Discourse Processes Structure and function of verbal ...

This article was downloaded by: [Ohio State University Libraries] On: 27 May 2015, At: 09:04 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Discourse Processes Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hdsp20

Structure and function of verbal conflicts among adults with mental retardation a

b

Lynne E. Hewitt , Judith F. Duchan & Erwin M. Segal

b

a

Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences , State University of New York , 109 Park Hall, Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 14260 b

State University of New York , Buffalo Published online: 11 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Lynne E. Hewitt , Judith F. Duchan & Erwin M. Segal (1993) Structure and function of verbal conflicts among adults with mental retardation, Discourse Processes, 16:4, 525-543, DOI: 10.1080/01638539309544852 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638539309544852

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 09:04 27 May 2015

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions

DISCOURSE PROCESSES 16, 525-543 (1993)


Structure and Function of Verbal Conflicts Among Adults With Mental Retardation LYNNE E. HEWITT JUDITH F. DUCHAN ERWIN M. SEGAL State University of New York at Buffalo

The discourse competence of mentally retarded residents of a group home was studied by examining their arguments. Tape recordings of naturally occurring speech were collected by a participant observer; the arguments therein were transcribed for analysis. Arguments among the residents gave evidence of being an acceptable and sought after discourse genre, and residents were able to participate in them successfully regardless of their linguistic ability. These arguments often exhibited a pragmatically useful assertion/contradiction pattern in relation to an original statement, extending over many turns. The results showed that: (a) the majority of arguments exhibited a constrained discourse pattern; (b) many of the residents' arguments did not, and were not designed to, resolve conflicts; (c) residents were able to maintain extended interactions during arguments; (d) arguments observed were neither disruptive nor dysfunctional; and (e) augments functioned as a positive source of social interaction.

Arguments are common phenomena in everyday interaction. They are easily identified and serve a variety of functions (Jacobs & Jackson, 1981; Schiffrin, 1984). Moreover, the utterances of which an argument is composed can take a range of forms in various registers and styles (Jacobs & Jackson, 1981). For these reasons argument is an ideal category for a study of language use in context. The present study was undertaken to examine the nature and extent of arguPreparation of this article was supported in part by grants from the Research Foundation of the State University of New York at Buffalo to the Center for the Study of Children and Youth, and to the Center for Cognitive Science, both of the State University of New York at Buffalo. It is based on a master's thesis completed by the first author at the Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences, State University of New York at Buffalo. We gratefully acknowledge the helpfulness of comments made by two anonymous reviewers on a draft of this article, and are particularly grateful for the cheerful cooperation of the residents and staff of the community residence studied. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Lynne Hewitt, Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences, 109 Park Hall, State University of New York at Buffalo, Amherst, NY 14260.

525


526

HEWITT, DUCHAN, AND SEGAL

ments among adults with mental retardation living in a community residence (also known informally as a group home). Our goal was to examine the discourse of retarded people in a natural setting, using a circumscribed category of discourse events to focus investigation. One broader goal that may be served by the study of adults with mental retardation is, as Sabsay and Platt (1985) contend, a gain of insight into the dynamics of discourse in a speech community which is subject to unique constraints. Such a community offers us the opportunity to observe the social processes which give rise to particular types of discourse norms and structures. One aspect of the verbal interactions of mentally retarded speakers which significantly differs from that of normal individuals is that they daily confront linguistic and communication difficulties, either in themselves or in the speech of their friends and roommates. This circumstance makes the study of their discourse of particular interest, in that overall discourse structure may be the only clue to the meaning and purpose of a significant number of utterances. In addition to the discourse structure of the arguments, their function in the community residence was also of interest. Graziano and Bercow (1985) found that staff members perceive arguments to be a significant problem in community residences. The staff surveyed saw arguing as a symptom of communicative breakdown, leading to the view that arguments are dysfunctional. As Goodwin (1990) observes, this is the most typical view of argument in the literature. Other studies have indicated positive functions for arguments for some speakers, including conversational management of disagreement (e.g., Jacobs & Jackson, 1981) and sociability (e.g., Schiffrin, 1984). Goodwin (1990) argues for a positive value for verbal conflict among the black children she studied. We sought to determine what role verbal conflict plays in the discourse of adults with mental retardation, whether positive or negative. Communication Abilities of Retarded Adults There are few studies of the language of mentally retarded adults, and most have been undertaken from the point of view that people with mental retardation lack communicative competence. Researchers have examined the interactive ability of retarded adults in light of its deficiencies relative to those of nonretarded adults. Studies have focused on problems resulting from lack of social competence and have advocated the need to develop programs to improve social skills (Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981; Kernan & Sabsay, 1989; Phelps, 1974; Schloss & Schloss, 1985; Smith, 1981; Tjosvold & Tjosvold, 1983). Reasons for the social and communicative difficulties of people with mental retardation are legion. Historically, persons who are retarded have been separated from the general population; most retarded adults over the age of 25 have spent a significant portion of their lives in an institutional setting, which allows little contact with many everyday situations familiar to noninstitutionalized adults (Wilier & Intagliata, 1984). Thus, persons who are retarded often lack the


