Article published in:
Pragmatics
Vol. 10:3 (2000) ► pp. 323338

Full-text

Disagreements in television discussions
References
Baym, N.
(1996) Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29: 315–345. Crossref  BoP
Bennett, A.
(1981) Interruptions and the interpretation of conversation. Discourse Processes 4: 171–188. Crossref
Blum-Kulka, S.
(1997) Dinner talk. Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.  BoPGoogle 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
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
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
dayman, S.
(1988) Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems 35.4: 474–92. CrossrefGoogle 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
Fairclough, N.
(1995) Media discourse. London: Arnold.  BoPGoogle 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. Crossref  BoP
(1997b) Narrative performances: A study of Modern Greek storytelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  BoPGoogle 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
Hayashi, T.
(1996) Politeness in conflict management: A conversation anlysis of dispreferred messages from a cognitive perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 227–255. Crossref  BoPGoogle 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
Hill, J.H. & J.T. Irvine
(1992) (eds.) Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
(1992) Confrontational talk: Aspects of ‘interruption’ in argument sequences on talk radio. Text 12: 343–371. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Building alignments in public debate: A case study from British TV. Text 17.2: 161–79.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kotthoff, H.
(1993) Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 22: 193–216. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle 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
Livingstone, S. and P. Lunt
(1994) Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mulkay, M.
(1985) Agreement and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text 5: 201–227.  BoP CrossrefGoogle 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
Schiffrin, D.
(1984) Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13: 311–335. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, A.
(1992) Conflict talk: Sociological challenges to self-assertion and how young girls meet them. New Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 38: 95–117.Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria
(1992) Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1997) Politeness and off-record indirectness. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 126: 163–179. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. & C. Kakava
(1992) Power and solidarity in Modern Greek conversation: Disagreeing to agree. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 10: 11–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 16 other publications

No author info given
2018.  In Compliments and Positive Assessments [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 289], Crossref logo
Armon, Rony
2016. Expert positions and scientific contexts: Storying research in the news media. Discourse & Communication 10:1  pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
Bolander, Brook
2012. Disagreements and agreements in personal/diary blogs: A closer look at responsiveness. Journal of Pragmatics 44:12  pp. 1607 ff. Crossref logo
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. Crossref logo
Edstrom, Anne
2004. Expressions of disagreement by Venezuelans in conversation: reconsidering the influence of culture. Journal of Pragmatics 36:8  pp. 1499 ff. Crossref logo
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra
2001. Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33:12  pp. 1881 ff. Crossref logo
Gialabouki, Lena & Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou
2019. Beyond answering: Interviewees' use of questions in TV political interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 151  pp. 18 ff. Crossref logo
Hüttner, Julia
2014. Agreeing to disagree: ‘doing disagreement’ in assessed oral L2 interactions. Classroom Discourse 5:2  pp. 194 ff. Crossref 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 Crossref logo
Jørgensen, Annette Myre & Inés Olza
2020. Phraseology in teenage language in Spanish, English and Norwegian. Languages in Contrast 20:1  pp. 58 ff. Crossref logo
Koutsombogera, Maria & Harris Papageorgiou
2013.  In Multimodal Communication in Political Speech. Shaping Minds and Social Action [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7688],  pp. 16 ff. Crossref logo
Lee, Josephine
2019. Scaling as an argumentative resource in television talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics 150  pp. 133 ff. Crossref logo
Myung-Hee Kim
2017. Expressions of disagreement in Korean and English task-based conversations. Discourse and Cognition 24:4  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
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. Crossref logo
Vandergriff, Ilona
2013. Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues. Journal of Pragmatics 51  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
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. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 april 2021. 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.