MITIGATED DISAGREEMENT IN LEARNER DISCUSSION FORA: A FACILITATOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Magdalena Szczyrbak

doi:10.5817/DI2013-1-55

MITIGATED DISAGREEMENT IN LEARNER DISCUSSION FORA: A FACILITATOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Vol.6,No.1(2013)

Magdalena Szczyrbak

https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2013-1-55

PDF

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to focus on one aspect of English learners’ pragmatic competence which can be effi ciently developed through threaded discussions, i.e. on the dispreferred speech act of disagreement. The author shares her experience of using online discussion fora in Practical English classes designed for third-year students. She comments on the linguistic resources used by the students to express mitigated disagreement and, further, she discusses the role of the instructor in facilitating interactional coherence. The author reaches the conclusion that asynchronous discussion fora can be useful in developing English learners’ pragmatic strategies, provided that online collaboration is carefully and wisely planned, and encouraged by a dedicated and enthusiastic instructor.

Keywords:
asynchronous discourse; Concession; disagreement; mitigation

References

Barth-Weingarten, D. (2003) Concession in Spoken English. On the Realisation of a
Discourse-Pragmatic Relation. Tübingen: Narr.

Bonk, C. J. and Graham, Ch. R. (eds) (2006) The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global
Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Caffi, C. and Janney, R. (1994) ‘Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication.’
Journal of Pragmatics 22/3-4, 325-373. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/0378216694901155. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90115-5

Clark, H. H. (1996) Using Language. New York: Press Syndicate of the University of
Cambridge.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Thompson, S. A. (1999) ‘On the concessive relation in
conversational English.’ In: Neumann, F. W. and Schuelting, S. (eds) Anglistentag
1998 Erfurt: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. 29-39.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Thompson, S. A. (2000) ‘Concessive patterns in conversation.’ In:
Couper Kuhlen, E. and Kortmann, B. (eds) Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast:
Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
381-410.

Crystal, D. (2004) Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Czerwionka, L. (2010) The Mitigation Process in Spanish discourse: Motivations,
Linguistic Analyses, and Effects on Interaction and Interlocutors. (PhD dissertation).
University of Texas.

Fraser, B. (1980) ‘Conversational mitigation.’ Journal of Pragamatics 4/4, 341-350.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378216680900296. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6

Glaser, K. (2009) ‘Acquiring pragmatic competence in a foreign language – Mastering
dispreferred speech acts.’ Topics in Linguistics 4, 50-57.

Grzenia, J. (2006) Komunikacja językowa w Internecie. Warszawa: PWN.

Haverkate, H. (1992) ‘Deictic categories as mitigating devices.’ Pragmatics 2/4, 505-522. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.2.4.03hav

Levinson, S. C. (2006) ‘On the human “interaction engine.”’ In: Enfi eld, N. and Levinson,
S. C. (eds) Roots of Human Sociality. Oxford: Berg. 39-69.

Locher, M. A. (2004) Power and Politeness in Action. Disagreements in Oral
Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Martinovski, B., Mao, W., Gratch, J., Marsella, S. (2005) ‘Mitigation theory: An integrated
approach.’ In: Bar, B. G., Barsalou, L. And Bucciarelli, M. (eds) Proceedings of Cog
Sci 2005. Stresa. 1407-1412. http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/Proceedings/2005/
index.htm

Nichols, M. (2009) E-Primer Series. No. 4: Online discourse. Auckland, May 2009.
Online document. 30 August 2012 <https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/download/ng/fi le/
group-661/n2304-online-discourse--4-in-eprimer-series-pdf.pdf>.

Pinker S. (2007) ‘The evolutionary social psychology of off-record indirect speech acts.’
Intercultural Pragmatics 4/4, 437-461. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.023

Metrics