Conclusion
This paper has aimed to remedy a neglect of multi-party disputes by addressing how those involved in a two-party argument may collaborate with others who are co-present. Collaboration is a complex phenomenon. In the first place, we have seen that disputes, although initially produced by two parties, do not consist simply of two sides. Rather, given one party's displayed position, stance, or claim, another party can produce opposition by simply aligning against that position or by aligning with a counterposition. This means that parties can dispute a particular position for different reasons and by different means. It is therefore possible for several parties to serially oppose another's claim without achieving collaboration. A second complexity, then, is just that collaboration is a negotiated phenomenon. For example, while it is possible for an outside party to produce an uninvited alignment display that is sympathetic to an already-stated position in a two-party dispute, the party whose position it supports can agree or disagree with that display. Thus, outsiders' uninvited alignment displays that occur subsequent to those of the insiders or principals in a two-party dispute must be considered as collaboration offers, which can be accepted or rejected. But that is not the end of it, for an outside party can offer alignments that now align with a principal party's position and then, addressing a different aspect of the principal's talk, align against it. Finally, in addition to being offered, collaboration can also be solicited. A principal in a two-party dispute solicits collaboration by inviting an outsider to display an alignment favorable to inviter's own position or to participate in a joint activity that supports that stance. Such solicits can be accepted, rejected, or, again, handled in such a way as to exhibit neutrality. Argumentative collaboration, in short, is a specific, momentary, and delicate state of affairs that is also an organized, technical achievement.
The fact that the subjects for this study were children has become submerged in the formal analysis of alignment structures and collaboration. Thus, following this research, two directions can be pursued. One would be to ask how children's arguments differ from those occurring among adults. A reasoned answer would be that matters of substance or content may distinguish disputes among youthful persons from those occurring among older ones, while the forms of disputing remain relatively invariant (Maynard, 1985a, 1985b). In other words, by studying multi-party disputes among first-grade children, we learn about the structure of collaboration as a generic phenomenon among at least practitioners of standard English no matter what their age. This claim can be sustained in part because the analysis presented here depends upon deriving a priori conventional relations between utterances, rather than statistical relations between variables (Coulter, 1983). We have not examined exogenous influences — which would include the age characteristics of participants — on disputes, but rather the endogenously-produced structure of argumentative discourse. Still, the claim that patterns of collaboration are generic to children and adults can be examined with further research on multi-party disputes among different age groups.
Another, more radical, research orientation, would be to consider, in any social arena where the members are identified as children, how it is that such a ‘membership category’ (Sacks, 1972) is relevant. If that query is made, then research on ‘children's arguments’ would involve investigating formal practices for exhibiting the accountable category ‘children’ as much as it would mean describing the ways that disputing is done. Those who have studied children's arguments, in Pollner's (1979) terms, have treated ‘children’ as a social fact, a ‘thing,’ rather than as a socially organized meaning, or ‘ing.’
To attend to the -ing of things involves a radical modification of the attitude of daily life, for it requires attending to the processes of constitution in lieu of the product thus constituted (Pollner, 1979: 253, fn. 11).
In short, we have treated arguments as the important event without also seeing how it is that the category ‘children’ is constituted as a recognizable feature of and within the research setting.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boggs, S.T. (1978). The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiian children. Language in Society 7: 325–344.
Brenneis, D., and Lein, L. (1977). You fruithead: A sociolinguistic approach to dispute settlement. In S. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse. New York: Academic Press.
Coulter, J. (1983). Contingent and a priori structures in sequential analysis. Human Studies 6: 361–376.
Eder, D., and Hallinan, M.T. (1978). Sex differences in children's friendships. American Sociological Review 43: 237–250.
Eisenberg, A., and Garvey, C. (1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse processes 4: 149–170.
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in society 5: 25–66.
Genishi, C., and Di Paolo, M. (1982). Learning through argument in a preschool. In L.C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom. New York; Academic Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to face behavior. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper Colophon Books.
Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica 25: 1–29.
Goodwin, M.H. (1980). He-said-she-said: Formal cultural procedures for the construction of a gossip dispute activity. American Ethnologist 7: 674–695.
Goodwin, M.H. (1982a). Processes of dispute management among urban black children. American Ethnologist 9: 76–96.
Goodwin, M.H. (1982b). ‘Instigating’: Storytelling as social process. American Ethnologist 9: 799–819.
Goodwin, M.H. (1983). Aggravated correction and disagreement in children's conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 657–677.
Maynard, D.W. (1985a). How children start arguments. Language in Society 14: 1–29.
Maynard, D.W. (1985b). On the functions of social conflict among children. American Sociological Review 50: 107–223.
Maynard, D.W. (Forthcoming). The development of argumentative skills among children. In P.A. Adler and P. Adler (Eds.), Sociological studies of child development. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pollner, M. (1979). Explicative transactions: Making and managing meaning in traffic courts. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington.
Sacks, H. (1965–66). Unpublished lectures. Irvine: University of California.
Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: The Free Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 53: 361–382.
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organizaiton of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–382.
Whalen, M., and Zimmerman, D.H. (Forthcoming). Telling trouble: Citizen calls to the police. In R.M. Frankel (Ed.), Language in institutional settings. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Co.
Wilkinson, L.C., and Calculator, S. (1982). Requests and responses in peer-directed reading groups. American Educational Research Journal 19: 107–122.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I would like to thank Gail Jefferson, whose extraordinary careful and helpful comments on an earlier version are reflected at numerous points in the paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maynard, D.W. Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party disputes among children (and other humans). Hum Stud 9, 261–285 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148131
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148131