Dispute Resolution Without Disputing: How the Interactional Organization of Mediation
Hearings Minimizes Argument
Author(s): Angela Garcia
Reviewed work(s):
Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 56, No. 6 (Dec., 1991), pp. 818-835
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096258 .
Accessed: 20/02/2012 11:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Sociological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
DISPUTE RESOLUTION WITHOUT DISPUTING:
HOW THE INTERACTIONAL ORGANIZATION
OF MEDIATION HEARINGS MINIMIZES ARGUMENT*
ANGELAGARcIA
Universityof Wisconsin,Eau Claire
Mediation is an institutional interactional system in which disputing parties discuss and
resolve differences with the help of a third party. Conflicts can be resolved with minimal
confrontationor argumentin part because mediation de-emphasizes the adversarial nature
of the situation and encourages cooperation. By analyzing the interactional organization of
mediation hearings I show how mediation promotes agreement and minimizes argument.
Mediation accomplishes these goals by an interactional organization that constrains how
accusations and denials are positioned andformulated.Because this organizationprecludes
the use of disputing techniques routinely used in ordinary conversation, disputes can be
discussed and agreement reached withoutargument.
Closer [1956] (1964) provisionallydefined cess.' Some argumentsmay lead to resolutionof
conflictas "struggleovervaluesandclaims
to scarce status,power and resourcesin which
the aimsof theopponentsareto neutralize,injure
oreliminatetheirrivals"(p. 8). Inhis studyof the
latentfunctionsof conflict outlinedby Simmel
[1908] (1955),Coser(1964)pointedoutthatconflict has manypositiveeffects on groups,instituandsocietiesas a whole,e.g.,
tions,organizations,
by aiding groupformation(p. 31), contributing
"to the maintenanceof group boundariesand
preventing] the withdrawalof membersfrom a
group"(p. 8), creatingbalancebetween groups
in a social system(p. 34), andhelpingto "maintain the total system by establishinga balance
betweenits componentparts"(p. 35).
Although conflict clearly has positive functions,thesecan oftenbe realizedonly if the conflict is ultimatelyresolved.Institutionalizeddispute resolutionprocedureslike trials, counseling, and mediationare specificallyorganizedto
manageconflictsthatoccurwithinsocieties and
groups.
In ordinaryconversation,disputingand dispute resolutionmay be one and the same pro-
the conflict, e.g., by one side giving in (Vuchinich 1990)- othersmay not.People seek institutionalconflictresolutionprocedureswhentheir
disputes are not resolved by informal means.
Therefore,to be effective institutionalizedconflict resolutionproceduresshoulddifferin some
way frominformaldisputing.The parameterson
which these proceduresdiffer include the roles
of the participants,authority/powerof specific
roleholders,normativeexpectations,procedures
followed, and interactionalorganization.
I use mediationhearingsas a case studyof an
institutionalconflict resolution procedureand
comparethem to the interactionalorganization
of disputing in ordinaryconversation.I argue
that institutionalconflict resolutionprocedures
(e.g., mediation)resolve conflict by eliminating
specific conflictualprocesses from the interaction.In particular,the type of arguingthatoccurs
in ordinaryconversationby participantsin informal disputesis eliminatedin the mediationprocess. Mediationaccomplishesthisby implementing an interactionalorganizationthatconstrains
the presentationof accusationsanddenials,pro* Direct all correspondenceto Angela Garcia,De- vides opportunitiesfor disputantsto respondselectively to accusations,and providesfor mitipartmentof Sociology andAnthropology,University
formulationof accusationsand denials.
gated
of Wisconsin,Eau Claire,WI 54702. I thankSteven
Because
this organizationprecludesthe use of
Clayman,Douglas Maynard,Neal Slone, Don Zimdisputing
techniquesused routinelyin ordinary
merman,and the anonymousASRreviewersfor providing commentson earlierversionsof this paper.In
addition,I'd like to thankthe mediatorsand media- Grantfromthe Universityof Wisconsin,Eau Claire.
tion clients for allowingme to observeandvideotape
' Sacks,Schegloff,andJefferson(1974) distinguish
their hearings.Part of the work for this paper was two types of talk:institutionaltalk and informaltalk
done undera Time ReassignmentIncentiveProgram (or "ordinaryconversation").
818
AmericanSociological Review, 1991, Vol. 56 (December:818-835)
DISPUTERESOLUTIONIN MEDIATION
conversation,issues can be discussedandagreementreachedwithoutargument.Whenarguments
do occur,mediationprovidesan interactionalorganizationfor terminatingthem that is absent
fromordinaryconversation.
DATA
Disputantsin mediationhearingsnegotiate an
agreementwith the help of a thirdpartyrather
thanby handingdecision-makingauthorityover
to a thirdpartyas in small claims court.Mediation emphasizes cooperationand compromise
(Worleyand Schwebel 1985) and de-emphasizes theadversarial
natureof disputing,whichtends
to be exacerbatedin litigation (Girdner1985).
Practitionersbelieve thatmediationreducesthe
antagonismbetween disputants,gives them an
opportunityto listento andunderstandeach other's positions,andpromotesreconciliation(Bottomley 1985,p. 162;Dingwall 1986,p. 10;Roberts 1988, p. 538; Folberg1983, p. 9).
I evaluatea mediationprogramsponsoredby a
Californiacounty.This programservesas an alternativeto small claims courtfor disputessuch
as landlord-tenantdisputes, monetarydisputes
involving small sums of money, and disputes
betweenneighborsor family members.
I videotapedall hearings(ninetotal)held during a six-monthperiodin 1987. In two cases the
disputantshad additionalproblemsafterthe initialhearinganda secondmeetingwas held.Since
the structureof these two follow-up meetings
differedfrom the initialmediations,the followups arenot analyzed.Disputantsweretold about
thestudybeforeeachhearingbeganandall agreed
to be videotaped.Althoughthe recordingequipmentwasvisible,its intrusiveness
wasminimized.
The mediatorsin this ongoing programare volunteersfrom the communitywho receive five
daysof trainingfromthedirectorof theprogram.
The nine hearingsinvolved a total of 43 people
(includingmediators,disputants,andwitnesses)
andrangedfrom40 minutesto almostthreehours
in length.Morethan20 hoursof audiotapewere
transcribedusing a modifiedversionof GailJefferson's transcriptionsystem (see Atkinsonand
Heritage1984, pp. ix-xi).
Mediationprogramsvary greatly in theirorganization. In this program, each hearing is
chairedby two mediatorswho open the hearings
by making introductions,describingthe rules,
andgettingthemediationagreementsigned.2The
2
The seventhhearingwas assignedonly one
mediator.
819
mediatorsthen solicit extensive storiesfromthe
disputants,and then lead a discussion period.
When a solutionis reached,the mediatorswrite
up the agreementandclose the hearing.The disputants(referredto as complainantand respondent)representthemselves.If a mediatedagreement is not reached, the mediatorsarbitratea
decisionfor the disputants.
THE ORGANIZATIONOF DISPUTINGIN
ORDINARYCONVERSATION
To understandhow mediationprovidesan interactionalstructurethatminimizesdisputing,it is
necessaryto understandhow peopleconductdisputesin everydaysituations.3The disputingprocess dependson the speechexchangesystemof
ordinaryconversation.Speechexchangesystems
(Sacks et al. 1974) are unique interactionalorganizationsthatcanbe distinguishedon thebasis
of theturn-taking
systemandparticipation
frameworkemployed.
The turn-takingsystemas describedby Sacks
et al. (1974), consistsof the rulesandprocedures
participantsuse to exchangeturnstalking.In ordinaryconversation,turntransitionproperlyoccurs at the end of a "unittype" (e.g., sentence,
clause,orphrase).Speakerscan selectanotherto
speak(e.g., by askinga question).If the current
speakerdoes not select a next speaker,any participantmay speak. If a next speakerdoes not
self select, the currentspeaker may continue.
Turnsat talkingand types of turns(e.g., questionsandanswers)arenot predetermined
or controlledby conventions,structures,or individuals
outsidethe interaction,but are negotiatedin the
contextof the talkitself.
For any given interaction,the participation
frameworkdescribeswhatpatternsof participation and addressoccur(Goffman1981).Participants in ordinaryconversationnegotiate their
participationstatus(e.g., ratifiedparticipantvs.
bystander,addressedvs. nonaddressedrecipient)
in the contextof the talk.
Many of the arguingtechniquesused in disputesderivein partfromthe interactionalorganizationof ordinaryconversation.Researchon arguing in ordinaryconversationin informalsettings shows thatit involves adjacent,directlyaddressedexchanges of oppositionalturns.Techniqueschildrenuse to disputeincludeaggravated
3 The organizationof talk in institutionalsettings
derives from the organizationof ordinaryconversation (Greatbatch1988, p. 402; Sacks et al. 1974, pp.
730-31, Heritage1987, p. 257).
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
820
Excerpt1:
1 Stan:
Speakersare identifiedat the left with the initials of their
2
Karen:
institutionalroles: C is the complainant;R is the respon3
dent;M is the mediator.
4 Stan:
If morethanone personholds a specific role, the partiesare
5
labelledA and B (e.g., MA is MediatorA). The transcripts
have been simplifiedfor ease of reading.Pseudonymshave
6 Stan:
been used for all propernouns.
7 Karen:
Definition
Symbol
8
Inhalationsand exhalations,respectively
.hh hh
9 Stan:
ta::lk
Colons indicatea syllable is drawnout
19 Karen:
thatDash indicatesa word was cut off abruptly
11
Table 1. Conventionsfor TranscribingConversations
lot
YOU
0cost0
(1.4)
(talk)
Underliningindicatesstress or emphasis
Capitallettersindicateincreasedvolume
Degree symbolsindicatedecreasedvolume
Numbersin parenthesesindicate length of
pauses (in seconds)
Wordsin parenthesesaretentativetranscriptions.
Empty parenthesesindicate nontranscribable talk.
Punctuationindicatesintonation,not grammaticalstructure.
Laughterparticles are transcribedas pronounced.
Bracketsindicatesimultaneousspeech.
heh, hunh,
henh
A: [a copy]
B: [I have]
A: yeah=
Equalsigns indicateone utteranceor word
B: =in order is attachedto another.
Arrows point out lines in excerpts that illustrateconcepts describedin text
)=
I wantto talk to you(
=I DI:DN'T:(.3) HAVE ANY
THING,=
=YOU HAD (RIGHT)TO DO
WITH=IT!
[(YOU ARE ALWAYS)]
[YOU KNOWTHAT IS]
BULL I DIDN'T
[YOU ALLOWEDIT]
[( see it )]=I DIDN'T EVEN DO
THATCRAPI DIDN'T SEE THAT.
Stan begins this sequence in a normaltone of
voice (line1).Karenescalatesthevolumeto a yell
in her response(lines 2 and 3). Stan's next turn
matchesthe volume of Karen'sresponse.They
maintainthis high volume untilline 10 in which
Karen escalates the volume to a high-pitched
scream.
This excerpt also illustratesthe exchange of
accusationsand denials.In lines 2 and 3 Karen
disclaimsresponsibilityfor the problemStanhas
complainedabout:"Ididn'thaveanything."Stan
countersthisclaim in lines 4 and5 withan oppositionalutterance:"Youhad rightto do with it."
Karen overlaps this utteranceto deny Stan's
accusation:"Youknow thatis bull I didn't...."
Suchexchangesof oppositionalutterancesoccur
frequentlyin ordinarydisputes(also see Coulter
1990, p. 184).
These disputingtechniquesrequirethe flexible speechexchangesystemof ordinaryconversationwherea disputantcan place a responseto
an utteranceadjacentto that utterance.For example, to producean aggravateddisagreement,
thedisagreementmustbe placedadjacentto what
is being disagreedwith. A disagreementthat is
delayedor displacedis a mitigateddisagreement
(Pomerantz1975, 1984). Such disputingtechniquesareusedin theturn-takingsystemof ordinaryconversationwhich does not limit when a
given partycan takea turn.
Second, the speech exchange system of ordinaryconversationdoes notrestrictwhocanspeak
to whom.-Thus,
disputants
typicallyusetechniques
like repetition,escalation,andinversionin utterances addressedto the otherdisputant.This may
is thereleadtoescalationbecausetheco-disputant
by selectedas next speaker,givinghimor herthe
floortoproducea disputational
response.4Insum,
ratherthanmitigateddisagreements(M. Goodwin 1983), repetitionof the previousspeaker's
utterance(incorporatingpartialrepeatsinto the
oppositionalutteranceis referredto as "format
tying"by GoodwinandGoodwin[1987]), escalation of volume, acceleration,and denying or
negatingthepreviousspeaker'sutterance(referred
to as "inversion"by BrenneisandLein [1977, p.
56-57]). Researchon adultarguingshows thatit
follows similarpatterns.Forexample,the "contrastivelymatchedcounter"used by adultsin argumentsequences(Coulter1990,p. 195)is analogous to the "formattying"found by Goodwin
andGoodwin(1987) in children'sdisputes.
Seriousdisputes,or"verbalfights,"showmore
clearlytheparallelsbetweenchildren'sandadults'
disputingtechniques.A tape recordingof a domestic disputebetweenthreeadultswas played
as evidencein a mediationhearing.In Excerpt1,
Stanis arguingwithhis ex-wife over who wrote
I This observationis consistentwith data cited in
a rudecommenton his lastsupportcheck.(Table
1 providesa summaryof the transcribingcon- M. Goodwin(1983), GoodwinandGoodwin(1987),
andCoulter(1990).
ventionsused in all excerpts.)
DISPUTERESOLUTIONIN MEDIATION
821
ferredresponseto anaccusation.But,for accusations, denialsarethe preferredresponsebecause
the absenceor delayof a denialmaybe interpreted as an admissionof/evidence of guilt (AtkinPreferencefor Agreement
son andDrew 1979,p. 112-13;Heritage1984,p.
Besides the speechexchangesystem,preference 269). The preferencesystem, which minimizes
organizationalso affects arguingand disputing and mitigates disagreements,is not being folin ordinaryconversation.One way thattalk can lowed. Accusationscanthereforeleadto arguing
be said to have a preferenceorganizationis that or disputing.
some types of utterances(e.g., invitations)imply/projecta specific type of response(e.g., ac- Maintainingand EscalatingDisputes
ceptanceor refusalof the invitation)in the next
turnspace(SchegloffandSacks 1973;Schegloff Once an argumenthas begun, its structureconsequenc- tains the seeds of its continuance.Researchon
1987;Sacks1987).Thesetwo-utterance
es arereferredto as adjacencypairs.The initial theorganizationof children'sdisputesshowsthat
utteranceis thefirstpairpart, andtheresponseis children often bypass opportunitiesto resolve
calledthe secondpair part (SchegloffandSacks conflictandinstead"activelyworkto maintaina
(M.Goodwin1983,p. 661;
1973, p. 295). The type of responsepreferred stateof contradiction"
dependson the natureof the first pairpart.Pre- see also Corsaro1985, p. 212-19; Goodwinand
ferredresponsesoccur more frequently,are ex- Goodwin1987,p. 206).5Children'sdisputes(M.
plicitly stated,and are producedwithoutdelay, Goodwin 1982; Corsaroand Rizzo 1990, p. 28)
disputes(Vuchinich1984,
responsesareproducedwith and intergenerational
while"dispreferred"
delays, accounts,or othermitigatingtechniques p. 219) arecommonlyunresolved.
Once begun, argumentsmay be difficult to
(Pomerantz1984, p. 64).
Pomerantz(1984) and Heritage(1984; 1988) stop because accusationsengenderreturnaccu(Coulter1990),or dearguedthatrecipientsfollow preferenceorgani- sations,counter-assertions
zationbecauseof a normativeconstraintfavor- nials. Denials are preferredsecond pair parts
ing social solidarity.A responsethatis not what (hence producedwithout the delay that might
was projectedis formulatedas a dispreferredsec- allow accusersto repairor mitigateaccusations).
ondpairpartto displayorientationto thefactthat Such denialslack accountsthatmight lead to a
the preferredresponse should have been pro- resolutionof the disputants'divergentpositions;
duced. The preferencesystem thus reflects the othermitigatingtechniquesthatmightlessen the
impactof the denialarealso abmoral orderas people's responsesdemonstrate face-threatening
sent. Accusationslead to departurefrom a prefsolidaritywith theirco-interactants.
Formost utterancetypes,thereis a preference erence for agreement,and this departureis refor agreement(Pomerantz1975, 1978a, 1984; invokedby the preferredresponseof denial.
Denialsarealso a directdisagreementwiththe
Sacks 1987). Disagreementsare formulatedor
placed to demonstratetheir dispreferredstatus priorspeaker,puttinghim or her in a positionof
(Pomerantz1975; 1984). However, Pomerantz eitherbackingdown (whichis face-threatening)
(1984, p. 81) noted that supportfor one's co- or defendinghim or herself.If the accusermaininteractantis demonstratedby disagreeingwith tains his or her stand and re-issues the accusanotby agreeingwiththem.Sim- tion,the disputecontinuesfor anotheradjacency
self-deprecations,
ilarly, the preferencefor agreeing with assess- pair because the second accusationalso invites
ments shouldlead to the acceptanceof compli- departurefrom a preferencefor agreementand
from
ments,but this puts one in the positionof prais- mayprovokea seconddenial.Thedeparture
ing oneself (Pomerantz1978a).Recipientscope a preferencefor agreementthataccusationsmake
with these conflictingconstraintsby, for exam- relevantcan thus be maintainedover a series of
ple, downgradingcomplimentsor shifting the turns(e.g., see Whalen,Zimmerman,andWhalen
referentsof compliments (Pomerantz 1978a). 1988, p. 353-54).
Complimentacceptancesare therebyproduced
as dispreferredratherthanpreferredsecondpair
I There may be cross-culturaldifferencesin chilparts.
dren's tendenciesto aggravateor mitigate disputes.
Accusationsalso operatecontraryto the "pref- Forexample,Boggs (1978) describedan argumentin
erenceforagreement."Preferencefor agreement whichtwo Japanesechildrenused mitigatedandindiwould lead to an admissionof guilt as the pre- rect arguing.
the potentialfor directlyaddressedadjacentexchangesmakesdisputingpossible.
822
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
Likewise,once a disputehas begun,thereare
(.3)
interactionaldisincentivesfor ending it. BreakM:
'She's twelve?'
ing the cycle of oppositionalutterancesmay in(.2)
volve some degradationof self. Coulter(1990,
C: =* She's twelve. (.5) And the:n,we had
pp. 189-90) describedhow participantsretreat
twi:ns:?,(.3) who have been li:ving at
from argumentative sequences by "backing
ho:mewith- with KA:Ren,(.2) uhm, since
down"from a previouslystatedposition. Such
the dissolution.
retreatsfrom explicit disagreementsmay result
(.3)
in loss of face (see Emmison1987, 1988;Great'The name of your twins?'
M:
batchforthcoming;Katriel1985;Corsaro1985,
(.1)
p. 219; Vuchinich1990).Thus,once disputesare
C: = uh, STAcey andAriel, (1.9) For the most
begun,a motivationfor continuingthemmay be
part,(.1) u::hin the la:st five years, we've
builtinto the talkitself.
(.2) had an O:N andoff: (.8) flexibility,
In sum, the speech exchange system of ordi(.3) type of arra~ngement....
naryconversationprovidesan interactionalenvironmentin which disputingtechniquescan be
Whiledisputantshavethefloorto tell theirstoused to continueor escalatedisagreement.What
differencesin the speech exchange system of ries, they are free to self-select as next speaker,
mediationhearingsmakedisputeresolutionmore andto speakeven whennot selectedby a mediator. However,they do not use the full range of
likely thanescalation?
turn-taking
optionsthatwouldbe availabletothem
in ordinaryconversation.Specifically,disputants
THE SPEECHEXCHANGESYSTEM
refrainfrom using the "currentspeakerselects
OF MEDIATION
next" option to select a co-disputantto speak.
However,they may use the "currentspeakerseTurnTaking
lects next"optionto ask a mediatora question.
Disputantswho are not telling a story rarely
The turn-takingsystem of mediationdiffers in
severalrespectsfrom thatof ordinaryconversa- speak duringa co-disputant'sstory, and when
tion. Mediationis partlya pre-allocatedsystem, they do theirutterancesdisplayorientationto the
as aretrials(AtkinsonandDrew 1979),andnews turn-takingsystemin mediation.Forexample,a
interviews (Clayman 1987; Greatbatch1988; disputantmay speakduringthe otherdisputant's
HeritageandGreatbatch1991).A mediatoropens storyif it is in responseto a mediator'squestion.
the hearing, explains the mediation process, Excerpt3 is partof the respondent'sstory in a
makes introductions,and then elicits the com- disputebetweenneighborsin an apartmentcomplainant'sstory.The orderof story-tellingis thus plex. The respondentis explainingwhy she and
set - the complainant'sstory precedesthe re- the othertenantswrote a letterrequestingevicspondent's.Disputantsdo not begin theirstories tion of the complainant("Mrs.Norton").
untilafterthemediatorsolicitsthem,therebydis- Excerpt3:
playingtheir orientationto the mediator'sconR:
Because we have A:LL had repeated?,
trolof the progressof the hearing.
(.6) g sets?, (.3) fromMrs. 'Norton.' (.8)
Afterthe initialstoriesare completed,mediaA::nd,if therewouldbe someway to work
torsmay solicit secondor even thirdstoriesfrom
this ou::t!,I would li::keto do it:. (.2)
the disputants.The disputantsmay not interrupt
bu::t,(.3) 1 don't fee::l, andno one else
eachotherduringtheirstories,butthe mediators
feels because (1.9) A:LL the reasonsthats:h[e claimed]
mayinterruptto askquestionsor refocusthetopic. The story-tellerwill typicallyuse the "current MB:=* [Haveyou] seen this?
speakerselects self' turn-takingoption to con(.2)
tinue his or her story after answeringa mediaC: = No, I haven't?
tor'squestion.Forexample,
When thereare two or more complainantsor
Excerpt2:
in a hearing,brief asides between
respondents
C:
=I've been divo:rcedfive years. (.2)
are
allowed. In Excerpt4, the com"partners"
Ouhmo(.2) 0so::0,.h (.5) 0u:hmo,(.1) We
plainantarguesthatthe respondentneglectedto
have threeCHILDren?,(1.0) The eldest
visit his children.RespondentB urges her husSHARon,has been li:ving with me, (.1)
bandto writedown his responseto this accusafor (.4) just abouttwo years.
DISPUTERESOLUTIONIN MEDIATION
823
tion, since they're not allowed to speak during scribedif they use "actionprojections"at turnthe complainant'sstory.
beginningsto requestpermissionto speak. Action projectionsare utteranceslike, "CanI ask
Excerpt4:
you a question?"which, by projectingan action
He WASN't (.1) he didn'teven SEE::
C:
(e.g., a question),createa space for preliminary
them for=the-(.2) you=know?,(.5)
beforeperformingthe projectedacinformation
BAREly saw themat a:ll, for a couple
tion (Schegloff 1980). Disputantsphrasethese
uh=years.(.5) RightA:fterthe divo:rce.
actionprojectionsas questionsaddressedto the
(.5) A::ND
mediatorsandthey do not producethe projected
(.4)
actionuntila mediatorhas grantedpermission.
' Writeit down'
RB:
C:
(.9)
A:::NDDU::H (2.5) you know!, (.2)
I=I=don't=knowwhathe WA:NTS:=uh
me::.. .
The non-storytellingdisputantoccasionally
requests or provides clarifying informationor
repairserrorsin the disputant'sstory.Mediators
generallylet suchbriefintrusionspass,even when
addresseddirectly to the co-disputant.6In Excerpt5 fromthe neighbor'sdispute,MediatorA
hasjustreadaloudtherespondent'sevictionletter.
Excerpt6:
She was: very very upsetaboutthat!=and
RA:
(.1) .h (.4) made it perfectlyclearthat
she=didn'twant (.1) anything'that had'
to do with Ben! (.3) 'after thatt?=
C: =* =COULD=I-(.1) could=Ia:sk a question
Oatthis point?0
(.1)
MB:
C:
Excerpt5:
'Okay, and' thatwas jus:t:
R:
(.2)
MB:
hm::h?,
MA:
And [thi:swa]s A:prilsecond?
[on:e]
(.1)
R:
(.3)
Yes. Thatwas the
[firsttime this was turnedin]
C: => [Wasthatorganized]by you?
R:
R:
(.4)
No. This was organized, by Tess ...
0Sure!0
(.2)
Was: (.3) wa:s: (.2) he:r:(.9) u::hinte:nt,
in 0you=know?,uhO(.3) Did it SOU:ND
to you: thatshe was TE:LLingyou:?, . . .
InExcerpt6, froma familydispute,thecomplainantselectshimselfto speakaftertherespondent's
actionprojection,"Could
story.Thecomplainant's
I ask a questionat this point?"is formulatedand
intonatedas a question.The complainantthen
pauses.AfterMediatorB'sresponse("Sure!")the
complainantasks the projectedquestion.
By gettingpermissionfroma mediatorto continuethe disputanttransformsa self-selectedutteranceintoa responseto a mediator'sutterance,
which is consistentwith the turn-takingsystem
of mediation.7Althoughdisputantsdo notalways
I
While disputantsin these hearingsroutinelyuse
The disputantsand the mediatorsdisplay an
actionprojectionsas requestsforpermissionto speak,
orientationto the turn-takingsystem of media- mediatorsuse action projectionsat turn-beginnings
tion when they requestpermissionto speak or as preliminariesto preliminaries(Schegloff 1980):
employ sanctions.Throughoutthe hearings,the
MA: That's fair enough 'cause you might s- be
disputantwho is not telling a story may select
sittinghere anotherhourA:nyhow!
self to speak for purposesother than those de6These findingsdiffersomewhatfromGreatbatch's
forthcomingfindingsfor news interviews.The news
interview is designed to show disagreementwhile
mediationis designedto produceagreement.Thismay
accountfor differencesbetweenmediationandnews
interviewsin how clarificationrequestsare used and
respondedto. In mediation,brief interjectionsthat
clarifya point may be helpfulfor the conflict resolution process,andhence areallowed.Mediatorsintervene only when clarificationsor errorcorrectionsdevelop into arguing.
R:
(1.3)
'Sure.'
(.1)
MB:=* hh ah Let me s:ay I- It dependsa lot on your
layer, I- d- uh- know that-There are good ones
and thereare bad ones.=
are
Mediators'actionprojectionsatturn-beginnings
generallyphrasedand intonatedas statements(e.g.,
"let me ask you a question")ratherthanas questions
(e.g., "canI askyou a question?").Pauseswithinrather
thanat the end of unit-types,or the absenceof pauses,
indicatethat a response is neitherexpected nor pro-
824
requestpermissionbeforespeaking,suchrequests
indicatethatthey (andthe mediators)areoriented to the expectationthatdisputantsnot self-select duringthe otherdisputant'sstory.8
Disputantsrarelyproduceutterancesduringthe
otherdisputant'sstoriesthatdo not displayorientationto their limited right to speak. When
disputantsuse the "nextspeakerselects self' option to respondto an accusationduringthe other
disputant'sstory,mediatorsusuallyintervene.In
Excerpt7, a father(RA)criticizesthe stepfather's
(C) treatmentof theirchildren.
Excerpt7:
... the CHILDrencoming ho::meand
him (.4) taking them into the
BA::throom,(.4) andlooking in their
EYE:S!,becausetheir:pupils mightbe
di=h=lated'cause they've
had=too=many-(.1) too much sugarfrom
milkshakesthatthey drinkin at my
HOU:SE!
(.2)
C: => 'That's [nottrueat all']
[And=MY-M]Y KI:DS:(.2) my kids
RA:
have cry: (.1) cried over [that.]
MA: =E [Excuse]me for interrnt for just=
a=minute.=Iforgotto, (.1) mention,
onie=of=theGROU:NDru:les!,(.2) and
thati:s when- (.2) you're telling your
story,(.7) you say nothing.
RA:
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
Disputantsaddresstheirutterancesto the mediatorsratherthanto theirco-disputants.In Excerpt
8, a disputeovervehiclerepairs,the complainant
providesinformationthatthe otherdisputantsalreadyknowbutthatthemediatormightnotknow,
demonstratingthatthis utteranceis designedfor
the mediators,not the respondent.
Excerpt8:
Okay, .h Dan?,If you'd like to go ahead
MA:
then=and(.2) andtell us your side of the
C:
(.6)
Okay. (.3) U:::h,(.5) think=it=was
approximately:u:h (.1) 'think it was in
eighty six0 (1.9) the date was u::h(.1)
FI::veuh seven eighty 'seven I believe
an' I-Vtook the:motorho::me,to u:h
Mark'sAuto. (1.0) .hh chuh! (.1) for:=a
see (.1) replacefan belts, replace
hose, (.2) inspectthe air
upper=radiator
conditioning:,unit.
The complainantspecifies the date the vehicle
was broughtto the shop, the shop's name, and
the purposeof the visit for the benefitof the mediators.The complainantgazes downathis notes
initially,thenlifts his gaze to the mediatorsduring this utterance.
Disputantscan also indicatethatthe utterance
is addressedto the mediatorsby referringto codisputantsin the thirdperson.In Excerpt9, the
MediatorA sanctionsthe complainantfor speak- respondentrefersto the complainantin the third
person("DAN","he").
ing duringRespondentA's story.
In sum,thedisputants'requestsforpermission Excerpt9:
to speakand the mediators'sanctionsshow that
Whe::n(.7) DAN was ca:lled,andwas
RA:
participantstreatthe mediationhearingas havtold thatthe waterpumphousing:,(.2)
ing specificturn-takingnorms.
was lea:king,. . . Whenhe came dow:n
TheParticipationFramework
andhe pickedup the car:,rightbefore=the
coach (.4) 'uh' before it was adequately
roadtested.
While participantsin ordinaryconversationare
Recipientresponsesprovidefurtherevidence
notrestrictedas to whentheycanbe therecipient
of an utteranceor select specific othersto speak that disputant'sutterancesare addressedto the
(Sackset al. 1974), disputants'participationsta- mediators.Minimalresponses(e.g., "umhmh,"
tuses in mediationhearingsare predetermined. "yeah"),whenprovided,areproducedby mediators,not by co-disputants.
vided for. Responses are generallynot forthcoming, Excerpt10:
demonstratingthat the parties interpretmediators'
At tha:tsta:g:e,(.2) it is truethat(.1)
C:
actionprojectionsat turn-beginningsas preliminaries
I=had(.2) suggested
volunteer=help=that
to preliminariesratherthanas requestsfor permission
could be- (.2) available,(.1) didn't-.(.1)
to speak.
didn'tworkout.
8 Participants
in news interviewsalso use requests
(.2)
forpermissionto speakwhendepartingfromtheturnMB: =w 'um=hmh.0=
takingsystem of thatinstitutionalsetting(Greatbatch
=But- the=eh-(.6) she was NOT- (.4)
C:
1988; Clayman and Maynard 1990; Heritage and
SHE:nor=anybody=in=myfamily
Greatbatch1991).
DISPUTE RESOLUTIONIN MEDIATION
was=thepitmary, (.3) volunteerhelp on
which the- budgetwas (.2) ma:de...
825
rosy ey:ed, (.9) first time landlord.... ((9
lines omitted))... I just winged it?, (.3)
you=know?,I just- trustedthatthatwas:=
MB:=E =.hh Whatrentwere you: paying?,(.4)
priorto Paul's purchase.Whatwere you:
(.1) whatwere you payingto the o:ther
landlord?
The directionof the complainant'sgaze also indicates he is addressing the mediators - he
switcheshis gaze fromone mediatorto the other
anddoes not look at the respondent,who is seat(.9)
ed next to him.
R:
Ei::thertwo fifty, or threehundred,. . .
In addition,co-disputantsoftenengagein side
activities like note-takingduringthe co-disputant'sutterances.Thus,mediatorsanddisputants Excerpt12, fromthe vehicle repairdispute,also
displayorientationto the conventionthatdispu- illustratesmediatorcontrolof disputants'involvetants'utterancesareaddressedto the mediators. mentin the discussionandof shiftsin topic:MediatorB changesthe focus from the bill for the
air-conditioning
repairto whetherthevehiclehad
DiscussionFormat
been road-testedor not.
In additionto the storytellingduringwhicha dis- Excerpt12:
putanthas the floor for an extendedturnandthe
WhatMA: How aboutthe air-conditioner?,
co-disputantremainssilent,thesemediationhear(.1) money, was spentthere?=
ings haveextendedperiodsof discussion,primaRA:
=Thirtyseven fifty.
sequencrily comprisedof question-and-answer
(.5)
es. The organizationof these discussionperiods
MA: And that's simply charging?
differsfromordinaryconversationin thatmedia(.4)
torscontrolthe topic of discussionandwho parThat'scorrect.(.2) And thenyou haveRA:
ticipates.The mediatorsuse directedquestions
(.2) uh you shouldhave freon,
to switchthe talkfromone disputantto the other.
somewhere,(.1) the:re.
Excerpt 11 is from the end of an extendedex(.5)
change of questions and answers between the
mediatorsand the respondentin a landlord-ten- MA: 'Okay,plus
(.5)
antdispute.In the arrowedutterance,MediatorB
shouldbe somefreonchargedonit
RA:
The::re,
asksthecomplainantwhetherhe, as landlord,was
(.3)
awareof the respondent'spoorearningcapacity.
'Thereis.'
MB:
After the complainant'sresponse, MediatorB
(5.0)
directsa questionto the respondent.
timeyoupickedup
MB: = .h Didyou=know=the
Excerpt11:
thevehicleit hadnotbeenroad-tested?
(.6)Wereyoutoldthat?
MB: Couldyou tell us, (.3) whatyour income
wa:s, priorto. (.4) .h in otherwords,
(.1)
(.3)
C:
No, theguy-(.1) u:hTim(.1)u:hcalled
Priorto thattime?
R:
me aboutI thinkit wasa DA::Ybefore
twodaysbeforehe saiddu:h(.7) .h
(.3)
SETto go except,bu::t
EV'RYTHING'S
MB: Au:gust.
we've-. . .
R:
(.3)
We::ll,I=don't-(.4) 1 can
I'm=not=sure=ifI can reme:mber!,hh (.1)
u::hm:(.5) it was very lo:w.
(.5)
MB:
Very low.
(.1)
R:
Very [low u:::hm]
MB:=X [Wereyou awa:reof that]Paul
Duringdiscussionperiods,disputantscontinue to addresstheirutterances(includingaccusatory utterances)to the mediators.9Responsesto
accusationsarealso addressedto mediators,thus
resultingin mediatedtalk. For example, in Excerpt 13, from the landlord-tenantdispute, the
complainantassertsthat the respondentis consistentlybehindin herrent.MediatorA shiftsthe
(.9)
C:
Ye:s::.WE:LL?,(.2) .h I didn't-you=
know?,(.1) make any u::hinvestigation?
(.2) 1 was a ve::ry,u:hm(1.6) um: (1.2)
addressed
exchangesbetweendisputants
9-Directly
- exchanges
of threeormoreturnsare
areinfrequent
in suchexchanges.
rare.Mediators
oftenintervene
826
focusto therespondentwithoutchangingthetopic. Therespondentthenrespondsto the substance
of thecomplainant'scomplaint(by admittingthat
she cannot,in fact,pay the rent)in the contextof
a responseto the mediator'squestion:
Excerpt13:
She-in facthasn'tma:dethepaymentsas
C:
here(.2) in:(.2) [Ma:y]
I: (.5)requested
MA: [And=she]
certainlyhasn'tmadetheJuly
payment.
(.3)
Correct.
C:
(.5)
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
The complainantfirstrefersto the respondentas
"she,"then switches to directaddress("your").
The mediator'sminimalresponse("umhm")reestablishestheframeworkin whichthecomplainant's complaintsshouldbe addressedto the mediator- the remainderof the complaintis addressedto the mediator,not the respondent.
In Excerpt15, fromthe same hearing,the disputantshave been arguingover who has more
time with the children.
Excerpt15:
You'veha:dthem,a majority!
of thelast
C:
.hhItwasMA:ry'sbirthday
Saturdays!,
(.1)
party,Fridaynightattheboardwalk.
.hhAbout=a-(.2)you=know?,
(.2) six
MA: Okay. (.3) Now you a:nswered,(.3)
unableto makethese
that=you're
eightweeksago, h I hadthosesame
paymentsatthistime..hh(.4)To
to youin thatthing.
pla:ns!,I relinquished
tha:t?,(.3)as a question,(.2)
rephra:se
.hhNextweekend,it wasthepark.(.1) .h
Does=thatmea:nthatyoucan=notpa:y,
Thenextweekendit were-a- a few
andsixtyfive dollars?,
elevenhundred
weekendsago:,it was=likeyouhad=duh
(.2)permonthrent.
dentalappointment
on a Saturday
atone
weekendwasthe
o'clock!,.hThe=LA:st
(.2)
(.2)It'slik[e-it-]
parade!(.5)you=know?
R:
'Ye:sit does.'(.9)At thistime.
M: = [ItS]OU:NDSlikeyourflexibility,(.1)
.hhis working?,
Departures
(.9)
uponmyti:me!
Right!Butit's infringing
C:
Duringstorytellingand discussionperiods,disif
you
can
makethe
Andmaybe
(.3)
putantsusually addresstheir accusationsto the
PLA:NS:you=know=for(.2)for
When a disputantdepartsfrom the
mediators.10
eveninginstead=of
SATurday!,
frameworkof mediationby addressparticipation
.hh
FRIDA:Y,(.4)Fridayevening=and
ing theotherdisputantdirectly,themediatormay
(.1)
attemptto restoremediatoraddress."IOne techM: => 'hm=[hmh']
nique is for mediatorsto produce minimal reC:
[an]d,andSA[turday?]
sponses,eventhoughtheutterancewas addressed
=>
M:
[A compro]mise?
to the co-disputant.For example,in Excerpt14,
(1.8)
from a divorcedcouple's dispute,the complainM: => ?um=hmh.?
(.4) Stanhowlonghaveyou
antcriticizestherespondent(his ex-wife) for gobeenmarried?
ing on vacationsanddating:
Excerpt14:
C:
=She'sgoneto Mexico,andto Arizona,
too?(.2)so
andL.A.withyourboyfriends
don'tgiveme tha:t?
(.3)
The complainantdepartsfrom the participation
frameworkof mediationby addressinghis complaintsto the respondentinsteadof themediator.
Themediatorattemptsto restoremediatoraddress
by askingthecomplainanta question,usingminM: => 'um hm0=
imal responses,andinitiatinga topic change.
