Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 10:3 (2000) ► pp.323–338

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

Disagreements in television discussions

How small can small screen arguments be?

Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 September 2000
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.3.03geo
Based on a case study, this paper explores the interaction between the act of disagreeing and the contextual parameters of Greek television panel discussions. The analysis of the data reveals that, in contrast to previous literature on disagreements in TV interview situations, the disagreements at hand are both (host)-unmediated and rendered less dispreferred by being delayed, indirectly posed, and/or mitigated. The discussion sheds light on the systematic ways in which the above is sequentially achieved so as to suit the parameters of the given context. It is argued that the preference features that accompany disagreements attend to the specialized floor-holding and turn-taking rights as well as to the public occasion of the interactions. As such, they index the participants’ management and negotiation of their roles and identities as interviewees, interlocutors, and public speakers.
References (32)
Baym, N. (1996) Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29: 315–345.  BoP
Bennett, A. (1981) Interruptions and the interpretation of conversation. Discourse Processes 4: 171–188.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1997) Dinner talk. Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brand, G. & P. Scannell (1991) Talk, identity, and performance: The Tony Blackburn show. In P. Scannell (ed.), Broadcast Talk. London: Sage, pp. 201–226.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P. and S. Levinson (1978) Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–289.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
dayman, S.E. (1992) Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news-interview discourse. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–198.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
dayman, S. (1988) Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems 35.4: 474–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, P. and J. Heritage (1992) Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–65.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1995) Media discourse. London: Arnold.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (1997a) Self-presentation and interactional alliances in e-mail discourse: The style- and code-switches of Greek messages. Internationaljournal of Applied Linguistics 7: 141–164.  BoP
Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greatbatch, D. (1992) On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 268–301.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayashi, T. (1996) Politeness in conflict management: A conversation anlysis of dispreferred messages from a cognitive perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 251: 227–255.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage. J. & D. Greatbatch (1991) On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden & D.H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 93–137.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, J.H. & J.T. Irvine (1992) (eds.) Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (1991) The organization of talk on talk radio. In P. Scannell (ed.), Broadcast talk. London: Sage, pp. 119–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992) Confrontational talk: Aspects of ‘interruption’ in argument sequences on talk radio. Text 121: 343–371. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997) Building alignments in public debate: A case study from British TV. Text 17.2: 161–79.  BoP Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (1993) Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 221: 193–216.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992) Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Livingstone, S. and P. Lunt (1994) Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge.  BoP Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulkay, M. (1985) Agreement and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text 51: 201–227.  BoP Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patrona, M. (in preparation) Constructing the expert in Greek television discussion programs. Ph.D thesis. King’s College London.
Pomerantz, A. (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action. Cambridge: Maison des Sciences de 1’ Homme and Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1984) Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 131: 311–335.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheldon, A. (1992) Conflict talk: Sociological challenges to self-assertion and how young girls meet them. New Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 381: 95–117.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria (1992) Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997) Politeness and off-record indirectness. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1261: 163–179.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, D. & C. Kakava (1992) Power and solidarity in Modern Greek conversation: Disagreeing to agree. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 101: 11–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

González-Lloret, Marta & Fátima Gatón Gabriel
2025. L2 disagreement through social media. Applied Pragmatics 7:2 ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Franceschi, Valeria
2024. Disalignment in the EU. Journal of Language and Politics 23:2 ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Kantara, Argyro
2022. Manifestations of Integrated Hybridity in Journalistic Questioning During the 2012 Elections in Greece. In Adversarial Political Interviewing, ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Jørgensen, Annette Myre & Inés Olza
2020. Phraseology in teenage language in Spanish, English and Norwegian. Languages in Contrast 20:1 ► pp. 58 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Yufang, Shu-ing Shyu, Wayne Schams & Hsun-Chen Chen
2020. Mandarin Chinesebuguo(‘but’) as a metacoherence marker in TV/radio interview talks. Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 21:1 ► pp. 104 ff. DOI logo
Myung-Hee Kim
2017. Expressions of disagreement in Korean and English task-based conversations. Discourse and Cognition 24:4 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Armon, Rony
2016. Expert positions and scientific contexts: Storying research in the news media. Discourse & Communication 10:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Jorfi, Leyli, Hamid Reza Dowlatabadi, Mark Vicars & Mark Vicars
2016. The types of overlap as conversational strategies in ‘dispute’, the Iranian live TV program. Qualitative Research Journal 16:2 DOI logo
Hüttner, Julia
2014. Agreeing to disagree: ‘doing disagreement’ in assessed oral L2 interactions. Classroom Discourse 5:2 ► pp. 194 ff. DOI logo
Koutsombogera, Maria & Harris Papageorgiou
2013. Multimodal Indicators of Persuasion in Political Interviews. In Multimodal Communication in Political Speech. Shaping Minds and Social Action [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7688], ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra
2001. Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33:12 ► pp. 1881 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2018. Compliments and Positive Assessments [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 289], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue