Multimodal positioning and reference in argumentative talk-in-interaction
Balancing context-dependency and context-independency
In: International Review of PragmaticsAbstract
Drawing on a descriptive and language-oriented approach to argumentation, this paper explores the multimodal dimension of argumentation in talk-in-interaction by considering the various resources used by an opponent to refer to and position themselves in relation to the target of their opposition, namely the adverse position and/or the person who expressed it. More specifically, it studies how speakers exploit multimodal strategies in order to both maintain their discourse at a high level of generality (orientation to context-independency) and guarantee the indexicality of the position taken in the interaction and the disagreement (orientation to context-dependency). The analysis is based on two data collections documenting settings where all participants are temporally and spatially co-present: (i) a video-recorded corpus of Swiss French public debates and (ii) a video-recorded corpus of New Zealand English management meetings. Examining the role of multimodal orchestration of choices in gaze direction, deictic gestures, and speech in establishing different positions in argumentative events such as public debates or management meetings reveals specific contextual features of the activity types, participation frameworks, and sociolinguistic backgrounds involved in an argument.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Adam, Jean-Michel. 2008. La Linguistique Textuelle: Introduction à l’ Analyse Textuelle des Discours [2nd edition]. Paris: Armand Colin.
-
Amossy, Ruth (ed.). 1999. Images de Soi dans le Discours: La Construction de l’ Ethos. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.
-
Angenot, Marc. 2008. Dialogues de Sourds: Traité de Rhétorique Antilogique. Paris: Mille et une nuits.
-
Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric. (W.R. Roberts, ed.). New York: Modern Library.
-
Berrendonner, Alain. 1981. Éléments de Pragmatique Linguistique. Paris: Minuit.
-
Bres, Jacques, Haillet, Pierre Patrick, Mellet, Sylvie, Nølke, Henning and Laurence Rosier (eds.). 2005. Dialogisme et Polyphonie: Approches Linguistiques. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.
-
Bruxelles, Sylvie and Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni. 2004. Coalitions in polylogues. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 75–113.
-
Bublitz, Wolfram and Neal R. Norrick (eds.). 2011. Foundations of Pragmatics (Vol. 1). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
-
Charaudeau, Patrick. 2005. Les Médias et l’ Information. L’Impossible Transparence du Discours. Bruxelles: De Boeck/INA.
-
Clayman, Steven E. 1992. Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news-interview discourse. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Constantin de Chanay, Hugues and Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni. 2007. 100 minutes pour convaincre: L’ éthos en action de Nicolas Sarkozy. In M. Broth, M. Forsgren, C. Norén and F. Sullet-Nylander (eds.), Le Français Parlé des Médias, 309–329. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stokholmiensis.
-
Deppermann, Arnulf (ed.). 2013. Conversation Analytic Studies of Multimodal Interaction. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics 46.
-
Doury, Marianne. 1997. Le débat Immobile. L’ Argumentation dans le Débat Médiatique sur les Parasciences. Paris: Kimé.
-
Ducrot, Oswald. 1972. Dire et ne pas Dire. Paris: Hermann.
-
Ducrot, Oswald. 1984. Le Dire et le Dit. Paris: Minuit.
-
Duranti, Alessandro and Charles Goodwin (eds.). 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Fairclough, Isabela and Norman Fairclough. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis. London, New York: Routledge.
-
Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.
-
Goodwin, Charles. 2003. Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet, 217–241. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
-
Halliday, M.A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
-
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
-
Hindmarsh, Jon and Christian Heath. 2000. Embodied reference: A study of deixis in workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1855–1878.
-
Holmes, Janet. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
-
Holmes, Janet and Meredith Marra. 2004. Leadership and managing conflict in meetings. Pragmatics 14: 439–462.
-
Holmes, Janet, Marra, Meredith and Bernadette Vine. 2011. Leadership, Discourse and Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Holt, Elizabeth and Rebecca Clift (eds.). 2007. Reporting Talk. Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Horn, Laurence R. and Gregory Ward (eds.). 2006. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
-
Hutchby, Ian. 1996. Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
-
Jacquin, Jérôme. 2014. Débattre. L’ Argumentation et l’ Identité au Cœur d’ une Pratique Verbale. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
-
Jacquin, Jérôme. 2015a. Multimodal counter-argumentation in the workplace: The contribution of gesture and gaze to the expression of disagreement. In G. Ferré and M. Tutton (eds.), GESPIN 4 Proceedings, 155–160. Nantes: Université de Nantes.
-
Jacquin, Jérôme. 2015b. S’ opposer à autrui en situation de co-présence: La multimodalité de la désignation contre-argumentative. Semen 39: 19–38.
-
Jacquin, Jérôme. 2017a. Le pronom ON dans l’ interaction en face à face: Une ressource de (dé)contextualisation. Langue Française 193: 77–92.
-
Jacquin, Jérôme. 2017b. Embodied argumentation in public debates. The role of gestures in the segmentation of argumentative moves. In A. Tseronis and C. Forceville (eds.), Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres, 239–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Jacquin, Jérôme. 2017c. “Prenons par exemple …”. Gestes métaphoriques de préhension dans l’ argumentation en co-présence. In M. Bonhomme, A.-M. Paillet and P. Wahl (eds.), Métaphore et argumentation, 221–239. Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia.
