Enticing a challengeable in arguments: Sequence, epistemics and preference organisation

Edward Reynolds

Abstract

This article reports on an interactional practice found in one form of adversarial talk, arguments during protests, where participants work to ‘entice’ a particular answer from an opponent using an uncontroversial questions in order to challenge the opponent on the basis of their own answer. Based on a collection of arguments during protests posted to YouTube, this article uses conversation analysis (CA) in order to investigate the way in which participants employ these uncontroversial questions as ‘pre-challenges’, using speaker selection, recipient focused topics and a moral ordering of talk to work to obligate a particular answer from the recipient. The results of the analysis illustrate several ways in which participants manipulate epistemics, speaker selection, and recipient design as resources for enacting social conflict.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Atkinson, Maxwell, and Paul Drew
(1979) Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage
(2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Coulter, Jeff
(1990) Elementary properties of argument sequences. In George Psathas (ed.), Interaction Competence. Washington: University Press of America, pp. 181–203.Google Scholar
Dersley, Ian, and Anthony Wootton
(2000) Complaint sequences within antagonistic argument. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33: 375–406. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek, and Alessandra Fasulo
(2006) “To be honest”: Sequential uses of honesty phrases in talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39: 343–376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
(1996) Transparent vision. In Elinor Ochs, Emmanuel Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 370–404. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Helmut
(2001) Questions and strategic orientation in verbal conflict sequences. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1851–1857. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and John Heritage
(1990) Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 283–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine
(2008) Questions of accountability: Yes-no interrogatives that are unanswerable. Discourse Studies 10: 55–71. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
(2002) The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427–1446. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
(2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman
(2010) Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hester, Stephen, and Peter Eglin
(1997) Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Housley, William, and Richard Fitzgerald
(2002) The reconsidered model of membership categorization analysis, Qualitative Research 2: 59–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian
(1996a) Confrontation talk: Argument, asymmetries and power on talk radio. Hilldale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1996b) Power in discourse: The case of arguments on a British talk radio show. Discourse & Society 7: 481–97. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jayyusi, Lena
(1984) Categorization and the moral order. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
(2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp 13–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koshik, Irene
(2002) A conversation-analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1851–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies 5: 51–77. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen
(1992) Activity types and language. In Paul Drew, and John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas
(1985) How children start arguments. Language in Society 14: 1–29. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Mehan, Hugh
(1979) Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Monzoni, Chiara
(2008) Introducing direct complaints through questions: The interactional achievement of “pre-sequences”. Discourse Studies 10: 73–87. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Muntigl, Peter, and William Turnbull
(1998) Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 225–256. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Paoletti, Isabella
(1998) Handling "incoherence" according to speaker's on-sight categorization. In Charles Antaki, and Sue Widdicombe (eds.), Identities in Talk. London: Sage, pp. 171–190.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
(1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar
(1988) Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs 55: 360–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
(2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68: 939–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
(1992) Lectures on conversation. 2 vols. Jefferson, Gail (ed.) with introductions by Schegloff, Emmanuel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel
(1968) Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70: 1075–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1980) Preliminaries to preliminaries: "Can I ask you a question?". Sociological Inquiry 50: 104–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
(1984) Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13: 311–335. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sharrock, Wes
(1974) On owning knowledge. In Roy Turner (ed.), Ethnomethodology: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 45–53.Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth, and Derek Edwards
(2008) "Did you have permission to smash your neighbour's door?" Silly questions and their answers in police–suspect interrogations. Discourse Studies 10: 89–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Asking ostensibly silly questions in police-suspect interrogations. In Alice Freed, and Susan Erlich (eds.), Why do you ask: The functions of questions in institutional discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 108–133.Google Scholar
Vuchinich, Samuel
(1990) The sequential organisation of closing in verbal family conflict. In Allen Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 118–139.Google Scholar
Watson, Rod
(1997) Some general reflections on 'Categorization' and 'Sequence' in the analysis of conversation. In Stephen Hester, and Peter Eglin (eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, pp. 49–76.Google Scholar