| Based on three representative case studies of disagreement in Japanese, this dissertation argues for a fundamental disagreement structure that is a critical element in the broader interactional constraints of disagreement.; The fundamental disagreement structure observed in these data sets is as follows: the next turn speaker selects his or her turn (i.e., disagreement turns tend to be optional) and also the point to be disagreed with in the prior turn speaker's utterance by referring to it explicitly or implicitly, then presenting his or her own contrasting point. Forming a contrast is obligatory, imposing the structural constraints. Thus once an explicit contrast is formed, also because of the optionality of the disagreement turn, no response to the disagreement implies a possible agreement; thus an interlocked competitive turn-taking with simultaneous talking/overlaps ensues. How to identify an argumentative point is therefore critical.; This identification is shown to be through a mechanism called tying, a term for the connection between a previous speaker's utterance and the subsequent speaker's utterance. This tying can be direct, through the use of exact repetition, thematic wa, addressee terms, etc., or indirect, through the use of paraphrase repetition, parallelism, inclusive 'and', etc.; Direct tying is found among speakers intimate with each other and indirect tying in other situations. The distinction of indirect tying strategies from direct ones lies in the avoidance of identifying the speaker being disagreed with. Direct tying strategies focus exclusively on an explicitly identified point to be argued and possibly explicit speaker identification. Two data sets illustrating indirect tying strategies show a further distinction: sharing inferential knowledge allows for the formation of a contrast without identifiable tying to the argumentative point but relying on a parallel structure of the sequential turn order in one group; in the other group, of American and Japanese businessmen, contrast is formed by barely recognizable paraphrase repetition of the argumentative points within a turn. This approach to analyzing disagreement sheds light on the systematic strategies employed in each situation, where speakers manage to deal with disagreement structural constraints while satisfying other specific sociocultural and interactional constraints. |
