How do people manage disagreements in conversation? Previous studies of dialogue have shown that the interactional consequences of disagreement are not straightforward. Although often interpreted as face-threatening when performed in an unmitigated manner, disagreement can also encourage novel contributions. This thesis explores how systematically altering the presentation of someone's stance influences the deliberative potential of a dialogue. A corpus analysis of ordinary conversations shows that exposed disagreement occurs rarely, but that speakers can signal a potentially adversarial position in a variety of other ways. One of the most interesting among these is the way people mark their rights to speak about something. Resources such as reported speech and prefacing incongruent content with discourse markers (e.g. 'well') can be important to the management of interpersonal factors. The idea that disagreement is problematic but also useful for deliberation is examined. Using a method that allows fine-grained manipulations of text based dialogues in real-time, agreement and disagreement fragments are inserted into a discussion dialogue. The findings show that inserting exposed disagreement violates the conventions of polite dialogue leading participants to put more effort into the production of their replies, and does not improve levels of deliberation. This raises the question of whether manipulating apparent degrees of speaker commitment might be more important for influencing the quality of deliberation. An experiment was devised which presented oppositional content with differing degrees of 'knowingness'. The findings indicate that marking stance as knowing leads to less guarded exchanges, but does not increase deliberation. Conversely, framing statements as less knowing increases the likelihood that participants consider more alternative viewpoints, thus increasing the deliberative quality of a dialogue. Potential applications include training guidelines for professionals developing tools to support considered debate. Implications for computational argumentation studies include the importance of interpersonal dynamics and stance construction for formulating polite arguments.

This thesis examines the double-voiced representations of disability and illness in several works by Montgomery, the <i>Emily</i> trilogy (1923, 1925, 1927), the novel <i>The Blue Castle </i>(1926), the novella <i>Kilmeny of the Orchard </i>(1910), and two short stories, <i>The Tryst of the White Lady</i> (1922) and <i>Some Fools and a Saint</i> (published in 1931 but written in 1924). Although most of Montgomerys fiction in some way discusses illness and disability, often through secondary characters with disabilities, these works in particular feature disability as a central issue and use their heroes and heroines disabilities to impel the plots. While with one voice these works comply with conventional uses of disability in the love story genre, with another they criticize those very conventions. Using disability theory to analyze the fictions double voice, my thesis reveals that the ambiguity created by the internal conflict in the texts evades reasserting the binary relationship which privileges ability and devalues disability. <p> This thesis uses disability theory to examine the double-voiced representation of disability in the fiction of L.M. Montgomery. Bakhtin describes the double voice as an utterance which has two speakers at the same time and expresses simultaneously two different intentions: the direct intention of the character who is speaking and the refracted intention of the author (324). In this thesis, however, I perceive the double voice not as the difference between the voices of the speaking character or narrator and of the authors intention. Instead, I will approach the double voice as simultaneous expressions of conflicting representations, whether or not the author intends them. These voices within the double voice internally dialogue with each other to reflect changing social attitudes toward disability. By applying disability theories, such as those by critics David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder, Susan Sontag, Martha Stoddard Holmes, and Rosemarie Garland Thomson, that assess how texts invoke disability as a literary technique, this thesis shows that the narrative structure of Montgomerys fiction promotes the use of disability as a literary and social construct, while its subtext challenges the investment of metaphoric meaning in disability.

This thesis examines the double-voiced representations of disability and illness in several works by Montgomery, the <i>Emily</i> trilogy (1923, 1925, 1927), the novel <i>The Blue Castle </i>(1926), the novella <i>Kilmeny of the Orchard </i>(1910), and two short stories, <i>The Tryst of the White Lady</i> (1922) and <i>Some Fools and a Saint</i> (published in 1931 but written in 1924). Although most of Montgomerys fiction in some way discusses illness and disability, often through secondary characters with disabilities, these works in particular feature disability as a central issue and use their heroes and heroines disabilities to impel the plots. While with one voice these works comply with conventional uses of disability in the love story genre, with another they criticize those very conventions. Using disability theory to analyze the fictions double voice, my thesis reveals that the ambiguity created by the internal conflict in the texts evades reasserting the binary relationship which privileges ability and devalues disability. <p> This thesis uses disability theory to examine the double-voiced representation of disability in the fiction of L.M. Montgomery. Bakhtin describes the double voice as an utterance which has two speakers at the same time and expresses simultaneously two different intentions: the direct intention of the character who is speaking and the refracted intention of the author (324). In this thesis, however, I perceive the double voice not as the difference between the voices of the speaking character or narrator and of the authors intention. Instead, I will approach the double voice as simultaneous expressions of conflicting representations, whether or not the author intends them. These voices within the double voice internally dialogue with each other to reflect changing social attitudes toward disability. By applying disability theories, such as those by critics David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder, Susan Sontag, Martha Stoddard Holmes, and Rosemarie Garland Thomson, that assess how texts invoke disability as a literary technique, this thesis shows that the narrative structure of Montgomerys fiction promotes the use of disability as a literary and social construct, while its subtext challenges the investment of metaphoric meaning in disability.

Spiritan Life No. 04 -- December 1991 -- Mission Sources Justice and Peace Number 4 -- CONTENTS -- Foreword – (pg 5) -- "Practical Union", by Maurice Gobeil -- (pg 7) -- Theft of the Vision Quest, by Dermot McLoughlin -- (pg 19) -- Missionary and Mission, by Eugene Uzukwu -- (pg 29) -- Blessings or Curses?, by Joseph Harris -- (pg 43) -- What does the 500th Anniversary mean to us Spiritans? by John Kilcrann -- (pg 53) -- The 5th Centenary of Evangelisation, by Jesus Cabellos -- (pg 65) -- A Spiritan in Mexico considers, by Antoine Mercier -- (pg 75) -- Evangelisation and Religions in Dialogue in Mauritius, by Raymond Zimmermann -- (pg 87) -- About the Chapter..., by Georges Thibault -- (pg 99) -- Challenges of the Changed Times -- (pg 103) -- Spiritan Life Reviews -- (pg 105) -- Other Spiritan Publications -- (pg 107)

Texte remanié de: Tesi--Torino, 1998. / Bibliogr. p. 221-239. Notes bibliogr. Index.

Texte remanié de: Th. doct.--Litt. française--Paris 3, 2000. Titre de soutenance : Le roman dialogué après 1950 : poétique d'un genre hybride. / Bibliogr. p. 405-427. Index.

Diss.--Rom--Pontificio istituto biblico, 1997. / Bibliogr. p. 365-405. Index.

Texte remanié de: Habilitationsschrift--Fachbereich Evangelische Theologie--Hamburg--Universität, 2000. / Bibliogr. p. 373-403.

No description available.

This qualitative, phenomenological study examined the experiences of four African American undergraduate students and two White professors, all current or former affiliates of a predominantly White university (PWI) in the Midwest. The objective was to gain an understanding of whether their experiences were ones that have been addressed in the past and recent research surrounding why African American undergraduates leave college before graduating and to determine if any changes in practices of beliefs occurred since their participation in the Difficult Dialogue. The data were collected using the evaluations from the Difficult Dialogue event and in-depth interviews. The data were then analyzed using a narrative analysis where recurring themes were highlighted and used to find dominant themes. The study confirmed findings that students feel isolated while attending a predominantly White college. New findings in the professor-student engagement include: 1) lack of student self-advocacy in the student-professor relationship 2) lack of professor awareness of students’ feelings of exclusion and isolation, 3) professor discomfort in reaching out to African American undergraduate students, and 4) an overall lack of awareness of one another’s feelings. The most salient conclusions from these encounters with African American undergraduates and professors was that an opportunity to communicate in a purposeful dialogue or the process of “thinking together” collectively allowed group participants to examine their preconceptions and prejudices, as well as explore the creation of new ideas.