The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures
Abstract
This article discusses disagreement sequences in German and Anglo-American disputes. It is argued that the context sensitivity of preference for agreement with assessments that Pomerantz 1984 found in her data has to be elaborated and extended. My findings suggest that the preference structure can change once a dissent-turn-sequence has been displayed; in this case, opponents are expected to defend their positions. The reduction of reluctance markers creates a new preference structure which itself has to be accomplished by all participants. Concessions, defined as a participant's agreeing to the central issue after his or her prior disagreement, show reluctance markers which are viewed as indicators of the dispreferred status in other types of talk. Concessions can be distinguished from partially agreeing presequences of dissent turns. Speakers move toward concessions stepwise. Unprepared position shifts can be regarded by the interlocutors as the inability to defend an opinion. Concessions, being an interactional achievement, reframe the dispute. (Conversation analysis, dispute, context studies, expectation management)
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Politeness : Some Universals in Language Usage
Brown, P. (1987) · Cited by 11,894
Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage
Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Gumperz, J. J. (1987) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813085 · Cited by 10,438
Levinson, S. C. (1983) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813313 · Cited by 5,137
(1981) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,644
(1985) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511665868 · Cited by 4,133
Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes
Pomerantz, A. (1985) · Structures of Social Action · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511665868.008 · Cited by 2,905
Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse
Macaulay, R. K. S., & Tannen, D. (1991) · Language · doi:10.2307/415111 · Cited by 2,437
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-04057-5 · Cited by 1,063
Atkinson, J. M. (1984) · Cited by 741
Women & Language in Literature & Society
McConnell‐Ginet, S., Borker, R. A., & Furman, N. H. (1980) · Praeger eBooks · Cited by 670
Cited by
Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups
Myers, G. (1998) · Language in Society · doi:10.1017/s0047404500019734 · Cited by 289
Disagreements, face and politeness
Sifianou, M. (2012) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009 · Cited by 258
Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2014) · Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1075/resla.27.2.09mai · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Kotthoff, H.
- Venue
- Language in Society
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1993-06
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 193-216
- ISSN
- 0047-4045 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8013
- OpenAlex
- W2063740983
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 18.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0047404500017103
- The paper
- Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500017103
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.