A Contrastive Study On Disagreement Strategies In Family And TV Debate Show Contexts

This thesis is an exploration of the use of disagreeing language in the process of conversational interaction performed by speakers of Chinese in two different situations, with a view to explaining contextual factors in influencing the choice of different disagreement strategies. The study investigates different strategies of negotiating disagreement in two contexts: conversation among family members in intimate context with reference to a TV serial Nothing in the Mirror and TV debate show in formal context. I propose a dichotomy of different types of disagreement, which describes the different strategies used across contexts and also within a context. Qualitative similarities and differences of negotiating disagreement are found, and specific setting, situational parameters and interctional goals are explored as possible factors which reflect the different types of strategies used. The analyses show that in the two contexts speakers tend to use rather direct or aggravated disagreement strategies to disagree with their interlocutors. This finding challenges previous claims that disagreement is usually structurally and interactionally a 'dispreferred' action. It suggests that a speech act such as disagreement be viewed as context conditioned. Three main differences are found in the two contexts: the use of nonsense, but, and strong disagreement with accounts. These differences are shaped and reflect the contextual factors. Those factors include the relationship between participants, participant structure, interactive goals, genre, and setting. As the first comparative analysis of disagreement strategies across two contexts, the thesis may contribute to the understanding of how contextual factors influence the choice of linguistic means.