Cover not available

Article published In: Language and Dialogue
Vol. 14:3 (2024) ► pp.473–491

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Framing interactivity in complex communication of debate talk show

 | University of Massachusetts Amherst
Published online: 5 August 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00181.vas
Abstract
The present study explores how disagreement space is managed in a multiparty argumentative activity of debate talk show that focuses on the political situation in Belarus. The communicative activity under study is viewed as a type of difficult conversation that takes place between two groups that differ in their ideologies (Ellis, Donald G. 2020. “Talking to the Enemy: Difficult Conversations and Ethnopolitical Conflict.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 131: 183–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). In particular, drawing on the polylogical framework of argumentation (. 2023. Argumentation in Complex Communication: Managing Disagreement in a Polylogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and communication design approach (. 2007. “Communication as Design.” Communication Monographs 741: 112–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), the study investigates the communicative practice of framing that the moderators and the debaters use to shape disagreement space. The analysis shows that the activity is polylogical not just in a sense of positions, participants, and places (. 2023. Argumentation in Complex Communication: Managing Disagreement in a Polylogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), but also in how argumentative activity is framed, which has consequences for how the interactivity is constructed and how disagreement space is managed in the course of interaction. It also shows how the interweaving of negative and positive features of communication add to the complexity of difficult interaction.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Polylogical view of argumentative activity
  • 3.Communication as design
  • 4.Data and method
  • 5.Data analysis
    • 5.1Moderators’ framing of the activity
    • 5.2Participants’ framing of the activity
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
References (43)
References
Aakhus, Mark. 2003. “Neither Naïve nor Normative Reconstruction: Dispute Mediators, Impasse, and the Design of Argumentation.” Argumentation: An International Journal on Reasoning 171: 265–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Communication as Design.” Communication Monographs 741: 112–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barbour, Joshua B. and Rebecca Gill. 2014. “Designing Communication for the Day-to-Day Safety Oversight of Nuclear Power Plants”. Journal of Applied Communication Research 421: 168–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Black, Laura W. 2008. “Deliberation, Storytelling, and Dialogic Moments.” Communication Theory 18 (1): 93–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruxelles, Sylvie and Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni. 2004. “Coalitions in Polylogues.” Journal of Pragmatics 361: 75–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buttny, Richard. 2010. “Citizen Participation, Metadiscourse, and Accountability: A Public Hearing on a Zoning Change for Wal-Mart.” Journal of Communication 60 (4): 636–659. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burgsteden van, Lotte, Hedwig te Modler, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2022. “The Turn-by-Turn Unfolding of “Dialogue”: Examining Participants’ Orientation to Moments of Transformative Engagement.” Language and Communication 821: 64–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. 1998. “The Study of Controversies and the Theory of History and Science.” Science in Context 111: 147–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1992. “Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Peter Houtlosser. 2005. “Theoretical Construction and Argumentation Reality: An Analytic Model of Critical Discussion and Conventionalized Types of Argumentation Activity.” In The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, ed. by David Hitchcock, 75–84. Hamilton: McMaster University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, Donald G. 2020. “Talking to the Enemy: Difficult Conversations and Ethnopolitical Conflict.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 131: 183–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garcia, Angela Cora. 2019. How Mediation Works: Resolving Conflict Through Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greatbatch, David. 1992. “On the Management of Disagreement between News Interviewees.” In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 268–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greatbatch, David and Robert Dingwall. 1997. “Argumentative Talk in Divorce Mediation Sessions”. American Sociological Review 621: 151–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greco Morasso, Sara G. 2011. Argumentation in Dispute Mediation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 1996. Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally. 1992. “Virtual Standpoints” and the Pragmatics of Conversational Argument. In Argumentation Illuminated, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, 260–269. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott and Mark Aakhus. 2002. “What Mediators Do with Words: Implementing Three Models of Rational Discussion in Dispute Mediation.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 201: 177–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott and Sally Jackson. 1981. “Argument as a Natural Category: The Routine Grounds for Arguing in Conversation.” The Western Journal of Speech Communication 451: 118–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. “Building a Model of Conversational Argument.” In Rethinking Communication, Vol 2: Paradigm Exemplars, ed. by Brenda Dervin, Lawrence Grossberg, Barbara J. O’Keefe, and Ellen Wartella, 153–169. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “Derailments of Argumentation: It Takes Two to Tango.” In Considering Pragma-dialectics, ed. by Peter Houtlosser and Agnès van Rees, 121–133. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 2006. “Metaphors We Live by.” In The Production of Reality: Essays and Readings on Social Interaction, ed. by Jodi O’Brien, 103–114. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin and Mark Aakhus. 2014. “Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.” Argumentation 281: 161–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2023. Argumentation in Complex Communication: Managing Disagreement in a Polylogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montiegel, Kristella and Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2019. “First Matters: A Qualitative Examination of a Strategy for Controlling the Agenda When Answering Questions in the 2016 U.S. Republican Primary Election Debates.” Communication Monographs 861: 23–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sprain, Leah, Martin Carcasson, and Andy Merolla. 2014. “Utilizing “on Tap” Experts in Deliberative Forums: Implications for Design.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 421: 150–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (ed.). 1993. Framing in Discourse. NewYork, NY: Oxford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, W. Travis, Frederick Steier, and Wit Ostrenko. 2014. “Designing Communication Process for the Design of an Idea Zone at a Science Center.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 421: 208–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen. 2001. “Discourse Analysis in Communication”. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, 725–249. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Challenges of Ordinary Democracy: A Case Study in Deliberation and Dissent. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Houwen, Fleur. 2009. “Formulating Disputes.” Journal of Pragmatics 411: 2072–2085. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. “Practices of Topic and Dialogue Activity Management in Dispute Mediation.” Discourse Studies 191: 341–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weger, Harry and Mark Aakhus. 2003. “Arguing in Internet Chat Rooms: Argumentative Adaptations to Chat Room Design and Some Consequences for Public Deliberation at a Distance.” Argumentation and Advocacy 401: 23–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2006. “Argumentation: The Mixed Game.” Argumentation 201: 59–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Апресян, Юрий Дереникович [Apresian Yurij Derenikobich]. 1995. Избранные Труды. Том 2. Интегральное Описание Языка и Системная Лексикография [Selected Works. Volume 2. Integral Description of Language and System Lexicography]. M.: Школа “Языки Русской Культуры” [M.: School “Languages of the Russian Cultury”].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue