The Role of Gender in Verbal Disagreement: A Study of Disagreement Strategies Employed by Hungarian Undergraduate Students

• Authors: Helga Vanda Koczogh
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The aim of the paper is to present the results of a study on the interplay of gender and disagreement strategies employed by Hungarian undergraduate students. The data for analysis is a corpus of oral face-to-face dyadic interactions; the methodology makes use of both qualitative and quantitative tools and involves identifying disagreement strategies on the basis of previous research as well as patterns emerging from the corpus. The results of the study contradict previous claims that in comparison to men, women disagree less frequently and, when they do disagree, they employ less direct strategies

Keywords

EN

disagreement strategies; gender differences; Hungarian; im/politeness; sociopragmatics

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Gender Studies
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 11
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 233-244

Dates

published

2012-12-01

online

2013-02-08

Contributors

author

Helga Vanda Koczogh

• University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1, Hungary

References

• Coates, J. 1989. ‘Gossip Revisited: Language in All-Female Groups’ in J. Coates and D. Cameron (eds.). Women in their Speech Communities. London: Longman, pp.75-94.
• Culpeper, J. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Edelsky, C. 1981. ‘Who’s Got the Floor?’ in Language in Society. 10 /3, pp.383-421.
• Georgakopoulou, A. 2001. ‘Arguing about the Future: on Indirect Disagreements in Conversations’ in Journal of Pragmatics. 33, pp.1881-1900.
• Guiller, J. and A. Durndell. 2006. ‘‘I totally agree with you’: Gender Interactions in Educational Online Discussion Groups’ in Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 22, pp. 368-381.
• Holtgraves, T. M. 1997. ‘Yes, but...: Positive Politeness in Conversation Arguments’ in Journal ofLanguage and Social Psychology. 16, pp.222-239.
• Kakavá, C. 1995. ‘Directness and Indirectness in Professor-Student Interactions: The Intersection of Contextual and Cultural Constraints’ in Georgetown University Round Table, pp.229-246.
• Koczogh, H. V. 2011. ‘Gender Differences in Disagreement Strategies Employed by Speakers of Hungarian’ in California Linguistic Notes. 36/2 [Online]. Available: http://hss.fullerton.edu/linguistics/cln/Sp2011PDF/Koczogh-GenderDiff.pdf [2011, September 25].
• Kotthoff, H. 1993. ‘Disagrement and Concession in Disputes: on the Context Sensitivity of Preference Structures’ in Language in Society. 22, pp.193-216.
• Lakoff, R. 1975. ‘Language and Women’s Place’ in Language and Society. 2, pp.45-80.
• Locher, M. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Muntigl, P. and W. Turnbull. 1998. ‘Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing’ in Journal ofPragmatics. 29/3, pp.225-256.
• Pilkington, J. 1992. ‘‘Don’t try and make out that I’m nice!’ The Different Strategies Women and Men Use when Gossiping’ in Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics. 5, pp.37-60.
• Pomerantz, A. 1984. ‘Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes’ in J. Atkinson and J. Heritage, (eds.). Structures of SocialAction: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rees-Miller, J. 1995. Linguistic Features of Disagreement in Face-to-Face Encounters in UniversitySettings. Unpublished PhD thesis. SUNY at Stony Brook.
• Rees-Miller, J. 2000. ‘Power, Severity, and Context in Disagreement’ in Journal of Pragmatics. 32, pp.1087-1111.
• Sacks, H. 1987. ‘On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation’ in G. Button and J.R. Lee (eds.). Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp.54-69.
• Schiffrin, D. 1985. ‘Everyday Argument: The Organization of Diversity in Talk’ in T. van Dijk (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press, pp.35-46.
• Sornig, K. 1977. ‘Disagreement and Contradiction as Communicative Acts’ in Journal of Pragmatics. 1, pp.347-374.
• Tannen, D. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10320-012-0042-5