C:
=Okay?(.1)Titis forTAThere..h u::hm,
Adjacentaccusationsanddenialsarealso sub.hh(.2)1 donotagreewith,(.5)three
to sanctionby the mediators.In Excerpt16,
ject
DA:ys?(.3) a week....
fromtheneighbors'dispute,therespondentsparks
'?Only 8 percent(25 out of 321) of the accusations conflictby addressinga challengedirectlyto the
in the nine hearingshadsecond-personattributionsof complainant.
blame.
" See ClaymanandWhalen(1988/1989)andSchegloff (1988/1989) for analysesof departuresfromthe
speech exchange system of anotherform of institutionaltalk - the news interview.
Excerpt16:
1 C: =TheSA:MEwomanthatorganized
thatparked:
2
?eh?=sothatI couldnot
getout=ofmyco:-h-mplex.=
3
DISPUTERESOLUTIONIN MEDIATION
4
5
6
7
8
MB
9
R:
10
11
R:
C:
MB:
-12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
R:
MB:
C:
MB:
R:
MB:
C:
MB:
C:
MA:
827
=um::?,
(.2)
You were parked=
=one morning.
(.2)
The two disputantsare now engaged in a fullfledged argument.They have abandonedthe
speech exchange system of mediation for the
speech exchange system of ordinaryconversation which enablesthem to engage in disputing
- here,the exchangeof accusationsanddenials.
She was parked, in
In line 26 MediatorA breaksin andsanctionsthe
h[er space and she]
[yeah,chum!yeahbut=I=WAS]=JUST two for"crosstalk",thusattemptingto restorethe
mediationexchangestructure.
[SAYING I- I REME:MBER y]ou
[(parkednext) to you:]
you SA:Ying,you=know?,
[Therewas nowhereelse to park.]
[thatyou felt you] were o:::ver,
whe::lmed,with [peop]le.
[You still] (.2) can not parkin
[some one else's parkingplace.]
[um so I thought]
[It] ha:ppensa::1lthuhti::me
[jea:n,]Byftdoesn't she
[Yes]
do it with otherpeople, an' that's
[(not
A
[I DON'T WANT ANY CROSS
TALK, thankyou.]
In lines I to 3 the complainantattemptsto lessen
thecredibilityof a tenanton therespondent'sside
of thedisputeby recountinganoccasionwhenthe
tenantblockedherintoa parkingspace.Inlines6,
9, and 10 the respondentthen departsfrom the
turn-taking
systemof mediationandrespondswith
a counter-assertion
(Coulter1990). She gazes at
the complainantduringthe initialportionof her
utterance("youwereparked")butthenturnsher
gaze backto the mediatorsas she repairsher utteranceto addressthemediatorsandto referto the
complainantin thethirdperson("shewasparked,
in herspace").MediatorB's attemptto cutoff the
incipientdisputeby shiftingtheconversationback
to a priortopicin lines 11, 12, and 14 ("butI was
just saying I remember you saying, . .") appears
to be unsuccessful (see Claymanard Whalen
(1988/1989) for an analysisof unsuccessfulattemptsto restorethe speechexchangesystemof
newsinterviews).Thecomplainantdoesnotcomply withMediatorB's bid for a changeof topic,
andcontinuesthe exchangewiththe respondent.
She defendsheraction("Therewas nowhereelse
to park")in line 15. IgnoringMediatorB's continuingutterance,the respondentreplies to the
complainantin lines 18 and 19 ("Youstillcannot
parkinsomeoneelse's parkingplace").Thecomplainantthenrespondsdirectlyto thisutterancein
lines 21, 22, 24, and 25, addressingthe respondent by name and turningher gaze towardher.
Summary
Theinteractionalorganizationof mediationhearings differsfromthatof ordinaryconversationin
several ways. In some respects,mediationis a
pre-determinedspeech exchangesystem. Some
turns(e.g., storyrequests,stories,openings and
closingsof hearings)arepre-allocatedto specific
individuals on the basis of institutionalroles.
Access to turn-takingoptionsis also tiedto institutionalroles- disputantstypicallydo not selfselect duringthe otherdisputant'sstory,butmediators are free to self-select as next speaker
throughoutthe hearing.
Disputantself-selectionis not treatedas a departurefromtheturn-takingsystemif it is framed
as a requestfor permissionto speak,an aside, a
repair,or a requestfor clarification.Utterances
respondingdirectlyto the substanceof the other
disputant'scomplaintaretreatedas departures.
In the participationframeworkof mediation,
disputantsdirecttheirutterancesto themediators
ratherthan to each other. Although all participantsare recipientsof the stories,the otherdisputantis nottheaddressedrecipientanddoes not
have the rightto reply immediatelyto the story
(C. Goodwin 1987). The participationstatusof
participantsin mediationhearingsis therefore
subjectto constraintsthatdo notexist in ordinary
conversation.
When disputantsdepartfrom the speech exchange system of mediationand use the turntaking rules and participationstatusesof ordinaryconversation,theirtalktakeson the character of an argument.Mediatorsattemptto restore
the speechexchangesystemof mediationby using sanctions,changingtopics,redirectinga question, utteringminimalresponses,andothersimilartechniques.
IMPLICATIONS
In mediation,the adjacentanddirectlyaddressed
oppositionalutterancesthatconstituteargument
generallydo not occur.In effect, the speech ex-
828
changesystemof mediationlimits"disputing"to
thoseoccasionswhendisputantsdepartfromthe
turn-taking
systemandparticipation
statusescharacteristicof mediation.Fourcharacteristics
of the
mediationprocessenableparticipantsto manage
accusationsanddenialswhile savingface (Goffman 1967) which enables them to avoid arguments.(1) Accusationsanddenialsarenot adjacency pairsin mediation- becausea denial is
not immediatelyrelevant,an accusationdoes not
engenderan oppositionalresponseas a next action. (2) In the participationframeworkof mediation, accusationsand denials are addressedto
mediatorsinsteadof to co-disputants- denials
occur as responsesto mediatorqueries,hence,
they are not "disagreements."(3) The delay of
denials provides disputantswith the option of
selectivelyrespondingto denials,potentiallyreducing the numberof issues underdispute.(4)
orderof
Theinteractional
organization/normative
mediationprovidesfor mitigatedratherthanaggravatedaccusationsand denials. This interactional organizationhas several implicationsfor
the disputeresolutionprocess.
ThePlacementof Accusationsand Denials
Inordinaryconversation,accusationsarefirstpair
partsof adjacencypairs, and denials or admissions of guilt arepossibleresponses.Denialsare
typically preferredresponses, and tend to be
placedimmediatelyafterthe accusation,without
delay, accounts,or othermitigatingtechniques.
Accusationsthereforemake disagreementrelevant and thus provide an interactionalenvironmentfor escalationintodisputesandarguments.
Accusationsand denialscan providean interactionalbasis for disputingtechniqueslike the exchangeof accusationsanddenials(M. Goodwin
1983) or other techniquesthat dependon adjacency (e.g., escalation,repetition,formattying,
or contrastively-matched
counters),and providing a motivationfor theiruse.
Thespeechexchangesystemof mediationprecludes the use of many of these disputingtechniques by eliminatingadjacentexchanges between disputants.This is done by breakingup
some coursesof actionthatcould otherwiseoccuras adjacencypairs.Disputantscannotrespond
adjacentlyto accusationswithoutdepartingfrom
the turn-takingsystem of mediation- respondents may not speakuntilafterthe complainant
hasfinishedhis or her"story"anda mediatorhas
solicitedthe respondent'sstory.In addition,mediatorsmay ask the complainantquestionsdur-
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
ing and after the story. Hence, a denial or an
admissionof guilt is not the relevantnext action
afteran accusation.12
Thecomplainantin theneighbors'disputeproduces manyaccusationsin the courseof her story, butthe respondent'sdenialsdo not occuruntil muchlaterin thehearing.13Forexample,early
in the hearingthe complainantaccuses the respondent(Jane)of vandalizinghercar.
Excerpt17:
hh(.3) earlyin
C:
Mycarwasvandalizedd,
themo::rning,
(.1) I cameba:ckI was
away(.2)forthenight(.) I cameback,
andtherewaspaint:,(.6)on theinterior?,
(.8)
(.7) uhlatexpaint,
(1.5)garbag:e.
powdered
milk.(.4) I'vegotpicturesof
that=if-(.3)you'dliketo see it.
(.4)
MA:
'um=hmh.'
(.2)
C:
0Whatthatlookedlike.0(2.1)A:::nd:the
onlyconceivable
person:(.3)that=it=
could=do::(.4) thatwouldbe responsible
notherselff,(.1)
whethershedid=it=or
wouldbeJane!,. . .
Therespondentshakesherhead"No"as hername
is mentioned,butdoes not gaze at the complainant. Since the complainantis looking at the mediators,it is not clear whethershe sees this ges12 What is an adjacencypair first pair part may
dependnot only on the type of utterance(e.g., greeting, invitation,accusation),and its construction,e.g.,
as a question(Schegloff andSacks 1973, p. 295), but
also on the speech exchange system in which it is
produced.Accusationsin ordinaryconversationhave
differentimplicationsfor the next turnspace thando
accusationsin mediationhearings.For an analogous
argumentwith regardto news interviews,see Clayman and Maynard(1990).
13 The impact of nonverbalresponses to accusations is minimizedin these hearingsbecause the disputantsare seated on the same side of a long table,
with the mediatorsopposite them. Disputantsmust
thereforeturn their heads 90 degrees to make eye
contactwiththeirco-disputant.Facialexpressionsare
thereforeprimarilyvisible to the mediators,and may
be producedfor theirbenefit.Becauseonly one video
camera was used, there is no record of mediators'
nonverbalresponsesto disputants'nonverbalactions.
