Search

This article analyses a discursive pattern, considered, as a hypothesis, to be recurrent in conflictive conversations between people with a close living relationship. The pattern is formed by an exchange of at least two interventions. The first intervention consists of an argumentative attack based on the reproduction and interpretation of the interlocutor's previous discourse in order to discredit him/her. The addressee reacts, in the second intervention, by expressing disagreement with the interpretation that has been made of his or her words, rejecting them and correcting them. The study is situated within the framework of Discourse Analysis and Conversational Analysis and takes 13 family conversations as a corpus. The results show a pattern with several variants that tends to be replicated over several exchanges when fueling the conflict. It is also observed that most of the speech acts performed are reproaches, accusations, and criticisms, and that the speakers display their epistemic supremacy, which also fuels the conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]