VERBAL CONFLICTS AMONG MENTALLY RETARDED ADULTS

527

experience necessary for the successful conduct of normal discourse. Moreover, language and speech disorders of all types are more prevalent among people with mental retardation than in the population at large (McWilliams, 1986; Yoder & Miller, 1972). Thus, it is not uncommon that a retarded person may exhibit both severe unintelligibility and limited self-expression. These factors have been emphasized in the literature, which has led many to conclude that the mentally retarded are incompetent communicators (Kernan & Sabsay, 1989; Sabsay & Platt, 1985). A few studies have taken a more sanguine view of the communicative competence of people with mental retardation. Focusing on peer-group interactions rather than on retarded adults' experiences in dealing with nonretarded adults, some researchers have shown that retarded speakers can successfully meet their needs for conversational interaction (Anderson-Levitt, 1985; MacAndrew & Edgerton, 1966; Price-Williams & Sabsay, 1979). Anderson-Levitt argues that a nonretarded adult's failure to comprehend retarded people's discourse may be caused by a lack of familiarity with the culture and issues being discussed and not by the incompetence of the mentally retarded speakers. Previous Studies of Verbal Conflict The Function of Verbal Conflict in Children and Adults. Much work on discourse analysis of arguments has been carried out using children as subjects. These studies differ in how arguments are seen to function for children. Several see arguments as signs of breakdown in social interaction. Two assumptions are made by those taking this view: (a) that the primary function of argument is conflict resolution (Eder, 1990; Eisenberg & Garvey, 1981; Genishi & DiPaolo, 1982); and (b) that children, as they mature, are expected to develop restraint in expressing conflict (Boggs, 1978; Camras, 1984; Goodwin, 1983). Those making the second assumption contend that the skills children develop when disputing with their peers are precursors to the more subtle strategies employed by adults to maintain relations within a group, where overt conflict is suppressed or mitigated. In contrast to the research which views children's arguments as signaling negative events, some researchers have proposed a view of disputing as having positive functions. Boggs (1978) found evidence that joking took place in arguments, and Goodwin (1990) concluded that arguments "provide children with a rich arena for the development of proficiency in language, syntax, and social organization" (p. 141). Maynard (1985b) sees children's arguments as a means by which they work out group dynamics and develop ideas of political organization. Finally, a few researchers have observed that argument is a discourse form which children like to engage in (Goodwin, 1983, 1990; Maynard, 1985a, 1985b). Researchers of adult arguments also differ in their views of how arguments function. Jacobs and Jackson (1981) postulate that arguments among adults serve


528


to regulate disagreement, both limiting its occurrence and managing its outcome. From this perspective, the arguments are seen as repair mechanisms which resolve an underlying conflict. Vuchinich (1990) takes a similar perspective in his study of terminations of family disputes, arguing that the lack of resolution to the disputes studied was due to a need to manage conflict without losing face. The studies of verbal conflict which have shown that adults are reluctant to disagree openly (reviewed in Goodwin, 1983; Grimshaw, 1982; see also Pomerantz, 1984) support the view that arguments signal negative contexts. In contrast to this view, Schiffrin (1984) identified a community where arguing was a preferred form for "sociable" interaction. Schiffrin defines sociability as a social process which is an end in itself; that is, in conversation, referential and other talk functions may be present, but they are subordinate to the ongoing activity of talk as its own reward. Thus, the type of arguing she describes as sociable is not due to serious underlying group conflicts. Verbal Conflict Among People With Mental Retardation. There are few discourse analytical studies of naturally occurring disputes among the mentally retarded. Most studies of conflict have addressed arguing as a problem, looking at conflict resolution ability in artificial role-taking tasks (Affleck, 1975) or conflicts as a source of stress within community residences (Bercow-Hamilton, 1988; Graziano & Bercow, 1985). Graziano and Bercow found that staff reported arguing to be a problem, however Bercow-Hamilton, in a follow-up study, found that very few arguments reported by staff in community residences were judged to be severe. Platt (1985) described the interactions in a group home setting as "confrontational," involving frequent challenges to statements of competence and everyday knowledge. In an ethnographic analysis of a single conflict that occurred during a meeting in a workshop for adults with mental retardation, Anderson-Levitt (1985) found that the conflict in question functioned as a means for the participants to regulate group dynamics. Unlike the other studies cited, that of Anderson-Levitt allows for the possibility that arguments among adults with mental retardation are not necessarily tied to dysfunctional situations. METHOD The research was carried out by audiotaping naturally occurring conversations in a community residence for adults with mental retardation. There were 11 residents, ranging in age from early 20s to late 30s. The residents had been living in this home for periods of time ranging from 11 months to 11 years (only 3 had lived there less than 5 years). Mode of Data Collection At the beginning of the project, the subjects were informed of the nature and purpose of the research and asked to give their consent. They were told that they



529

were participating in a study of how people who live in group homes talk to each other. No mention was made of arguing. All taping was done at the residence by the first author, using a participant observer method. Audiotape was chosen rather than video in order that data collection should not be overly disruptive of normal interaction patterns. The recorder was set up in as unobtrusive a location as was compatible with audibility. Note taking was minimized. The residents tended to have fluctuating levels of awareness of the tape-recording equipment and often forgot about it altogether. Obliviousness of observation was particularly marked during the most heated portions of disputes. Recordings were made at the residence over a 3-mohth period at irregular intervals, for a total of 13 observations. The tape recorder was turned on only when conversation was taking place. This procedure facilitated identification of relevant portions of the tapes, as it reduced the amount of recording containing only background noise. The length of time the researcher spent in the residence varied from IV2 to 4 hr; the length of each tape varied proportionate to the amount of residents' conversation. In the beginning, some of the residents were very interested in talking to the researcher, since strangers seldom visited. This was not initially discouraged, and it decreased as they became used to her presence. The use of a participant observer model allowed the researcher to become familiar with the residents' linguistic patterns, as well as their interests and habits. This familiarity was essential when transcribing the tapes, since the subjects' intelligibility ranged from good to poor. Subjects. Table 1 outlines the characteristics of the 11 residents, including the pseudonym assigned to each of them, their level of functioning, age, degree and type of language disorder (if any), and intelligibility. These data were gathered from the residents' files; determination of degree of language disorder and intelligibility were made by one of the authors (L.H.), a certified speech-language pathologist, based on language sample analyses of the transcripts. As Table 1 shows, the residents' speech and language ranged from a lack of any significant disorder to severe speech and language disorders. The two residents with Down syndrome, Lance and June, had the most severe expressive language disorders. Their speech was characterized by short, simple utterances (mean length of utterance between 3 and 4), for the most part lacking in morphological endings. In addition, they exhibited severe phonological disorders which caused them to be largely unintelligible. Darlene, Dorothy, Thomas, Kurt, and David all had good linguistic competence in ordinary conversation, while Gary, Paul, Pamela, and Jerry all had mild to moderate problems of various kinds. Procedure: Identification of Verbal Conflicts Definitions. In the present work, the term argument is used in a nontechnical sense as near as possible to common usage. To combat ambiguity, a more strict

530

HEWITT, DUCHAN, AND SEGAL TABLE 1 Subject Characteristics


Name

Level of Functioning

Age

Speech/Language Disorder

Intelligibility

22 25 31 32 31 28

None significant Mild dysfluency None significant Severe—all areas Misarticulated /s/ Severe—all areas

Excellent Fair Excellent Poor Very good Poor

Pamela

Mild MR» Mild MR Mild-moderate MR Severe MR Moderate MR Moderate-severe MR Mild-Moderate MR

32

Fair

Gary

Mild MR

30

Jerry

Moderate MR

28

Kurt

Mild MR

32

David

Mild-moderate MR

30

Moderate language and phonological disorder Moderate to severe pragmatics disorder Moderate language disorder Mild intonational disorder None significant

Darlene Paul Dorothy June Thomas Lance

Good-poor Good Very good Very good

Note. The names used are pseudonyms. Background data on the subjects were collected from agency records. "MR = mental retardation.

usage will be imposed on the phrase verbal conflict, defined as an episode of talk which extends for at least four turns (i.e., two interchanges), involving at least two people, in which conflict is verbally expressed or implied, and where continuity of participants is maintained. Conflict is defined as any type of verbally expressed contradiction, opposition, or other negation of a previous utterance. Such negation need not address itself directly to a disputed issue; it can consist of any verbal attack on the listener. The tapes were reviewed, and instances of conflicted talk conforming to the aforementioned criteria were identified. Only these instances were transcribed, noting pauses, overlaps, unintelligible sequences, stress, and gross intonational patterns (see sample transcriptions in the Results section). The verbal conflicts were analyzed for the following: topic (if any), number of turns, number of participants and individual patterns of participation, and whether or not conflicts were resolved. In order to obtain a determination as to the structure and function of the interactions studied, the pattern of conflicted discourse was analyzed as it developed over the course of the conversation. The analysis involved a level of abstraction which allowed for comparisons across arguments differing in topic and interpersonal relations. Analysis focusing primarily on the meaning of indi-


531

vidual turns as indicators of interpersonal dynamics was not pursued as it did not allow for such comparisons to be made. At the most refined level of examination, each argument had its own unique structure. Taking a more coarse-grained view allowed patterns to be discerned and compared. RESULTS


General Character of Conflicts While verbal conflicts and arguing were not found to be continual in the residence studied, they occurred often enough to be found in the majority of IV2- to 4-hr visits by the researcher. Of the 13 sessions of taping, 10 were found to contain one or more instances of verbal conflict, for a total of 22 instances. One tape contained five instances; four tapes yielded three instances each; and five tapes, one instance each. An overall characterization of these instances, including number of participants, number of turns, and discourse focus, can be found in Table 2. Table 2 shows that discourse foci ranged from disputes about facts to interpersonal exchanges involving insults, teasing, and protests. Length. The length of these 22 verbal conflicts, ranging from 5 to 172 turns (see Table 2), had a mean of 45 turns and a median of 20. All but two lasted longer than 10 turns. Thus, when verbal disputes occurred, they occupied more than just a brief interval of conversational time. Four conflicts lasted for several minutes, surviving interruptions by nondisputants and ongoing, nonconversational activities.

Discourse Foci. Table 2 lists the issues being disputed; some conflicts had multiple topics or no readily discernible topic. General categories of conflict topics identified were disputes over opinions, refusal to comply with staff requests, teasing, and decision making over allocation of resources. Of the conflicts displaying multiple topics or lacking overt topics, four were exchanges consisting largely of contradictions of preceding assertions, and two were exchanges of insults and rude directives. Resolutions. Of the 22 arguments, only 4 (18%) could be said to have a definitive resolution. All four conflicts receiving a resolution were centered around a concrete action. One involved a resident's refusal to comply with a staff request; the staff person prevailed. Two involved deciding which TV channel to watch; in such cases, one way or the other the issue had to be resolved. The last case involved Paul protesting Gary's taking a snack. In this instance, two residents supported Gary's position and Paul capitulated, but not without the facesaving admonition "none a my business—you wanna get sick, get sick!" As can be seen from Table 3, unresolved conflicts were ended by the follow-

532



TABLE 2 Character of Conflicts

Turns

Topic

1. 2. 3. 4.

18 84 28 15

5. 6. 7. 8.

5 12 20 14

9. 10.

