Previous research on children's arguments has neglected their initial phases, particularly how they arise out of children's ongoing practical activities. This paper examines how any utterance or activity can be opposed, the concept of opposition being at the center of any definition of argument. However, once opposition has occurred, it can be treated in a variety of ways, and a full-blown argument or dispute is only one possible and contingent outcome. Children analyze others's moves not only verbally, but nonverbally as well. Thus, bodily actions and presupposition are necessary components in the analysis of how arguments are started. Nonverbal oppositional moves may be at the base of semantically constructed disputes. When opposition occurs, it is to be taken to imply the violation of some rule or value. The meaning of that rule or value relative to children's culture is taken to have to do not with its content, but its usage in promoting a local social organization. (Conversational analysis, child language, social organization, presupposition, dispute genres, American English [middle class, Caucasian])

Simultaneous speech is neither necessary nor sufficient for the recognition of “interruption” by interlocutors. A peaker's “completion right” is vitiated by how long she has been speaking, how often she has spoken, the number of “points” made in a speaking turn, and the special rights of some speakers to speak about some topics. There are no absolute syntactical or acoustical criteria for recognizing an occurrence of “interruption” available either to those involved in a speech event nor to analysts. (Turn taking, California English conversation)

This paper is about turn exchanges, the structure of speaking turns and the relationship of nonverbal behavior to both exchanges and turns. Its purpose is to present a conceptual framework for analyzing and interpreting turn exchange and speaking turns, and data are cited when possible. First discussed are specific forms of exchange such as “smooth” and “simultaneous.” The Praguean concept of functional differentiation is invoked to argue that forms of turn exchange have indexical value. The relationship of nonverbal behavior to turn exchange is then discussed. An analysis of videotaped, dyadic interactions between strangers, “getting acquainted” conversation, is reported in order to demonstrate that the nonoverlapping exchange has structurally, hence indexically. distinct forms. These forms, defined by both verbal and nonverbal elements, are ordered in a hierarchy of pragmatic markedness. It is concluded that differentiating pragmatic markedness in conversational patterns is a powerful device for determining indexical features of conversation and thus of relevance for a semiotic understanding of everyday speech.

The choice of English directive variants has been hypothesized by ErvinTripp (1976, 1977) to be determined by several social and ecological factors: the relative social ranks of the speaker and recipient, their ages, their familiarity, the presence or absence of outsiders, territorial location, and task expectations. The major goal of this investigation is to test ErvinTripp's hypotheses concerning the relationship between these variables and the choice of the identified syntactically based directive variants (imperatives, imbedded imperatives, need statements), using a distinctly different sample: a predominantly black male migratory agricultural labor population in the United States's eastern seaboard region. The data indicate that the imperative form is used almost exclusively in those contexts where the syntactically based directive variants were expected to occur. Thus, most of the predictions derived from Ervin-Tripp's model for these directive variants were contradicted. The preference for imperatives is suggested to be largely a consequence of the antagonistic relationships within the migrant farm-worker community. The results of this study also suggest that the set of decision rules used in choosing among directive variants according to social criteria is a function of the following factors: crosscultural (i.e., social class and ethnic) variation, and social and physical characteristics of the interaction setting. (Directives, migrant farmworkers, cultural differences, environmental influences, ethology)