Questions and strategic orientation in verbal conflict sequences

Journal of Pragmatics

Volumn 33, Issue 12, 2001, Pages 1815-1857

  Gruber, Helmut ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Communication principles; Conflict communication; Conversation analysis; German; Interaction strategies; Media communication; Participants' expectations

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035624781     PISSN: 03782166     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00083-7     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Billig Michael. Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse and Society. 10:(4):1999a;543-558.
2. Billig Michael. Conversation analysis and the claims of naivety. Discourse and Society. 10:(4):1999b;572-577.
3. Bilmes Jack. The concept of preference in conversation analysis. Language in Society. 17:1988;161-181.
4. Bilmes Jack. Questions, answers and the organization of talk in the 1992 vice presidential debate: Fundamental considerations. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 32:(3):1999;213-243.
5. Brenneis Donald. Language and disputing. Annual Review of Anthropology. 17:1988;221-237.
6. Brown Penelope, Levinson Stephen. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. 1987;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
7. Dersley Ian, Wootton Anthony. Complaint sequences within antagonistic argument. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 33:(4):2000;375-407.
8. Drew Paul. Interaction sequences and anticipatory interactive planning. Goody E., Social intelligence and interaction. 1995;111-139 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
9. Ehlich Konrad. HIAT: A transcription system for discourse data. Edwards J., Lampert M., Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. 1993;123-149 Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
10. Ehlich Konrad, Rehbein Jochen. Halbinterpretative Arbeitstranskription (HIAT). Linguistische Berichte. 45:1976;21-41.
11. Ehlich Konrad, Rehbein Jochen. Erweiterte halbinterpretative Arbeitstranskription (HIAT 2): Intonation. Linguistische Berichte. 59:1979;51-75.
12. Foppa Klaus. Topic progression and intention. Marková I., Foppa K., Dynamics of dialogue. 1990;178-201 Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.
13. Fraser Bruce. Hedged performatives. Cole P., Morgan J., Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3). 1975;187-210 Academic Press, New York.
14. Frei-Borer Ursula. Das Clubgespräch im Fernsehen. 1991;Lang, Bern.
15. Frei-Borer Ursula. Zu den Regeln des Gelingens von Fernsehgesprächen. Löffler H., Dialoganalyse IV. 2:1993;Niemeyer, Tübingen.
16. Goffman Erving. Forms of talk. 1981;Blackwell, Oxford.
17. Goffman Erving. . [1969] Strategische Interaktion. 1981;Hanser, München.
18. Goodwin Marjorie Harness. He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. 1990;Indiana University Press, Indianapolis, IN.
19. Goody Esther. Introduction: Some implications of a social origin of intelligence. Goody E., Social intelligence and interaction. 1995;1-37 Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
20. Greene John. Tactical social action: Towards some strategies for theory. Cody M., McLaughlin M., The Psychology of Tactical Communication. 1990;31-48 Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
21. Gruber Helmut. Antisemitismus im Mediendiskurs. 1991;Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.
22. Gruber Helmut. Rollenstruktur und Konfliktaustragung in einer Fernsehdiskussion. Hess-Lüttich E.W.B., Kulturkonflikt - Medienkonflikt - Konflikt in den Medien. 1992;317-349 Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.
23. Gruber Helmut. Streitgespräche: Zur Pragmatik einer Diskursform. 1996;Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.
24. Gruber Helmut. The rhetoric of trivialization. Blommaert J., Bulcaen Ch., Political linguistics. 1997;139-157 Benjamins, Amsterdam. (Belgian Journal of Linguistics 11).
25. Gruber Helmut. Disagreeing: Structure and sequential placement of disagreements in conflicts phase of talk. Text. 18:(4):1998;467-503.
26. Gruber Helmut, Ruth Wodak. Österreich und seine 'Nazi-Hanseln': Vom massenmedialen Umgang mit Neonazismus und Auschwitzlüge in Österreichs auflagenstärkster Tageszeitung. Reiher R., Sprache im Konflikt: Zur Rolle der Sprache in sozialen, politischen und militärischen Auseinandersetzungen. 1995;391-417 de Gruyter, Berlin.
27. Gulliver P.H. Disputes and negotiation: A cross-cultural perspective. 1979;Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
28. Halliday Michael A.K. An introduction to functional grammar. 1994;Arnold, London.
29. Halliday Michael A.K., Hasan Ruqaiya. Cohesion in English. 1976;Longman, London.
30. Heritage John. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. 1984;Polity Press, Oxford.
31. Heritage John. Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. van Dijk T.A., Handbook of discourse analysis. 3:1985;95-117 Academic Press, London.
32. Heritage John, Greatbatch David. Generating applause: A study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology. 19:1986;110-157.
33. Heritage John, Watson David. Formulations as conversational objects. Psathas G., Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. 1979;123-163 Irvington, New York.
