Cover not available

Article In: Journal of Argumentation in Context: Online-First Articles

Conversation analysis and extended pragma-dialectics in dialogue

A case study of Dutch medical consultation

ORCiD logo with link | University of Groningen
 | HAN
 | Leiden University
 | Radboud University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Both conversation analysis (CA) and extended pragma-dialectics (PD) share an interest in empirical, data-driven analysis of argumentative exchanges, a focus on sequential organization, and context-sensitivity. While cross-fertilization between CA and argumentation analysis in general took place, no full parallel analysis with CA and PD, let alone with extended PD was carried out. In this paper by CA and PD researchers, we compare how each approach interprets the same Dutch medical consultation and assess systematically how both approaches differ and complement each other. We will focus on disagreement management and doctor-patient decision-making. Our findings suggest that, despite the tensions, the combination of these approaches offers a more comprehensive understanding of the interactional dynamics of argumentation, shedding light on, e.g., the enactment of institutional roles, the normative consequences of turn-management, and varied facets of strategic maneuvering.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conversation analysis and pragma-dialectics in dialogue
    • 2.1Conversation analysis
    • 2.2Extended pragma-dialectics
    • 2.3Methodological tensions and complementarities: CA and PD in argumentative interaction
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Method of analysis
  • 4.Case study
    • 4.1Description of the case
    • 4.2A conversation analytical analysis
      • Part I
      • Part II
      • Part III
      • Part IV
    • 4.2An extended pragma-dialectical analysis
  • 5.Combined insights
  • 6.Conclusion and discussion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
References (56)
References
Akkermans, Aranka, Francisca A. Snoeck Henkemans, Nanon H. M. Labrie, Inge Henselmans, and Hanneke van Laarhoven. 2018. “The stereotypicality of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 7 (2): 181–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles, and Ivan Leudar. 1992. “Explaining in conversation: Towards an argument model.” European Journal of Social Psychology 221: 181–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and John Heritage. 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnes, Rebecca K. 2019. “Conversation analysis of communication in medical care: Description and beyond.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 52 (3): 300–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bigi, Sarah. 2018. “The role of argumentative practices within advice-seeking activity types. The case of the medical consultation.” Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio 12 (1): 42–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bilmes, Jack. 1991. “Towards a theory of argument in conversation: The preference for disagreement.” In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, 462–469. Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bova, Antonio. 2021. “Co-construction of argumentative discussions between parents and children during mealtime conversations. A pragma-dialectical analysis.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 291: 100519. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage. 1992. Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, and Jean H. M. Wagemans. 2013. “The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation.” In Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. “Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem.” Argumentation 6 (2): 141–159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Peter Houtlosser. 2000. “Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework.” Argumentation 141: 293–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2016. Argumentation: Analysis and Evaluation. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glenn, Phillip, and Ran Kuttner. 2013. “Dialogue, dispute resolution, and talk-in-interaction: On empirical studies of ephemeral phenomena.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 6 (1): 13–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1986. “Audience diversity, participation and interpretation.” Text — Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 6 (3): 283–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haft-Van Rees, M. Agnes. 1989. “Conversation, relevance, and argumentation.” Argumentation 31: 385–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Have, Paul ten. 2007. Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. 2nd ed. London: SAGE. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman. 2011. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hout, Anja A. van der, Mike Huiskes, Taco. Gosens, and Brenda L. den Oudsten. 2025. “How option-listing influences decision-making in orthopedic consultations: A conversation analytic study.” Patient Education and Counseling 1301: 108450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 1992. “Confrontation talk: Aspects of ‘interruption’ in argument sequences on talk radio.” Text — Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 12 (3): 343–372. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian, and Robin Wooffitt. 1998. Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott. 2000. “Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics.” Argumentation 14 (3): 261–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally. 2025. “Studying Controversies: A Path for Expansion of Argumentation Theory.” Journal of Argumentation 391: 509–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs. 1980. “Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme.” The Quarterly Journal of Speech 661: 251–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1988. “On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation.” Social Problems 35 (4): 418–441. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, edited by G. H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga. 1993. “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the Context Sensitivity of Preference Structures.” Language in Society 22 (2): 193–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, Judith, and Martin Luginbühl. 2024. “Demonstrating consensus in argumentative settings: Co-constructions in children’s peer discussions.” European Journal of Psychology of Education 391: 1739–1757. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labrie, Nanon H. M. 2012. “Strategic Maneuvering in Treatment Decision-Making Discussions: Two Cases in Point.” Argumentation 261: 171–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labrie, Nanon H. M., and Peter J. Schulz. 2015. “Quantifying Doctors’ Argumentation in General Practice Consultation Through Content Analysis: Measurement Development and Preliminary Results.” Argumentation 291: 33–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W., and John Heritage. 2005. “Conversation analysis, doctor–patient interaction and medical communication.” Medical Education 391: 428–435. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pilgram, Roosmaryn. 2009. “Argumentation in doctor-patient interaction: Medical consultation as a pragma-dialectical communicative activity type.” Studies in Communication Sciences 921: 153–169.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred and dispreferred turn shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poppel, Lotte van, and Roosmaryn Pilgram. 2025. “The argumentative role of patient companions in (shared) decision-making.” Patient Education and Counseling 1331: 108623. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rees, M. Agnes van. 1995. “Analysing and Evaluating Problem-solving Discussions.” Argumentation 91: 343–362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Discourse analysis and argumentation theory: The case of television talk.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 1454–1463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reijven, Menno. 2021. “The co-construction of campaign argumentation on U.S.A. late-night talk shows.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 10 (3): 397–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandvik, Margareth. 1997. “Reconstructing interactive argumentative discourse.” Argumentation 111: 419–434. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.” Language 53 (2): 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack., and Nick J. Enfield (eds.). 2017. Getting Things Done in Talk: The Pragmatics of Executive Action. John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds.). 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, Francisca A., and Dima Mohammed. 2012. “Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1): 19–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. “Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (1): 31–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verbiest, Agnes. 1989. “Confrontation in conversations: The adjacency pair as a tool of the descriptive component of a pragma-dialectical analysis.” Argumentation 31: 395–400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue