A Pragmatic Study Of The Mitigating Strategies For Interpersonal Conflicts In Unequal Power Relations

Since former studies of conflict talk have hardly touched upon the follow-ups of conflict talk whose function is to alleviate the antagonism and/or weaken the verbal confrontation so as to finally realize the mitigation of the conversation, this study tries to make some contributions to this aspect. A qualitative as well as quantitative study is carried out on the basis of data from a few Chinese official novels, attempting to ans-wer three research questions:(1) What mitigating strategies are used when conflict occurs in superior-subordinate verbal interactions?(2) What interpersonal functions can these mitigating strategies fulfill?(3) How does the choice of mitigating strategies adapt to superior-subordinate relations?Firstly, mitigating strategies in this study are defined as a group of redressive/repair strategies that speakers employ with the intention to weaken verbal confronta-tion, reduce the antagonism or tension between the participants and achieve, finally, a certain communicative goal. Based on a comprehensive analysis, we classify the mitigating strategies in our study into eight categories:1) use of utterances to contain the conflict, which specifically includes ⅰ) use of utterances to suppress the conflict and ⅱ) direct dissuasion (with implicit apologies);2) disclaiming one’s intention;3) expression of denial;4) offering justification or explanation;5) offering way out, which specifically includes ⅰ) proposal of solution, and ⅱ) promise of forbearance;6) expression of (partial) concession, which includes ⅰ) acknowledgement of one’s fault or deficiency, ⅱ) explicit apologies, and ⅲ) expression of agreement or acceptance;7) claiming common ground, which specifically includes i) paying compliments, ⅱ) expressing understanding and ⅲ) showing concern;8) use of address terms. These strategies can either be adopted by interlocutors who cause conflict or by those who produce conflicting responses; and can either be directed at the conflict per se or at the negative emotions or tension only. Besides, statistical results show that the three most occurred strategies are use of address terms, offering justification or explanation and expression of (partial) concession.Secondly, based on Verschueren’s Linguistic Adaptation Theory, we condense the interpersonal functions of these mitigating strategies into two general categories:one is to settle interpersonal conflicts by weakening the face or identity attack to the other party, offering chances to negotiate or resolve the conflict and implementing persua-sion; and the other is to restore/enhance interpersonal relationship by highlighting deference, building solidarity and pacifying.Finally, the study explores the question as to how interlocutors choose mitigating strategies to adapt to their unequal power relations. The power in our study refers to the rights and authority that the interlocutors are endowed with by the organizational ranks to control or command others. On the one hand, we find that the circumstances that would decide the interlocutors to use mitigating strategies differ greatly. For those in lower power position, they may use mitigating strategies whenever they sense the negative emotions and confrontation from the other party (whether they are in the wrong or not); or put it differently, the speakers are being "altruistic". For those in higher power position, they almost only use mitigating strategies when they are in the wrong, or feel that they have overreacted, or want to control the conversation in a mitigated way; in other words, the speakers in these cases are being "egoistic". On the other hand, the interlocutors also behave quite differently in the choice of mitigating strategies. Speakers with more power generally would exploit strategies indicating imposition or superiority or with little face cost, while speakers with less power would try to rescue the hearers’ face with some face-costing strategies.In a word, this study provides a guideline for the proper handling of interpersonal conflicts in daily communication. Only when the interlocutors exploit proper and effective mitigating strategies to deal with conflicts, can they achieve their communi-cative goals successfully and construct a harmonious interpersonal relationship with others.