Disagreements, face and politeness

Disagreement can be defined as the expression of a view that differs from that expressed by another speaker. Yet, in the relevant literature, disagreement is mostly seen as confrontational and should thus be mitigated or avoided. In CA terms, it is a “dispreferred” second. Similarly, in earlier politeness theories, disagreement is seen to verge on impoliteness. In contrast, recent research has shown that disagreement need not be seen only in negative terms, that is, it may not necessarily result in conflict and impoliteness, but can be a sign of intimacy and sociability and may not destroy but rather strengthen interlocutors’ relationships.This paper suggests that disagreements are complex, multidirectional and multifunctional acts, which prevent straightforward labelling such as face-threatening/enhancing, (dis)preferred or (im)polite acts. There is inter- and intra-cultural variation depending on various contextual parameters. Significantly, interlocutors have personal traits and relational histories that predispose them to particular strategies and specific evaluations. The claim being disputed in any current interaction may have roots not just in previous turns of the same interaction but also in previous interactions and this should be taken into account when analysing discourse.