34. Hutchby Ian. Confrontation talk: Aspects of 'interruption' in argument sequences on talk radio. Text. 12:(3):1992;343-371.
35. Hutchby Ian. Confrontation Talk: Arguments, asymmetries and power on talk radio. 1996a;Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
36. Hutchby Ian. Power in discourse: The case of arguments on a British talk radio show. Discourse and Society. 7:(4):1996b;481-497.
37. Hutchby Ian. Rhetorical strategies in audience participation debates on radio and TV. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 32:(3):1999;243-269.
38. Jefferson Gail. Side sequences. Sudnow D., Studies in social interaction. 1972;294-338 The Free Press, New York.
39. Kotthoff Helga. Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society. 22:1993;193-216.
40. Kummer Hans. Vies de singes: Moeurs et structures sociales des babouins hamadryas. 1993;Jacob, Paris.
41. Löffler Heinrich. Fernsehgespräche im Vergleich: Gibt es kultur- oder programmspezifische Gesprächsstile? Holly W., Kühn P., Püschel U., Redeshows. Fernsehdiskussionen in der Diskussion. 1989;92-116 Niemeyer, Tübingen.
42. Martin James R. English text. 1992;Benjamins, Amsterdam.
43. Maynard Douglas W. How children start arguments. Language in Society. 14:1985;1-29.
44. Muntigl Peter, Turnbull William. Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics. 29:1998;225-256.
45. O'Donnell Katherine. Difference and dominance: How labor and management talk conflict. Grimshaw A., Conflict Talk. 1990;210-241 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
46. Philips Susan. Grimshaw A., The judge as third party in American trial-court conflict talk. 1990;197-210.
47. Pilch Herbert. Listige Rede: Was man sagt und doch nicht sagt. von Senger H., Die List. 1999;345-386 Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.
48. Pomerantz Anita. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. Atkinson M.J., Heritage J., Structures of Social Action. 1984;57-102 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
49. Psathas George. The study of extended sequences: The case of the garden lesson. Watson G., Seiler R., Text in context. 1992;99-123 Sage, London.
50. Sacks Harvey, Schegloff Emanuel, Jefferson Gail. A simpliest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language. 50:1974;697-735.
51. Sanders Robert. The impossibility of a culturally contexted conversation analysis: On simultaneous, distinct types of pragmatic meaning. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 32:(1/2):1999;129-141.
52. Schegloff Emanuel. Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society. 8:(2):1997;165-189.
53. Schegloff Emanuel. Reply to Wetherell. Discourse and Society. 9:(3):1998;413-417.
54. Schegloff Emanuel. Discourse, pragmatics, conversation, analysis. Discourse Studies. 1:(4):1999a;405-437.
55. Schegloff Emanuel. 'Schegloff's texts' as 'Billig's data': A critical reply. Discourse and Society. 10:(4):1999b;558-572.
56. Schegloff Emanuel. Naivete vs. sophistication or discipline vs. self-indulgence: A rejoinder to Billig. Discourse and Society. 10:(4):1999c;577-582.
57. Schegloff Emanuel. What next?: Language and social interaction study at the century's turn. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 32:(1/2):1999d;141-149.
58. Schegloff Emanuel, Jefferson Gail, Sacks Harvey. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language. 53:1977;361-382.
59. Schiffrin Deborah. Discourse markers. 1987;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
60. Schiffrin Deborah. The management of co-operative self during argument: The role of opinions and stories. Grimshaw A., Conflict Talk. 1990;241-260 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
61. von Senger Harro. Die List im chinesischen und im abendländischen Denken: Zur allgemeinen Einführung. von Senger H., Die List. 1999;9-50 Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.
62. Sitte Peter. Die 'listenreiche' Evolution: Täuschung bei Tieren, Pflanzen, Bakterien und Viren. von Senger H., Die List. 1999;475-499 Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.
63. Thimm Caja. Dominanz und Sprache: Strategisches Handeln im Alltag. 1990;Deutscher Universitätsverlag, Wiesbaden.
64. Vuchinich Samuel. On attenuation in verbal family conflict. Social Psychology Quarterly. 49:(4):1986;281-293.
65. Vuchinich Samuel. Starting and stopping spontaneous family conflicts. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 49:(3):1987;591-601.
66. Vuchinich Samuel. The sequential organisation of closing in verbal family conflict. Grimshaw A., Conflict Talk. 1990;118-139 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
67. Wetherell Margaret. Positioning and interpreting repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society. 9:(3):1998;387-413.
68. Wieder Lawrence. Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, microanalysis, and ethnography of speaking (EM-CA-MA-ES): Resonances and basic issues. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 32:(1-/2):1999;163-173.
69. Wilson Thomas. Social structure and the sequential organization of interaction. Boden D., Zimmerman D., Talk and social structure. 1991;22-43 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.