Wildan Nurul Aini


Abstract: This study investigates the realization  of disagreement strategies employed by Indonesian speakers.  The strategies are then related to the interlocutor’s level of power. The data is collected using DCT Type B adapted from Azis (2000) and analysed using adapted disagreement strategies from Muntigl and Turnbull (1998) and Chen (2006). The results shows that Indonesian speakers tend to use different disagreement strategies to different level of power of the interlocutor.  To the interlocutor with the higher power (the superior), the speakers tend to use counterclaims and no disagreement strategies. In addition, to the speakers with the same level of power, the contradiction strategy is preferred. In the meantime, to the interlocutor with the lower level of power, the speakers are likely to choose challenge. These various selections of disagreement strategies are also influenced by concept of FTAs of Brown and Levinson (1987).

Keywords: disagreement, power, face, FTAs


Full Text:



Al-Omari, S. K., & Abu-Melhim, A.-R. (2013). Promising as a speech act in Jordanian Arabic. International Forum in Teaching and Studies, 9(1).

Aziz, E. A. (2000). Indonesian speech act realization in face-threatening situations. Monash University Linguistics Papers, 2(2), 15-41.

Beebe, L., & Cummings, M. C. (1995). Natural speech act versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affect speech act performances. In S. Gass, & J. Neu, Speech Acts Across Cultures (pp. 65-86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bell, J. (2005). Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social sciences (4th ed.). Berkshire: McGraw-Hill International.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Lingistics, 5(3), 196-213.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, M.-t. (2006). An interlanguage of the speech act of disagreement made by Chinese speakers in Taiwan [Thesis]. Kaohsiung: National Sun Yat-Sen University.

Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). London: Longman.

Fernández, S. S. (2013). The linguistic realization of disagreement by EFL egyptian speakers [Thesis]. Madrid: Universidad Complutense Madrid.

Grundy, P. (2008). Doing pragmatics. London: Hodder Education.

Han, J., & Liang, G. (2005). A contrastive study on disagreement strategies for politeness between American English and Mandarin Chinese. Asian EFL Journal, 7(1), 155-166.

Huock, N., & Gass, S. M. (1995). Non-native refusals: A methodological persperctive. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu, Sppech Acts Across Cultures (pp. 54-64). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Muntigl, P. A., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3), 225-256.

Nurani, L. M. (2009). Methodological issue in pragmatics research. Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 17(8), 667-678.

Orfano, B. M. (2012). You're so not talking to me like that: anaylsing conflict talk in a corpus of sitcom discourse. Proceedings of the VIIth GSCP International Conference: Speech and Corpora, pp. 331-334.

Siafanau, M. (2012). Disagreements, face, and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1554-1564.

Varghese, M., & Billmyer, K. (1996). Investigating the discourse completion tests. Working Paper in Educational Linguistics, 12(1), 39-58.

Xuehua, W. (2006). A study of strategy use in showing agreement and disagreement to other opinions. CELEA Journal, 29(5), 55-65.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c)

View My Stats

Creative Commons License style=
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License