-
Jacquin, Jérôme. 2018. Argumentation in the workplace. In B. Vine (ed.), Handbook of Language in the Workplace, 284–294. London: Routledge.
-
Jacquin, Jérôme and Raphaël Micheli. 2012. Entre texte et interaction: Propositions méthodologiques pour une approche discursive de l’ argumentation en sciences du langage. In F. Neveu, V. Muni Toke, P. Blumenthal, T. Klingler, P. Ligas, S. Prévost and S. Teston-Bonnard (eds.), Actes du CMLF 2012—3ème Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 599–611. Lyon: EDP Sciences.
-
Jonasson, Kerstin. 2006. Le pronom clitique ON: Un outil de non-partition référentielle. In G. Kleiber, C. Schnedecker and A. Theissen (eds.), La Relation Partie-Tout, 59–72. Louvain: Peeters.
-
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine and Christian Plantin (eds.). 1995. Le Trilogue. Lyon: PUL.
-
Lerner, Gene H. 2003. Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society 32: 177–201.
-
Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. Activity types and language. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Lewiński, Marcin and Dima Mohammed (eds.). 2015. Argumentation in Political Deliberation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Marra, Meredith. 2012. Disagreeing without being disagreeable: Negotiating workplace communities as an outsider. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1580–1590.
-
Mondada, Lorenza. 2007. Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 9: 194–225.
-
Mondada, Lorenza. 2014. The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 65: 137–156.
-
Müller, Cornelia, Cienki, Alan, Fricke, Ellen, Ladewig, Silva H., McNeill, David and Sedinha Tessendorf (eds.). 2013. Body—Language—Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction [Vol. 1]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-
Munoz, Juan M.L., Marnette, Sophie and Laurence Rosier (eds.). 2004. Le Discours Rapporté dans tous ses États. Paris: L’ Harmattan.
-
Nølke, Henning. 1992. Ne … pas: Négation descriptive ou polémique? Contraintes formelles sur son interprétation. Langue Française 94: 48–67.
-
Norris, Sigrid. 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. New York: Routledge.
-
Perelman, Chaïm and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Traité de l’ Argumentation (Vols. 1–2). Paris: PUF.
-
Plantin, Christian. 1996. Le trilogue argumentatif. Présentation de modèle, analyse de cas. Langue Française 112: 9–30.
-
Plantin, Christian. 2012. Persuasion or Alignment? Argumentation 26: 83–97.
-
Poggi, Isabella and Laura Vincze. 2009. Gesture, gaze and persuasive strategies in political discourse. In M. Kipp, J.-C. Martin, P. Paggio and D. Heylen (eds.), Multimodal Corpora. From Models of Natural Interaction to Systems and Applications, 73–92. Berlin: Springer.
-
Rabatel, Alain. 2001. La valeur de “on” pronom indéfini/pronom personnel dans les perceptions représentées. L’ information Grammaticale 88: 28–32.
-
Riegel, Martin, Pellat, Jean-Christophe and René Rioul. 2009. Grammaire Méthodique du Français. Paris: PUF.
-
Rossano, Federico. 2013. Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 308–329. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
-
Selting, Margaret and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Sidnell, Jack and Tanya Stivers (eds.). 2005. Multimodal Interaction. Special issue of Semiotica 156.
-
Sidnell, Jack and Tanya Stivers (eds.). 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
-
Stadler, Stefanie A. 2006. Multimodal (Im)Politeness: The Verbal, Prosodic and Non-Verbal Realization of Disagreement in German and New Zealand English (Doctoral dissertation).
-
Stivers, Tanya and Nick J. Enfield (eds.). 2007. Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Stivers, Tanya and Federico Rossano. 2010. Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43: 3–31.
-
Streeck, Jürgen, Goodwin, Charles and Curtis LeBaron (eds.). 2011. Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Stukenbrock, Anja. 2015. Deixis in der face-to-face-Interaktion. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
-
Van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer (eds.). 2009. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 396 | 88 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 274 | 3 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 100 | 8 | 2 |
Multimodal positioning and reference in argumentative talk-in-interaction
Balancing context-dependency and context-independency
In: International Review of PragmaticsAbstract
Drawing on a descriptive and language-oriented approach to argumentation, this paper explores the multimodal dimension of argumentation in talk-in-interaction by considering the various resources used by an opponent to refer to and position themselves in relation to the target of their opposition, namely the adverse position and/or the person who expressed it. More specifically, it studies how speakers exploit multimodal strategies in order to both maintain their discourse at a high level of generality (orientation to context-independency) and guarantee the indexicality of the position taken in the interaction and the disagreement (orientation to context-dependency). The analysis is based on two data collections documenting settings where all participants are temporally and spatially co-present: (i) a video-recorded corpus of Swiss French public debates and (ii) a video-recorded corpus of New Zealand English management meetings. Examining the role of multimodal orchestration of choices in gaze direction, deictic gestures, and speech in establishing different positions in argumentative events such as public debates or management meetings reveals specific contextual features of the activity types, participation frameworks, and sociolinguistic backgrounds involved in an argument.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 396 | 88 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 274 | 3 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 100 | 8 | 2 |