InExcerpt17, therespondenton two occasionsshakes
herhead"no"afterthe complainantvoices an accusation. This gestureis probablynot visible to the complainantandis not respondedto verballyby the mediators.Respondentsmay also indicatetheirobjections
to an accusationby note-takingactivity,thusshowing
an intentto respondwhen they get the floor.
829
DISPUTERESOLUTIONIN MEDIATION
ture,but neithershe northe mediatorsacknowl- Thecomplainantaddressesthe mediatorsandreedge it. The respondentdoes not replyto this ac- fers to the respondentwith the pronouns"she"
cusationuntilover half an hourlater.
and"her."The complainantis thusable to avoid
direct accusations.MediatorA respondsto the
Excerpt18:
complainant'ssolicitationof a minimalresponse
thatshe interprets
("youknow?"),demonstrating
At the time, (.1) we firststartedthis, (.2)
R:
there=was=uh(.2) numerous people at
this utteranceas addressedto her. The responthatco:mplex,with ma:nyreasons(.1) to
dent's failureto respondindicatesthatshe does
(.2) egvery- not interpretthe utteranceas addressedto her.
do vandalism,=CHILDREN?,
body. (.1) .hhI hadno:thingto do with it? Thus,accusationsin mediationmay be less facethreateningthan those in ordinaryconversation
Becauseaccusationsin mediationhearingsare (Pomerantz1978b).This is anotherreasonescanot firstpairparts,they do not make an opposi- lationinto argumentis less likely.
Inmediation,adjacentexchangesbetweendistional responserelevantin the next turnspace.
Therefore,accusationsin mediationtypicallydo putantscan be terminatedif they occur.If a disnotmakearguingrelevant,therebyremovingone putantdepartsfrom the turn-takingsystem by
placinga denialadjacentto an accusationor adsourceof disputeescalation.
dressing an accusationdirectly to a disputant,
mediatorsinterveneto preventa full-fledgedarDenials, Not Disagreements
gument.5
The speech exchange system of mediation
Not only are denials in mediationdelayed, but
becausethey arenot secondpairpartsto accusa- thereforeprecludesthe use of the disputingtechtions they do not constitutea disagreementwith niques found in ordinaryconversation.Mediatheimmediatelypriorutterance.Therespondent's tion allows for theproductionof accusationsand
responseto theaccusationoccursas a responseto denialswhile preventingtheiruse as oppositiona mediatorqueryratherthanas a denialof an ac- al moves in argumentativesequences.The subcusation.Thus,denialsin a mediationcontextare stance of the disputecan be discussed without
argument.
less likely to provokedisputationalresponses.
Because accusationsand complaintsare addressedto the mediatorsratherthanthe co-dis- SelectiveResponsesto Accusations
putant,blamecannotbe addresseddirectlyto the
co-disputantwithoutdepartingfrom the speech In ordinaryconversation,accusationsand deniexchangesystem of mediation.Therefore,attri- als are adjacency pairs and an omitted denial
butionsof blameare typicallyformulatedin the
'S In this excerpt from the divorced couple's disthirdperson.'4For example,in Excerpt19 from
pute, the mediator terminates a dispute.
theneighbors'dispute,thecomplainantdescribes
YEA:H, I- (.) you=know?=I-I still don't feel
C:
an incident in which the respondentverbally
zaod=about=it,because like this is my fle:sh
abusedher.
and blood!, you=know?,=and(.2)
Excerpt19:
The=first:(.3) knowledge I had of her
C:
dislike,u::hm(.2) .h uhmaggravationwith
me, one time she:: (.9) I was co:ming:(.2)
fromthecar,withmy childwho=wasabout
two at the timee, (.6) And her daughter
came up to me and said u:hm(.8) 'get her
outof thewa:yor somethingandshe said.'
( 1.1) .h you=know?,She=ust (.1) hu::rled
a lot=of accusations. I don't=knowhow
muchde:tailit's worth,going into. But=
it=was=a=lot=of(. 1) you=know?,(.5)
ra:ther,(.1) vi::le obscenities,that:,(1.0) I
onlyuse if I'm (.2) furi-(.1) you=[know?,]
MA: [0um=hmh]yeah.0
'4 Greatbatch(1988) and Clayman (1987) found
similarpatternsof addressin news interviews.
M:
you=know?,(.3) uh- I['m yeah-]
[But]you shoutedabortion,for nine months:!
[with Sharon]
[Listen,we] are no:t=
=Hey,=
talkingg (a[bout)]
[WHO]had the abortion?(.1)
Y[ou wannaget] SMA:RT?
[Waita minu:te!]
C:
M:
(.1)
DIDN'T SH[E JUST] HA:VE?ONE?
[Hey wait!]
R:
M:
C:
M:
C:
M:
(.2)
HO:LDIT!, (.3) WE'RE NOT IN HERETO
TALK ABOUT THAT. I DIDN'T TALK
ABOUT MY: PROBLEMS,OR WHATEVER=WE'VEA:LL GOT A STORY. (.2)
0.hThat's no: one's business:!'
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
830
would be noticeablyabsentand subjectto pursuit. The absenceof the preferredresponse(denial) implies the dispreferredresponse (admission of guilt).In the mediationcontext,however,
disputantscanfail to respondto accusationswithout implyingguilt.
After one disputanthas completedhis or her
story, the mediatorgives the floor to the other
disputant.Most disputantstailortheir storiesto
respond to accusations made by the other
disputant.However, the institutionalizeddelay
of responsesto accusationsin mediationprovides
an opportunityfor strategicmoves. A disputant
may choose to bypass some accusations,focus
on the moreimportantaccusations,or ignoreaccusationsshe or he cannotcrediblydeny. Thus,
the speechexchangesystem in mediationfacilitates the resolutionof conflict by allowing for
selectiveresponseto accusations.
Forexample,in the neighbors'disputeseveral
of the complainant'saccusationsare never respondedto by the respondent.The complainant
accusedtherespondentof verballyassaultingher
in the gardenof their apartmentcomplex. She
also complainedof bangingnoises comingfrom
the respondent'sapartment,and of grass damaged by the respondent'stenant's motorcycle.
These accusationswere not referredto again in
the hearingby any of the participants.
If a respondentfails to respondto an accusation,the complainantmay reissuethe accusation
aftertherespondenthascompletedhisorherstory.
Forexample,in a disputeovervehiclerepairs,an
accusationoriginallyproducedin the complainant's story (Excerpt20) is reissuedby the complainantduring the discussion period after the
respondent'sstoryis completed(Excerpt21).
Excerpt21:
We're A:lso forgettingthe WAterpump
C:
was not leakingwhen I broughtit in there!
(.5) Somebodycould=uhWHACKedit
with=aHAMmerfor all I:=know!
In these hearings,bypassedaccusationsaretypically allowed to lapse. Thus, strategicselection
of whichaccusationsto respondto appearsto be
an effective techniqueto redirectthe debateor
minimizethe numberof accusations"on the table." Delay of denialsreducesopportunitiesfor
argumentby minimizingsituationsin whichdisputingtechniquescan be used, andby providing
for strategicmoves on the respondent'spart
e.g., selectiveresponsesto accusations.
TheFormulationof Accusationsand Denials
Mediationprovides a "protected"interactional
environmentfor producingaccusationsand denials. However,disputantsin these hearingsdo
not takeadvantageof thisprotectedenvironment
to produceaggravatedaccusations,perhapsbecause the goal of the mediationprocessis to resolve conflict in a nonadversarialway. Mediatorsemphasizethegoalsof compromiseandnoncompetitivenessat the beginningof each hearing.'6Disputantsdisplayan orientationto these
normsby makingaccusationsandcomplaintsless
strongthanis possiblegiven the turn-takingsystemof mediation.Techniquesusedby disputants
to mitigate accusations include elision of the
agent, displacementof the agent relativeto the
of theagent,
complaint,collectiverepresentations
andothertechniquesto downgradeaccusations.'7
Elision of agent. Disputantsin these hearings
often constructaccusationswith the agent elidExcerpt20:
ed. This makesthe attributionof blame implicit
And THEN HE said- (.1) u:h (.1) he
C:
rather
thanexplicit.This does not suggestambicalled me up aboutuh DA:Y after-it was
guity in who is to blame - only thatdisputants
(three=clock)supposeto pick it up. (.4)
He said you got a leak in your waterpump are formulatingaccusationsless strongly.They
(.8) housing now. (1.2) I=saidwell,=I=
didn't=have a leak when I broughtit in
here.(.6) so, I didn'tkno:w!,(.1) what-what
=the- (.1) the=problemwas here. (1.1)
u::h(.6) And it TURNEDOU:T that=it
NEE:deda: a- the- WAter-(.3) the water
pumphousingwas cracked.(.6) Now I
don't know whetherthatwas: (.3) it was
cracked(.2) whether-when=themeCHAnicwas working=on=it?, h or it
was crackedbeforeI broughtit in. But it
wasn't leakingwhen I brought'it in.' (.1)
ThatI kno:w. (.4) 1 would have seen
puddlesin my driveway.
16 In addition,mediationis voluntaryand presumably disputantsaretherebecausethey wantto resolve
the conflict.
17 O'Barrand Conley (1985, pp. 685, 689) found
that disputantsin small claims court also tended to
avoidexplicitattributionsof blamein theirnarratives.
Althoughthe interactionalcontexts of mediation
and news interviewsare somewhatsimilar,the tendency of participantsto escalate or lessen conflict is
verydifferent(see Greatbatchforthcoming).Thismay
be becausein a news interviewthe goal is to "win"an
argument,while in mediationthe goal is to "cometo
an agreementor compromise."
DISPUTERESOLUTIONIN MEDIATION
831
are thus displayingan orientationto the nonadversarial,cooperativenormsof mediation.
