Structural Exploitation
with Boris Johnson
Foundational to any effort to covertly avoid answering a question is the understanding that answers do not possess distinct structural markers.
Whilst a question has the structural features of interrogative syntax, for example, ‘what do you want for dinner?’ and an often rising intonation towards the end of the sentence, ‘answers’ are devoid of equivalent structural features. In response to the dinner question, the perfectly adequate single-word answer, ‘pasta’, bears no significant or unique features.
​
It is this structural looseness of an answer that will be exploited when executing the covert evasion of a question. In place of an answer, it is advisable for the interviewee to use terms closely aligned with the key words in the question. This means that listeners, in the absence of distinct structural markers of answers, will recognise the key terms of the question and misinterpret the evasion as an answer that is aligned with the question.
In this interview with the famously adversarial Andrew Neil, Boris Johnson provides an example of lexical repetition that simultaneously executes a disalignment from the demands of the question itself.
Johnson pivots using the word ‘support’, when asked whether he supports Sir Kim Darroch, the under-fire Ambassador to the United States, Johnson initiates an evasion by promptly continuing with the theme of ‘support’. Johnson immediately includes the word ‘support’, however, its inclusion is used to announce his support for something entirely unrelated to the support interrogated by Neil.
BBC, 2019
Another tactic of evasion that exploits the structural openness of an answer is the specific inclusion of token response terminology, this is language that generally appears in an answer to a question, however, Johnson uses it to a feign the production of a legitimate response while actually producing an evasion.
Pay attention to Johnson’s use of the response terminology ‘on the contrary’ in these two interview segments, again being questioned about his unwillingness to support Sir Kim Darroch.
Example 1, BBC, 2019
Example 2, Daily Mail, 2019
In each of these segments Johnson employs ‘on the contrary’, response terminology that commonly produces a rejection of analysis posed by a question.
The preferred implementation of the phrase would look like this:
‘Why didn’t you support him?’
‘On the contrary, I did offer my support.’
However, Johnson uses it strategically to signal that the question has been answered when it has actually been evaded. In example 1 he uses the token response terminology before bridging to an evasion of the question using the lexical repetition of ‘standing for something’ and in example 2 he feigns an answer by using ‘on the contrary’ before abandoning the clause entirely to pursue his own message.
Neither of these examples advance any contrary evidence that would be relevant to the question but through exploiting the structural looseness of an answer, the evasions can appear to satisfy as answers.
Key Learning 01.
Exploit the freedom of an 'answer'
Answers do not possess distinct structural markers and politicians should take advantage of this looseness when executing a covert evasion
​
Repeating key words can be used to evade a question, the words do not have to be used in the same context or with the same meaning as they have in the question formulation.
Response terminology, such as 'on the contrary' can also be included in a response to a question. It does not matter whether it is coherent with the meaning and structure of the response, its inclusion will signal an answer has been provided.
​