35 16

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

40 18 53 19

Is 60 degrees warm Does David hate Gary Should Paul make his bed Gary wants Darlene to acknowledge a favor Should David drink coffee Is coffee bad for you What TV channel to watch Does store have a radio component in stock Darlene teasing David Protests against changing TV channel Paul protests Gary's eating Do bottles need caps June and Lance contradicting Is Gary gray or bald June and Lance contradicting Is it going to rain June objects to Kurt baking June contradicts everybody Is Lance going to a doctor Gary meows; peers object Who a letter belongs to Is Darlene rotten

22.

172 8 115 138 33 124 20 14

No. of Participants

Resolved?

6 6 5 2

no no yes no

2 2 4 4

no

4 5

no yes

5 4 6 4 6 3 6 5 5 6 3 6

yes no no no no no no no no no no no

TABLE 3 Endings of Unresolved Disputes Reason for End of Conflict 1. Change of subject

Number of Examples 10 (56%)

2. Departure of participants a. Directly causes end of conflict b. Coincidental with topic decay a + b =

4 (22%) 2(11%) 6 (33%)

3. Request for silence

2(11%)

Total number of unresolved disputes

18

no yes no


533

ing means: (a) successful displacement of the conflict topic by a new topic (occurred in 10 instances), (b) participants leaving (6 instances), and (c) request for silence (2 instances).


Patterns of Participation in Verbal Conflicts. The mean number of participants in verbal conflicts was 4.5, with a median of 5. Participant was operationally defined as anyone who spoke during the course of a conflict. There were individual differences in the patterns of participation. The population studied was not large enough to make firm conclusions about gender-based differences, however no readily apparent gender differences were discerned. Individual personality was a more significant factor. Dorothy and Pamela participated relatively frequently, but their contributions consisted of occasional comments. In contrast, Lance never, and David seldom, participated minimally. Rather, the arguments they took part in were dominated by them. Others, such as June and Gary, were frequent participants to various degrees. Thomas and Jerry did not engage in any verbal conflicts during the observations. These individual differences show that conflict is a function not just of the culture of the residence, but also of the personality and communicative style of the residents. Linguistic sophistication of residents was not an important determiner of the frequency of their contributions. Thomas had few communicative limitations, but seldom interacted with his peers. David also had excellent communicative abilities, but did not participate at length in arguments. He participated relatively frequently, but his turns were short and nondiscursive, frequently responding to provocative utterances rather than taking the initiative (e.g., GARY: "YOU don't like me, do ya?" DAVID: "NO"). June and Lance were frequent participants, yet had the severest speech and language impairments among the residents. The staff members in the group home were participants in 10 of the incidents. They spoke frequently, however, in only four arguments. Their utterances in the other cases were either topically unrelated (e.g., a staff member might interrupt a conversation to request a client to carry out a task), or only one or two turns in a longer exchange. This finding contrasts with that of Bercow-Hamilton (1988), who found that the staff intervened in most of the arguments reported. However, in that study the staff had the task of reporting arguments, whereas many of the arguments collected in this study were not observed by the staff. In the present study, no disputes were resolved by staff intervention, and only one attempt to get two arguing clients to agree was recorded. Two verbal conflicts centered around a resident's refusal to comply with a staff directive. The rest of the conflicts observed were without significant staff involvement. Structural Analysis of Verbal Conflicts Structural analysis of conflicts was carried out by examining each one as it related to its opening turn. This analysis revealed three types: (a) conflicts centered on one topic, (b) conflicts containing multiple topics, and (c) conflicts

534



with no explicit topic. Seventy-one percent of conflicts were of the first type. These were organized topically, where turn content and form related to one central issue. In contrast, the second type were organized via move-types, rather than topical content. Nineteen percent of conflicts observed fell in this category. In the last type, the topicless conflicts, discourse turns were conflicted (as defined previously) but showed neither topical development nor patterning of move-types. Ten percent showed this style. Type 1: Single-Topic Conflicts. In single-topic conflicts, the propositional content of a single turn at talk (usually an assertion) served as the focus for the dispute; we call this the disputed issue statement. Sixteen of 22 conflicts were of this type. Most moves in such conflicts expressed a stance either for or against the position in the disputed issue statement. The exceptions either were not related to the disputed issue statement or were requests for clarification. In the following two examples of conflicts, which are related in that coffee is the nominal subject of both, the nature of the moves in each show that the two have different topical development. (There is no intervening topic between Example 1 and Example 2, but there are different participants who take up the coffee issue after a pause.) In the following transcripts, the turns at talk are numbered sequentially starting from the disputed issue statement which generates uptake (marked with an asterisk)1: Example 1 1*. DAVID: Can I put a pot of coffee on? 2. STAFF: Sure. 3. DARLENE: N O . 4. DAVID: YOU don't tell me.

5.

DARLENE:

Quiet. Too much coffee's bad for you. (pause)

Example 2 1*. STAFF: TOO much coffee is bad for you though. 2. 3.

GARY: STAFF:

Why, who told you? It makes you nervous.

4. 5.

GARY: STAFF:

No it doesn't make you nervous. It makes you feel nice. Makes you jump all around.

6.

GARY:

Coffee's good for you.

7. 8. 9.

STAFF: Remember I told you water's good for you too. GARY: I like coffee instead of that though. ????: Don't drink water xx. 1

It should be noted that this argument is atypical in two aspects: (a) a staff person is an important participant here, unlike the usual case; and (b) a pause separates the original disputed issue statement on the topic of coffee from the main body of the discourse, where different participants take up the topic and develop it. We have chosen the example for its brevity, which allows presentation in its entirety, and because its atypical aspects do not affect the analysis it has been chosen to illustrate.


