Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 14:3 (2024) ► pp.473–491

Framing interactivity in complex communication of debate talk show

 | University of Massachusetts Amherst
The present study explores how disagreement space is managed in a multiparty argumentative activity of debate talk show that focuses on the political situation in Belarus. The communicative activity under study is viewed as a type of difficult conversation that takes place between two groups that differ in their ideologies (Ellis 2020). In particular, drawing on the polylogical framework of argumentation (Lewiński and Aakhus 2023) and communication design approach (Aakhus 2007), the study investigates the communicative practice of framing that the moderators and the debaters use to shape disagreement space. The analysis shows that the activity is polylogical not just in a sense of positions, participants, and places (Lewiński and Aakhus 2023), but also in how argumentative activity is framed, which has consequences for how the interactivity is constructed and how disagreement space is managed in the course of interaction. It also shows how the interweaving of negative and positive features of communication add to the complexity of difficult interaction.
Keywords: communication design, debate, discourse analysis, framing, multi-party interaction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Polylogical view of argumentative activity
  • 3.Communication as design
  • 4.Data and method
  • 5.Data analysis
    • 5.1Moderators’ framing of the activity
    • 5.2Participants’ framing of the activity
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 5 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00181.vas
References (43)
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Communication as Design.” Communication Monographs 741: 112–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbour, Joshua B. and Rebecca Gill. 2014. “Designing Communication for the Day-to-Day Safety Oversight of Nuclear Power Plants”. Journal of Applied Communication Research 421: 168–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Black, Laura W. 2008. “Deliberation, Storytelling, and Dialogic Moments.” Communication Theory 18 (1): 93–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruxelles, Sylvie and Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni. 2004. “Coalitions in Polylogues.” Journal of Pragmatics 361: 75–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buttny, Richard. 2010. “Citizen Participation, Metadiscourse, and Accountability: A Public Hearing on a Zoning Change for Wal-Mart.” Journal of Communication 60 (4): 636–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgsteden van, Lotte, Hedwig te Modler, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2022. “The Turn-by-Turn Unfolding of “Dialogue”: Examining Participants’ Orientation to Moments of Transformative Engagement.” Language and Communication 821: 64–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. 1998. “The Study of Controversies and the Theory of History and Science.” Science in Context 111: 147–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1992. “Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Peter Houtlosser. 2005. “Theoretical Construction and Argumentation Reality: An Analytic Model of Critical Discussion and Conventionalized Types of Argumentation Activity.” In The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, ed. by David Hitchcock, 75–84. Hamilton: McMaster University.Google Scholar
Ellis, Donald G. 2020. “Talking to the Enemy: Difficult Conversations and Ethnopolitical Conflict.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 131: 183–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, Angela Cora. 2019. How Mediation Works: Resolving Conflict Through Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Greatbatch, David and Robert Dingwall. 1997. “Argumentative Talk in Divorce Mediation Sessions”. American Sociological Review 621: 151–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco Morasso, Sara G. 2011. Argumentation in Dispute Mediation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 1996. Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally. 1992. “Virtual Standpoints” and the Pragmatics of Conversational Argument. In Argumentation Illuminated, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, 260–269. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott and Mark Aakhus. 2002. “What Mediators Do with Words: Implementing Three Models of Rational Discussion in Dispute Mediation.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 201: 177–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Scott and Sally Jackson. 1981. “Argument as a Natural Category: The Routine Grounds for Arguing in Conversation.” The Western Journal of Speech Communication 451: 118–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. “Building a Model of Conversational Argument.” In Rethinking Communication, Vol 2: Paradigm Exemplars, ed. by Brenda Dervin, Lawrence Grossberg, Barbara J. O’Keefe, and Ellen Wartella, 153–169. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Derailments of Argumentation: It Takes Two to Tango.” In Considering Pragma-dialectics, ed. by Peter Houtlosser and Agnès van Rees, 121–133. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 2006. “Metaphors We Live by.” In The Production of Reality: Essays and Readings on Social Interaction, ed. by Jodi O’Brien, 103–114. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin and Mark Aakhus. 2014. “Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.” Argumentation 281: 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. Argumentation in Complex Communication: Managing Disagreement in a Polylogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montiegel, Kristella and Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2019. “First Matters: A Qualitative Examination of a Strategy for Controlling the Agenda When Answering Questions in the 2016 U.S. Republican Primary Election Debates.” Communication Monographs 861: 23–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pan, Yun. 2022. “Framing in Interactive Academic Talk: A Conversation-Analytic Perspective.” Pragmatics 321: 131–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprain, Leah, Martin Carcasson, and Andy Merolla. 2014. “Utilizing “on Tap” Experts in Deliberative Forums: Implications for Design.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 421: 150–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (ed.). 1993. Framing in Discourse. NewYork, NY: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. Travis, Frederick Steier, and Wit Ostrenko. 2014. “Designing Communication Process for the Design of an Idea Zone at a Science Center.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 421: 208–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tracy, Karen. 2001. “Discourse Analysis in Communication”. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, 725–249. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2010. Challenges of Ordinary Democracy: A Case Study in Deliberation and Dissent. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Van der Houwen, Fleur. 2009. “Formulating Disputes.” Journal of Pragmatics 411: 2072–2085. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasilyeva, Alena L. 2015. “Identity as a Resource to Shape Mediation in Dialogic Interaction.” Language and Dialogue 51: 355–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. “Confrontation and Collaboration in the Course of the Election Debate.” Language and Dialogue 61: 370–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. “Practices of Topic and Dialogue Activity Management in Dispute Mediation.” Discourse Studies 191: 341–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2023. “Debaters’ Actions to Manage Interaction in the Context of the Debate Talk Show.” Language and Dialogue 131: 229–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weger, Harry and Mark Aakhus. 2003. “Arguing in Internet Chat Rooms: Argumentative Adaptations to Chat Room Design and Some Consequences for Public Deliberation at a Distance.” Argumentation and Advocacy 401: 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2006. “Argumentation: The Mixed Game.” Argumentation 201: 59–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Апресян, Юрий Дереникович [Apresian Yurij Derenikobich]. 1995. Избранные Труды. Том 2. Интегральное Описание Языка и Системная Лексикография [Selected Works. Volume 2. Integral Description of Language and System Lexicography]. M.: Школа “Языки Русской Культуры” [M.: School “Languages of the Russian Cultury”].Google Scholar