The Role of Gender in Verbal Disagreement: A Study of Disagreement Strategies Employed by Hungarian Undergraduate Students
Open Access
|Feb 2013
References
- Coates, J. 1989. ‘Gossip Revisited: Language in All-Female Groups’ in J. Coates and D. Cameron (eds.). Women in their Speech Communities. London: Longman, pp.75-94.
- Culpeper, J. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Edelsky, C. 1981. ‘Who’s Got the Floor?’ in Language in Society. 10 /3, pp.383-421.
- Georgakopoulou, A. 2001. ‘Arguing about the Future: on Indirect Disagreements in Conversations’ in Journal of Pragmatics. 33, pp.1881-1900.
- Guiller, J. and A. Durndell. 2006. ‘‘I totally agree with you’: Gender Interactions in Educational Online Discussion Groups’ in Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 22, pp. 368-381.
- Holtgraves, T. M. 1997. ‘Yes, but...: Positive Politeness in Conversation Arguments’ in Journal ofLanguage and Social Psychology. 16, pp.222-239.
- Kakavá, C. 1995. ‘Directness and Indirectness in Professor-Student Interactions: The Intersection of Contextual and Cultural Constraints’ in Georgetown University Round Table, pp.229-246.
- Koczogh, H. V. 2011. ‘Gender Differences in Disagreement Strategies Employed by Speakers of Hungarian’ in California Linguistic Notes. 36/2 [Online]. Available: http://hss.fullerton.edu/linguistics/cln/Sp2011PDF/Koczogh-GenderDiff.pdf [2011, September 25].
- Kotthoff, H. 1993. ‘Disagrement and Concession in Disputes: on the Context Sensitivity of Preference Structures’ in Language in Society. 22, pp.193-216.
- Lakoff, R. 1975. ‘Language and Women’s Place’ in Language and Society. 2, pp.45-80.
- Locher, M. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Muntigl, P. and W. Turnbull. 1998. ‘Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing’ in Journal ofPragmatics. 29/3, pp.225-256.
- Pilkington, J. 1992. ‘‘Don’t try and make out that I’m nice!’ The Different Strategies Women and Men Use when Gossiping’ in Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics. 5, pp.37-60.
- Pomerantz, A. 1984. ‘Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes’ in J. Atkinson and J. Heritage, (eds.). Structures of SocialAction: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Rees-Miller, J. 1995. Linguistic Features of Disagreement in Face-to-Face Encounters in UniversitySettings. Unpublished PhD thesis. SUNY at Stony Brook.
- Rees-Miller, J. 2000. ‘Power, Severity, and Context in Disagreement’ in Journal of Pragmatics. 32, pp.1087-1111.
- Sacks, H. 1987. ‘On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation’ in G. Button and J.R. Lee (eds.). Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp.54-69.
- Schiffrin, D. 1985. ‘Everyday Argument: The Organization of Diversity in Talk’ in T. van Dijk (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press, pp.35-46.
- Sornig, K. 1977. ‘Disagreement and Contradiction as Communicative Acts’ in Journal of Pragmatics. 1, pp.347-374.
- Tannen, D. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.
Language: English
Page range: 233 - 244
Published on: Feb 8, 2013
Published by: West University of Timisoara
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Related subjects:
© 2013 Helga Vanda Koczogh, published by West University of Timisoara
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.