1887
Volume 21, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This article reports on an interactional practice found in one form of adversarial talk, arguments during protests, where participants work to ‘entice’ a particular answer from an opponent using an uncontroversial questions in order to challenge the opponent on the basis of their own answer. Based on a collection of arguments during protests posted to YouTube, this article uses conversation analysis (CA) in order to investigate the way in which participants employ these uncontroversial questions as ‘pre-challenges’, using speaker selection, recipient focused topics and a moral ordering of talk to work to obligate a particular answer from the recipient. The results of the analysis illustrate several ways in which participants manipulate epistemics, speaker selection, and recipient design as resources for enacting social conflict.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21.3.06rey
2011-01-01
2019-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atkinson, Maxwell , and Paul Drew
    (1979) Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Clayman, Steven , and John Heritage
    (2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  3. Coulter, Jeff
    (1990) Elementary properties of argument sequences. In George Psathas (ed.), Interaction Competence. Washington: University Press of America, pp. 181–203.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dersley, Ian , and Anthony Wootton
    (2000) Complaint sequences within antagonistic argument. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33: 375–406. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02 [Google Scholar]
  5. Edwards, Derek , and Alessandra Fasulo
    (2006) “To be honest”: Sequential uses of honesty phrases in talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39: 343–376. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_1 [Google Scholar]
  6. Goodwin, Charles
    (1996) Transparent vision. In Elinor Ochs , Emmanuel Schegloff , and Sandra Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 370–404. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008 [Google Scholar]
  7. Gruber, Helmut
    (2001) Questions and strategic orientation in verbal conflict sequences. Journal of Pragmatics33: 1851–1857. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00083‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00083-7 [Google Scholar]
  8. Goodwin, Charles , and John Heritage
    (1990) Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology19: 283–307. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001435
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001435 [Google Scholar]
  9. Heinemann, Trine
    (2008) Questions of accountability: Yes-no interrogatives that are unanswerable. Discourse Studies10: 55–71. doi: 10.1177/1461445607085590
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085590 [Google Scholar]
  10. Heritage, John
    (2002) The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics34: 1427–1446. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00072‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3 [Google Scholar]
  11. Heritage, John , and Geoffrey Raymond
    (2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly68: 15–38. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  12. Heritage, John , and Steven Clayman
    (2010) Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hester, Stephen , and Peter Eglin
    (1997) Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Housley, William , and Richard Fitzgerald
    (2002) The reconsidered model of membership categorization analysis, Qualitative Research2: 59–83. doi: 10.1177/146879410200200104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200104 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hutchby, Ian
    (1996a) Confrontation talk: Argument, asymmetries and power on talk radio. Hilldale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (1996b) Power in discourse: The case of arguments on a British talk radio show. Discourse & Society7: 481–97. doi: 10.1177/0957926596007004003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926596007004003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jayyusi, Lena
    (1984) Categorization and the moral order. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jefferson, Gail
    (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp13–31. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  19. Koshik, Irene
    (2002) A conversation-analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics34: 1851–77. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00057‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00057-7 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2003) Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies5: 51–77. doi: 10.1177/14614456030050010301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030050010301 [Google Scholar]
  21. Levinson, Stephen
    (1992) Activity types and language. In Paul Drew , and John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Maynard, Douglas
    (1985) How children start arguments. Language in Society14: 1–29. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500010915
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010915 [Google Scholar]
  23. Mehan, Hugh
    (1979) Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674420106
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106 [Google Scholar]
  24. Monzoni, Chiara
    (2008) Introducing direct complaints through questions: The interactional achievement of “pre-sequences”. Discourse Studies10: 73–87. doi: 10.1177/1461445607085591
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085591 [Google Scholar]
  25. Muntigl, Peter , and William Turnbull
    (1998) Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics29: 225–256. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)00048‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00048-9 [Google Scholar]
  26. Paoletti, Isabella
    (1998) Handling "incoherence" according to speaker's on-sight categorization. In Charles Antaki , and Sue Widdicombe (eds.), Identities in Talk. London: Sage, pp. 171–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Pomerantz, Anita
    (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson , and John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1988) Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs55: 360–73. doi: 10.1080/03637758809376177
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376177 [Google Scholar]
  29. Raymond, Geoffrey
    (2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review68: 939–67. doi: 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  30. Sacks, Harvey
    (1992) Lectures on conversation. 2 vols. Jefferson, Gail (ed.)with introductions by Schegloff, Emmanuel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sacks, Harvey , Emmanuel Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50: 696–735. doi: 10.2307/412243
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  32. Schegloff, Emmanuel
    (1968) Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist70: 1075–95. doi: 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  33. (1980) Preliminaries to preliminaries: "Can I ask you a question?". Sociological Inquiry50: 104–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00018.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x [Google Scholar]
  34. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  35. Schiffrin, Deborah
    (1984) Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society13: 311–335. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500010526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010526 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sharrock, Wes
    (1974) On owning knowledge. In Roy Turner (ed.), Ethnomethodology: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 45–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Stokoe, Elizabeth , and Derek Edwards
    (2008) "Did you have permission to smash your neighbour's door?" Silly questions and their answers in police–suspect interrogations. Discourse Studies10: 89–111. doi: 10.1177/1461445607085592
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085592 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2010) Asking ostensibly silly questions in police-suspect interrogations. In Alice Freed , and Susan Erlich (eds.), Why do you ask: The functions of questions in institutional discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 108–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Vuchinich, Samuel
    (1990) The sequential organisation of closing in verbal family conflict. In Allen Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 118–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Watson, Rod
    (1997) Some general reflections on 'Categorization' and 'Sequence' in the analysis of conversation. In Stephen Hester , and Peter Eglin (eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, pp. 49–76.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21.3.06rey
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Arguments , Conflict , Conversation analysis , Epistemics and Questions
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