10.

STAFF:

11. 12.

GARY: STAFF:

535

You're Gary, I'm Sue, O.K.? (breakdown as staff misinterprets previous statement) I don't like water. Well it's good for you every once in a while.


In the first part of these two sequential instances of conflict, the issue is whether or not David should have coffee. In the second part, which takes off from Darlene's statement in Line 5, the issue is whether or not coffee is, generally speaking, bad for you. Thus, the discourse function of Line 5 in Example 1 is an implied refusal of permission. When almost the identical utterance is repeated by a different speaker in Line 1 of Example 2, its function is to assert a general belief about coffee. These examples show how the structure of moves in an argument can itself instruct the listener about the differing intent of seemingly identical statements. Here, it provides clues as to how to interpret the crucial pronoun "you" in each. In line 5 of Example 1 "you" refers to "David," while in Line 1 of Example 2 "you" refers to "people in general." Type 2: Multiple-Topic Conflicts. Four conflicts were analyzed as containing multiple topics. They displayed their primary structure at the level of move-type rather than at the level of topical relevance. These were analyzed as single arguments because they displayed continuity of participants and they lacked pauses or other topic shift markers. In the following example, turns are characterized by a contradiction-denial patterning of moves, but the topic is often unmarked, and indeed may change from one turn pair sequence to the next: Example 3

Kiss me! [in context, an insult] Baby! Kiss it! (makes kissing noise) 28. I nah kiss me. No way:. (Is) You (unintelligible). 29. Tha's you. Tha's you. (points to character on TV show they are 30. watching) JUNE: Not me—you. 31. LANCE: You. 32. (conflict continues for 20 more turns) 26. 27.

LANCE: JUNE: LANCE: JUNE: LANCE:

In this example, pure contradiction of the preceding utterance is the primary move-type^ moves do not relate to one originating topic. This discourse strategy yields an event of a quite different character from the more typical conflicts where various types of conflicted discourse moves may occur while all relating to a single topic. In the conflict in Example 3, on the other hand, the speakers use primarily one type of move, contradiction, to organize their interaction, but do not feel bound to pursue a single topic.

536


Type 3: Indeterminate Topic Conflicts. Two disputes displayed neither topical nor move-type coherence, yet they consist of one interaction with continuity of participants. In the following example, although many negative remarks and insults (such as "shut up" and "stupid cat") clearly indicate a conflicted interaction, no discourse patterning relating to either overall topic or paired turn-types can be identified:


Example 4 13. JUNE: Lance, you gross! 14. 15.

16.

17. 18. 19.

20. 21.

GARY: (unintelligible) LANCE:

Lookit de cat!

GARY: (meows) LANCE:

YOU X shut up.


Hi, cat.


Hi, cat.

22. JUNE: x, shut up. (addressee many be either Lance or Gary, or both) (conflict continues for 84 more turns) Example 4 conforms to the definition we have employed of verbal conflict, in that it displays conflicted interaction with continuity of participants, but is lacking in assertions, being composed primarily of interjections, insults, and rude directives. Without assertions it is impossible to determine the topic or topics it is composed of (if any). Indeed, topic is not the point of this interaction at all. It is organized around a patterning of moves which are not topically related (such as contradiction), but rather ones that are interactionally related (such as insult). Functions of Conversational Moves Conflicted moves observed included the following: •

Assertion (of a position counter to an opponent's, sometimes by implication only): "That's a big one" (in context where relative size of radios is being discussed); "You sleep in the cab too!" (in response to an accusation that the speaker sleeps on the way to work). • Contradiction (of an assertion): SPEAKER 1 (asserting): "I hear it's supposed to rain bad." SPEAKER 2 (contradicting): "No it's not."; SPEAKER l (asserting): "They don't have those—I looked." SPEAKER 2 (contradicting): "Yes they do!" • Protest (at an action): CLIENT I: (takes something from Client 2). CLIENT 2: "Hey!" • Refusal (of a request): SPEAKER l: "Play other side, honey." SPEAKER 2: "No, I'm not gonna play the other side."



537

Assertions and contradictions formed discourse pairs; their function was to challenge and then counter-challenge a stated or implied position. In the multiple-topic conflicts, the function of assertion and contradiction was not primarily to dispute beliefs about facts. Rather, these move-types were used for their own sake as devices for the production of conversational continuity, with the ostensible topic playing a secondary role. The indeterminate-topic conflicts lacked a pattern of assertions and contradictions. For example, in Conflict 9 there was a long series of challenges that were directly countered only a few times. The functions of the majority of the moves in that interaction were teasing and taunting. (Taunting here refers to a more intense, insulting activity than teasing.) In Conflict 20, the conflicted discourse consisted of insults, assertions, and directives with the function of teasing/taunting and challenging. Research in the general adult population suggests that moves designed to lessen the impact of disagreement are frequent in disputes (Grimshaw, 1982; Pomerantz, 1984). This was not the case among the group home residents. In the instances in which people other than residents took part, some softening of assertions and challenges was noted. For example, a staff person used mostly indirect requests in arguing with Paul about making his bed in Conflict 3. She also prefaced one utterance with "well," a mitigating device (Schiffrin, 1987). The researcher who served as participant observer also framed challenges indirectly as a device to lessen the impact of disagreement. Residents typically did not give reasons to support their positions, nor did they frame challenges indirectly; simple assertion of a position and repetition of it in the face of denials and contradictions was the usual procedure. Paul was the only subject who consistently used reasons when trying to win an argument. No conflict was resolved because a participant offered a convincing reason. In addition to the lack of mitigating devices, the residents' conflicted discourse differed from that of typical adults in its turn organization. Pomerantz (1984), in a study of the preference organization of normal adult discourse containing assertions, found that speakers tended to fill the turn after an assertion by agreement. Evidence for interpreting this as an actual preference for agreement can be drawn from the type of discourse observed, displaying lack of pausing or use of other markers of hesitation when agreeing. Conversely, if a speaker did not agree with an assertion, there was significantly greater pausing, use of markers such as "well," and even at times the building up of disagreement over two or more turns (hence delaying the dispreferred turn content). The discourse of the people in the community residence did not show differing discourse patterns between agreement and disagreement of the type Pomerantz described. Contradiction occurred readily and often in the arguments studied. "Well" occurred only once in turn-initial position, and in that case the speaker was a staffperson. The lack of linguistic markers suggestive of dispreferred


