Language and Disputing

In an introductory essay on the anthropology of law, Laura Nader (159, p. 24) stressed the importance of attending to the "wrangling" involved in any dispute-i.e. to the argumentative forms, stylistic devices, and other com­ municative resources upon which disputants and third parties rely in further­ ing their own interests or in attempting to resolve the conflict. Such a study of language use in dispute focuses on a critical juncture between social and linguistic anthropology. On the one hand lie broad issues of social organiza­ tion, political economy, and power; on the other are the often apparently minuscule specifics of pronoun choice, syntactic variation, and tum-taking. In the pursuit of conflict-and, occasionally, of its resolution-power and language articulate in complex ways. The studies discussed in this essay address the "wranglings" of disputing talk from a wide range of perspectives and with a variety of audiences in mind. It is, indeed, characteristic of this topic that those issues which some researchers assume as unproblematic are taken as most critical by others. Many legal anthropologists assume the language of conflicts to be important but relatively transparent, while many linguists become so involved with textual details that sociopolitical contexts are taken for granted. When the contributions of lawyers, deVelopmental psychologists, and conversational analysts are added, the literature represents a complicated mix. A number of survey articles are particularly helpful. Danet (48), Grimshaw (94), and White & Watson-Gegeo (215) cover a broad range of issues from linguistic, sociological, and ethnographic perspectives. The language of courtrooms and other formal legal contexts has been extensively reviewed (50,83,132,161,176,195). Levi (132) and Shuy (195) focus on the possible practical applications of such research. Finally, Shantz (194) has published a comprehensive analytical review of the literature on children's disputes.