Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-h4f6x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-21T21:02:32.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Troubled waters: Argument as sociability revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2009

David A. Lee  and
Jennifer J. Peck
David A. Lee
Affiliation:
English Department, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia 4072
Jennifer J. Peck
Affiliation:
English Department, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia 4072
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Schiffrin 1984 has claimed that there is a speech activity called “sociable argument,” characterized by the presence of discursive features such as vulnerability of argumentative frames and cooperative strategies. Although a form of talk aptly labeled “sociable argument” undoubtedly exists, Schiffrin's analysis is problematic; the features she identifies as characteristic of this discursive category also show up in argument that is serious and non-sociable. This raises general questions about the nature of the criteria applicable to the definition of forms of talk. (Discourse analysis, argument, conflict, conversation, cooperation, rhetoric)

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 29 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Blom, Jan-Petter, & Gumperz, John J. (1986). Social meaning in linguistic structures. In Gumperz, John J. & Hymes, Dell (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (2nd ed.), 407–34. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society 110–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer (1989). Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. In Coates, Jennifer & Cameron, Deborah (eds.), Women in their speech communities, 94–121. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1972). Encounters. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William (1972). The logic of non-standard English. In Giglioli, Pier Paolo (ed.), Language and social context, 179–215. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Lee, David A. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in the speech of Brisbane adolescents. Australian Journal of Linguistics 9:51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltz, Daniel N., & Borker, Ruth A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In Gumperz, John J. (ed.), Language and social identity, 196–216. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, James (1992). Linguistic variation and change. Oxford: Black well.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13:311–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmel, Georg (1949). The sociology of sociability. American Journal of Sociology 55:254–61. Reprinted in Talcott Parsons et al. (eds.), Theories of society, 157–63. New York: Free Press, 1961. [A translation of “Soziologie der Geselligkeit,” the opening speech at the first meeting of the German Sociological Society (Verhandlungen des ersten Deutschen Soziologentages vom 19–20 Oktober, 1910 in Frankfurt A.M.) Tϋbingen: J. C. B. Mohr.]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wierzbicka, Anna (1986). Does language reflect culture? Some evidence from Australian English. Language in Society 15:349–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar