Magdalena Szczyrbak


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.


asynchronous discourse; Concession; disagreement; mitigation

Full Text:


Show references Hide 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nichols, M. (2009) E-Primer Series. No. 4: Online discourse. Auckland, May 2009.
Online document. 30 August 2012 < le/

Pinker S. (2007) ‘The evolutionary social psychology of off-record indirect speech acts.’
Intercultural Pragmatics 4/4, 437-461.

Crossref Cited-by (1)

The listed references are provided by Cited-by (Crossref service) and thus do not represent the full list of sources citing the article.

1. Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of Mitigation in Advice
Carolina Figueras Bates
Corpus Pragmatics  vol: 4,  issue: 1,  first page: 31,  year: 2020

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.