Redundancy and markers of belief in the discourse of political hearings

This article examines forms of redundancy within the testimony of Dr. Condoleeza Rice, former National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, during the 9/11 Commission Hearings (9/11 Commission; NCTA, 2004). Using a critical discourse analysis (Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999, Fairclough, 1995 and Fairclough, 1998) to investigate redundancy—facilitative and non-facilitative—as a potentially evasive pragmatic device in political discourse, I then turn to focus on markers of belief (Chafe, 1986) as possible indicators of non-facilitative redundancy. Consequently, strategies for identifying evasive language under interrogation are suggested. In essence, by not giving direct answers, the examples underscore the creative and powerful crafting of political discourse by skilled speakers to assuage the appearance of culpability in actions or inactions which could prove politically damaging while providing “appropriate” responses (Berlin, 2007, Harris, 1991 and Janney, 2002) within the context of an investigative hearing.

Research highlights
► Forms of non-facilitative redundancy (including prolixity and logorrhea) can be coded hierarchically using the Cooperative Principle and the degree to which its maxims are flouted.
► In political hearings or interviews, use of non-facilitative redundancy in responses functions as a pragmatic avoidance strategy.
► In political discourse, markers of belief often co-occur with different forms of redundancy and may serve as indicators of politicos’ attempts to be evasive.