1887
Volume 11, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The study is a single case analysis and explores how disagreement space is constructed in a dialogue that addresses language ideology and identity issues in Belarus. Disagreement space is understood as a set of the interactant’s commitments, beliefs, intentions that can be reconstructed from their actions and “called out” by another participant (Jackson 1992). The interactional data includes the video-recording of the debate that was devoted to the issue whether Belarusian should be the only official language of Belarus. While two opponents are dominating parties in this debate, the host also plays an important role in this argumentative activity. The current study examines the host’s actions to shape disagreement space and argues that the host should be viewed as a valid party in a multi-party argumentative activity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00100.vas
2021-08-03
2022-05-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, Mark
    2003 “Neither Naïve nor Normative Reconstruction: Dispute Mediators, Impasse, and the Design of Argumentation.” Argumentation: An International Journal on Reasoning17: 265–290. 10.1023/A:1025112227381
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025112227381 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2013 “Deliberation Digitized: Designing Disagreement Space Through Communication- Information Services.” Journal of Argumentation in Context2: 101–126. 10.1075/jaic.2.1.05aak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.1.05aak [Google Scholar]
  3. Aakhus, Mark and Alena L. Vasilyeva
    2008 “Managing Disagreement Space in Multiparty Deliberation.” InControversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 197–214. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.6.13aak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.6.13aak [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkinson, J. Maxwell and John Heritage
    1984 “Transcript Notation.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, ix–xvi. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bekus, Nelly
    2010 “Nationalism and Socialism: “Phase D” in the Belarusian Nation-Building.” Nationalities Papers38: 829–846. 10.1080/00905992.2010.515973
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2010.515973 [Google Scholar]
  6. Botes, Johannes and Jennifer Langdon
    2006 “Public Radio Talk Show Hosts and Social Conflict: An Analysis of Self-reported Roles During Debates and Discussion.” Journal of Radio Studies13: 266–286. 10.1080/10955040701313446
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10955040701313446 [Google Scholar]
  7. Buhr, Renne L., Victor Shadurski, and Steven Hoffman
    2011 “Belarus: An Emerging Civic Nation?” Nationalities Papers39: 425–440. 10.1080/00905992.2011.565319
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2011.565319 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clayman, Steven E.
    1992 “Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: the Case of News Interview Discourse.” InTalk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2002 “Disagreements and Third Parties: Dilemmas of Neutralism in Panel News Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 1385–1401. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00070‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00070-X [Google Scholar]
  10. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Emmertsen, Sofie
    2007 “Interviewers’ Challenging Questions in British Debate Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 570–591. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  12. Garcia, Angela Cora
    2019How Mediation Works: Resolving Conflict Through Talk. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139162548
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139162548 [Google Scholar]
  13. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Greatbatch, David
    1992 “On the Management of Disagreement between News Interviewees.” InTalk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 268–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Greco Morasso, Sara G.
    2011Argumentation in Dispute Mediation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Heisterkamp, Brian L.
    2006 “Taking the Footing of a Neutral Mediator.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly23: 301–315. 10.1002/crq.139
    https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.139 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, John
    2002 “The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 1427–1446. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00072‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B.
    2007 “(Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 1360–1370. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jackson, Sally
    1992 “Virtual Standpoints” and the Pragmatics of Conversational Argument.” InArgumentation Illuminateded. byFrans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles Arthur Willard, 260–269. Amsterdam: SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jacobs, Scott
    2002 “Maintaining Neutrality in Dispute Mediation: Managing Disagreement while Managing not to Disagree.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 1403–1426. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00071‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00071-1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jacobs, Scott and Sally Jackson
    1981 “Argument as a Natural Category: The Routine Grounds for Arguing in Conversation.” The Western Journal of Speech Communication45: 118–132. 10.1080/10570318109374035
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318109374035 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lewiński, Marcin
    2013 “Debating Multiple Positions in Multi-Party Online Deliberation: Sides, Positions, and Cases”. Journal of Argumentation in Context2: 151–177. 10.1075/jaic.2.1.07lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.1.07lew [Google Scholar]
  23. Lewiński, Marcin and Mark Aakhus
    2014 “Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.” Argumentation28: 161–185. 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  24. Littlejohn, Stephen W. and Karen A. Foss
    2009Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Vol.1. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 10.4135/9781412959384
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384 [Google Scholar]
  25. Luginbühl, Martin
    2007 “Conversational Violence in Political TV Debates: Forms and Functions.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 1371–1387. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  26. Schegloff, Emanuel
    1987 “Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly50: 101–114. 10.2307/2786745
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2786745 [Google Scholar]
  27. Stokoe, Elizabeth and Rein Sikveland
    2016 “Formulating Solutions in Mediation.” Journal of Pragmatics105: 101–113. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Tracy, Karen
    2001 “Discourse Analysis in Communication.” InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. byDeborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, 725–749. Malden: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Vasilyeva, Alena L.
    2012 “Topics as Indication of Being On-task/Off-task.” Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication3: 61–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2015 “Identity as a resource to shape mediation in dialogic interaction.” Language and Dialogue5: 355–380. 10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas [Google Scholar]
  31. 2016 “Confrontation and Collaboration in the Course of the Election Debate.” Language and Dialogue6: 370–395. 10.1075/ld.6.3.02vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.3.02vas [Google Scholar]
  32. 2017 “Practices of Topic and Dialogue Activity Management in Dispute Mediation.” Discourse Studies19: 341–358. 10.1177/1461445617701993
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617701993 [Google Scholar]
  33. Walton, Douglas
    1998The New Dialectic: Conversational Context of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 10.3138/9781442681859
    https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442681859 [Google Scholar]
  34. Weigand, Edda
    2006 “Argumentation: The Mixed Games.” Argumentation20: 59–87. 10.1007/s10503‑006‑9000‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9000-4 [Google Scholar]
  35. Zejmis, Jakub
    1997 “Belarus in the 1920s: Ambiguities of National Formation.” Nationalities Papers25: 243–254. 10.1080/00905999708408501
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00905999708408501 [Google Scholar]
  36. Мечковская, Нина Борисовна [Mechkovskaja, Nina Borisovna]
    1994 “Языковая Ситуация в Беларуси: Этические Коллизии Двуязычия [Language Situation in Belarus: Ethical Collisions of Bilingualism]” Russian Linguistics18: 299–322. 10.1007/BF01650150
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01650150 [Google Scholar]
  37. Трусаў, Aлег. [ Trusau, Aleg
    ] (June 2015) “Русіфікацыя Беларускай Мовы на Беларусі ў ХХ ст. [Russification of the Belarusian Language in Belarus in the 20th Century].” Retrieved fromtbm-mova.by/news_1203.html
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00100.vas
Loading
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