THE REALIZATION OF DISAGREEMENT STRATEGIES BY NON NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH

Ahmad Sofwan(1), Eko Suwignyo(2),

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/lc.v6i1.2045


(1) English Department of Language and Arts Faculty, Semarang State University Indonesia
(2) STIKES Aisyiyah Surakarta

Abstract

This study is meant to investigate the realization of disagreement strategies by non-nativespeakers of English by eliciting data through DCT and role plays from two groups of students:first year students and third year students of English Department. The DCTs and role playscontain 24 situations which are designed in different issues and social status. The resultshowed that most students realized disagreement through contradiction, counterclaim,irrelevancy claim, contradiction and counterclaim, and challenges related to personalinvolvement and non-personal involvement issues in different social status. The contradictionstrategy was dominantly used by the students. Some students realized disagreement throughthe combination of counterclaim and challenge strategy in equal and high-low status related topersonal involvement, and equal and low-high status related to non-personal involvement. Inthis case, students did not only disagree by producing counterclaim response but alsochallenged the previous speaker to provide more evidence related to his/her statement. Thefindings also showed that there is no pragmatic development from first year students to thirdyear students because they produced disagreement strategy in the same way although theyhad different English proficiency level.

Keywords

pragmatics; disagreement strategies; non-native speakers

Full Text:

PDF

References

Cohen, A. D. 1996. Speech acts. In S. Mackay, & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching

(pp. 383-420). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grimshaw, A. D., (Eds.) 1990. Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Honda, A. 2002. Conflict management in Japanese public affairs talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, pp. 573-

Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. 1981. Argument as a natural category: The routine grounds for arguing in conversation.

Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45 (2), pp. 118-32.

Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. 1993. Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. 1991. Research method in interlanguage pragmatics. Hawai: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

Liang and Han. 2005. A contrastive study on disagreement strategies for politeness between American English and Chinese. Asian EFL journal, 7 (1), pp. 6-7.

Levinson, S. C. 1989. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. 1998. Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, pp. 225-256.

Moyer. 2000. Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Spanish-English bilingual conversations with “noâ€. The

international Journal of Bilingualism, 4 (4). pp. 485-504.

Miao. 2006. An interlanguage study of the speech act of disagreement made by Chinese EFL speakers in Taiwan.

Unpublished Thesis. National Sun Yat Sen University.

Sacks, H. 1973. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. Public lecture at the Linguistic Institute, University of Michigan. In G. Button

and J.R. Lee (Eds.). Talk and social organization (pp. 54-69). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License