A Pragmatic Study Of Conflicting Responses To Rhetorical Questions

Conflict talk is a common but complex phenomenon in daily communication.Though researches on conflict talk and conflicting responses to specific triggers canbe found in large quantities, studies on conflicting responses inflamed by a specificindirect speech act like rhetorical questions have been neglected. Therefore, it is ofgreat significance for this thesis to take conflicting responses to rhetorical questionsas its object and further the study of conflict talk by exploring conflicting responsesto rhetorical questions.Based on the data collected from five novels going around married life ofChinese, this thesis probes into the following three questions within Spencer-Oatey’s(2000) Rapport Management Theory:(1) What are the types of conflicting responsesinflamed by rhetorical questions?(2)Why are conflicting responses made torhetorical questions?(3) What are the pragmatic effects of the conflicting responseson interpersonal relationship?Firstly, this study identifies nine types of conflicting responses to rhetoricalquestions according to their pragmatic functions from the addressee’s perspective.These nine types of conflicting responses are at the same time rapport managementstrategies in Spencer-Oatey’s (2000) sense. They are refutation, accusation, criticism,order, abuse, rejection, defence, denial, and complaint. For most of the time, they areused in combination. The study also finds that Chinese couples tend to makeconflicting responses under such topics as extramarital affairs, relationship withothers, personal traits and behaviour, kids, money, work and family, and housework.In addition, perspectives, emotions, and specific personal intent of the couplesconstitute the three major contextual variables that influence their choice ofstrategies. Secondly, this study explores the key factor—rapport orientation—that decidespeople’s choices of strategies and the motives behind the orientation under theguidance of Spencer-Oatey’s (2000) Rapport Management Framework. Based on thedata, we have identified one major orientation: rapport-neglect orientation. Themotives behind the rapport-neglect orientation are to protect face, to uphold right, tostick to opinions and positions, to release negative emotions, and to fulfill intentions.Moreover, we find that couples lay emphasis on their positions and opinionswhen making conflicting responses to rhetorical questions. Therefore, couples intendto employ refutation and defence most when motivated by the need to stick to theirpositions and opinions. Meanwhile, couples do pay attention to interpersonal rapportand their use of more offensive strategies enjoys higher frequency than the lessoffensive ones. In addition, they are more inclined to use those more offensivestrategies when motivated by the need to vent negative emotions.Thirdly, the positive and negative effects of conflicting responses to rhetoricalquestions on interpersonal relationship are examined. Negatively, those conflictingresponses spark or escalate conflict of the couples and harm the marriage. That is tosay, the interpersonal rapport is deduced. This can be further realized by initiating orexacerbating verbal conflict, leading to physical violence, and resulting inwithdrawal, or silence, which may turn into cold war. Positively, conflictingresponses can add a lot to mutual understanding and improve marital relationsimmediately or in the long term. In other words, the rapport is remained or enhanced.This is manifested in three ways: getting one’s view known, ironing outmisunderstanding, and preventing negative emotions from festering.