A Pragma-rhetoric Study Of Conflict Talk In Chinese

Conflict talk is a common occurrence in social interaction. It is ubiquitous and inevitable. In a conflict talk participants oppose the utterances, actions or selves of one another in successive turns. Conflict talk, as a common and complicated phenomenon in social interaction, not only has productive effects, but also has destructive consequences. If effectively and appropriately managed, it can be constructive and productive. It can play an important role in advancing and constructing knowledge, regulating and resolving disagreements, and making right decisions. On the contrary, if inappropriately managed, it can be negative and destructive. So conflict talk as a complex phenomenon merits a focus of study. However, little empirical research has been done on conflict talk in Chinese. This motivates a systematic study.This study is intended to make a pragma-rhetoric analysis of conflict talk in Chinese. Based on naturally occurring data, it describes how conflict talk is initiated, developed, escalated and terminated, examines the forms of rhetorical reasoning, and analyzes the argumentation structures of conflict talk in Chinese. In addition, it addresses how oppositions are expressed in Chinese, and what strategies are used. Finally it discusses the functions of conflict talk. By focusing on these concerns, the present study attempts to identify the patterns and the regularities exhibited in Chinese conflict talk, help us to understand the nature of conflict talk in general and learn to manage conflict talk effectively and appropriately.This dissertation is composed of nine chapters. Chapter One is the introduction of this study, which starts with conceptualization issues, and then presents the research questions to be addressed, with a final statement of the significance of this study.Chapter Two reviews previous researches on argumentative discourse. It first reviews the normative study of argumentative discourse. It then makes an overview of normative pragmatics which involves the pragma-dialectics and the conversational argument. Following this, it turns to another strand of research, a descriptive study of argumentative discourse.Chapter Three presents the theoretical framework of this study, which comes from several sources such as discourse analysis, pragmatics and rhetoric. The present study operates within a pragma-rhetoric framework of discourse analysis, therefore, an overview of discourse analysis is first given. Following this, pragmatics and rhetoric are reviewd respectively, from which the present study benefits analytically and theoretically. Finally, the marriage of pragmatics and rhetoric is discussed to illustrate why a collaborative approach, pragma-rhetoric, is employed in this study.Chapter Four is concerned with research methodology. It first describes the data and data analysis procedures. It then illustrates the transcription conventions, and finally, it highlights the research method.Chapter Five discusses the sequential organization of Chinese conflict talk with concentration on the initiating moves, oppositional moves and terminating moves. It is claimed that the initiation can be generalized into a three-step sequence. The first step can be an'arguable'utterance or an action. Following this is the first dissenting turn, which is the second step. After this the second dissenting turn must occur. It is also found that the main forms of opposition include: (1) negation format; (2) opposing–question format; (3) substitution format; (4) tit-for-tat format; (5) self–repetition format.Concerning the forms of termination, the data shows that conflict talks can be terminated by concession, compromise, frame-break, withdrawal and third party intervention.Chapter Six analyzes the forms of rhetorical reasoning and the patterns of argumentation structure. It is found that forms of inductive reasoning include (1) arguing from analogy; (2) arguing from cause or effect; (3) arguing from examples. And the main form of deductive reasoning is enthymeme. Based on sequential analysis of the argumentation within the data, it is demonstrated that there are three kinds of structures: top-down structures, bottom-up structures, and mixture structures, which indicate how the claim and evidence are ordered. In addition to these, other patterns of argumentation structure are identified including single argumentation, multiple argumentation, coordinate argumentation and subordinate argumentation. These patterns exhibit different degrees of complexity in Chinese conflict talk.Chapter Seven focuses on the strategies of conflict talk management in Chinese. The strategies are classified into four categories according to their linguistic forms and paralinguistic features. They are mitigated strategies, moderated strategies, intensified strategies and antagonized strategies.Chapter Eight illustrates and discusses the functions of conflict talk. It is claimed that different types of conflict talks generate different features, thus have different functions. Conflict talk can be classified into two types according to the nature of it. While the aggressive conflict talk has negative, destructive and disruptive functions, the non-aggressive conflict talk has positive, constructive and productive functions, used not only as an inquiry mechanism, as an instrument of reflection, but also as a mechanism for working consensus. Although the aggressive conflict talk is something undesirable, it has its own functions. Aggressiveness is not the haphazard product of the heated argument, but is used to serve some instrumental function. And it is found that there are two main functions of aggressiveness: to get power and to vent negative feelings.Chapter Nine summarizes the major findings of this study and illustrates the contributions of this research. In addition, the limitations of this study are pointed out. Finally, this chapter suggests directions for future research.This study makes three major contributions to the field of study: First, constructing and applying a new approach to discourse analysis. This dissertation is a pioneering study with regard to activating and applying a new approach to discourse analysis, and in respect to being the first to systematically and thoroughly study Chinese conflict talk occurring in daily conversation. In this study a collaborative approach, pragma-rhetoric, is constructed as a new approach to discourse analysis. As the first pragma-rhetoric analysis of Chinese conflict talk, this study develops a new approach and fills a void in existing approaches to discourse analysis.Second, integrating rhetorical argument into a linguistic study of oppositional argument. In the previous work on argumentative discourse, rhetorical argument and oppositional argument have been studied and treated in isolation. But I strongly hold that rhetorical argument and oppositional argument are inseparable. That is why the process-oriented analysis of conflict talk in Chinese is adopted here. And the present study not only focuses on dialogic oppositional argument, but also touches upon rhetorical argument. In this sense, this dissertation is a breakthrough in terms of integrating'making an argument'and'having an argument'. In addition, the originality of this study lies in applying tree diagrams to the analysis of argumentation structures. Absorbing Chomsky's ideas, tree diagrams are adopted and innovated to have a formal representation of the argumentation structures of conflict talk.Third, contradicting existing knowledge and yielding new insights to the findings of previous research. Much originality of this dissertation can be reflected in the findings. For example, concerning the strategies of conflict talk management in Chinese, in contrast to the binarity (direct vs. indirect; explicit vs. inexplicit) found in earlier studies, I propose a continuum of different strategies of conflict management ranging from the mitigated to the moderated, intensified and antagonized. With respect to disagreement as a dispreferred act, what is observed does not support what has been claimed by prior studies (e.g. Pomerantz 1984). It is found that once the context of conflict is established, disagreements appear less mitigated, and they become the preferred form of response to oppositions. And it is claimed that whether disagreement is dispreferred or not, it is context-specific. The context may shape the turn shapes of opposition.