1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Argumentation in Context
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Conversation analysis and extended pragma-dialectics in dialogue
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Both conversation analysis (CA) and extended pragma-dialectics (PD) share an interest in empirical, data-driven analysis of argumentative exchanges, a focus on sequential organization, and context-sensitivity. While cross-fertilization between CA and argumentation analysis in general took place, no full parallel analysis with CA and PD, let alone with extended PD was carried out. In this paper by CA and PD researchers, we compare how each approach interprets the same Dutch medical consultation and assess systematically how both approaches differ and complement each other. We will focus on disagreement management and doctor-patient decision-making. Our findings suggest that, despite the tensions, the combination of these approaches offers a more comprehensive understanding of the interactional dynamics of argumentation, shedding light on, e.g., the enactment of institutional roles, the normative consequences of turn-management, and varied facets of strategic maneuvering.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.25036.van
2026-04-21
2026-05-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jaic.25036.van
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/jaic.25036.van/jaic.25036.van.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.25036.van&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Akkermans, Aranka, Francisca A. Snoeck Henkemans, Nanon H. M. Labrie, Inge Henselmans, and Hanneke van Laarhoven
    2018 “The stereotypicality of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer.” Journal of Argumentation in Context (): –. 10.1075/jaic.18029.akk
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18029.akk [Google Scholar]
  2. Andone, Corina
    2013 Argumentation in Political Interviews. Analyzing and Evaluating Responses to Accusations of Inconsistency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.5 [Google Scholar]
  3. Antaki, Charles, and Ivan Leudar
    1992 “Explaining in conversation: Towards an argument model.” European Journal of Social Psychology: –. 10.1002/ejsp.2420220206
     https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220206 [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and John Heritage
    1984 Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Barnes, Rebecca K.
    2019 “Conversation analysis of communication in medical care: Description and beyond.” Research on Language and Social Interaction (): –. 10.1080/08351813.2019.1631056
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1631056 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bigi, Sarah
    2018 “The role of argumentative practices within advice-seeking activity types. The case of the medical consultation.” Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio (): –.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bilmes, Jack
    1991 “Towards a theory of argument in conversation: The preference for disagreement.” InProceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, –. Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bova, Antonio
    2021 “Co-construction of argumentative discussions between parents and children during mealtime conversations. A pragma-dialectical analysis.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction: . 10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100519
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100519 [Google Scholar]
  9. Drew, Paul, and John Heritage
    1992 Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    2010 Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
    1984 Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110846089
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  12. 1992 “Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem.” Argumentation (): –. 10.1007/BF00154322
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154322 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs
    1993 Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Peter Houtlosser
    2000 “Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework.” Argumentation: –. 10.1023/A:1007857114100
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007857114100 [Google Scholar]
  16. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2007 Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  17. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Glenn, Phillip, and Ran Kuttner
    2013 “Dialogue, dispute resolution, and talk-in-interaction: On empirical studies of ephemeral phenomena.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research (): –. 10.1111/ncmr.12001
     https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodwin, Charles
    1986 “Audience diversity, participation and interpretation.” Text — Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse (): –. 10.1515/text.1.1986.6.3.283
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1986.6.3.283 [Google Scholar]
  20. Greco Morasso, Sara
    2011 Argumentation in Dispute Mediation: A Reasonable Way to Handle Conflict. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.3 [Google Scholar]
  21. Haft-Van Rees, M. Agnes
    1989 “Conversation, relevance, and argumentation.” Argumentation: –. 10.1007/BF00182605
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182605 [Google Scholar]
  22. Have, Paul ten
    2007 Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. 2nd ed.London: SAGE. 10.4135/9781849208895
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208895 [Google Scholar]
  23. Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman
    2011 Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hout, Anja A. van der, Mike Huiskes, Taco. Gosens, and Brenda L. den Oudsten
    2025 “How option-listing influences decision-making in orthopedic consultations: A conversation analytic study.” Patient Education and Counseling: . 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108450
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2024.108450 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hutchby, Ian
    1992 “Confrontation talk: Aspects of ‘interruption’ in argument sequences on talk radio.” Text — Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse (): –. 10.1515/text.1.1992.12.3.343
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1992.12.3.343 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hutchby, Ian, and Robin Wooffitt
    1998 Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Jackson, Sally
    2025 “Studying Controversies: A Path for Expansion of Argumentation Theory.” Journal of Argumentation: –. 10.1007/s10503‑025‑09671‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-025-09671-2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs
    1980 “Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme.” The Quarterly Journal of Speech: –. 10.1080/00335638009383524
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638009383524 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jefferson, G.
    1988 “On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation.” Social Problems (): –. 10.2307/800595
     https://doi.org/10.2307/800595 [Google Scholar]
  30. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, edited byG. H. Lerner, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  31. Kotthoff, Helga
    1993 “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the Context Sensitivity of Preference Structures.” Language in Society (): –. 10.1017/S0047404500017103
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017103 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kreuz, Judith, and Martin Luginbühl
    2024 “Demonstrating consensus in argumentative settings: Co-constructions in children’s peer discussions.” European Journal of Psychology of Education: –. 10.1007/s10212‑024‑00840‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00840-7 [Google Scholar]
  33. Labrie, Nanon H. M.
    2012 “Strategic Maneuvering in Treatment Decision-Making Discussions: Two Cases in Point.” Argumentation: –. 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9228‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9228-5 [Google Scholar]
  34. Labrie, Nanon H. M., and Peter J. Schulz
    2015 “Quantifying Doctors’ Argumentation in General Practice Consultation Through Content Analysis: Measurement Development and Preliminary Results.” Argumentation: –. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9331‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9331-5 [Google Scholar]
  35. Maynard, Douglas W., and John Heritage
    2005 “Conversation analysis, doctor–patient interaction and medical communication.” Medical Education: –. 10.1111/j.1365‑2929.2005.02111.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02111.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Pilgram, Roosmaryn
    2009 “Argumentation in doctor-patient interaction: Medical consultation as a pragma-dialectical communicative activity type.” Studies in Communication Sciences: –.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred and dispreferred turn shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Poppel, Lotte van
    2012 “The strategic function of variants of pragmatic argumentation in health brochures.” Argumentation in Context (): –. 10.1075/jaic.1.1.08pop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.08pop [Google Scholar]
  39. Poppel, Lotte van, and Roosmaryn Pilgram
    2025 “The argumentative role of patient companions in (shared) decision-making.” Patient Education and Counseling: . 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108623
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2024.108623 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rees, M. Agnes van
    1995 “Analysing and Evaluating Problem-solving Discussions.” Argumentation: –. 10.1007/BF00721965
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00721965 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2007 “Discourse analysis and argumentation theory: The case of television talk.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  42. Reijven, Menno H.
    2021 “The co-construction of campaign argumentation on U.S.A. late-night talk shows.” Journal of Argumentation in Context (): –. 10.1075/jaic.20006.rei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20006.rei [Google Scholar]
  43. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language (): –. 10.2307/412243
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sandvik, Margareth
    1997 “Reconstructing interactive argumentative discourse.” Argumentation: –. 10.1023/A:1007799305146
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007799305146 [Google Scholar]
  45. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sidnell, Jack
    2010 Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Sidnell, Jack., and Nick J. Enfield
    (eds.) 2017 Getting Things Done in Talk: The Pragmatics of Executive Action. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers
    (eds.) 2013 The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 “Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction (): –. 10.1080/08351810701691123
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  50. Verbiest, Agnes
    1989 “Confrontation in conversations: The adjacency pair as a tool of the descriptive component of a pragma-dialectical analysis.” Argumentation: –. 10.1007/BF00182606
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182606 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.25036.van
Loading
Conversation analysis and extended pragma-dialectics in dialogue
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.25036.van
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.25036.van
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.25036.van
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: pragma-dialectics ; interaction ; strategic maneuvering ; conversation analysis ; medical consultation

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error