Two views of conflict in spontaneous conversation: participants vs. analysts
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Everyday conversation is considered a collaborative genre where participants seek harmony and agreement. Unlike genres such as television talk shows or parliamentary debates, everyday conversation is not inherently confrontational, though it is not devoid of conflicts. This study examines how conflict is linguistically manifested in spontaneous conversations, based on structural, interactional, and linguistic indicators identified in the literature. A corpus of family conversations recorded with a hidden microphone is used, labeled by a participant in the conversation. The analysis compares the definition of conflict in the literature with the participants' perception, identifying areas of overlap and discrepancy, and reflecting on the undefined zones between both perspectives.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
An open-access CREATIVE COMMONS copyright license is used. Those authors whose works are published by this journal, accept the following terms:
- Authors will retain their copyright and guarantee the Journal the right to first publish their work, which will simultaneously be subject to the Creative Commons Recognition License CC BY SA that allows third parties to share the work, provided that its author and first publication is indicated.
- Authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements for the distribution of the published version of the work (e.g., deposit it in an institutional telematics file or publish it in a monographic volume) provided that the initial publication in this journal is indicated.
- Authors are allowed and recommended to disseminate their work over the Internet (e.g. in institutional telematics files or on their website) before and during the submission process, which can produce interesting exchanges and increase quotes of the published work.
Funding data
-
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
Grant numbers PID2020-114805GB-I00 -
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
Grant numbers MCIN/AEI /10.13039/501100011033
References
Adams, Ryan E. & Laursen, Brett (2007). The correlates of conflict: Disagreement is not necessarily detrimental. Journal of Family Psychology. 21: 445-458.
Albelda, Marta (en prensa, 2024): Factores comunicativos agravadores y moderadores del conflicto de pareja, Cultura, lenguaje y representación.
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2024). Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.4.12: Consultado el 2 de mayo de 2024 en http://www.praat.org/
Boxer, Diana y Radice, Joseph. (2018). Bickering: A conflict speech behavior of close social distance, Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 6:2, 177–202
Boxer, Diana y Weihua Zhu (2013): Strong disagreement in Mandarin and ELFP1 Aggressive or politic? Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 1:2 (2013), 194-224. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.1.2.04zhu
Briz, A. (coord.) (1995): La conversación coloquial (Materiales para su estudio). Anejo XVI de la Revista Cuadernos de Filología, Universidad de Valencia.
Briz, Antonio (1998): El español coloquial en la conversación. Esbozo de pragmagramática. Ariel.
Briz, Antonio (en prensa, 2023): Para el análisis de conversaciones en el conflicto de pareja. Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación.
Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Cabedo, Adrián (en prensa): Análisis multicapa del habla conversacional conflictiva a partir de la herramienta computacional Oralstats Furious. Cultura, lenguaje y Representación.
Carcelén, Andrea (en prensa, 2024). ¿Es posible elaborar corpus orales espontáneos y cumplir la legislación? El modelo en tres fases del corpus Ameresco. RESLA
Carcelén, Andrea y Uclés, Gloria (2019): Diseño y construcción de un corpus oral multidialectal. El corpus Ameresco. Normas, 9(1), 17. https://doi.org/
7203/Normas.v9i1.16007
Clancy, Brian (2018): Conflict in corpora. Investigating family conflict sequences using a corpus pragmatic approach. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 6:2, 228–247.
Coleman, Peter T. (2000): Intractable conflict. En Morton Deutsch y Peter T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. Jossey-Bass, 428–450.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 .
Culpeper, Jonathan y Haugh, Michael (2020): The metalinguistic of offence in (British) English. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 9:2, 185-214.
Estellés, Maria (2023): Visualizando el conflicto discursivo a través de la expresión fónica: un estudio a partir de dos conversaciones. Normas, 13, 224-247. https://doi.org/10.7203/Normas.v13i1.27986
Estellés, Maria y Cabedo, Adrián (en preparación): «Sonamos como si discutiéramos». La prosodia del conflicto real frente al evocado.
Fuentes, Catalina (2011): Cortesía e imagen en las preguntas orales del Parlamento español. Cultura, lenguaje y representación, ix, 53-79.
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra (2012): «A simple disagreement? A row? Or a massive fall out?»: On the challenges of an analytical task. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1623-1625.
Grimshaw, Allen D. (ed.) (1990): Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations in conversations. Cambridge University Press
Haugh, Michael. (2007): The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, vol. 3, no. 2, 2007, pp. 295-317. https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.013
Kotthoff, Helga (1993): Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 22, 193-216.
Kuo, Sai-hua (1992). Formulaic opposition markers in Chinese conflict talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1993, Vol 1992, Georgetown University Press, 388-402.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983): Principles of Pragmatics. Londres: Longman.
Leung, Santoi (2002): Conflict talk: a discourse analytical perspective. Teachers College. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8862TZT
Muntigl, Peter y Turnbull, William (1998): Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3), 225–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00048-9
Norrick, Neal R. Spitz, Alice (2008): Humor as a resource for mitigating conflict in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 1661–1686.
Pomerantz, Anita (1984): Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–103.
Rühlemann, Cristoph y Clancy, Brian (2018): Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics. En C. Ilie y N. Norrick (eds.) Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. John Benjamins. 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.294
Schiffrin, Deborah (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13, 311–335.
Sifianou, Maria (2012): Disagreements, politeness and face. Journal of Pragmatics 44, 1554–1564.
Sifianou, Maria (2019): Conflict, disagreement and (im)politeness. En M. Evans, L. Jeffries & J. O’Driscoll (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict. Routledge, 176-195.
Stewart, Katherine A. and Maxwell, Madeline M. (2010): Storied Conflict Talk: Narrative construction in mediation. John Benjamins Publishing Company
Vuchinich, Samuel (1984). Sequencing and social structure in family conflict. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47(3), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033819
Watts, Richard J. (2003): Politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Wittenburg, Peter; Brugman, Hennie; Russel, Albert; Klassmann, Alex; Sloetjes, Han (2006): ELAN: a Professional Framework for Multimodality Research. Proceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Disponible en https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan