1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 30, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 30, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

The paper explores the disagreement pragmeme as a culture-bound notion (Mey 2016a2016b2001) in the language use of English-speaking and Serbian-speaking politicians. The objectives are to establish the types, frequencies and cultural specificities of disagreement allopracts in political interviews. Furthermore, the research analyses allopracts in relation to the single and multiple dispute profiles (van Eemeren, Houtlosser and Henkemans 2007). The starting assumption is that allopracts will be realised in culturally specific ways despite the fact that the analysed pragmeme belongs to the same communication genre, which is the Immediately Relevant (Krzeszowski 1990) of the research. The hypothesis to be verified is that the Serbian sub-corpus will yield more examples of strong disagreement. Another aim is to classify the obtained allopracts according to their degrees of strength. The analysis is based on the corpus of 50 political interviews, involving 30 politicians and 262 allopracts.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19013.rad
2020-08-25
2025-02-15

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.19013.rad
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/prag.19013.rad.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19013.rad&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Austin, John L.
    1962 How to Do Things with Words. The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955, ed. by James O. Urmson . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bales, Robert F.
    1970 Personality and Interpersonal Behaviour. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bell, Philip and Theo van Leeuwen
    1994 The Media Interview. Confession, Contest, Conversation. Kensington: University of New South Wales Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bucholtz, Mary
    2000 “The Politics of Transcription.” Journal of Pragmatics32: 1439–1465. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00094‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00094-6 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bull, Peter and Kate Mayer
    1988 “Interruptions in Political Interviews: A Study of Margaret Thatcher and Neil Kinnock.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology7(1): 35–45. 10.1177/0261927X8800700103
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8800700103 [Google Scholar]
  6. Capone, Alessandro
    2005 “Pragmemes (a Study with Reference to English and Italian).” Journal of Pragmatics37(9): 1355–1371. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2016 “Introducing the Notion of Pragmeme.” InPragmemes and Theories of Language Use, ed. by Keith Allan , Alessandro Capone and Istvan Kecskes , xv–xxiv. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2018 “Pragmemes (Again).” Lingua209: 89–104. 10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clayman, Steven and John Heritage
    2002 The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  10. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    2018 Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
  11. Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst
    1984 Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht, The Netherlands/ Cinnaminson, USA: Foris Publications. 10.1515/9783110846089
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  12. 1992 Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Eemeren, Frans H. van , Peter Houtlosser and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2007 Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  14. Elliot, Judy and Peter Bull
    1996 “A Question of Threat: Face Threats in Questions Posed during Televised Political Interviews.” Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology6: 49–72. 10.1002/(SICI)1099‑1298(199602)6:1<49::AID‑CASP355>3.0.CO;2‑H
     https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(199602)6:1<49::AID-CASP355>3.0.CO;2-H [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. Fetzer, Anita
    2000 “Negotiating Validity Claims in Political Interviews.” Text20: 1–46. 10.1515/text.1.2000.20.4.415
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.4.415 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2011 “Challenges in Contrast: A Function-to-Form Approach.” InContrastive Pragmatics. ed. by Karin Aijmer , 73–96. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.30.05fet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.30.05fet [Google Scholar]
  18. 2013 “The Multilayered and Multifaceted Nature of Political Discourse.” InThe Pragmatics of Political Discourse. Explorations across Cultures, ed. by Anita Fetzer , 1–18. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.228.01fet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.228.01fet [Google Scholar]
  19. 2016 “Pragmemes in Discourse.” InPragmemes and Theories of Language, ed. by Keith Allan , Alessandro Capone and Istvan Kecskes , 249–264. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43491‑9_14
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_14 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fetzer, Anita and Peter Bull
    2013 “Political Interviews in Context.” InAnalyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice, ed. by Piotr Cap and Urszula Okulska , 73–99. New York and Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.04fet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.04fet [Google Scholar]
  21. Goffman, Erving
    1986 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
    1983 “Aggravated Correction and Disagreement in Children’s Conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics7: 657–77. 10.1016/0378‑2166(83)90089‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(83)90089-9 [Google Scholar]
  23. Günthner, Susanne
    1993 Diskursstrategien in der interkulturellen Kommunikation. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hanlon, Bernadette
    2010 “Verbal Aggression and Neutrality in Political Interviews.” Diffusion3(2). https://www.bcur.org/journals/index.php/Diffusion/article/view/156/137 (accessed24 October 2018).
     [Google Scholar]
  25. House, Juliane
    2010 “The Pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca.” InPragmatics across Languages and Cultures, ed. by Anna Trosborg , 363–387. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hutchby, Ian
    2006 Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hutchby, Ian and Robin Wooffitt
    1998 Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Jefferson, Gail
    1985 “An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter”, InHandbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk , 25–34. London: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner , 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  30. Kakavá, Christina
    2001 “Discourse and Conflict.” InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin , Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton , 650–670. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Kantara, Argyro
    2012 “Adversarial Challenges and Responses in Greek Political Interviews: A Case Study.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines5 (2): 171–189.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kecskes, Istvan
    2016 “Can Intercultural Pragmatics Bring Some New Insight into Pragmatic Theories?” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey , 43–69. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_3 [Google Scholar]
  33. Koshik, Irene
    2005 Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.16
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.16 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kotthoff, Helga
    1993 “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the Context-sensitivity of Preference Structures.” Language in Society22: 193–216. 10.1017/S0047404500017103
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017103 [Google Scholar]
  35. Krzeszowski, Tomasz
    1990 Contrasting Languages. The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110860146
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110860146 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kuo, Sai-hua
    1991 Conflict and Its Management in Chinese Verbal Interactions: Casual Conversations and Parliamentary Interpellations. Unpublished PhD thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
  37. Lauerbach, Gerda
    2007 “Argumentation in Political Talk Show Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 1388–1419. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  38. Luckmann, Thomas
    1995 “Interaction Planning and Intersubjective Adjustment of Perspectives by Communicative Genres.” InSocial Intelligence and Interaction, ed. by Esther Goody , 175–188. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511621710.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621710.011 [Google Scholar]
  39. Maschler, Yael and Deborah Schiffrin
    2015 “Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context.” InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Tannen , Heidi E. Hamilton and Deborah Schiffrin , Second edition, Vol.1. 189–221. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Mey, Jacob L.
    2001 Pragmatics: An Introduction. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 2016a “Why We Need the Pragmeme, or: Speech Acting and Its Peripeties.” InPragmemes and Theories of Language Use, ed. by Keith Allan , Alessandro Capone and Istvan Kecskes , 133–140. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43491‑9_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_7 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2016b “Modular, Cellular, Integral: A Pragmatic Elephant?” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey , 353–369. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_13
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_13 [Google Scholar]
  43. Patrona, Marianna
    2006 “Constructing the Expert as a Public Speaker: Face Considerations on Floor-claiming in Greek Television Discussion Programs.” Journal of Pragmatics38: 2124–2143. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  44. 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. M. Atkinson and John Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50: 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sbisà, Marina
    2009 “Speech Act Theory” inKey Notions for Pragmatics, ed. by Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola Östman , 229–244. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.1.13sbi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.1.13sbi [Google Scholar]
  47. Schenkein, Jim
    (ed.) 1978 Studies in the Organisation of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2001 “Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context.” InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin , Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton , 54–75. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Searle, John. R.
    1965 “What is a Speech Act?” InPhilosophy in America, ed. by Max Black , 221–239. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 1969 Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  52. Searle, John R.
    1976 “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society5: 1–23. 10.1017/S0047404500006837
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  53. Searle, John. R.
    1979 Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  54. Searle and Vanderveken
    1985 Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Tannen, Deborah
    1998 The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue. New York: Random House.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Verschueren, Jef
    1980 On Speech Act Verbs. Pragmatics & Beyond, Vol.4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.i.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.i.4 [Google Scholar]
  57. Weizman, Elda
    1998 “Individual Intentions and Collective Purpose: The Case of News Interviews.” InDialogue AnalysisVI, ed. by Svetla Cmejrkova , Jana Hoffmannova , Olga Mullerova and Jindra Svetla , 269–280. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 2006 “Roles and Identities in News Interviews: The Israeli Context.” Journal of Pragmatics38: 154–179. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.018
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.018 [Google Scholar]
  59. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1985 “Different Cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech Acts: Polish vs. English.” Journal of Pragmatics9 (2–3): 145–178. 10.1016/0378‑2166(85)90023‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90023-2 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wong, Jock
    2010 “The Triple Articulation of Language (Special issue on ‘grammemes’).” Journal of Pragmatics42: 2932–2944. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2016 “The ‘emesʼ of Linguistics.” InPragmemes and Theories of Language Use, ed. by Keith Allan , Alessandro Capone and Istvan Kecskes , 567–583. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43491‑9_29
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_29 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19013.rad
Loading
The pragmeme of disagreement and its allopracts in English and Serbian political interview discourse
Pragmatics 30, 586 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19013.rad
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19013.rad
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19013.rad
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): allopract; disagreement; English; political interview; pragmeme; Serbian

Most Cited

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