1887
Volume 6, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The study explores verbal conflict in an institutional context and examines how the election debate format and the moderators’ actions contribute to the emergence of confrontation between themselves and the debaters, what communicative practices the debaters use to resist an institutionally preferred form of interactivity, and how the moderators manage this situation. The findings show that conflict arises around face concerns and violations of the institutional order. The debaters make a number of moves to challenge the moderators and the debate format, such as addressing questions to the moderators, criticizing the moderators, disagreeing with them, refusing to respond to their questions, explicitly questioning the rules of the debate, and aligning with other candidates. The moderators manage conflict by giving the floor to another candidate, minimally acknowledging a candidate’s move, providing an account for their action, agreeing with a candidate, indicating a violation of institutional rules, and not responding to a candidate’s move.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.6.3.02vas
2016-11-28
2019-08-25
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.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2007 “Communication as Design.” Communication Monographs74: 112–117. doi: 10.1080/03637750701196383
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196383 [Google Scholar]
  3. Atkinson, J. Maxwell , and John Heritage
    1984 “Transcript Notation.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage , ix–xvi. Cambridge, MA: University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Benoit, William L. , and Andrew A. Klyukovski
    2006 “A Functional Analysis of 2004 Ukrainian Presidential Debates.” Argumentation20: 209–225. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑006‑9007‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9007-x [Google Scholar]
  5. Bonito, Joseph A. , and Robert E. Sanders
    2002 “Speakers’ Footing in a Collaborative Writing Task: A Resource for Addressing Disagreement While Avoiding Conflict.” Research on Language and Social Interaction35: 481–514. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3504_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3504_4 [Google Scholar]
  6. Budzynska-Daca, Agnieszka , and Renata Botwina
    2015 “Pre-election TV Debates–Persuasive Games between Ethos, Logos, and Pathos.” InPersuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu , Maria-Ionela Neagu , and Stanca Măda , 39–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.26.03bud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.03bud [Google Scholar]
  7. Clayman, Steven E
    1992 “Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News-interview Discourse.”InTalk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew , and John Heritage , 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coulter, Jeff
    1990 “Elementary Properties of Argument Sequences.” InStudies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, ed. by George Psathas , 181–203. Boston: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Drew, Paul , and John Heritage
    1992 “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.” InTalk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage , 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Garcia, Angela
    1991 “Dispute Resolution without Disputing: How the Interactional Organization of Mediation Hearings Minimizes Argument.” American Sociological Review56: 818–835. doi: 10.2307/2096258
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2096258 [Google Scholar]
  11. Goffman, Erving
    1983 “The Interaction Order.” American Sociological Review48: 1–17. doi: 10.2307/2095141
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2095141 [Google Scholar]
  12. Goodwin, Charles , and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
    1990 “Interstitial Argument.” InConflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, ed. by Allen D. Grimshaw , 85–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Greatbatch, David
    1992 “On the Management of Disagreement between News Interviewees.” InTalk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage , 268–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Greco Morasso, Sara
    2011Argumentation in Dispute Mediation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Grimshaw, Allen D
    1990 “Introduction.” InConflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, ed. by Allen D. Grimshaw , 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Haaften, Ton van
    2010 “Dutch Parliamentary Debate as Communicative Activity Type.” InProceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation: ISSA 2010 [cd-rom], ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren , Bart Garssen , David Godden , and Gordon Mitchell , 687–695. Amsterdam: Rosenberg SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Heisterkamp, Brian L
    2006 “Taking the Footing of a Neutral Mediator.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly23: 301–315. doi: 10.1002/crq.139
    https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.139 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hutchby, Ian
    1996Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana
    2010 “The Argumentum ad Hominem in a Romanian Parliamentary Debate.” InProceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation: ISSA 2010 [cd-rom], ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren , Bart Garssen , David Godden , and Gordon Mitchell , 875–880. Amsterdam: Rosenberg SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jacobs, Scott
    2002 “Maintaining Neutrality in Dispute Mediation: Managing Disagreement while Managing not to Disagree.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 1403–1426. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00071‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00071-1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kangasharju, Helena
    1996 “Aligning as a Team in Multiparty Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics26: 291–319. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00051‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00051-8 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2002 “Alignment in Disagreement: Forming Oppositional Alliances in Committee Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 1447–1471. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00073‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00073-5 [Google Scholar]
  23. Mohammed, Dima
    2008 “Institutional Insights for Analysing Strategic Manoeuvering in the British Prime Minister’s Question Time.” Argumentation22: 377–393. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9090‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9090-2 [Google Scholar]
  24. Neagu, Maria-Ionela
    2015 “Political Debates: Deliberation, Persuasion, and Ethos Construction.” InPersuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu , Maria-Ionela Neagu , and Stanca Măda , 85–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.26.05nea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.05nea [Google Scholar]
  25. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1990 “The Management of a Co-operative Self during Argument: The Role of Opinions and Stories.” InConflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, ed. by Allen D. Grimshaw , 241–259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Searle, John R
    1970Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ştefănescu, Ariadna
    2015 “Analysing the Rhetoric Use of the Epistemic Marker Eu cred că (I think) in Romanian Parliamentary Discourse.” InPersuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu , Maria-Ionela Neagu , and Stanca Măda , 101–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.26.06ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.06ste [Google Scholar]
  28. Suzuki, Takeshi , and Takayuki Kato
    2010 “An Analysis of TV Debate: Democratic Party of Japan Leadership between Hatoyama and Okada.” InProceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation: ISSA 2010 [cd-rom], ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren , Bart Garssen , David Godden , and Gordon Mitchell , 1849–1859. Amsterdam: Rosenberg SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Toska, Bledar
    2015 “…Every Time you’ve Offered an Opinion, you’ve been Wrong: Obama Dialogically Interacting in the Last 2012 Presidential Debate.” InPersuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu , Maria-Ionela Neagu , and Stanca Măda , 55–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.26.04tos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.04tos [Google Scholar]
  30. Vasilyeva, Alena L
    2012a “Argumentation in the Context of Mediation Activity.” Journal of Argumentation in Context1: 209–233. doi: 10.1075/jaic.1.2.04vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.2.04vas [Google Scholar]
  31. 2012b “Topics as Indication of Being On-task/Off-task.” Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication3: 61–82. doi: 10.1386/ejpc.3.1.61_1
    https://doi.org/10.1386/ejpc.3.1.61_1 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2015 “Identity as a Resource to Shape Mediation in Dialogic Interaction.” Language and Dialogue5: 355–380. doi: 10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.3.01vas [Google Scholar]
  33. Vuchinich, Samuel
    1990 “The Sequential Organization of Closing in Verbal Family Conflict.”InConflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, ed. by Allen D. Grimshaw , 118–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Weigand, Edda
    2010Dialogue: Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  35. Zarefsky, David
    2008 “Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.” Argumentation, 22: 317–330. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9096‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9096-9 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.6.3.02vas
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): collaboration , communication design , conflict talk , debate , institutional talk and social interaction
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