Of the republic of uzbekistan tashkent state pedagogical university named after nizami

1.2 Different approaches to expressing agreement and disagreement in English
Disagreements can be appraised in many ways from supportive (e.g., disagreeing with a poor self-assessment) to quite oppositional, and situational context is important in evaluating which function is being served. Situational context might also encompass no longer solely the talk’s referential content however also factors such as interactants’ social and regional affiliations, ethnicity and gender, which can also predispose them to realize and interpret disagreements in a specific way. Also pertinent are interlocutors’ personal characteristics, face preservation concerns and relational histories, the non-public or public setting, and the variety of participants in the interaction, all of which make a contribution to the joint constitution of extemporaneous norms for evaluating speech conduct in a given social situation. [22,38]These norms are consequently specific to communities of exercise (i.e., groups of people sharing a profession or knowledge) and negotiated over time, and are central to any investigation of disagreement-oriented talk. Some unique sorts of disagreement which have been recognized are: conflictual disagreement, sociable disagreement, and administrative center disagreement.
Conflictual disagreement
Conflictual disagreements are oppositional, face-attacking acts that arouse in the addressee thoughts of annoyance, irritation, anger, contempt, or disgust in quite a number degrees. Muntigl and Turnbull identified 5 sorts of conflictual disagreement[23,44]:
 irrelevancy claims (the previous claim is now not relevant to the discussion at hand, e.g., T1: Yes it should be such a big deal due to the truth I’m shifting in a week. / T2: So what.);
 challenges (a speaker questions an addressee’s prior claim and demands that the addressee provides proof for their declare while suggesting that the addressee cannot do so, e.g., T1: Cause if grandma gave Joe a cheque that’d be different. / T2: Why?);
 contradictions (a speaker contradicts via the usage of uttering the negated proposition expressed with the aid of way of the previous claim, e.g., T1: It doesn’t count number range who it was. / T2: Yes it does.);
 counterclaims (speakers advocate an alternative declare that does now no longer immediately contradict or challenge the other’s claim, e.g., T1: I haven’t obtained an objection to a ten-thirty cellphone and an eleven-thirty come-in, looks 1/2 way between your current curfew and some of your friends’ curfew. / T2: Yeah then again it’s nevertheless no longer what I like.); and
 a mixture of contradictions and counterclaims. Irrelevancy claims and challenges are considered the most potentially stressful to addressees’ face, while contradictions, counterclaims, and mixtures of the two are more argumentative and therefore doubtlessly more centered on resolution.