1887
Volume 13, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The project explores how conflict is managed in a debate talk show that addresses the current situation in Belarus and its future. The analysis shows that the debaters act as co-designers of the debate activity. They indicate a variety of moves that they find inappropriate (e.g., personal attacks) and use various interactional resources to challenge these actions, which is done directly (e.g., directly naming inappropriate actions) and indirectly (e.g., nonverbal actions). Their interventions are aimed at managing interaction, but at the same time, they undermine their opponents’ image. Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of identities as an interactional resource to shape interaction. The analysis also demonstrates the role of a multi-party structure of the debate in managing interaction.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00148.vas
2023-08-01
2025-02-18
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 Reasoning171: 265–290. 10.1023/A:1025112227381
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025112227381 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aakhus, Mark and Sally Jackson
    2005 “Technology, Interaction, and Design.” In The Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, ed. byKristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders, 879–934. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aakhus, Mark
    2007 “Communication as Design.” Communication Monographs741: 112-117. 10.1080/03637750701196383
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196383 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aitmatov, Chinghiz, and John French
    1983The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years. Indiana University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv1bxh668
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1bxh668 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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 Studies131: 266–286. 10.1080/10955040701313446
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10955040701313446 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Roger
    1990 “Politeness Theory: Exemplar and Exemplary.” InThe Legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in Cognition and Social Psychology, ed. byIrvin Rock, 23–38. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cai, Deborah A., and Colleen Tolan
    2020 “Public Shaming and Attacks on Social Media: The Case of White Evangelical Christians.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research131: 231–243. 10.1111/ncmr.12188
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12188 [Google Scholar]
  8. Canary, Daniel J., Cupach, William R., and Richard T. Serpe
    2001 “A Competence-Based Approach to Examining Interpersonal Conflict: Test of a Longitudinal Model.” Communication Research281: 217 – 236. 10.1177/009365001028001003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028001003 [Google Scholar]
  9. Childs, Carrie
    2015 “Formulations.” InThe International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, ed. byKaren Tracy, Cornelia Ilie, and Todd Sandel, 1–5. John Wiley and Sons. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi015
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi015 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. 2002 “Disagreements and Third Parties: Dilemmas of Neutralism in Panel News Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics341: 1385–1401. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00070‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00070-X [Google Scholar]
  12. Cramer, Duncan
    2002 “Linking Conflict Management Behaviors and Relational Satisfaction: The Intervening Role of Conflict Outcome Satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships191: 425–432. 10.1177/0265407502193007
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407502193007 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dascal, Marcelo
    1998 “The Study of Controversies and the Theory of History and Science.” Science in Context111: 147–154. 10.1017/S0269889700002957
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889700002957 [Google Scholar]
  14. Donovan, Erin E.
    2015 “Difficult Conversations”. InInternational Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, ed. byCharles R. Berger, and Michael E. Roloff. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic231
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic231 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dorjee, Tenzin, and Stella Ting-Toomey
    2020 “Understanding Intergroup Conflict Complexity: An Application of the Socioecological Framework and the Integrative Identity Negotiation Theory.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research131: 244–262. 10.1111/ncmr.12190
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12190 [Google Scholar]
  16. Drew, Paul, and John Heritage
    1992 “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.” InTalk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew, and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Eddington, Sean M., Corple, Danielle, Buzzanell, Patrice M., Zoltowski, Carla, and Andrew Brightman
    2020 “Addressing Organizational Cultural Conflicts in Engineering with Design Thinking.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 131: 263–284. 10.1111/ncmr.12191
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12191 [Google Scholar]
  18. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Grootendorst, Rob, Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs
    1994 “Ch. 6: Pragmatic Organization of Conversational Argument.” InReconstructing Argumentative Discourse, 91–116. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ellis, Donald G.
    2020 “Talking to the Enemy: Difficult Conversations and Ethnopolitical Conflict.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 131: 183–196. 10.1111/ncmr.12187
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12187 [Google Scholar]
  20. Emmertsen, Sofie
    2007 “Interviewers’ Challenging Questions in British Debate Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics391: 570–591. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  21. Glenn, Phillip
    2003Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519888
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519888 [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. Greco Morasso, Sara
    2011Argumentation in Dispute Mediation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.3 [Google Scholar]
  24. Grice, Paul
    1991 “Logic and Conversation.” InStudies in the Way of Words, ed. byPaul Grice, 22–40. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Grimshaw, Allen D.
