A Conversation Analytic Account of the Interactional Structure of “Arguments”

Abstract

Introduction The terms I will be using more or less interchangeably are argument, dispute, and conflict talk. Arguing involves inter-activities such as making claims, disagreeing with claims, and countering disagreements. The nature of an argument has been also analyzed in the frame of disputing (Brenneis, 1988; Kotthoff, 1993) and conflict talk (Grimshaw, 1990). Argument is defined as “a conversation or discussion in which two or more people disagree, often angrily” (Oxford English Dictionary, 1999). As we see from the definition here, the terms such as “disagreement” and “agreement” are very closely related as components that shape an argument. Arguing involves the management of competing claims; the speakers must make use of the conversational resources available to them to display and manage disagreement. At a global level, arguing is highly reflective of the social structure in which it emerges. Arguing may be regarded as the major activity through which social worlds are being constructed (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1990; Grimshaw, 1990; Tannen, 1988). In this paper, how, in the sense of conversation structure, this particular type of communication is formed, maintained, and then finally ends is the main discussion. Amongst the various disciplines of studies dealing with arguments, the literature that take the approach of conversational analysis (CA) offers a rich source of information for a comprehensive understanding of argument structure. I will review what has been suggested in the literature, together with their data-grounded illustrations. In addition to the first objective to delineate the conversational structure of argument in general, this paper addresses possible influences of culture to such a system.