Show Concessions

Making a show of conceding by using a three-part structure of proposition, concession and reassertion has the effect - in contrast to other ways of conceding - of strengthening one's own position at the expense of a counter-argument. This three-part structure can be also exploited so as to carry the battle to the enemy, as it were, and make the concession do more offensive work. We detail three such ways: Trojan Horses where the speaker imports a caricature of the opposition into the conceded material; stings in the tail, where the speaker specifically overturns the concession they have just made in the original claim; and cheapeners, where the speaker works pragmatically to devalue even a positive endorsement of the opposition's case. In all their variety, what marks the concession as being hearably in the speaker's own interest is the robust, normative three-part proposition - concession - reprise structure. It is available for use in supporting or demeaning any position, whether mundane or explicitly ideological.

[1]  Junko Mori,et al.  Causal Markers in Japanese and English Conversations: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Interactional Grammar , 1994 .

[2]  Derek Edwards,et al.  Script Formulations , 1994 .

[3]  Gilles Fauconnier,et al.  Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language , 1985 .

[4]  Tsuyoshi Ono,et al.  Word order variability in Japanese conversation: Motivations and grammaticization , 1992 .

[5]  R. Langacker.  Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[6]  J. Bilmes.  Dividing the rice: A microanalysis of the mediator's role in a Northern Thai negotiation , 1992, Language in Society.

[7]  Anita M. Pomerantz.  Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes , 1984 .

[8]  Michael Moerman.  ANALYSIS OF LUE CONVERSATION: PROVIDING ACCOUNTS, FINDING BREACHES, AND TAKING SIDES , 1968 .

[9]  W. Turnbull,et al.  Conversational structure and facework in arguing , 1998 .

[10]  Cecilia E. Ford,et al.  Interaction and grammar: Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns , 1996 .

[11]  Sandra A. Thompson,et al.  Interaction and grammar: Frontmatter , 1996 .

[12]  Gene H. Lerner,et al.  On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: A co-investigation of English and Japanese grammatical practices , 1999 .

[13]  J. Potter,et al.  Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour , 1987 .

[14]  D. Edwards.  Discourse and cognition , 1996 .

[15]  B. Kleiner.  The Modern Racist Ideology and its Reproduction in “Pseudo-Argument” , 1998 .

[16]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[17]  Michael Billig,et al.  Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology , 1987 .

[18]  Susan Wright,et al.  Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Contents , 1995 .

[19]  I. Hutchby.  Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio , 1996 .

[20]  Makoto Hayashi,et al.  Where Grammar and Interaction Meet: A Study of Co-Participant Completion in Japanese Conversation , 1999 .

[21]  M. Billig.  The argumentative nature of holding strong views: a case study , 1989 .

[22]  Barbara A. Fox,et al.  Interaction and grammar: Resources and repair: a cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair , 1996 .

[23]  Anita M. Pomerantz.  Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims , 1986, Asking and Telling in Conversation.

[24]  Gene H. Lerner.  On the syntax of sentences-in-progress , 1991, Language in Society.

[25]  W. Frawley.  Mind as Action , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  S. Jackson,et al.  Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme , 1980 .

[27]  Jack Whalen,et al.  Sociology as a Natural Observational Science@@@Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. , 1987 .

[28]  Robin Wooffitt,et al.  Telling Tales of the Unexpected: The Organization of Factual Discourse , 1992 .

[29]  S. Döpke,et al.  Presenting a point of view: Caller's contributions to talkback radio in Australia , 1994 .

[30]  H. Kotthoff,et al.  Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures , 1993, Language in Society.

[31]  Moshe Azar,et al.  Concession relations as argumentation , 1997 .

[32]  B. Kortmann.  Adverbial subordination : a typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages , 1997 .

[33]  Emanuel A. Schegloff,et al.  The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-Conversation in Discourse and Syntax. , 1979 .

[34]  Charles Antaki,et al.  Using completion to formulate a statement collectively. , 1996 .

[35]  A. ReesvanM.,et al.  Explaining and arguing. The social organization of accounts , 1995 .

[36]  Gene H. Lerner.  Interaction and grammar: On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker , 1996 .

[37]  Michael Barlow,et al.  Usage-based models of language , 2000 .

[38]  Eve Sweetser,et al.  From Etymology to Pragmatics: Preface , 1990 .

[39]  Manfred Stede,et al.  Ma(r)king concessions in English and German , 1995, ArXiv.