GEK 1036

CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION & DISCOURSE

SOCIAL DISTANCE AND EXPRESSION OF DISAGREEMENTS

NAME: OR HUIXIAN OLIVIA, PATRICE ONG HWEI YUAN

MATRICULATION NO.: U063344W, U063312J

COURSE: PHARMACY YEAR 3

DATE: 16TH NOV 2008

Project Report: Social distance and expression of disagreements

1. Introduction

Disagreements are part and parcel of daily interactions, functioning to hone one’s

social skills, build rapport and solidarity with others, and define one’s own identity, to

name a few. In addition, this speech act has been acknowledged as a component of the

learning process; it has been used extensively in the classroom setting as an

educational tool (Rees-Miller, 2000). Clearly, disagreements are indispensable in

conversations, and it is interesting to note that it can be expressed orally, as well as in

the unspoken form. In our scope of study, we will be focusing on spoken forms of

disagreement.

There have been many studies done on disagreements over the years, and topics

covered by them span a wide variety. Among other things, literatures have studied (1)

factors influencing disagreement production (such as power, severity, and social

distance) (Rees-Miller, 2000), (2) the structure of disagreements, as determined by

their use of linguistic markers and their disagreement patterns (Scott, 2002), (3)

classifications of disagreements (Turnbull and Muntigl, 1998), (4) educational and

political uses (Price V.; Cappella J. N.; Nir L, 2002), (5) different definitions by authors

(in relation to power and social distance) (Spencer-Oatey, 1996), and (6) how inter-

and intra-cultural aspects can affect disagreement strategies (Georgakopoulou, 2001,

and Garcia, 1989).

Theories on disagreements and social distance have been put forth by these

literatures, but whether such theories are applicable cross-culturally is a big question.

In addition, few, or even none of these studies have focused their research in the

Singaporean context. There is a lack of data concerning Singaporeans in their use of

disagreements. This gap in linguistic research will be addressed by our project, where

we will be looking into spoken disagreements made by Singaporeans. More

specifically, we have decided to focus on one important factor which plays an

important role in disagreement expression - social distance.

It is essential to first establish whether there is a relationship between social distance

and expression of disagreement among Singaporeans, before thoroughly analyzing the

effect of social distance on expression of the speech act. If a relationship does exist,

how will social distance affect the frequency of use of aggravated and mitigated

disagreements? Comparing the trend from our findings with theories that have been

established in other literatures will allow us to conclude the applicability of the

theories cross-culturally. It has been expressed in earlier studies that aggravated

disagreements tend to dominate when social distance is less. (Brown and Levinson,

1987) Analysis will be carried out using two methods – (I) Prevalence of linguistic

markers, adopted and modified from numerous studies, including Rees-Miller’s (Rees-

Miller, 2000) and (II) types of disagreement strategies employed, adopted from

Muntigl and Turnbull’s study (Turnbull and Muntigl, 1998). The use of both methods

will provide us with a broader view of our findings.

2. Definition

2.1. Social distance

Social distance can be defined as the measure of the degree of friendship/intimacy or

lack thereof between interlocutors. It is an important factor that determines the level

of comfort or the amount of politeness and deference that exists in a verbal

conversation and as such determines the constraints felt and the liberties taken during

the particular speech exchange (Boxer, 1993). Social distance therefore plays a huge

part in determining how interlocutors will converse with each other.

Social distance in this context can be difficult to measure as it is difficult to determine

the closeness of any particular relationship. According to (Spencer-Oatey, 1996), there

is no single factor that is responsible for the relative distance/closeness of a

relationship and it most likely involves a variety of factors. However no agreement has

been reached as to what these factors are.

In our report, we intend to interpret social distance as dependent on a few

characteristics: frequency of interaction between interlocutors; the amount of trust;

affection as well as the interdependence of the participants.

It is generally assumed that persons involved in closer relationships tend to interact

more often over a greater range of settings. While this generally holds true for many

close relationships, exceptions do arise. In some cases, the participants involved in the

relationship are not always able to interact frequently due to time and space

restrictions. For example, best friends studying in different countries may not have the

opportunity to interact regularly by meeting up or conversing due to time zone as well

as distance considerations. Conversely, two people (e.g. colleagues, fellow students

etc.) may be forced to interact with each other almost every day even though they are

antagonistic towards each other. Basing social distance on just frequency of

interaction alone is not sufficient.

As such, it is important to consider another important factor: affection. According to

the article by (Hays, 1984: 78) reviewed in (Spencer-Oatey, 1996), affection is defined

as the expression of any sentiment (positive or negative) felt towards each other, or

any expression of the emotional bond between partners. Having a positive sentiment

such as liking a person in the first place is regarded as a prerequisite in the decision

to pursue a current relationship/friendship and strengthen the bonds between the

interlocutors. We believe this mutual affection to be the foundations of a close

relationship and therefore an important criterion in determining social distance

between interlocutors. However, care must be taken not to fall into the simplistic

assumption that close relationships are categorized by positive shared sentiments

alone. Many strong and stable relationships are also characterized by negative

sentiments apart from positive. In fact some relationships which are characterized

mainly by negative sentiments may be surprisingly stable over time. (Spencer-Oatey,

1996)

Apart from mutual affection, trust is another important component of any close

relationship. Trust determines how much the interlocutors are comfortable in

revealing certain aspects of themselves to the other party. In Wierzbicka (1991), the

author defined closeness as the readiness to reveal to some particular persons some

aspect of one’s personality and of one’s inner world which one conceals from other

people; a readiness based on personal trust and personal good feelings. Examples are:

sharing feelings, opinions, secrets/confidences or personal topics with each other.

Lastly, we chose to take into account the degree of interdependence between the

interlocutors. This is important in considering how dependent the two interlocutors

are on each other and the extent they are able to impose on each other. Based on the

definition by (Hays, 1984:78), we will view each interlocutor as a ‘helper’ in providing

goods, services or support; expressing concern for the other’s well being. In fact, the

closer the relationship between the two interlocutors, the greater the amount of

‘benefits’ they will obtain from each other.

2.2. Disagreements

Disagreements are specific face-threatening acts that have the potential to jeopardize

the solidarity between the speaker and the addressee (Rees-Miller, 2000).

Disagreements can be produced either verbally or non-verbally in retaliation to a prior

statement made by the first interlocutor. This speech act can take place as two turn

sequences, 3 turn sequences or even more.

For the ease of our investigation, we will define a disagreement act as a verbal

exchange consisting of two turns; similar to that done in Rees-Miller’s (2000) paper:

In T1, the Speaker, S will utter a claim/statement. Following this, in T2 the

Addressee, A will react to the T1 statement which he/she considers to be untrue by

producing an alternative view that is in opposition to the original T1 claim.

Disagreements made in T2 can be carried out by A in a variety of ways: aggravated,

neutral, or mitigated. These disagreement classifications actually exist on a

continuum, with aggravated and mitigated disagreements lying at the two extreme

ends and neutral disagreements occupying the centre.

3. Guiding Principles

According to Brown and Levinson’s study, each person possesses both a positive and a

negative face. The positive face refers to the person’s need to be approved of by

others, to maintain solidarity with others. Negative face speaks of the person’s need to

remain autonomous and unimpeded.

According to Turnbull and Muntigl (1998), disagreement acts are inherently face-

threatening as they express disapproval of another person and hence jeopardize their

positive face. For example in the disagreement act (1), the addressee expresses

disapproval of the speaker’s personality:

(1)T1: So I told him off... Thought that was the only [right thing to do]

T1: Statement or claim put forth by the speaker T2: Addressee disputes the T1 statement

T2: [Told him off?] That’s not the only thing you can do. Why are you always so hot-tempered?

Disagreements also threaten negative face by having the potential to limit the

Speaker, S’s options as in the example (2) below:

(2)T1: That shirt is cheap... I think I should get it. T2: No. It’s ugly. Don’t waste your money on this.

In (2), the addressee in T2 is seen to constrain the speaker’s next move in terms of

what he/she should or should not do (spending money in this case).

Disagreements are therefore determined by Turnbull and Muntigl (1998) as crucial

interactional activities that involve facework (the negotiation of face). It is assumed

that both interlocutors will be mutually interested in maintaining each other’s face via

the usage of politeness considerations that show consideration for each other’s face

needs. (Rees-Miller, 2000). The author went on to state that both interlocutors would

feel the need to preserve social harmony through the use of softened disagreements

that were less aggravating to face.

Levinson and Brown put forth a formula that showed the relation of social distance

with weight of a face-threatening act (i.e. amount of politeness considerations

required):

Weight of face-threatening act = D (social distance of the interlocutors) + P (relative power of

interlocutors) + R (Rating of imposition).

The weight of the face-threatening act will then determine the disagreement strategy

chosen by the interlocutor (softened or aggravated). This relationship implies that

more direct/face-aggravating disagreement strategies will be employed when social

distance is lesser and vice versa (Brown and Levinson, 1987).

The chart below (Fig. 1) will illustrate the relationship between social distance and

type of disagreement act used more clearly:

This is supported by Boxer (1993), who maintained that social distance is regarded as

‘one of the important factors that will determine the way interlocutors converse

because it will affect the level of politeness and deference in the conversation. This

will in turn determine the constraints felt and liberties taken in speech exchanges.’ In

the case of disagreements, social distance will determine whether the disagreement

act used is softened or aggravated.

Therefore when social distance is greater between the two interlocutors the use of

politeness considerations increases and this results in the preference for more

softened disagreements. Conversely when social distance is less, there is a tendency

for the use of aggravated disagreements as interlocutors adhere less to politeness

considerations.

4. Methodology

In this section, three aspects of our methodology will be elaborated upon – the

subjects that we have chosen, the data collection method, and the data analysis

methods.

4.1. Subjects

Social Distance

Politeness Consideration

s

Type of Disagreement

Act

Fig. 1: Relationship between social distance and disagreement acts

Acquaintances

Friends

Family

Fig. 2: Illustration to show that social distance is a continuum, with decreasing social distance as the line progresses to the right. The relative positions of Acquaintances, Friends, and Family are indicated.

