Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 11:3 (2021) ► pp.379–404

Constructing disagreement space

Talk show host’s actions

| University of Massachusetts Amherst

The study is a single case analysis and explores how disagreement space is constructed in a dialogue that addresses language ideology and identity issues in Belarus. Disagreement space is understood as a set of the interactant’s commitments, beliefs, intentions that can be reconstructed from their actions and “called out” by another participant (Jackson 1992). The interactional data includes the video-recording of the debate that was devoted to the issue whether Belarusian should be the only official language of Belarus. While two opponents are dominating parties in this debate, the host also plays an important role in this argumentative activity. The current study examines the host’s actions to shape disagreement space and argues that the host should be viewed as a valid party in a multi-party argumentative activity.

Keywords: argumentation, disagreement space, debate, discourse analysis, multi-party interaction, talk show
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Third parties’ contributions to argumentation process
  • 3.Language situation in Belarus
  • 4.Methodology and data
  • 5.Data analysis
    • 5.1Framing
    • 5.2Selecting issues to discuss
    • 5.3Introducing the voice of the not-present
    • 5.4Temporizing the discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 3 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00100.vas
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Deliberation Digitized: Designing Disagreement Space Through Communication- Information Services.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 21: 101–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, Mark and Alena L. Vasilyeva
2008 “Managing Disagreement Space in Multiparty Deliberation.” In Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 197–214. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell and John Heritage
1984 “Transcript Notation.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, ix–xvi. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bekus, Nelly
2010 “Nationalism and Socialism: “Phase D” in the Belarusian Nation-Building.” Nationalities Papers 381: 829–846. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Botes, Johannes and Jennifer Langdon
2006 “Public Radio Talk Show Hosts and Social Conflict: An Analysis of Self-reported Roles During Debates and Discussion.” Journal of Radio Studies 131: 266–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buhr, Renne L., Victor Shadurski, and Steven Hoffman
2011 “Belarus: An Emerging Civic Nation?” Nationalities Papers 391: 425–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E.
1992 “Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: the Case of News Interview Discourse.” In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2002 “Disagreements and Third Parties: Dilemmas of Neutralism in Panel News Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1385–1401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emmertsen, Sofie
2007 “Interviewers’ Challenging Questions in British Debate Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 570–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, Angela Cora
2019 How Mediation Works: Resolving Conflict Through Talk. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.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
Greco Morasso, Sara G.
2011 Argumentation in Dispute Mediation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heisterkamp, Brian L.
2006 “Taking the Footing of a Neutral Mediator.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 231: 301–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
2002 “The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1427–1446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B.
2007 “(Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 1360–1370. DOI logoGoogle 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 Arthur Willard, 260–269. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott
2002 “Maintaining Neutrality in Dispute Mediation: Managing Disagreement while Managing not to Disagree.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1403–1426. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin
2013 “Debating Multiple Positions in Multi-Party Online Deliberation: Sides, Positions, and Cases”. Journal of Argumentation in Context 21: 151–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin and Mark Aakhus
2014 “Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.” Argumentation 281: 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlejohn, Stephen W. and Karen A. Foss
2009 Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Vol. 11. Thousand Oaks: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luginbühl, Martin
2007 “Conversational Violence in Political TV Debates: Forms and Functions.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 1371–1387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel
1987 “Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly 501: 101–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth and Rein Sikveland
2016 “Formulating Solutions in Mediation.” Journal of Pragmatics 1051: 101–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tracy, Karen
2001 “Discourse Analysis in Communication.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, 725–749. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, Alena L.
2012 “Topics as Indication of Being On-task/Off-task.” Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication 31: 61–82.Google Scholar
2015 “Identity as a resource to shape mediation in dialogic interaction.” Language and Dialogue 51: 355–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Confrontation and Collaboration in the Course of the Election Debate.” Language and Dialogue 61: 370–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Practices of Topic and Dialogue Activity Management in Dispute Mediation.” Discourse Studies 191: 341–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas
1998 The New Dialectic: Conversational Context of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda
2006 “Argumentation: The Mixed Games.” Argumentation 201: 59–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zejmis, Jakub
1997 “Belarus in the 1920s: Ambiguities of National Formation.” Nationalities Papers 251: 243–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Мечковская, Нина Борисовна [ Mechkovskaja, Nina Borisovna]
1994 “Языковая Ситуация в Беларуси: Этические Коллизии Двуязычия [Language Situation in Belarus: Ethical Collisions of Bilingualism]” Russian Linguistics 181: 299–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Трусаў, Aлег. [ Trusau, Aleg
] (June 2015) “Русіфікацыя Беларускай Мовы на Беларусі ў ХХ ст. [Russification of the Belarusian Language in Belarus in the 20th Century].” Retrieved from [URL]