538


move-type is evidence that these speakers did not regard verbal conflict as a discourse form to be avoided. Conflict 14 is one that is of particular interest when considering the role of sociability in the residents' conflicted discourse. In this example, David changed his original claim that Gary was bald (Turn 1) to an assertion that Gary was going gray (Turn 5). Analysis suggests that David's retreat from his original position was an attempt to avoid truly hurting Gary, who was in fact balding, but not graying. David in Turn 9 agreed with Gary's statement in turn ("I'm not turnin' bald") and denied ever having said so ("I know—I said gray"). Gary continued to deny the original accusation, while David denied having said it. The fact that David shifted to a less hurtful teasing statement (less hurtful because untrue) suggests that the conflict was intended to be teasing and sociable. David, observing that Gary was genuinely upset at being teased about going bald, proceeded to soften and repair the gaffe. Individual Differences One subject consistently violated topic structure in extended interaction. Gary, as indicated in Table 1, had a pragmatic language disorder, ended his involvement in arguments by making remarks that were at best tangentially related to the topic. At times, the connection between the main topic and his comments would become progressively attenuated. One striking example occurred in Conflict 14, when Gary and David were arguing about whether Gary was balding. The relevant portion of the transcript reads: Example 5 GARY: 19. DAVID: 20. 21. GARY: DAVID: 22. GARY: 23.

That's /na::/. (4 s) wh'd'y'say I'm turnin' bald for? (unintelligible—rise-fall intonation indicating annoyance) Don't like me, do ya. No. Don't lie to me again. (2 s) (unintelligible) (5 s) Don'—I'm sorry. (faintly) (12 s) He's a puppy. (6 s) (giggles) (4 s) (makes glottal sound) /a bErln baba/. Hi, /bada:/! (5 s) I know I gotta. (10 s) My hair's not gettin' turnin' gray—don' worry about it. (unintelligible—very faint) (8 s) I'n turnin' to a dog. (4 s) (Yawns and makes whining noise) G'night. Woof!

In Turn 23, Gary started by accusing David of having lied in his accusation (Gary is in fact balding). The mild insult ("puppy") is often used by Darlene, David's girlfriend, as a term of teasing affection. The phonemically transcribed utterances are clearly heard yet seem to be nonsense syllables. The phrase "I know I gotta" rhymes with "Hi, /bada:/," thus suggesting an element of sound play in this speech. Gary finally returned to the issue of his hair, but was at that point talking to himself rather than addressing David, as evidenced by the parenthetic



539

self-admonition "Don' worry about it." His next utterances may combine elements of the meaning of "dog" as an ugly person with the earlier reference to "puppy." Finally, he appended a verbal comment to the nonverbal act of yawning, then followed it up with more sound-play relating to the "dog" theme. By the time Gary finished the speech, David was no longer attending. Gary himself had drifted quite far from his original topic. He ended up talking with long pauses between each utterance and in a very soft voice. Gary's Turn 23 in Example 5 is not an isolated instance of such discourse behavior. A very similar example occurred in another conflict. Gary generated conversational organizing principles peculiar to himself, using such elements as sound play ("/bada/"; "I know I gotta") and semantic relatedness ("dog"; "puppy"). Because of the idiosyncratic nature of these conversational devices, they made it difficult for others to understand Gary. In many conflicts where others were debating a given topic, Gary was observed making comments tangential to the topic. These types of moves were not successful in achieving a topic shift, as they were not responded to by participants whose contributions centered on the dispute topic. The lack of response to Gary's off-topic remarks is one piece of evidence for the robustness of the global organization of conflict and imperviousness to attempts to change the subject. Gary was not the only one who violated argument discourse structure, although he was the most consistent and severe violator. Much of June's talk involved negation of preceding utterances. These negations did not always evolve into verbal conflicts, since other residents did not always respond to them. This occasionally caused her to have difficulty in making felicitous contributions to ongoing discourse. Even when a previous utterance aligned with her position, she was observed several times negating it out of force of habit, giving her the appearance of reversing her original position. Like Gary's, June's comments were often not successful in eliciting a response. The arguments in which she was a major participant often fell in the category of multiple-topic conflicts. The use to which June and Lance put argument (e.g., as in Example 3) is of particular interest in light of our contention that the function of the arguments is sociability. The severe language and phonological disorders limiting June's ability to participate in high-level discourse with the more verbally sophisticated residents made her an excellent discourse partner for Lance, since his linguistic level was on par with hers. Lance also participated frequently in conflicts, although he did not participate in general conversation as much as June. Lance and June would engage in dialogue by means of multiple-topic verbal conflicts. This example suggests that argument at times served the function of promoting verbal interaction, in that its structure enabled these linguistically impaired residents to maintain verbal interaction. Such interchanges appear to function as sociable arguing, conflict as a conversational pastime.

