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.