    1990 “Introduction.” InConflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversation, ed. byAllen D. Grimshaw, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Guxholli, Aurora, Voutilainen, Liisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
    2022 “What about You? Responding to a Face-threatening Question in Psychotherapy.” InRelationships in Organized Helping. Analyzing Interaction in Psychotherapy, Medical Encounters, Coaching and in Social Media, ed. byClaudio Scarvaglieri, Eva-Maria Graf and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 79–104. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.331.04gux
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.331.04gux [Google Scholar]
  27. Heisterkamp, Brian L.
    2006 “Taking the Footing of a Neutral Mediator.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly231: 301–315. 10.1002/crq.139
    https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.139 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B.
    2007 “(Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics391: 1360–1370. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jackson, Sally
    1992 “Virtual Standpoints” and the Pragmatics of Conversational Argument. InArgumentation Illuminated, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, 260 – 269. Amsterdam: SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jacobs, Scott
    2002 “Maintaining Neutrality in Dispute Mediation: Managing Disagreement while Managing not to Disagree.” Journal of Pragmatics341: 1403–1426. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00071‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00071-1 [Google Scholar]
  31. Jacobs, Scott, and Mark Aakhus
    2002 “What Mediators Do with Words: Implementing Three Models of Rational Discussion in Dispute Mediation.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 201: 177–204. 10.1002/crq.3890200205
    https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.3890200205 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson
    1981 “Argument as a Natural Category: The Routine Grounds for Arguing in Conversation.” The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 451: 118–132. 10.1080/10570318109374035
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318109374035 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kangasharju, Helena
    2002 “Alignment in Disagreement: Forming Oppositional Alliances in Committee Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics, 341: 1447–1471. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00073‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00073-5 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kugler, Katharina G., and Peter T. Coleman
    2020 “Get Complicated: The Effects of Complexity on Conversations over Potentially Intractable Moral Conflicts.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 131: 211–230. 10.1111/ncmr.12192
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12192 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kyratzis, Amy, and Jiansheng Guo
    2001 “Preschool Girls’ and Boys’ Verbal Conflict Strategies in the United States and China.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 341: 45–74. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3401_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3401_3 [Google Scholar]
  36. Luginbühl, Martin
    2007 “Conversational Violence in Political TV Debates: Forms and Functions.” Journal of Pragmatics391: 1371–1387. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  37. Maoz, Ifat, and Donald G. Ellis
    2001 “Going to Ground: Argument in Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian Encounter Groups.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 341: 399–419. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3404_01
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3404_01 [Google Scholar]
  38. Maoz, Ifat, and Paul Frosh
    2020 “Imagine all the People: Negotiating and Mediating Moral Concern through Intergroup Encounters.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 131: 197–210. 10.1111/ncmr.12189
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12189 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sprain, Leah, Carcasson, Martin, and Andy Merolla
    2014 “Utilizing “on Tap” Experts in Deliberative Forums: Implications for Design.” Journal of Applied Communication Research, 421: 150–167. 10.1080/00909882.2013.859292
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.859292 [Google Scholar]
  40. Stokoe, Elizabeth
    2012 “Moving forward with Membership Categorization Analysis: Methods for Systematic Analysis.” Discourse Studies, 141: 277–303. 10.1177/1461445612441534
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534 [Google Scholar]
  41. Tracy, Karen
    2001 “Discourse Analysis in Communication”. InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. byDeborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, 725–249. Malden: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Vasilyeva, Alena L.
    2015 “Identity as a Resource to Shape Mediation in Dialogic Interaction.” Language and Dialogue, 51: 355–380. 10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas [Google Scholar]
  43. 2016 “Confrontation and Collaboration in the Course of the Election Debate.” Language and Dialogue, 61: 370–395. 10.1075/ld.6.3.02vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.3.02vas [Google Scholar]
  44. 2017 “Practices of Topic and Dialogue Activity Management in Dispute Mediation.” Discourse Studies, 191: 341–358. 10.1177/1461445617701993
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617701993 [Google Scholar]
  45. Vuchinich, Samuel
    1990 “The Sequential Organization of Closing in Verbal Family Conflict.” InConflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, ed. byGrimshaw, 118–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Weger, Harry, and Mark Aakhus
    2003 “Arguing in Internet Chat Rooms: Argumentative Adaptations to Chat Room Design and Some Consequences for Public Deliberation at a Distance.” Argumentation and Advocacy401: 23–38. 10.1080/00028533.2003.11821595
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2003.11821595 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00148.vas
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conflict; debate; discourse analysis; multi-party interaction; talk show
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