540



DISCUSSION The results of this study suggest that arguing in the community residence environment was primarily sociable in nature, rather than representing either breakdowns in conversation or attempts at conflict resolution. As Schiffrin (1984) has pointed out, arguing can be a sociable pastime. In an environment where speakers frequently have speech and language impairments, sociable arguing may be preferred, as it may exhibit a simple discourse organization that can serve as a discourse prolonging device. The interactions in the residence studied contrast with those reported by Platt (1985). The group home she studied was recently established, and most residents did not have strong social ties. The residence we studied had been long established, and many close friendships among the residents had developed. Platt describes a confrontational atmosphere where residents challenged each others' knowledge of group home rules and routines, and she argues that they did this in order to display their own competence. This pattern was not found in our data. This difference is evidence for the varying possible social functions of conflict in differing contexts. A number of factors led to the conclusion that arguing had a positive value in this environment: 1. The existence of conflicts with multiple-topic, local organization is strong evidence that the underlying function of arguing may have nothing to do with attempting to resolve issues of disagreement. In this type of conflict in particular, the conflicted move-type organized the discourse; participants did not attempt to debate a single issue. 2. The lack of discourse devices aimed at mitigating the force of conflicted conversational moves provides evidence that this type of discourse was not avoided or dispreferred. 3. The lack of serious acrimony observed among participants bolsters the interpretation of arguments as sociable. In fact, in one case a participant deliberately backed off disputing an issue that another participant clearly found hurtful. The fact that participants did not attempt to provide reasons to argue their positions, even when capable of doing so, offers indirect support for the interpretation that arguments were not merely not avoided, but perhaps actively sought out. Eisenberg and Garvey (1981) found that giving reasons tended to resolve arguments quickly, whereas the avoidance of providing support for a position tended to prolong arguments. Thus, one may infer a desire for continuance among speakers who do not give reasons in an argument. It is possible that some speakers did not support their positions because they did not have the linguistic and cognitive capabilities for elaborate explanation. However, this



541

would not account for all the data, as others with such capability were also observed to favor contradiction and fail to offer reasons for their positions. The lack of a resolution to most arguments is another factor indirectly suggestive of its social nature in the community residence. The assumption that conflict resolution is the main goal of argument leads one away from the true nature of these verbal conflicts for the participants; they are reflections of a sociable continuum of agreement and disagreement (Jacobs & Jackson, 1981), and as such neither seek nor require resolution. Anderson-Levitt (1985) noted a pattern of recurrence of a particular issue in a group discussion meeting of adults with mental retardation in a workshop setting. The matter would appear to be resolved during one session, only to crop up again subsequently in another form. The results of our study suggest an explanation for this lack of a permanent resolution, namely, that these conflicted episodes are a means of promoting group interaction per se, rather than resolving a particular issue. Verbal conflicts observed in the present study sometimes did serve the function of resolving concrete issues, such as what to watch on TV, and sometimes were surface manifestations of underlying interpersonal conflicts, such as that between Gary and David, but often their purpose was solely to engage in dialogue. In this sense argument was a useful discourse device, tolerated and not suppressed. Another useful function of arguments was as a topic-preserving and/or interaction-preserving device. The relative simplicity of the argument structures used allowed participants with severe speech and language impairments to participate successfully in conversation. For example, negation as used by Lance and June was a discourse-preserving device. Both were often unintelligible even to familiar listeners, though they seemed not to have difficulty understanding each other. However, when participating in conflicted discourse, their turn-type could be understood as negative even if the semantic content was unintelligible. Thus, the structure of the verbal conflict offered a useful format for overcoming the limitations imposed by severe linguistic impairments. Even comprehension problems can be overcome using this form of discourse. An utterance can easily be negated without understanding it. Moreover, while contradiction is a poor candidate for achieving argument resolution, it can be an excellent device for topic maintenance, as it provokes the interlocutor to continue the conversation. The form of verbal conflict observed in this study simplifies the task of retaining the overall discourse topic in memory. Although the original opposing positions may have been stated dozens of moves back, participants retain a clear sense of the structure of the interaction. This is especially striking given that the residents in this study all had cognitive limitations which might be expected to adversely affect language competence, which includes comprehension and retention in memory of previous utterances over a long sequence of discourse. Not all residents showed equal ability to manage this structure, however, as is shown by the case of Gary. Significantly, linguistic ability (as determined by such factors as

542



syntax, morphology, and phonology) did not correlate with the ability to handle dispute structure over a sequence of many turns. Gary had a relatively high level of linguistic ability, but was the least able of the residents to dispute coherently. On the level of single moves or move pairs, this disparity would not be as apparent, since his individual moves were sometimes appropriate, and more linguistically complex than, for example, June's. Gary would occasionally give reasons, while June primarily contradicted or denied; yet June was able to retain a clear sense of the topic over many turns (several dozen in at least one instance), while Gary's ability to do so was much more limited. Conclusion The discourse structure of verbal conflicts allows for a great deal of stylistic variation and diversity of purpose, while retaining a pragmatically useful simplicity. While many social environments place a high value on sophisticated suppression of disagreement, here sociable arguing was commonly engaged in and served the positive function of promoting conversational interaction. Residents with severe speech and language impairments were able to participate successfully in sociable verbal conflicts. We argue that they could do so because the predictable organization of verbal conflict allows for participants with limited language ability to make appropriate and comprehensible contributions. The length and complexity of the residents' disputes is a favorable comment on their ability to use conflict as a means to meet their needs for verbal interaction. REFERENCES Affleck, G.G. (1975). Role-taking ability and interpersonal conflict resolution among retarded young adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 80, 233-236. Anderson-Levitt, K.M. (1985). Taking sides: Resolution of a peer conflict in a workshop for retarded adults. In S. Sabsay & M. Platt (Eds.), Social setting, stigma, and communicative competence (pp. 41-74). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bercow-Hamilton, J.E. (1988). Staff effect on argument resolution by mentally retarded group home residents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo. Boggs, S.T. (1978). The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiian children. Language in

