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

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the pragmatic features and strategies of disagreement in contemporary spoken Romanian, on the basis of authentic data. Disagreement will be regarded in its cooperative dimension, considering that all types of genuine, communication involve various stages in establishing an intellectual consensus. Special attention will be given to the main causes which generate communicative divergence: metalinguistic/metadiscursive (the dispute on the semantic/pragmatic use of language), dialectical (the debate of general ideas and principles) or factual (contradictory interpretation of facts). We shall try to formulate some general conclusions, in order to configure the profile of intellectual disagreement in Romanian society and to integrate it into an intercultural and anthropological perspective.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.6.3.04hoi
2016-11-28
2019-11-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Angouri, Jo
    2012 “Managing Disagreement in Problem Solving Meeting Talk.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (12): 1565–1579. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  2. Angouri, Jo , and Miriam A. Locher
    2012 “Theorising Disagreement.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (12): 1549–1553. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  3. Breton, Philippe
    2003L’argumentation dans la communication. Paris: Éditions La Découverte.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Carter, Adam J
    2014 “Disagreement, Relativism, and Doxastic Revision.” Erkenntnis79 (1): 155–172. doi: 10.1007/s10670‑013‑9450‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9450-7 [Google Scholar]
  5. Christensen, David , and Jennifer Lackey
    (eds) 2013The Epistemology of Disagreement. New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199698370.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199698370.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohnitz, Daniel , and Teresa Marquez
    (eds) 2014a “Disagreements.” Special issue Erkenntnis79 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2014b “Disagreements.” Special issue Erkenntnis79 (1): 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s10670‑013‑9442‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9442-7 [Google Scholar]
  8. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”. Journal of Pragmatics25 (3): 349–367. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ducrot, Oswald
    1972/1991Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Feldman, Richard , and Ted Warfield
    (eds) 2009Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Geyer, Naomy
    2008Discourse and Politeness. Ambivalent Face in Japanese. Norfolk: Biddles.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Glaser, Klaren
    2014Inductive or Deductive. The Impact of Method of Instruction on The Acquisition of Pragmatic Competence. Lüneburg Universität Dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ilie, Cornelia
    2003 “Histrionic and Agonistic Features of Parliamentary Discourse”. Studies in Communication Sciences3 (1): 25–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kakavá, Christina
    1993Negotiation of Disagreement by Greeks in Casual Conversations and Classroom Discourse. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kappel, Klemens
    2014 “Factual Disagreement and Political Legitimacy.” InExpertise and Democracy, ed. by Cathrine Holst , 141–171. Oslo: ARENA Centre for European Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kelly, Thomas
    2005 “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.” InOxford Studies in Epistemology. Vol. 1, ed. by John Hawthorne and Tamar Gendler , 167–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.princeton.edu/-tkelly/onlinepapers.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
    1992Les interactions verbales. Tome II. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1994Les interactions verbales. Tome III. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Koczogh, Helga
    2013 “Scrutinizing the Concept of (Verbal) Disagreement.” Argumentum9: 211–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kotthoff, Helga
    1993 “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the Context Sensitivity of Preference Structures.” Language in Society22 (2): 193–216. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500017103
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017103 [Google Scholar]
  21. Leech, Geoffrey
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London–New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Locher, Miriam A
    2004Power and Politeness in Action. Disagreement in Oral Communication. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110926552
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110926552 [Google Scholar]
  23. Macagno, Fabrizio , and Douglas Walton
    2008 “Persuasive Definitions: Values, Meaning and Implicit Disagreements.” Informal logic28(3): 203–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. MacFarlane, John
    2007 “Relativism and Disagreement.” Philosophical Studies123: 17–31. doi: 10.1007/s11098‑006‑9049‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9049-9 [Google Scholar]
  25. McGrath, Sarah
    2008 “Moral Disagreement and Moral Expertise.” InOxford Studies in Metaethics3, ed. by Russ Shafer-Landau , 87–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. McMahon, Christopher
    2009Reasonable Disagreement. A Theory of Political Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511596742
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596742 [Google Scholar]
  27. Netz, Hadar
    2014 “Disagreement Patterns in Gifted Classes.” Journal of Pragmatics61: 142–160. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  28. Perelman, Chaïm , and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1958/2008Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Plunkett, David , and Tim Sundell
    2013 “Disagreement and the Semantics of Normative and Evaluative Terms.” Philosophers’ Imprint13 (23): 1–37. philpapers.org/rec/PLUDAT-2.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Plunkett, David
    2015 “Which Concepts Should We Use? Metalinguistic Negotiation and The Methodology of Philosophy.” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy. Special Issue: Philosophical Methodology and Metaphilosophy58 (7–8): 828–874.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/ Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rees-Miller, Janie
    2000 “Power, Severity, and Context in Disagreement.” Journal of Pragmatics32 (8): 1087–1111. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00088‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00088-0 [Google Scholar]
  33. Scott, Suzanne
    2002 “Linguistic Feature Variation within Disagreements: An Empirical Investigation”. Text22 (2): 301–328.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sifianou, Maria
    2012 “Disagreement, Face and Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (12): 1554–1564. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  35. Stevenson, Charles Leslie
    1960Ethics and Language. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 1963Facts and Values: Studies in Ethical Analysis. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 1998 “The Nature of Ethical Disagreement” (reproduction on Facts and Values) . InEthical Theory 1. The Question of Objectivity, ed. by James Rachel , 43–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Tannen, Deborah
    2002 “Agonism in Academic Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics34 (11): 1651–1669. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00079‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00079-6 [Google Scholar]
  39. Verbruggen, Freddy
    1965 “The Attitude Theory and the Disagreement or Controversy within Philosophy and between Philosophy and Science. A plea for a Theory of Persuasive Communication and Argumentation”. Philosophica3: 145–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Waldron, Vincent R. , and James L. Applegate
    1994 “Interpersonal Construct Differentiation and Conversational Planning. An Examination of Two Cognitive Accounts for the Production of Competent Verbal Disagreement Tactics”. Human Communication Research21 (1): 3–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.1994.tb00337.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00337.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Walton, Douglas
    2001 “Persuasive Definitions and Public Policy Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy37: 117–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2006Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Yule, George
    1996Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Cambridge Dictionaries Online: dictionary.cambridge.org
  45. Merriam Webster Dictionary Online:www.merriam-webster.com
  46. Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana
    2002Interacţiunea verbală în limba română actuală. Corpus selectiv. Schiţă de tipologie (Verbal Interaction in Present-day Romanian. Selective Corpora. Typology) [IVLRA]. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 2007Interacţiunea verbală (IV II). Aspecte teoretice şi aplicative. Corpus] (Verbal Interaction (IV II). Theoretical and Applicative Aspects. Corpora) [IV II]. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.6.3.04hoi
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