1887
Volume 10, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

Based on a case study, this paper explores the interaction between the act of disagreeing and the contextual parameters of Greek television panel discussions. The analysis of the data reveals that, in contrast to previous literature on disagreements in TV interview situations, the disagreements at hand are both (host)-unmediated and rendered less dispreferred by being delayed, indirectly posed, and/or mitigated. The discussion sheds light on the systematic ways in which the above is sequentially achieved so as to suit the parameters of the given context. It is argued that the preference features that accompany disagreements attend to the specialized floor-holding and turn-taking rights as well as to the public occasion of the interactions. As such, they index the participants’ management and negotiation of their roles and identities as interviewees, interlocutors, and public speakers.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.10.3.03geo
2000-01-01
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baym, N.
    (1996) Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29:315–345. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2904_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2904_2 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennett, A.
    (1981) Interruptions and the interpretation of conversation. Discourse Processes 4:171–188. doi: 10.1080/01638538109544513
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538109544513 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blum-Kulka, S.
    (1997) Dinner talk. Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brand, G. & P. Scannell
    (1991) Talk, identity, and performance: The Tony Blackburn show. In P. Scannell (ed.), Broadcast Talk. London: Sage, pp.201–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, P. and S. Levinson
    (1978) Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.56–289.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. dayman, S.E.
    (1992) Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news-interview discourse. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.163–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. dayman, S.
    (1988) Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems35.4: 474–92. doi: 10.2307/800598
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800598 [Google Scholar]
  9. Drew, P. and J. Heritage
    (1992) Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.3–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fairclough, N.
    (1995) Media discourse. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Georgakopoulou, A.
    (1997a) Self-presentation and interactional alliances in e-mail discourse: The style- and code-switches of Greek messages. Internationaljournal of Applied Linguistics 7:141–164. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.1997.tb00112.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1997.tb00112.x [Google Scholar]
  12. (1997b) Narrative performances: A study of Modern Greek storytelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.46
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.46
  13. Goffman, E.
    (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Greatbatch, D.
    (1992) On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.268–301.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hayashi, T.
    (1996) Politeness in conflict management: A conversation anlysis of dispreferred messages from a cognitive perspective. Journal of Pragmatics25: 227–255. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00080‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00080-8 [Google Scholar]
  16. Heritage. J. & D. Greatbatch
    (1991) On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden & D.H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.93–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hill, J.H. & J.T. Irvine
    (1992) (eds.)Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hutchby, I.
    (1991)  The organization of talk on talk radio. In P. Scannell (ed.), Broadcast talk. London: Sage, pp.119–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1992) Confrontational talk: Aspects of ‘interruption’ in argument sequences on talk radio. Text12: 343–371.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1997) Building alignments in public debate: A case study from British TV. Text17.2: 161–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kotthoff, H.
    (1993) Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society22: 193–216. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500017103
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017103 [Google Scholar]
  22. Levinson, S.
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1992) Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.66–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Livingstone, S. and P. Lunt
    (1994) Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mulkay, M.
    (1985) Agreement and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text5: 201–227.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Patrona, M.
    (in preparation)Constructing the expert in Greek television discussion programs. Ph.D thesis. King’s College London.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Pomerantz, A.
    (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action. Cambridge: Maison des Sciences de 1’ Homme and Cambridge University Press, pp.57–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Schiffrin, D.
    (1984) Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society13: 311–335. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500010526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010526 [Google Scholar]
  29. Sheldon, A.
    (1992) Conflict talk: Sociological challenges to self-assertion and how young girls meet them. New Merrill-Palmer Quarterly38: 95–117.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sifianou, Maria
    (1992) Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (1997) Politeness and off-record indirectness. International Journal of the Sociology of Language126: 163–179. doi: 10.1515/ijsl.1997.126.163
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1997.126.163 [Google Scholar]
  32. Tannen, D. & C. Kakava
    (1992) Power and solidarity in Modern Greek conversation: Disagreeing to agree. Journal of Modern Greek Studies10: 11–34. doi: 10.1353/mgs.2010.0203
    https://doi.org/10.1353/mgs.2010.0203 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.10.3.03geo
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