This paper works at the intersection between applied linguistics and
e t h n o m e t h o d o l ogical conversation analysis. Applied linguistics has as its central
c o n c e rn the interest in the study of discourse, especially in the professions, and
addresses itself to real world problems of language use in interaction. In
conversation analysis, social action must be interpreted taking centrally into account
participant’s conduct in sequences of action in interaction. Combining the two, social
meaning is studied from an inherently emic point of view. In this paper we will
compare the interactional practice of asking questions in conciliation hearings in
c o n s u m e r s ’ relations and in interv i ews with political candidates. The follow i n g
questions have guided our study: 1) What actions are associated with the practice of
questioning and answering in these settings? 2) What do they tell us about the
institutional mandate of its participants? Results show that the point of convergence in the two data sets is the conduciveness embedded in the mediator’s and the
interviewer’s questions. Differences are tied to their specific institutional mandates
of framing legally the situation and trying to bring disputants to an agreement in the
first case, and clarify the public opinion with confrontational questions in the second
case, considering the candidates’ future government programs and, when this is the
case, their previous political career.