It is imperative for one to understand that social distance is a continuum (Fig. 2). To

fully account for the effects of social distance, our findings should reflect data from

different parts of the spectrum. Hence, taking into consideration the definition of

social distance that has been explained earlier (Section 2.1), we focused our attention

on three social groups with differing relative magnitudes in social distance –

Acquaintances, Friends, and Family. Among them, Acquaintances have the most social

distance, because they are likely to have the lowest frequency of interaction, lowest

degree of interdependence and trust, and neutral affection, since meetings between

such interlocutors are usually quite transient. On the other extreme, Family will have

the least social distance. Disagreements were made by the participants in the English

language.

4.2. Data Collection

In a period of three weeks, field observation of disagreements occurring around us

was carried out. To collect data for the groups of Friends and Family, we observed

disagreements that occurred among our own friends and family members, additionally

participating in some of the disagreement ourselves. Once a disagreement act was

made, it was noted down. Acquaintances were observed for their use of disagreement

in two settings: the classroom, and co-curriculum activities (CCA) meetings. Data from

the classroom setting were taken from linguistic classes, and Pharmacy tutorials,

where there was an extensive exchange and debate of ideas. The advantage of using

field observation was that it was the least intrusive method that allowed us to gain an

insight into naturally occurring interactions (Rees-Miller, 2000). While a direct

recording would capture the interlocutors’ attention, and may result in modified

actions, field observation is done discreetly so as not to alert the interlocutors, hence

avoiding a situation where they may subconsciously choose to respond differently from

what they initially planned to do. In addition, this method of data collection was more

favourable as compared to discourse completion tasks (DCTs), questionnaires and role

plays, because unlike the former, these methods may provide data that do not

correspond with natural data.

To record down the disagreements taking place, we employed the use of pen and

paper recording, similarly to that done in Rees-Miller’s (2000) study where she

analyzed the effects of power and severity on disagreement expression. This method

was highly recommended in her study because it has been acknowledged by other

linguists as a method suitable for recording short segments of speech, which

disagreement acts are. The data recorded was then transcribed and the turns of

disagreement acts (T1 and T2) were identified. On the whole, there were 75

disagreement acts, 27 from Acquaintances, and 24 each from Friends and Family. The

use of linguistic markers, including rising intonation, stress, and increased volume,

were taken notice of during field observation and indicated in the findings.

4.3. Analytical Framework

Qualitative and quantitative analysis of our findings were carried out using two

methods: (I) Prevalence of linguistic markers, and (II) the disagreement strategies

employed. Method I was essential as it appeared to be a well-established and proven

method, since many linguists, apart from Rees-Miller, employed the use of linguistic

markers successfully in their analysis of disagreement expression, such as Scott

Linguistic Markers

Aggravated Neutral Mitigated

No pauseOverlapsAbsolutesPersonal, accusatory youRising intonationStress on wordsIncreased VolumeRhetorical QuestionProfanityIntensifier

Verbal shadowing Discourse markersModulatorsHesitationQuestionPartial/Pseudo agreementPersonal ExperienceHumourFriendship termsSinglish

(2002). In order to carry out the project further, and give us a broader picture of our

findings, method II was also used. Method II, proposed by Turnbull and Muntigl

(1998) in their study on conversational structure and facework in disagreements, was

an unconventional way to analyze the findings, because it had yet to be used by other

linguists in this field of research.

4.3.1. Method I: Prevalence of linguistic markers

Linguistic markers are devices that speakers use to convey their message in different

contexts (Scott, 2002). They are important elements for our data analysis because of

their exclusive function. In expressing one’s disagreement, interlocutors make use of

various kinds of linguistic markers to strengthen and soften the speech act, thus

producing aggravated or mitigated disagreements respectively (Rees-Miller, 2000).

Following the footsteps of Rees-Miller (2000), we identified linguistic markers in the

75 disagreement acts, and classified them into three broad categories based on

whether they strengthened or softened the speech act: Aggravated, Neutral, and

Mitigated. An overview of our classification is depicted in Figure 3.

-

To aggravate disagreements, interlocutors can employ the use of the following

linguistic markers. After the T1 claim, the T2 speaker either follows up his/her

disagreement immediately with no pause, or may choose not to wait for the T1 turn to

be finished by talking simultaneously to assert his/her own point of view (overlaps).

Absolutes, such as at all and every, tend to give the impression of disallowing any

further negotiation of the topic. The use of the personal accusatory you may be seen

as a personal attack on T1. In addition, interlocutors can also use rising intonation,

stress on words and increased volume, as well as rhetorical questions. Our findings

had uses of bullshit, siao (which means crazy in a dialect, Hokkien, used in Singapore),

and nonsense, which we classified as profanity. Such usage may make the T2 speaker

come across as being rude, and may appear offensive to the T1 speaker. Intensifiers,

which included so, very, and a few others, were also noticeable in our findings.

In the category of neutral linguistic markers, there was only one linguistic marker

identified – verbal shadowing. This is where the disagreement in T2 repeats the claim

in T1, but with alteration in words and intonation. (Rees-Miller, 2000)

To soften disagreement, both positive and negative politeness strategies were carried

out by interlocutors. In the category of negative politeness, discourse markers,

modulators, hesitation and questions are used. These linguistic markers serve to

respect the T1 speaker’s negative face. Discourse markers are forms of mitigation as

they announce that a disagreement act is about to be delivered (Stalpers, 1995), and

examples that appeared in our findings include wait, huh, but, and well. Modulators

+

Fig. 3: Classification of linguistic markers

exist as a big category of linguistic markers which include erm, hm, maybe, probably, I

think, and modal verbs (e.g. should).

In the category of positive politeness, interlocutors use pseudo/partial agreement,

personal experience, humour, friendship terms, and Singlish. All these attend to the

positive face of the T1 speaker. In pseudo/partial agreement, the T2 speaker agrees

with T1 first, with words like yes, that’s true, before disagreeing. Personal experience

and Singlish may enhance positive face as T2 uses strategies that implicitly tell T1

that the interlocutors are interconnected in a certain way, by the fact that they share

the same memories and use the same kind of language. In our findings, friendship

terms that appeared include dude and man. For each linguistic marker, examples from

our findings are shown in the appendix.

Initially, based on the type of linguistic marker present, we planned to classify the 75

disgreement acts into three categories: aggravated, neutral, and mitigated (similar

categories as linguistic markers). However, as the findings unfolded, it was realized

that such classification was not feasible. Most of the disagreement acts in our findings

used a mixture of aggravated and mitigated linguistic markers, as shown in the

example (3) here:

(3)T1: I think that it’s dangerous to ask a woman if they wanted a cake. T2: yeh yeh... well… would you rather clean up the kitchen floor?((Laugh)) No one agrees with you.

In (3), T2 used a rhetorical question. Rhetorical question is seen as an aggravated

linguistic marker. However, a second look at the intended meaning would make the

observer realized that T2 was using humour at the same time. There was also use of

partial agreement, and the discourse marker of well. All these are mitigated linguistic

markers. The mixture of aggravated and mitigated linguistic markers in a particular

disagreement act made this classification method complex. In addition, some

disagreement acts used more linguistic markers than others, which we do not account

for if this classification method was used. The use of three or four mitigated linguistic

markers may make a disagreement appear more softened, as compared to the use of

only one.

In order to avoid the limitations stated above, instead of classifying disagreement acts

themselves, we chose to classify linguistic markers into the three similar broad

categories of aggravated, neutral, and mitigated, which we have done so earlier. The

emphasis here is that analysis would now be made looking at the different types of

linguistic markers used by each social group, and not the type of disagreement acts

that each social group frequently performed. (Fig. 4)

To compare across the groups, the average number of aggravated, neutral, and

mitigated linguistic markers used per disagreement act was calculated. An average

calculation was used because the three groups did not have the same number of

disagreement acts recorded, so averaging (by dividing with the number of

disagreement acts) would make the comparison fairer. In addition, the proportion of

aggravated, neutral, and mitigated linguistic markers used for each group was

DA

Aggravated

Neutral

Mitigated

LM

Aggravated

Neutral

Mitigated

Fig. 4: Illustration to show initial analysis method that we originally planned to use, and the final analysis method that we eventually used.

calculated as well. This allowed a better view of the type of linguistic marker each

group used the most frequently.

4.3.2. Method II: Disagreement strategies used

In method II, we decided to analyze our data based on a method used by Turnbull and

Muntigl (1998). In this method, we adopted their method of classifying disagreements

into four categories: Irrelevancy claim (IR), Challenges (CH), Contradictions (CT) and

Counterclaims (CC). In addition, the authors also identified an act combination

category: Contradiction followed up with a Counterclaim. (CT + CC)

Irrelevancy Claim (IR) - In the use of IR, the T2 speaker dismisses the previous

claim as being irrelevant to the discussion and thus not an allowable contribution to

the disagreement. IR’s are considered by the authors to be the most face-aggravating

disagreement act as it attacks the speaker’s competence as a skilful communicator

who is able to make relevant contributions to the disagreement. Besides that, it tends

to shut down negotiations or further discussions of the topic at hand.

(4)T1: All guys are like that... Can’t be trusted. NONE can be trusted. Just look at =T2: = EXCUSE ME! Just because one guy does it, doesn’t mean that EVERY guy is like that. Just because you think this way, doesn’t mean that it’s true ok?

In the above disagreement act (4), the addressee in T2 attacks the T1 claim before the

speaker has completed the sentence by repudiating it as being irrelevant evidence for

the disagreement topic at hand.

Challenge (CH) - Challenges typically appear in the form of questions and may take

on an interrogative form. Even though CH does not directly oppose the T1 statement,

its usage implies that the addressee is not able to provide evidence for his/her prior

statement. It is considered by the authors to be the second most face-aggravating act

as it directly attacks the competency of the other speaker.

(5)T1: I did call back last week mah…T2: Where got?

In this example (5), the addressee in T2 challenges the T1 claim by demanding that

the speaker give evidence of the times when he/she actually called and at the same

time shows skepticism regarding the truth of the T1 claim.

Contradiction (CT) - The T2 speaker opposes the T1 claim by putting forth a claim

that is in direct opposition to it. For example, if the T1 speaker says P, the T2 speaker

will respond with a –P. CT is considered the third most aggravating disagreement type

as it directly repudiates the T1 speaker’s claim. However it is still less face-

aggravating than IR and CH as it does not attack the conversational skill or rationality

of the first speaker.

(6)T1: I don’t think I have ever lent it to you before. =T2: = And I think you have lent it to me before.

In (6), T2 directly opposes the claim in T1. There is also the use of a format known as

verbal shadowing (as mentioned in Section 4.3.1). In this technique, ‘the current

speaker produces an utterance that is tied by means of semantic, syntactic,

morphemic or morphological operations to previous speaker’s utterance.’ (Turnbull

and Muntigl, 1998). It has the potential to be rather face-aggravating as it seems to

use the T1 speaker’s own words against him/her.

Counterclaim (CC) - Counterclaims are the least face-aggravating of the lot as it

does not directly repudiate the T1 claim and instead proposes an alternative claim.

These alternative claims can then serve to open up further discussions and

negotiations regarding the topic at hand. For example, in (7):

(7)T1: It’s not applicable if used as a solvent… but instead you can use an organic solvent. =

Low Aggression

CC

Intermediate

AggressionCTCT + CC

High Aggression

IRCH

T2: = But manufacturers may not want to use organic solvents which may disrupt the integrity of the filter.

Combination Act (CT + CC) - The authors discovered that some disagreement acts

were in fact combinations of the various disagreement acts with CT + CC being most

significant. Whilst it is considered less face threatening compared to CT, it is still face-

aggravating as it contains a CT which opposes the other speaker’s claim. However,

this effect is softened by the accompanying CC which provides alternative claims

which opens up discussion and allows negotiation of the two speaker’s claims during a

disagreement. As an example (8):

(8)T1: Maybe it’s due to solidarity <gives explanation> =T2: = Actually I disagree. I think that sometimes it depends on the person you’re interacting with. Like... if someone uses a lot of abbreviations, I would tend to use abbreviations also... so as to not make her uncomfortable.

The authors next classified the above disagreement acts into 3 categories: (1) Low

aggression, (2) Intermediate aggression and (3) High aggression. (Fig. 5)

5. Findings

In this section, we will discuss the findings obtained from Method I and II separately,

as these two methods employ a different approach towards analysis of the results.

Additional noteworthy findings will also be briefly mentioned at the end.

Fig. 5: Levels of aggression

5.1. Method I

5.1.1 Findings

Figure 6 shows the findings from Method I, which

is based on the prevalence of linguistic markers.

First, comparison is made between the groups in

order to find a trend on expression of

disagreement as social distance changes. As shown in the chart, Acquaintances had

the highest average number of mitigated linguistic markers per disagreement act

(1.44 per DA), while Family had the least (0.63 per DA). In the category of average

number of aggravated linguistic markers per disagreement act, Family used the most

(1.67 per DA), almost twice that of each of the other two social groups (0.93 per DA

for Acquaintances, and 0.75 per DA for Friends). All three groups displayed infrequent

Ac-quain-tances;

0.07

Friends; 0.08

Family; 0.04

Average Number of Neutral Linguistic Marker per DA

Acquain-tances; 0.93

Friends; 0.750000000

000003

Family; 1.67

Average Number of Aggravated Linguistic Markers per DA

Acquaintance; 1.44

Friends, 1.17

Family; 0.630000000

000002

Average Number of Mitigated Linguistic Marker per DA

use of neutral linguistic markers; hence discussion of results would be focused on only

aggravated and mitigated linguistic markers.

When the proportion of the different types of linguistic markers used by each social

group was considered (Fig. 7), an unexpected observation was made. Statistics for

Acquaintances and Friends appeared similar. For Acquaintances, 59% of the linguistic

markers they used were the mitigated type, and 38% were aggravated ones. This goes

the same for Friends, where 58% were mitigated linguistic markers, and 38% were

aggravated ones. For Family, results were significantly different from the other social

groups. 71% of the linguistic markers they used were the aggravated type, while

mitigated linguistic markers only made up 27%.

5.1.2. Analysis

Fig. 7: Proportion of Aggravated, Neutral, and Mitigated Linguistic Markers used in each social group.

Mitigated; 59%

Neutral; 3%

Aggravated ; 38%

Linguistic Markers Used for Acquaintances

Mitigated; 58%

Neutral; 4%

Aggravated; 38%

Linguistic Markers Used for Friends

Mitigated27%

Neutral2%

Aggravated71%

Linguistic Markers Used for Family

Using the findings (as presented earlier), there were two observation made. Across

the groups, it was seen that all three groups had different uses in the type of linguistic

markers, though Acquaintances and Friends do display results that were slightly

similar. Nonetheless, this shows that social distance does have an effect on

disagreement expression. If such is the case, how exactly does it affect expression?

Referring to the chart, as social distance increased (from Family to Acquaintances),

the use of mitigation increased. At the same time, use of aggravated linguistic markers

decreased. This trend was made by comparing mainly the statistics belonging to

Family and Acquaintances, because it was noted that the statistics for Friends, being

similar to that of Acquaintances (these similarities will be explained subsequently),

made the trend less obvious and noticeable. The observation made was in line with

what we expected. As explained earlier in guiding principles (section 3), Brown and

Levinson had included social distance in the formula that decides one’s expression of

disagreement. In addition, literatures have proposed that more aggravated

disagreements are used when social distance is lesser.

The disagreement act, as we have defined, is face-threatening. (Rees-Miller, 2000) As

a result, in performing this speech act, there is always a risk of jeopardizing the

interlocutors’ relationship. This risk, however, varies among the different social

groups. For family members, the face-threatening act is less likely to jeopardize the

relationship because the ties are strong. Furthermore, instead of softening the

disagreement, use of mitigation with family members may sometimes come across as

being sarcastic.

As social distance increases, the risk of the act jeopardizing the relationship increases

at the same time. This occurs because such relationships are relatively less stable.

Interlocutors here would perform more facework and politeness considerations in

relation to the high risk factor (Stalpers, 1995). One may argue that since

interlocutors in the groups of Acquaintances and Friends are more concerned for the

effect of the speech act on the outcome of the relationship, why do they not use

mitigation all the time? Use of directness (in the form of aggravated linguistic

markers) may not always lead to an unfavourable situation; its use may often indicate

the interlocutor’s wish to be seen as socially close. This may explain why aggravated

linguistic markers were still being used in the context of Friends. For Acquaintances,

disagreements were observed in the classroom and CCA meetings. In such serious

formal setting, it was acceptable to show conflicting views, as this action was seen and

acknowledged by the interlocutors as part of the work/classroom culture (Stalpers,

1995). Because interlocutors do not take it personally when disagreed upon, the use of

politeness strategies to mitigate and soften one’s disagreement was not a big

requirement. Interlocutors place priority on the conversational maxim of “Clearness”

over “politeness”. Hence, they may not feel restricted in using aggravated linguistic

markers in their speech.

Apart from recognizing the link between social distance and disagreement, a second

observation was also made. The statistics between Acquaintances and Friends did not

appear to be significantly different. Results were quite alike, with only minor

differences. This could be possibly due to the important fact that social distance is a

continuum. It may not be possible for one to see each social group as being

distinctively different. This is especially so between Acquaintances and Friends, where

the line between them may be blurred. As a limitation of our field observation method,

the relationship between interlocutors may not be what they appear as to the

observer. As observers, we do not have the ability to know when interlocutors cross

the line from Acquaintances to Friends, which could possibly lead to such similar

results between the two social groups. The second reason would be the context in

which disagreements were made by Acquaintances. As mentioned in the previous

paragraph, such serious formal settings allowed more use of aggravated

disagreements.

5.2. Method II

5.2.1 Findings

Our findings in method 2 did not show the results we had expected: as social distance

increases, the use of aggravated disagreements decreased. The results obtained for

this method were inconclusive and a clear trend was not observed.

5.2.1A. Disagreement Strategies Used

Figure 8 shows that acquaintances actually

used the greatest percentage (48.15%) of CT

+ CC. This is followed by CC which is the

next highest (29.62%). CT + CC is the most

frequent strategy used probably because, as

said earlier, most of our data for

acquaintances were taken from more formal settings such as CCA meetings,

classroom settings (tutorials and lectures).

In these settings, it is the norm for disagreements to be stated clearly and directly

accompanied by a supporting reason/statement to lend weight to the disagreement.

This also allows the opening up discussions and further negotiations.

It is also important to mention that no highly aggravating IR claim was seen to be used

amongst acquaintances.

Disagreement Types

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

0.00%

11.11%11.11%

48.15%

29.62%IR

CH

CT

CT + CC

CC

Fig. 8: Disagreement strategies used by acquaintances

As shown in Fig. 9, friends actually used the

highest number of CC (41.67%). This shows

that friends actually favoured disagreement

acts that allowed for further negotiations

and discussions of the matter at hand in a

bid to reach a compromise.

It is also significant to note that a new

combination category of CH + CC that was

not mentioned in the author’s study

actually surfaced in our data. As in the case of acquaintances, no highly face-

aggravating IR claim was used.

In Fig. 10, contrary to what we expected, CT +

CC and CC were used most often by family

members. We had actually expected a trend

where family members would use more IR, CH

or CT disagreement strategies. We had

expected more face aggravating strategies to

be used. It is also important to note that the

new category of CH + CC persists. And within

family the use of IR was finally seen. Even then it is infrequently used.

5.2.1B. Aggression levels

From the chart on the left (Fig. 11), by comparing across the groups it can be seen

that friends and family used the same percentage of high aggression disagreement

strategies whilst acquaintances used the least. However, no apparent trend is seen

Disagreement Types0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

0.00%

20.83%

20.83%

12.50%

41.67%

4.17%

IR

CH

CT

CT + CC

CC

CH + CC

Fig. 9: Disagreement strategies used by friends

Disagreement Types0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

4.17%

16.67%

4.17%

33.33%

29.17%

12.50%

IR

CH

CT

CT + CC

CC

CH + CC

Fig. 10: Disagreement strategies used by family

when comparing across the

groups for low and

intermediate aggression.

When comparing within each

group, friends are seen to use

more low aggression

disagreement strategies.

Aggravated disagreements are used least amongst friends. When comparing the

distribution of aggression levels within family with acquaintances, it is found that the

shape and pattern of distribution is rather similar. The significance of this will be

discussed later.

5.2.2. Analysis

From the findings, insufficient evidence exists to prove the trend: that as social

distance increases, the use of aggravated disagreement acts decreases and vice versa.

Friends and family shared the same percentage for high aggression disagreement

strategies. Family was expected to show a higher percentage than friends. However

acquaintances did show the lowest percentage for high aggression disagreement

strategies as expected. For low aggression and intermediate aggression strategies no

obvious trend was seen across the 3 groups.

Amongst friends, it is seen that low and intermediate aggression disagreement

strategies are favoured over high aggression strategies. In fact the most favoured

disagreement strategy was the low aggression CC. A reason for this could be because

friends do not want to jeopardize their relationship. According to (Laursen, 1998),

Acquain-tances

Friends Family

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

11.11%

20.83% 20.83%

59.26%

37.50%

50.00%

29.62%

41.67%

29.17%High

Intermediate

Low

‘poorly managed disagreements are increasingly regarded as forces that threatened

close peer relationships. Disputes with close peers are more likely to involve

compromise, thus avoiding damage to the relationship’.

The lack of trend for low and intermediate aggression levels (Fig. 12) can actually be

explained using Wolfson’s ‘Bulge Theory’ which was actually used by Boxer (1993).

This theory states that: ‘when the ways in which different speech acts are realized in

actual everyday speech are examined, and when these behaviors are compared in

terms of the social relationships of the interlocutors, it is found that the two extremes

of social distance (minimum and maximum) seem to call forth very similar behavior,

while relationships which are more toward the center show marked difference.’

This trend proposed by Wolfson is seen for low and intermediate aggression

distributions across the 3 social groups. Wolfson proposed that social groups at both

extremes of the continuum actually shared similarities in the relative certainty of their

relationships. Acquaintances are regarded as distant relationships that may not be as

important to the interlocutor and as such the interlocutor may not bother to use

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

29.62%

41.67%

29.17%

59.26%

37.50%

50.00%

11.11%

20.83% 20.83%

High

Intermediate

Low

Fig. 12: Where 1=Acquaintance, 2=Friends, 3=Family on the x-axis

solidarity establishing behavior (low aggression disagreements) during interactions to

preserve harmony. For family, interlocutors already have strong blood ties and close

bonds and as such they see it as irrelevant to use solidarity establishing behavior such

as low aggression disagreement acts. The same factors could also be used to explain

the trend seen for intermediate level aggression acts. Such acts, which are considered

face-aggravating, were used more frequently in Acquaintances and Family, because of

the relative lack of solidarity consideration.

However, whilst ‘The Bulge’ theory is able to explain the results for low and

intermediate, it cannot be used to explain the trend observed for high level aggression

disagreement acts. As such, we believe that the results we have obtained are

inconclusive possibly due to limitations of method 2.

5.2.3 Limitations of Method 2

The inconclusive results found in method 2 could be due to several limitations

encountered. First of all, it was found that classification of disagreement strategies

was rather limiting. There was a tendency to force a particular disagreement act to fit

a particular category without considering if new, additional categories existed other

than those proposed by the author. Apart from that, the author only took into

consideration the CT + CC combination. In our study, we actually discovered a new

combination: CH + CC which we considered an intermediate aggression disagreement

act. However, we lack the means to justify our classification as there was no

precedence for this combination act in the author’s study. As such, the model used

was too limiting and subject to exceptions. Besides that, method 2 also does not take

into account the use of linguistic markers which can increase or decrease face threat.

It also fails to take into consideration what is known as attributive disagreements, that

is, it attributes some action, thought, or attitude to the speaker which is in opposition

to what the speaker has said.

(9)T1: I think I’ll be getting that. Should come in handy =T2: = That useless stuff? Please lor. How many times have you bought something that you thought was useful, but ended up not using?

In the above conversation (9), a CC (Counterclaim) is used. However it is more face-

aggravating than a normal CC as the addressee in T2 attributes that the speaker does

not have the capability to make useful decisions. It also puts the addressee in a

position superior to the speaker in implying that he/she knows better. Therefore, CC

does not automatically mean that a disagreement is softened.

Apart from that, classification of the disagreement strategies can be very subjective.

The sample size used was also rather small due to time and resource constraints and

therefore the results obtained may not be representative of a true population. Lastly,

this method is actually a novel method used by the authors for their study and has not

been replicated elsewhere. As such, this method may only be applicable in their study.

5.3. Additional noteworthy findings

In the group of Acquaintances, there were instances where the agreement maxim was

observed even in aggravated disagreement acts. In these acts, there was use of

mitigation. As demonstrated in (10), T2 uses the disagreement strategy of Challenge,

which is seen as having a high level of aggression. T2 is showing his/her disagreement

by questioning T1 and asking T1 to provide evidence for his/her claim. However, the

disagreement act was also marked with mitigation. There was use of hesitation and

the discourse marker Erm. In (3), T2 uses a rhetorical question to show his

disagreement. Rhetorical questions can aggravate the disagreement act, but the T2

speaker chooses to use humour and partial agreement to mitigate the act.

(10) T1: I think that maybe if you give Singaporean students a response form they will feel it’s an exam and tend to give models answers <continues on>T2: Erm:… upon what… you based your assumptions?

In addition, interlocutors in the category of acquaintances did not use Singlish (which

is seen in the other two groups), and personal experience (which was only seen in

Friends), both of which are forms of positive politeness. The absence of Singlish could

possibly be due to the context that disagreements were observed in; it may not be

appropriate to use Singlish in classroom discussions and meetings. Moreover, a simple

calculation (Fig. 13) showed that Acquaintances used more negative politeness

compared to Friends. One reason attributing to this behavior is that Acquaintances,

having the most social distance among the three groups, may not see it appropriate to

use positive politeness to enhance the relationship, since in the first place, the

relationship is relatively less stable, and could be a one-time occurrence only.