Elisionof theagentis mostoftenaccomplished
by using the passive voice. Occasionally,it is
achievedby othermethods,such as usingan active constructionbut not statingthe subject.
ordinaryconversationto referto "blameworthy"
persons.Thepassivevoice enablesthecomplainant to make accusationswithoutspecifying the
wrongdoer.Complainantscan thus accomplish
the delicate task of making accusationswhile
maintainingpolitenessandavoidingface-threatening
utterances.
Excerpt22:
Displacementof agent.DisputantscanalsodisC:
U::::H(.3) .h LOT=OF=the
U::h(.5)
play orientationto the normativeorderof mediathe=la-theLAborthatwasu::hm(.2) .hhh
onthemotorhomewas:wasnot tion by displacingthe agentfromthe accusation
conducted
throughdelay, hesitation,or sentencestructure.
donein=uh-in=uhprofessional(1.6)
In Excerpt24, the complainantfromthe land'in=uh'(.8)wa:y!,(.2) 0I=mean0=
basically.(.3)'it wasn't,tuh'completed,pro- lord-tenantdisputeis explainingwhy therespondent'scontinuingtenancyin his house would be
it=wasn't.hhit=isMY=uh-in
fessionally
MY:estimation
it=wasn't=completed
atall! problematic:
Excerpt24:
Inthisexcerpt,thecomplainantdoes not say who
C:
It's been difficultfor us this yearbecause
performedthelaboron themotorhome.He could
of the: (.6) .h coincidence!of my
have specifiedthe agentwhile using the passive
deliveringher mail every day and seeing
voice (e.g., "thelaborthatwas done by the meu:h (.8) 0u:ho(.1) businesspracticesthat
chanic")but he formulateshis complaintso that
I=don't-(.2) thinkhelp pa=h=ythe
the agent of the "wrongdoing"is impliedrather
re=heh=heh=nt!. . .
thanstated.
In Excerpt23, the complainantin the stepparThe agent is not completelyelided (the coments' disputesummarizeshis complaintagainst plainantrefersto "hermail"),butshe is not specthe respondent:
ified in the actualcomplaint:"businesspractices
I don't thinkhelp pay the rent."Hesitation,
that
Excerpt23:
pauses, and "turnholders"furtherseparatethe
C:
I'm=notsurehowto put=itI FEE:LthatI agentfromtheaccusation.(Thepresenceof laughandemotionally
BEEN::physically:
assaulted!,
(1.0)A::ND:(.1)I'dliketochange ter may also serveto mitigatethe complaint.)
In a divorcedcouple's dispute,the respondent
tha:tto a moresensitive(.9) 'u::hm'(1.5)
accusesherex-husbandof lyingabouthis income.
moresensitivecommunica
tion.
The complainantframes his accusationin the
passivevoice andelides the actor.He couldhave
framedthesecomplaintsin theactivevoice while
stilladdressinghis utteranceto themediators(e.g.,
"Stan assaulted me" or "Stan is insensitive").
Overall,38 percent(121 out of 321) of the accusationsor complaintsin thesehearingswereconstructedwith agentelided.'8
The use of implicitreferencesin accusations
may minimizeconflict-provokingthreatsto face,
and hence departuresfrom the turn-takingsystem of mediation.By not referringexplicitly to
the blamedparty,the "blow"is softenedand a
defensefromthe blamedpartyis not immediately relevant.
ThesefindingsareconsistentwithPomerantz's
(1978b)findingsthatthe passivevoice andother
techniquesfor eliding the subjectwere used in
Excerpt25:
R:
He sent some pay checks:to: (. 1) u:hm,
(.3) my attorney?
(.1)
M:
Oum=hm?0
(.2)
R:
uhm, (.2) Which I don't thinkwere quite
corRE=heh=CT!but,
The agent("he")is placedin the firstpartof this
utterance,which ends with questionintonation.
The respondentthen pauses, and the mediator
providesa minimalresponse.Afteranotherpause,
the respondentproducesa turnholder ("uhm")
followedby anotherpause.Shethenproducesthe
accusation: "Which I don't think were quite
correct."In additionto displacement,therespondent uses the qualifier"quite"to minimize the
accusationand the uncertaintymarker"think."
IxElisionof the agentis only one techniquefor The reversalof the negative("Idon't thinkwere
accusations.
mitigating
However,60 percent(191out correct"insteadof "wereincorrect")also serves
of 321)of accusations
weremitigatedin someway. to mitigatethe accusation(Huebler1983).In ad-
832
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
dition, we again see the mitigating laughter
particles("corRE=heh=CT!").
Collectiverepresentationof agent.Disputants
may also displayorientationto the nonadversarial normsof mediationby referringto the agent
of wrongdoingas a collectiveagent.One way to
do thisis by incorporating
self as a blamedparty.
In Excerpt26 froma disputebetweentwo brothers, the respondentincludesan admissionof his
own guiltin a complaintthathis brotherhasbeen
harassinghim:
thatsome of the workwas done correctly("part
of it was doneokay").The complainantthenreiterateshis complaint,butin a way thatminimizes
the problem:"two or three things that weren't
completedproperly."This is a hedgedor understated form of "were completed improperly"
(Huebler1983).
In Excerpt29, fromthe divorcedcouple'sdispute,the complainantcomplainsthatthe respondent (his ex-wife) ignorestheireldest daughter,
who lives with him.
Excerpt26:
Since the beginningof this: (.2) yea:r,
RA:
we've been (.2) harassingeach other...
Excerpt29:
C:
I'm not saying this to=HURT=you=uhuh- I thinkyou=shou-(.3) m:maybemake
an Effort to- even ca:ll her! once a week!,
In Excerpt27 from the stepparents'dispute,
(.2) to=findout how she's doing=or:.hh
RespondentB is tryingto persuadethecomplain(.1) or: (.2) you=know?,make a special
antto stopinterferingwiththe raisingof herhusnight=aweek?, (.2) for her!,
band'schildren(thecomplainant'sstepchildren).
Excerpt27:
I just thinkthat .hh we Justhave to know
RB:
our pla:ce?,(.3) and that(.1) we have to
SHU:T=upa little bi:t,and let the
PA:Rents:,(.1) raise the children..h And
we're THEREas the (.1) .h the- the (.1)
you=know?,to=HE::LP!,to nurture,to
LOVE them, .hh and urnto let them, deal
with it.
Everyone atthehearingknowsit is thecomplainantwho has been interferingin the raisingof the
stepchildren,butRespondentB's useof "we"(the
stepparents)
mitigateshercomplaintsanddisplays
orientationto the normsof mediation.
Downgradingaccusations.Accusationscanbe
mitigated by downgrading them. Excerpt 28
shows the complainant'sinitial formulationof
his complaintin the disputeover vehicle repairs.
Excerpt28:
MA:
C:
C:
'Okay.'(.2)Improper
mechanical] work:?
[(Yeah)]
(.1)
u::h(3.2) work
Yeah=im::proper
completedby the mechanic
I=would=imagine,=PArtof it was done,
(.2) u::h(.4) okay, (1.2) but there=were(.2) two=orthreethingsthatwere (.2)
that=weren't(.1) completed(.1) properly.
This potentiallythreateningaccusationbegins
with a "pre-delicate"(Schegloff 1980), and incorporateshesitations,uncertaintymarkers("I
think") and tentative words ("shou-" and
"maybe").The complainantleaves the actualaccusationunsaid("youneglect yourdaughter"or
"youneverpay any attentionto yourdaughter"),
andinsteadimpliesitby specifyinghow shecould
correctthis problem("callher once a week").
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Disputing techniquesin ordinaryconversation
dependon a locally managedturn-takingsystem
and participationframeworkthat allow participantsto adjacentlyanddirectlyaddresseachother.
Thus, denials can be placed immediatelyafter
accusationsandformulatedwith explicitattributionsof blame,therebyprovidingtheinteractional
contextfor escalationinto argument.'9
In contrast,the interactionalorganizationof
mediationprecludesthe use of disputingtechniquesfoundin ordinaryconversation.The turntakingsystemof mediationinstitutionalizesnonadjacentaccusationsand denials. The delayed
placementof denialsreducesargumentby mini-
19Some types of institutionaltalkprovidefor argument.O'Donnell(1990, p. 214) studieda union-managementmeeting in which the goal of avoidingconflictualandconfrontationaltalk was not achieved.In
The complainantfirst specifies the party who contrast,turn-takingrules and patternsof addressin
performedthe improperwork ("themechanic") trials preclude arguingbetween disputants(see Atbut then immediatelyqualifiesthis with an un- kinsonandDrew 1979). Small claims courtsalso apcertaintymarker:"I would imagine."Attached pearto precludedirectexchangesbetweendisputants
to theuncertaintymarkeris anacknowledgement (O'BarrandConley 1985;Conley and O'Barr1990).
833
DISPUTERESOLUTIONIN MEDIATION
mizing situationsin which disputingtechniques
canbe used.In addition,theopportunityto selectivelyrespondto accusationscanreducethenumber of accusationsunderconsiderationand thus
facilitatesolution.
The speechexchangesystemof mediationalso
providesfor accusationsto be addressedto mediatorsratherthan to the other disputant.This
patternof addressresultsin third-personreferences to blamedparties.Direct challenges and
attributionsof blame thus do not confrontthe
"blamed"party directly, lessening their facethreateningimpacts.
Finally, the normativeorderof mediationas
cooperativeand nonadversarialencouragesdisputantsto formulatetheiraccusations(anddenials) even less stronglythanpossible within the
speechexchangesystemof mediation.This mitigationprovidesa furtherdeterrentto escalation
into a dispute.
These fouraspectsof the organizationof meand
diationdeterargument.Thesecharacteristics,
how disputantsuse themto avoidthreatsto face,
may be one reasonmediationoften successfully
resolves conflict withoutconfrontationor argument.
