Article published In:
PragmaticsVol. 10:3 (2000) ► pp.323–338
Disagreements in television discussions
How small can small screen arguments be?
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.
Keywords: Disagreements, (Dis)preference, Mediated/institutional context, Participant roles and identities, Face
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
References
Baym, N.
(1996) Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29: 315–345. 
BoP
BoPBennett, 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. BoP
Brand, G. & P. Scannell
(1991) Talk, identity, and performance: The Tony Blackburn show. In P. Scannell (ed.), Broadcast Talk. London: Sage, pp. 201–226.
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.
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
dayman, S.
(1988) Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems 35.4: 474–92.
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. BoP
Fairclough, N.
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
BoP
(1997b) Narrative performances: A study of Modern Greek storytelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Goffman, E.
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.
Hayashi, T.
(1996) Politeness in conflict management: A conversation anlysis of dispreferred messages from a cognitive perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 251: 227–255. BoP
BoPHeritage. 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. BoP
Hill, J.H. & J.T. Irvine
(1992) (eds.) Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchby, I.
(1991) The organization of talk on talk radio. In P. Scannell (ed.), Broadcast talk. London: Sage, pp. 119–37.
(1992) Confrontational talk: Aspects of ‘interruption’ in argument sequences on talk radio. Text 121: 343–371.
Kotthoff, H.
(1993) Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 221: 193–216. BoP
BoPLevinson, S.
(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.
Livingstone, S. and P. Lunt
Mulkay, M.
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. BoP
Schiffrin, D.
Sheldon, A.
(1992) Conflict talk: Sociological challenges to self-assertion and how young girls meet them. New Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 381: 95–117.
Sifianou, Maria
(1997) Politeness and off-record indirectness. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1261: 163–179. BoP
BoPTannen, D. & C. Kakava
(1992) Power and solidarity in Modern Greek conversation: Disagreeing to agree. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 101: 11–34.
Cited by
Cited by 18 other publications
Armon, Rony
2016. Expert positions and scientific contexts: Storying research in the news media. Discourse & Communication 10:1 ► pp. 3 ff. 
Bolander, Brook
2012. Disagreements and agreements in personal/diary blogs: A closer look at responsiveness. Journal of Pragmatics 44:12 ► pp. 1607 ff.
Cheng, Winnie & Amy B.M. Tsui
2009. ‘ahh ((laugh)) well there is no comparison between the two I think’: How do Hong Kong Chinese and native speakers of English disagree with each other?. Journal of Pragmatics 41:11 ► pp. 2365 ff.
Edstrom, Anne
2004. Expressions of disagreement by Venezuelans in conversation: reconsidering the influence of culture. Journal of Pragmatics 36:8 ► pp. 1499 ff.
Franceschi, Valeria
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra
2001. Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33:12 ► pp. 1881 ff.
Gialabouki, Lena & Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou
2019. Beyond answering: Interviewees' use of questions in TV political interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 151 ► pp. 18 ff.
Hüttner, Julia
2014. Agreeing to disagree: ‘doing disagreement’ in assessed oral L2 interactions. Classroom Discourse 5:2 ► pp. 194 ff.
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
Jørgensen, Annette Myre & Inés Olza
2020. Phraseology in teenage language in Spanish, English and Norwegian. Languages in Contrast 20:1 ► pp. 58 ff.
Kantara, Argyro
2022. Manifestations of Integrated Hybridity in Journalistic Questioning During the 2012 Elections in Greece. In Adversarial Political Interviewing, ► pp. 43 ff.
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.
Lee, Josephine
2019. Scaling as an argumentative resource in television talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics 150 ► pp. 133 ff.
Myung-Hee Kim
2017. Expressions of disagreement in Korean and English task-based conversations. Discourse and Cognition 24:4 ► pp. 1 ff.
Patrona, Marianna
2006. Constructing the expert as a public speaker: Face considerations on floor-claiming in Greek television discussion programs. Journal of Pragmatics 38:12 ► pp. 2124 ff.
Vandergriff, Ilona
2013. Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues. Journal of Pragmatics 51 ► pp. 1 ff.
Wang, Yufang, Shu-ing Shyu, Wayne Schams & Hsun-Chen Chen
2020. Mandarin Chinese buguo (‘but’) as a metacoherence marker in TV/radio interview talks. Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 21:1 ► pp. 104 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 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.