17 Sep 2021
0 Comments

Get

RQ 1: Distribution of disagreement characteristics reported in the literature The analysis shows that there is a close link between the plot conveyed in a twist and its phonetic format. The second comments can be formatted in a lexical and syntactic way to give the correspondence (for example.B. this is not good news / yes, it is very good news), but given the good phonetic form, they are treated as a projective disagreement. This highlights the importance of phonetics for building the importance of the participants. In addition to the fact that native speakers rarely use the performative I Disagree in friendly conversations that are not aimed at arguments (Pearson, 1986); Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Burdine, 2001), is characterized by attenuation of its strategies for expressing differences of opinion, i.e. by ways to reduce the frankness of disagreement and, consequently, the strength of the free trade agreement. In the words of Brown and Levinson (1987), this means that native speakers often choose to implement the off-record free trade agreement, that is, indirectly, unlike the direct route called on-record. Other reduction terms found in the literature are plasticizers (Pearson, 1986); Beebe & Takahashi, 1989) and repair (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Hayashi, 1996; Bell, 1998). Jacobs, S., &Jackson, p. (1981). Argument as a natural category: The routine reasons for arguing in conversation. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45.2. 118-32.

In the third stage, actual differences of opinion were analysed in three ways. Initially, the presence of the characteristics in question was counted for NS and NNS and then compared. Second, the nonparametric correlation coefficient Kendall`s Tau, a measure suitable for small sample sizes with ordinal data, was defined for NNS data, in order to analyze the possible relationships between performance level and de-educationalizations. Third, responses that expressed differences of opinion were the subject of a new qualitative analysis of possible responses to QR 3. All striking characteristics not covered by the categories listed in RQ 1 were repeatedly noted and analysed for other patterns of NS and/or NNS disagreement. Finally, non-native participants showed some familiarity with hedges, token agreements, and proposals to mitigate or resolve disagreement. But what they need to be taught explicitly is to use these reduction devices (and all the others) at the beginning of their statements, not just at the end to tone down the dispred vocal act in advance. Non-natives are perceived as much more polite and native when trying to apply this model and will end up being more effective in communicating their messages.

As has been said before about stopping messages, it is important to keep in mind that, in some cases, native speakers use unconditional differences of opinion. Interestingly, the situations in which NSs have decided not to use risk reduction are identical to those in which they decide not to abandon their message, i.e. situations 4, 7 and 10. This finding is also consistent with the assumptions of Bulge`s theory. . . .


Comments are closed.