To discoverhow mediationworks as a techproniqueforconflictresolution,theinteractional
cess of mediationhearingsmust be examined.
processminimizes"disputing"
Thisinteractional
betweenparticipantswho aremeetingto resolve
a dispute. Complainantsand respondentscontributeto thisoutcomeby how theypositionand
formulatereferencesto othersin theircomplaints,
accusations,anddenials.Thus,partof mediation
is mitigatingaccusationsby indirectformulations
and delayed placementof denials. The advantage of mediationover other types of dispute
resolution(e.g., trials,counseling,arguing)may
of mediatorsor the diffilie not in characteristics
culty of the dispute,but in the interactionalorganizationof mediationitself.
The objectiveof thisanalysisis to show how a
specific type of conflict resolutionis organized
and how thatorganizationenables it to accomplish its goals. While the interactionalorganization of mediationderives from organizational
principlesof ordinaryconversation,itdiffersfrom
ordinaryconversationin ways that specifically
preventargumentfromoccurring.
and disputeresolutioninface-to-face interaction.In
addition to studies of the interactionalorganization
of mediationhearings,she is workingon an analysis
of gender differencesin justificationsand accounts,
and on theorganizationof argumentsin ordinaryconversation.
REFERENCES
Atkinson,J. MaxwellandPaulDrew. 1979. Orderin
Court:The Organizationof VerbalInteractionin
Judicial Settings.London:Macmillan.
Atkinson,J. Maxwell and John Heritage,eds. 1984.
Structuresof Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, England:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Boggs, StephenT. 1978. "TheDevelopmentof Verbal Disputing in Part-HawaiianChildren."Language in Society7:325-44.
Bottomley,Ann. 1985. "WhatIs Happeningto Family Law? A FeministCritiqueof Conciliation."Pp.
162-87 in Womenin Law, editedby J. Brophyand
C. Smart.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.
Brenneis,DonaldandLauraLein. 1977. "'You Fruithead': A Sociolinguistic Approachto Children's
DisputeSettlement."Pp.49-65 in ChildDiscourse,
edited by S. Ervin-Trippand C. Mitchell-Kernan.
New York:AcademicPress.
Clayman,Steven. 1987. "GeneratingNews: The Interactional Organizationof News Interviews."
Ph.D. dissertation,Departmentof Sociology, University of California,SantaBarbara.
Clayman,StevenandDouglasMaynard.1990."TurnTakingand Addressin the Achievementof an InstitutionalSetting: The Case of the News Interview." Paper presentedat Midwest Sociological
Association,April,Chicago,Illinois.
Clayman,StevenandJackWhalen.1988/1989."When
the Medium Becomes the Message: The Case of
the Rather-BushEncounter." Research on Language and Social Interaction22:241-72.
Conley,JohnM. andWilliamM. O'Barr.1990."Rules
versus Relationshipsin Small Claims Disputes."
Pp. 178-96 in ConflictTalk:SociolinguisticInvestigationsof Argumentsin Conversations,editedby
A. Grimshaw.Cambridge,England: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Corsaro,WilliamA. 1985. Friendshipand Peer Culture in the Early Years.Norwood,NJ: Ablex.
Corsaro,William A. and Thomas A. Rizzo. 1990.
"Disputesin the PeerCultureof AmericanandItalian Nursery-SchoolChildren."Pp. 21-66 in Conflict Talk: SociolinguisticInvestigationsof Arguments in Conversation,edited by A. Grimshaw.
Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Coser,Lewis A. [1964] (1956). TheFunctionsof Social Conflict.Glencoe, Illinois:Free Press.
is AssistantProfessorof Sociology-at
GARCIA
ANGELA
the Universityof Wisconsin- Eau Claire's Depart- Coulter,Jeff. 1990. "ElementaryPropertiesof ArgumentSequences."Pp. 181-204in InteractionCommentof SociologyandAnthropology.Her currentresearch in conversationanalysisfocuses on disputing
petence. Washington,DC: InternationalInstitute
834
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
for EthnomethodologyandConversationAnalysis Katriel,Tamar.1985."Brogez:RitualandStrategyin
IsraeliChildren'sConflicts."Languagein Society
and UniversityPressof America.
14:467-90.
Dingwall,Robert.1986. "Some Observationson Divorce Mediationin Britainandthe United States." O'Barr,WilliamM. andJohnM. Conley. 1985. "Litigant SatisfactionversusLegal Adequacyin Small
MediationQuarterly5:5-23.
Claims CourtNarratives."Law & SocietyReview
Emmison,Michael. 1987. "Victorsand Vanquished:
19:661-701.
The Social Organizationof CeremonialCongratulationsandCommiserations."Languageand Com- O'Donnell, Katherine.1990. "Differenceand Dominance: How Labor and ManagementTalk Conmunication7:93-110.
flict."Pp. 210-40 in ConflictTalk:Sociolinguistic
. 1988. "On the Interactional Management
InvestigationsofArgumentsin Conversation,editof Defeat."Sociology 22:233-51.
ed by A. Grimshaw.Cambridge,England:CamFolberg,Jay. 1983. "A MediationOverview:History
bridgeUniversityPress.
andDimensionsof Practice."MediationQuarterly
Pomerantz,Anita. 1975. "Second Assessments: A
1:3-13.
Studyof Some Featuresof Agreements/DisagreeGirdner,Linda K. 1985. "Adjudicationand Mediaments."Ph.D. dissertation.Departmentof Socioltion: A Comparisonof CustodyDecision-Making
ogy, Universityof California,Irvine.
ProcessesInvolvingThirdParties."Journalof Di. 1978a. "Compliment Responses: Notes on
vorce 8:33-47.
the Co-operationof MultipleConstraints."Pp. 79Goffman, Erving. 1967. InteractionRitual: Essays
112 in Studies in the Organizationof Conversaon Face-to-FaceBehavior.GardenCity,NY: Doutional Interaction,edited by J. Schenkein. New
bleday.
York:AcademicPress.
. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford, England:
. 1978b. "Attributions of Responsibility:
Basil Blackwell.
Blamings." Sociology 12:115-21.
Goodwin,Charles. 1987. "Forgetfulnessas an Inter. 1984. "Agreeing and Disagreeing with
active Resource." Social Psychology Quarterly
Assessments: Some Featuresof Preferred/Dispre50:115-31.
ferredTurn Shapes."Pp. 57-101 in Structuresof
Goodwin,MarjorieHarness.1982."Processesof DisSocial Action: Studies in ConversationAnalysis,
pute ManagementAmong UrbanBlack Children."
edited by J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage.CamAmericanEthnologist9:76-96.
bridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.
. 1983. "Aggravated Correction and Disagreementin Children'sConversations."Journal Roberts,Marian.1988.Mediationin FamilyDisputes.
Hants,England:WildwoodHouse.
of Pragmatics7:657-77.
Goodwin, MarjorieHarness and CharlesGoodwin. Sacks, Harvey. 1987. "Onthe Preferencesfor Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversa1987. "Children'sArguing."Pp. 200-48 in Lantion."Pp. 54-69 in Talkand Social Organization,
guage, Gender and Sex in ComparativePerspeceditedby G. ButtonandJ. Lee. Clevedon,England:
tive, edited by S. Philips, S. Steele, and C. Tanz.
MultilingualMatters.
Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Greatbatch,David. 1988. "ATurn-TakingSystemfor Sacks, Harvey,EmanuelSchegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. "A SimplestSystematicsfor the OrganBritish News Interviews."Language in Society
ization of Turn-Takingfor Conversation."Lan17:401-30.
. Forthcoming."The Managementof Disguage 50:696-735.
agreementBetween News Interviewees."In Talk Schegloff, Emanuel.1980. "Preliminariesto Preliminaries: 'CanI Ask You a Question?"'Sociological
at Work,edited by P. Drew and J. Heritage.CamInquiy 50:104-52.
bridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.
. 1988/1989. "From Interview to ConfronHeritage,John. 1984. Gaifinkeland Ethnomethodoltation:Observationsof the Bush/RatherEncounogy. Cambridge,England:Polity PIress.
ter."Researchon LanguageandSocial Interaction
. 1987. "Ethnomethodology." Pp. 224-72
22:215-40.
in Social TheoryToday,editedby A. Giddensand
. 1987. "Analyzing Single Episodes of InJ. Turner.Cambridge,England:Polity Press.
teraction:An Exercise in ConversationAnalysis."
. 1988. "Explanations as Accounts: A ConSocial PsychologyQuarterly50:101-14.
versationAnalyticPerspective."Pp. 127-44 in Analysing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Schegloff,EmanuelandHarveySacks. 1973. "Opening up Closings."Semiotica7:289-327.
Methods,editedby C. Antaki. London:Sage.
Heritage,Johnand David Greatbatch.1991. "Onthe Simmel,Georg. [1908] 1955. Conflict.Translatedby
K. Wolff. New York:Free Press.
InstitutionalCharacterof InstitutionalTalk: The
Case of News Interviews."Pp. 93-137 in Talkand Vuchinich, Samuel. 1984. "Sequencingand Social
Structurein Family Conflict."Social Psychology
Social Structure,edited by D. Boden and D. H.
Quarterly47:217-34.
Zimmerman.Cambridge,England:Polity Press.
. 1990. "The Sequential Organization of
andHedges in
Huebler,Alex. 1983. Understatements
JohnBenjamins.
Closing in VerbalFamily Conflict."Pp. 118-138
English.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
DISPUTE RESOLUTIONIN MEDIATION
835
in Conflict Talk: SociolinguisticInvestigationsof
Analysis."Social Problems35:335-62.
Argumentsin Conversations,edited by A. Grim- Worley, Susan M. and Andrew L. Schwebel. 1985.
"TheEffect of Cooperationon Egocentrismin Dishaw. Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
vorce Mediation:A SimulationStudy."Pp. 151-65
in Divorce Mediation:Perspectiveson the Field,
Whalen, Jack, Don H. Zimmerman, and Marilyn
Whalen. 1988. "WhenWordsFail: A Single Case
editedby C. Everett.New York:HaworthPress.