
April 2010.
Fitzgerald,G.(2010, April 22). TV Debate:Clegg and Cameron Neckand Neck.RetrievedfromSky
News:http://news.sky.com/story/774618/tv-debate-clegg-and-cameron-neck-and-neck
37%
31%
32%
0%
First debate poll results.
Clegg
Cameron
Brown
None
33%
32%
23%
12%
Second debate poll results.
Clegg
Cameron
Brown
None

10. UP663052
Page
10
Appendix 3 – Third Debate poll results
Poll indicatingwhoviewersbelievedwonthe thirddebate on29th
April 2010.
Richardson,M. (2010, April 29). Polls SuggestCameron WinsThird Debate.RetrievedfromSkyNews:
http://news.sky.com/story/775818/polls-suggest-cameron-wins-final-debate
29%
37%
23%
11%
Third Debate poll results.
Clegg
Cameron
Brown
None