Article published In:
Language and DialogueVol. 6:3 (2016) ► pp.370–395
Confrontation and collaboration in the course of the election debate
The study explores verbal conflict in an institutional context and examines how the election debate format and the moderators’ actions contribute to the emergence of confrontation between themselves and the debaters, what communicative practices the debaters use to resist an institutionally preferred form of interactivity, and how the moderators manage this situation. The findings show that conflict arises around face concerns and violations of the institutional order. The debaters make a number of moves to challenge the moderators and the debate format, such as addressing questions to the moderators, criticizing the moderators, disagreeing with them, refusing to respond to their questions, explicitly questioning the rules of the debate, and aligning with other candidates. The moderators manage conflict by giving the floor to another candidate, minimally acknowledging a candidate’s move, providing an account for their action, agreeing with a candidate, indicating a violation of institutional rules, and not responding to a candidate’s move.
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. 
2007 “Communication as Design.” Communication Monographs 741: 112–117.
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: University Press.
Benoit, William L., and Andrew A. Klyukovski
2006 “A Functional Analysis of 2004 Ukrainian Presidential Debates.” Argumentation 201: 209–225.
Bonito, Joseph A., and Robert E. Sanders
2002 “Speakers’ Footing in a Collaborative Writing Task: A Resource for Addressing Disagreement While Avoiding Conflict.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 351: 481–514.
Budzynska-Daca, Agnieszka, and Renata Botwina
2015 “Pre-election TV Debates–Persuasive Games between Ethos, Logos, and Pathos.” In Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu, and Stanca Măda, 39–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Coulter, Jeff
1990 “Elementary Properties of Argument Sequences.” In Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, ed. by George Psathas, 181–203. Boston: University Press of America.
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage
1992 “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.” In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garcia, Angela
1991 “Dispute Resolution without Disputing: How the Interactional Organization of Mediation Hearings Minimizes Argument.” American Sociological Review 561: 818–835.
Goffman, Erving
1983 “The Interaction Order.” American Sociological Review 481: 1–17.
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
1990 “Interstitial Argument.” In Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, ed. by Allen D. Grimshaw, 85–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Greco Morasso, Sara
Grimshaw, Allen D
1990 “Introduction.” In Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, ed. by Allen D. Grimshaw, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haaften, Ton van
2010 “Dutch Parliamentary Debate as Communicative Activity Type.” In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation: ISSA 2010 [cd-rom], ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden, and Gordon Mitchell, 687–695. Amsterdam: Rosenberg SicSat.
Heisterkamp, Brian L
2006 “Taking the Footing of a Neutral Mediator.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 231: 301–315.
Hutchby, Ian
1996 Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana
2010 “The Argumentum ad Hominem in a Romanian Parliamentary Debate.” In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation: ISSA 2010 [cd-rom], ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden, and Gordon Mitchell, 875–880. Amsterdam: Rosenberg SicSat.
Jacobs, Scott
2002 “Maintaining Neutrality in Dispute Mediation: Managing Disagreement while Managing not to Disagree.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1403–1426.
Kangasharju, Helena
1996 “Aligning as a Team in Multiparty Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 261: 291–319.
2002 “Alignment in Disagreement: Forming Oppositional Alliances in Committee Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1447–1471.
Mohammed, Dima
2008 “Institutional Insights for Analysing Strategic Manoeuvering in the British Prime Minister’s Question Time.” Argumentation 221: 377–393.
Neagu, Maria-Ionela
2015 “Political Debates: Deliberation, Persuasion, and Ethos Construction.” In Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu, and Stanca Măda, 85–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schiffrin, Deborah
1990 “The Management of a Co-operative Self during Argument: The Role of Opinions and Stories.” In Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, ed. by Allen D. Grimshaw, 241–259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R
1970 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: University Press.
Ştefănescu, Ariadna
2015 “Analysing the Rhetoric Use of the Epistemic Marker Eu cred că (I think) in Romanian Parliamentary Discourse.” In Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu, and Stanca Măda, 101–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Suzuki, Takeshi, and Takayuki Kato
2010 “An Analysis of TV Debate: Democratic Party of Japan Leadership between Hatoyama and Okada.” In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation: ISSA 2010 [cd-rom], ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden, and Gordon Mitchell, 1849–1859. Amsterdam: Rosenberg SicSat.
Toska, Bledar
2015 “…Every Time you’ve Offered an Opinion, you’ve been Wrong: Obama Dialogically Interacting in the Last 2012 Presidential Debate.” In Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu, and Stanca Măda, 55–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vasilyeva, Alena L
2012a “Argumentation in the Context of Mediation Activity.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 11: 209–233.
2012b “Topics as Indication of Being On-task/Off-task.” Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication 31: 61–82.
2015 “Identity as a Resource to Shape Mediation in Dialogic Interaction.” Language and Dialogue 51: 355–380.
Vuchinich, Samuel
1990 “The Sequential Organization of Closing in Verbal Family Conflict.” In Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, ed. by Allen D. Grimshaw, 118–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weigand, Edda
Zarefsky, David
2008 “Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.” Argumentation, 221: 317–330.
Cited by
Cited by 10 other publications
García-Gómez, Antonio
García-Gómez, Antonio
2020. Intercultural and interpersonal communication failures: analyzing hostile interactions among British and Spanish university students on WhatsApp. Intercultural Pragmatics 17:1 ► pp. 27 ff. 
Granato, Luisa & María Leticia Móccero
Shrikant, Natasha
2020. Metadiscourse and the management of relationships during online conflict among academics. Text & Talk 40:4 ► pp. 513 ff.
Shrikant, Natasha
2021. Cultural difference as a resource for arguments in institutional interactions. Communication Monographs 88:2 ► pp. 219 ff.
Vasilyeva, Alena L.
2016. Interpersonal-Communication and Language-and-Social-Interaction Approaches to Studying Conflict. TIPA. Travaux interdisciplinaires sur la parole et le langage :32
Vasilyeva, Alena L.
2017. The Role of References in Custody Mediation. TIPA. Travaux interdisciplinaires sur la parole et le langage :33
Vasilyeva, Alena L.
2018. The facilitator’s communicative actions to construct meetings in a semi-informal educational
context. Language and Dialogue 8:3 ► pp. 414 ff.
Vasilyeva, Alena L.
Vasilyeva, Alena L.
2023. Debaters’ actions to manage interaction in the context of the debate talk show. Language and Dialogue 13:2 ► pp. 229 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 april 2024. 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.