Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:29:54.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2009

Helga Kotthoff
Helga Kotthoff
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Postfach 5560, D 7750 Konstanz, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses disagreement sequences in German and Anglo-American disputes. It is argued that the context sensitivity of preference for agreement with assessments that Pomerantz 1984 found in her data has to be elaborated and extended. My findings suggest that the preference structure can change once a dissent-turn-sequence has been displayed; in this case, opponents are expected to defend their positions. The reduction of reluctance markers creates a new preference structure which itself has to be accomplished by all participants. Concessions, defined as a participant's agreeing to the central issue after his or her prior disagreement, show reluctance markers which are viewed as indicators of the dispreferred status in other types of talk. Concessions can be distinguished from partially agreeing presequences of dissent turns. Speakers move toward concessions stepwise. Unprepared position shifts can be regarded by the interlocutors as the inability to defend an opinion. Concessions, being an interactional achievement, reframe the dispute. (Conversation analysis, dispute, context studies, expectation management)

Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 193 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atkinson, Maxwell & Drew, Paul (1979). Order in court: The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Maxwell & Heritage, John (1984a). Preference organization. In Atkinson, & Heritage, , eds. (1984b), 53–56.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Maxwell, eds. (1984b). Structures of social action. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, J. C. Peter & Uhmann, Susanne (1982). Aspekte der konversationellen Organisation von Bewertungen. Deutsche Sprache 10:1–32.Google Scholar
Bilmes, Jack (1988). The concept of preference in conversation analysis. Language in Society 17:161–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilmes, Jack (1991). Two conversational phenomena and their interaction. Paper given at the Conference on Current Work in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, July, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook-Gumperz, Jenny & Gumperz, John (1976). Context in children's speech: Papers on language and context. (Working papers, 46.) Berkeley: Language Behavior Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction ritual. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1981). Footing. In his Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 124–60.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie (1980). Directive/response speech sequences in girls' and boys' task activities. In McConnell-Ginet, Sally, Borker, Ruth & Furmann, Nelly (eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger. 157–73.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie (1983). Aggravated correction and disagreement in children's conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 7:657–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne (1991). Pi Lau Zheng. In Müller-Jacquier, Bernd (ed.), Wirtschaftskommunikation. München: Iudicium. 297–325.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne (1992). Chinesinnen und Deutsche im Gespräch. University of Konstanz dissertation.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott & Jackson, Sally (1981). Argument as a natural category: The routine grounds for arguing in conversation. Western Journal of Speech Communication 45:118–32.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1984). On the organization of laughter in talks about troubles. In Atkinson, & Heritage, , eds. (1984b), 346–70.Google Scholar
Keenan, Elinor & Schieffelin, Bambi (1976). Topic as a discourse notion: A study of topic in the conversation of children and adults. In Li, Charles (ed.), Subjects and topics. New York: Academic. 335–84.Google Scholar
Knoblauch, Hubert (1991). The taming of foes: The avoidance of asymmetry in informal discussions. In Marková, Ivana & Foppa, Klaus (eds.), Asymmetries in dialogue. Hemel Hempstead, England: Barnes & Noble. 166–95.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga (1989a). Pro und Kontra in der Fremdsprache: Pragmatische Defizite in inter-kulturellen Argumentationen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga (1989b). Stilunterschiede im argumentativen Diskurs Oder zum Geselligkeitswert von Dissens. In Hinnenkamp, Volker & Selting, Margret (eds.), Stil und Stilisierung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga & Cole, Patricia (1985). Modalpartikeln lernen wir nun wohl ja denn doch. Zielsprache Deutsch 1:2–8.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica 30:263–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1975). Second assessments: A study of some features of agreements/disagreements. University of California, Irvine, dissertation.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, & Heritage, , eds. (1984b). 57–102.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1973). The preference for agreement in natural conversation. Paper presented at the Linguistic Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel (1988). On an actual virtual servomechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture. Social Problems 35:442–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13:311–35.Google Scholar
Schubiger, Maria (1965). English intonation and German particles: A comparative study. Phonetica 12:65–84.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1981). New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 30:133–49.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vuchinich, Samuel (1990). Sequencing of terminations in family disputes. In Grimshaw, Allen (ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 118–38.Google Scholar