Society, 7, 325-344. Camras, L.A. (1984). Children's verbal and nonverbal communication in a conflict situation. Ethology and Sociobiology, 5, 257-268. Eder, D. (1990). Serious and playful disputes: Variation in conflict talk among female adolescents. In A.D. Grimshaw, (Ed.), Conflict talk (pp. 67-84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eisenberg, A.R., & Garvey, C. (1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes, 4, 149-170. Genishi, C , & DiPaolo, M. (1982). Learning through argument in a preschool. In L.C. Wilkenson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 49-68). New York: Academic. Goodwin, M.H. (1983). Aggravated correction and disagreement in children's conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 657-677. Goodwin, M.H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.



543

Goodwin, M.H., & Goodwin, C. (1987). Children's arguing. In S.U. Philips, S. Steele, & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 200-248). New York: Cambridge University Press. Graziano, A., & Bercow, J.E. (1985). [Problems cited by staff in group homes for the mentally retarded]. Unpublished raw data, State University of New York at Buffalo. Greenspan, S., & Shoultz, B. (1981). Why mentally retarded adults lose their jobs. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 2, 111-127. Grimshaw, A.D. (Ed.). (1982). A cross-status dispute in ongoing talk: Conflicting views of history. Text, 2, 323-358. Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1981). Argument as a natural category: The routine grounds for arguing in conversation. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 118-132. Kernan, K.T., & Sabsay, S. (1989). Communication in social interactions: Aspects of an ethnography of communication of mildly mentally handicapped adults. In M. Beveridge, G. ContiRamsden, and I. Leudar (Eds.), Language and communication in mentally handicapped people (pp. 229-253). London: Chapman & Hall. MacAndrew, C., & Edgerton, R. (1966). On the possibility of friendship. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 70, 49-68. Maynard, D.W. (1985a). How children start arguments. Language in Society, 14, 1-30. Maynard, D.W. (1985b). On the functions of social conflict among children. American Sociological Review, 50, 207-223. McWilliams, B.J. (1986). Speech problems associated with craniofacial anomalies. In J.M. Costello & A.L. Holland (Eds.), Handbook of speech and language disorders (pp. 187-223). San Diego, CA: College Hill Press. Phelps, W.R. (1974). Attitudes related to the employment of the mentally retarded. In L.K. Daniels (Ed.), Vocational rehabilitation of the mentally retarded (pp. 495-556). Springfield, IL: Thomas. Platt, M. (1985). Displaying competence: Peer interaction in a group home for retarded adults. In S. Sabsay & M. Platt (Eds.), Social setting, stigma, and communicative competence (pp. 7 5 95). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). New York: Cambridge University Press. Price-Williams, D., & Sabsay, S. (1979). Communicative competence among severely retarded persons. Semiotica, 26, 35-63. Sabsay, S., & Platt, M. (1985). Social setting, stigma, and communicative competence: Explorations in the conversational interactions of retarded adults. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schiffrin, D. (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society, 13, 311-335. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schloss, P.J., & Schloss, C.N. (1985). Contemporary issues in social skills research with mentally retarded persons. Journal of Special Education, 19, 269-282. Smith, T. (1981). Employer concerns in hiring mentally retarded persons. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 24, 316-318. Tjosvold, D., & Tjosvold, M.M. (1983). Social psychological analysis of residences for mentally retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 28-40. Vuchinich, S. (1990). The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict. In A.D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk (pp. 118-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilier, B., & Intagliata, J. (1984). An overview of the social policy of deinstitutionalization. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 12. Yoder, D.E., & Miller, J.F. (1972). What we may know and what we can do: Input toward a system. In J.E. McLean, D.E. Yoder, & R.L. Schiefelbusch (Eds.), Language intervention with the retarded: Developing strategies. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Discourse Processes Structure and function of verbal ...

Discourse Processes Structure and function of verbal ...

Suggest Documents

Discourse Processes

Discourse Processes

Metropolitan Discourse - Verbal Proxemics - MAFIADOC.COM

Linguistic structure, discourse structure, and event structure

Structure and Function of Capital Markets Structure and Function of ...

Information Structure and Discourse Modelling

Discourse and Information Structure - CiteSeerX

Verbal Classroom Discourse: A small-scale ...

Urban Environment - Metropolitan Discourse - Verbal ...

Focus in Bantu: verbal morphology and function

Discourse Processes From Knowledge ...

Discourse Processes On irony and negation

Discourse Processes On irony and negation

Discourse Processes - Brain and Education Lab

verbal category and nominal function - Stanford University

Structure and Function

Information structure and grammaticalization. Discourse markers and ...

Coherence and Structure in Text and Discourse

The Role of Visual and Verbal Processes in False ...

micro-cognitive processes identified from verbal reports

The positioning of adverbials: Discourse function ...

Discourse and Information Structure - Northwestern University

Grammatical Morphemes and Conceptual Structure in Discourse ...

Cooperation in Dialogue and Discourse Structure - CiteSeerX