Negative politeness may be preferable to protect one’s autonomy.

Acquaintances Friends Family

Percentage of

negative politeness87.18 60.71 6.67

Percentage of

positive politeness12.82 39.29 13.33

In the group of Friends, interlocutors used positive politeness strategies, such as

Singlish, friendship terms, and personal experience. The use of the highest percentage

of positive politeness in Friends, as compared to the other two groups, could be due to

the interlocutors’ desire to take the relationship up a higher level, because unlike

Acquaintances, interlocutors here may have a relationship that is longer and less

volatile. It was expected that frequency of aggravated linguistic markers used would

have been higher, instead of being almost on par with that of Acquaintances. It is

possible that the interlocutors might have been more concerned for the consequence

Fig. 13: Proportion of use of negative and positive politeness among the groups (out of the total number of mitigated linguistic markers)

of the disagreement act on the relationship; hence they may not wish to perform a

face-threatening act that will affect the relationship (Laursen, 1998).

For Family, it was observed that there was no use of partial agreement, personal

experience, or friendship terms. On the whole, the use of positive politeness was

lesser as compared to Friends. If the explanation for Friends holds true, (where their

relationships are more stable as compared to Acquaintances, and thus they may desire

to enhance the relationship), shouldn’t Family, with the least social distance, use the

highest number of positive politeness strategies? We propose that the less use of

positive politeness strategies could be since the relationships are relatively more

stable and ties are stronger, family members may not see the need to use such

strategies to enhance the relationship.

6. Limitations of Our Project

One of the limitations of our project is that we did not take into account the severity of

the T1 claim in influencing how the addressee would respond. This variable was

difficult to control whilst still maintaining a natural data collection at the same time.

Besides that, it is also impossible to predict when a person would actually find a

particular T1 claim severe/face-threatening as this is a subjective parameter. Apart

from that, power could also not be standardized across all the 3 groups as power

relations would tend to naturally differ for each social group.

There is also the limitation of field observation. Field observation requires a lot of

observational skill and as it was our first time conducting it, we may have failed to

take down certain keywords or linguistic markers. Field observation also does not

allow us to record facial expressions which in their own right serve as intensifiers or

mitigation tools. For example, smiling can be used to mitigate a disagreement (Garcia,

1989).

Apart from that, classification of disagreement acts is very subjective. For example,

the observer may classify a disagreement between two interlocutors as being

aggravated. However, the interlocutors actually involved in the disagreement may

regard it as aggravated.

Due to time and resource constraints we only managed to collect a limited sample size

which may not have been representative of the true population. And lastly, there may

have been statistical errors in our findings. Averaging which was used in our

calculations tends to flatten potential outliers and make them fit the general trend.

Therefore any statistically significant departures from the trend may have been

missed.

7. Conclusion

In spite of our limitations, we are able to answer the questions posed at the beginning

of the project, which was (1) Is there a relationship between social distance and

expression of disagreement? And (2) If there is, is the relationship similar to that

established in other studies overseas? From our results in Method I, we can conclude

that there is a relationship. Moreover, the trend was as expected: When social

distance decreased, there was more use of aggravated disagreements, and vice versa.

This follows the theories put forth by Rees-Miller (2000), Boxer (2000), and Brown and

Levinson (1987). Therefore, these theories are applicable in the Singaporean context.

There are several areas for further research. Method II can actually be reevaluated by

addressing the limitations mentioned, to determine if this method is applicable to

other studies besides the authors’ own study. For example, a larger sample size can be

used, or more categories can be included to make the classification less rigid. Besides

that, there were no positive comments noted in our data, which were present in Rees-

Miller’s (2000) findings. Positive comments are defined as in (11).

(11) T1: <states a claim>T2: That sounds like a good idea, but... <states disagreement>

In fact, the nearest thing that came to it were partial agreements. This could be

possibly due to cultural differences between Western culture and Singaporean culture,

as Singapore may not be a complimenting culture. Positive comments could possibly

be interpreted differently, for example, as sarcasm. However, this is an area of

research that is beyond the scope of our study.

Reference

Boxer, Diana. (1993). Social Distance and speech behaviour: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics 19, 103-125.

Garcia, Carmen. (1989). Disagreeing and Requesting by Americans and Venezuelans. Linguistics and Education 1, 299-322.

Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. (2001). Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 1881-1900.

Laursen, B. (1998). Closeness and conflict in adolescent peer relationships: Interdependence with friends and romantic partners. In William M. Bukowski, Andrew F. Newcomb, Willard W. Hartup, The Friendships They Keep: Friendships in Childhood and Adolescence. [Chapter 9]. Cambridge University Press.

Muntigl P., & Turnbull W. (2005). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225-256.

Price V.; Cappella J. N.; Nir L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, Vol. 19. (pp. 95-112). Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group.

Rees-Miller, Janie. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1087-1111.

Scott, Suzanne. (2002). Linguistic feature variation within disagreements: An empirical investigation. Text 22(2), 301-328.

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 1-24.

Stalper, J. (1995). The expression of disagreement. In Konrad Ehlich, Johannes Wagner, The Discourse of Business Negotiation. (pp. 275-291). Walter de Gruyter.