Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:32:12.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jewish argument as sociability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Deborah Schiffrin
Deborah Schiffrin
Affiliation:
Department of Lingustics, Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Talk that is argumentative in form can have sociable functions for members of some groups. In sociable argument, speakers repeatedly disagree, remain nonaligned with each other, and compete for interactional goods. Yet they do so in a nonserious way, and in ways which actually display their solidarity and protect their intimacy. The analysis raises questions about the adequacy of many current views about conversational cooperation, showing that the levels at which cooperation (and competition) exist are not always overt. The analysis also demonstrates the cultural relativity of norms of evaluation about dispute. (Conflict, conversation, cooperation, culture, evaluation, frames, key, pragmatics, rhetoric)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1984 , pp. 311 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. (1976). A place on the corner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. (1955). A theory of play and fantasy. American Psychological Association Psychiatric Research Reports, II. Reprinted in Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Chandler, 1972.Google Scholar
Bauman, R. (1972). The La Have Island general store: Sociability and verbal art in a Nova Scotia community. Journal of American Folklore. 85:330–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Amos, D. (1974). Talmudic tall tales. Folklore today. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cicourel, A. (1972). Basic and normative rules in the negotiation of status and role. In Sudnow, D. (ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1961). Fun in games. In Encounters. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). The nature of deference and demeanor. In Interaction ritual. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica 25:1–29. Also in Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics. volume 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a theory of communicative competence. In Dreitzel, H. (ed), Recent sociology, no. 2. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Heilman, S. (1976). Synagogue life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heilman, S. (1982). Prayer in the Orthodox synagogue: An analysis of ritual display. Contemporary Jewry 6(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, J., & Stokes, R. (1975). Disclaimers. American Sociological Review 40:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, E. C. ([1962] 1971). Good people and dirty work. In The sociological eye. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Syntactic arguments and social roles: Quantifiers, keys, and reciprocal vs. reflexive relationships. In Foundations of sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1974). The concept and varieties of narrative performance in East European Jewish culture. In Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J. (eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1975). A parable in context: A social interactional analysis of slorytelling performance. In Ben-Amos, D. & Goldstein, K. (eds.), Folklore: Performance and communication. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kochman, T. (1981). Black and white styles in conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochman, T. (1983) The boundary between play and nonplay in black verbal dueling. Language in Society 12:329–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972a). The isolation of contextual styles. In Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972b). Rules for ritual insults. In Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1981). Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. Sociolinguistic working paper 81. Austin, Tex.: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
McQuown, N. ([1954] 1982). Cultural implications of linguistic science. Reprinted in Language, culture, and education. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta-talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. In Zimmerman, D. & West, C. (eds.), Language and social interaction. Special issue of Sociological Inquiry 50(3/4).Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1982a). Discourse markers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1982b). Cohesion in everyday discourse: The role of paraphrase. Working papers in sociolinguistics. Austin, Tex.: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1984). Turn-initial variation. Presented at NWAVE XII, Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (in press a). The integration of discourse: How a story says what it means and does. Text.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (in press b). Everyday arguments. In Dijk, T. van (ed). Handbook of discourse analysis. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. ([1911] 1961). The sociology of sociability. American Journal of Sociology LV(3).Google Scholar
Reprinted in Parsons, T. et al. (eds.), Theories of society. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1955) Conflict. Trans. by Wolff, K. H.. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1981a). New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 32:133–49.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1981b). Talking New York: It's not what you say, it's the way you say it. New York magazine (03 30) 30–33.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1976). Speech events and natural speech: Some implications for sociolinguistic methodology. Language in Society 5:189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yancey, W., Erickson, E., & Juliani, R. (1976). Emergent ethnicity: A review and reformulation. American Sociological Review 41 (3):391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar