4.6 Comparison of children’s and adults’ oppositions
4.6.2 Disagreement in children and adults
With regard to disagreement, we make a comparison with Lin (1999), a study
exploring naturally-occurring disagreement by adults. However, we revise Lin’s
classification to account for our data, which makes it difficult to have a systematic
one-on-one comparison. The comparison of disagreement between the present study and
Lin (1999) is shown in Table 10. In Lin’s classification, simple negation is excluded
and taken as a linguistic device. Here, we include the tokens of simple negation in Lin
(1999) and the distribution of each category is reproduced. Here, only the mutual (54)
1
2
A: 走，到對面咖啡店，我請你喝咖啡
B: 改天改天吧改天好嗎
‘Let’s go to the coffee shop across the street. Let me treat you.’
‘Another day. Another day. How about another day?’
strategies are compared, as highlighted with gray. The mutual strategies include simple
negation, account, suggestion, evasion, refutation, correction, and clarification. Among
the seven strategies, simple negation, refutation, correction are aggressive while
account, suggestion, evasion, and clarification are passive strategies.
Table 10. Comparison of children’s and adults’ disagreements Strategy of disagreement The present study Lin’s
Simple negation 19.44%(124) 13.48%(162)
Account 15.36%(98) 22.55%(271)
Suggestion 1.88%(12) 0.92%(11)
Evasion 3.45%(22) 1.99%(24)
Refutation 20.38%(130) 16.22%(195)
Correction 2.50%(16) 27.53% (331)
Clarification 1.88%(12) 9.32%(112)
Threat 11.13%(71) -
Minimal disagreement token 23.98%(153) -
Defense - 6.16%(74)
Partial agreement - 1.83%(22)
Total 638 1202
Table 10 shows that adults have the greatest preference for correction, which takes
up 27.53%. Among children, however, correction is not favored. It occupies a small
proportion (i.e., 2.50%). The secondarily frequent strategy used by adults is account, constituting 22.55%. In children’s disagreement, it takes up 15.36%. In succession with
account, refutation is used commonly by adults, accounting for 16.22%. Similar to the
results in adults, refutation is regularly used by children. It is the most frequent strategy
126
used by children. It accounts for 20.38%. The remaining strategies, clarification,
evasion, and suggestion, are not used as frequently as others. Each percentage is lower
than 10%. Similar results are found among children. The least frequent strategy used
by adults is suggestion. As in children’s disagreement, suggestion and clarification are
equally infrequent.
As disagreement can be distinguished into aggressive and passive ones
(Pomerantz, 1984; Tu, 2014), we compare the tokens of these two types produced by
children (i.e., this study) and adults (i.e., Lin, 1999). The distributions of aggressive
and passive strategies are summarized in Table 11. The comparison regards all
strategies used in each study. Aggressive strategies in Lin (1999) include simple
negation, refutation, and correction. In addition to the three types, threat and MDT are
considered aggressive and included in the present study. Account, suggestion, evasion,
clarification, defense, and partial agreement are passive ones in Lin (1999). The present
study, however, excludes defense and partial agreement from the passive forms since
they are seldom exploited by children. Table 11 indicates that both children and adults
have a preference for aggressive forms. The aggressive strategies used by children take
up more than 70%. Passive ones constitute 22.57%. There is a large difference between
passive and aggressive categories by children. As for adults, aggressive forms account
for 57.24% and passive ones occupy 42.76%. Although the results show that adults
prefer aggressive strategies to passive ones, adults’ difference between these two
categories seems to be less significant than children’s.
Table 11. Distribution of aggressive and passive strategies by different ages Strategy of disagreement The present study Lin’s
Aggressive 77.43% (494) 57.24%(688)
Passive 22.57% (144) 42.76% (514)
Total 100% (638) 100% (1202)
Table 10 and 11 suggest that children resemble adults in disagreement. Based on
Table 10, these two age groups primarily differ in the use of correction. To find out the
possible account for the difference, we take a look at the definition of correction in this
study and in Lin (1999). Although we follow Lin’s definition, correction in the present study is different from Lin’s. In Lin (1999), correction does not stick to contextual
incorrectness. It copes not only with incorrect contents but with incorrect assumptions.
The present study, in contrast, defines correction as a strategy solely used to deal with
incorrect contents. Lin’s definition is revised since we find that children rarely correct
other’s assumption. In other words, lower graders have mastered correcting
linguistically realized contents; however, they still have difficulty in correcting
128
assumption-based arguments. It is suggested that children around eight years old do not
perform critical reasoning (e.g., making inferences) as well as adults.
Aside from the mutual categories, it is found that some of the categories occur in
a specific age group but happen to be unavailable in the other. As shown in Table 10,
children show disagreements by using threats and minimal disagreement tokens, which
are unmentioned in Lin (1999). These two types are considered aggressive since they
directly cause the hearer to lose his/her face. Threats are unseen in Lin’s examples. As
for MDT, it is the most frequent category used by children. A large number of the tokens
increase the frequency of the aggressive strategies (see Table 10 and Table 11). Its high
frequency is a possible indication that children do disagree more directly than adults.
Some minimal disagreement tokens are found in Lin (1999), as mentioned later in this
sections. However, it seems that its occurrence among adults is too infrequent to be
particularly discussed in Lin (1999). In contrast to children, adults have two extra
passive strategies. The two additional categories are partial agreement and defense (see
Table 10). Partial agreement refers to the utterances that start with an agreement token
before giving an opposing opinion. Defense, similar to account, is used to convince the
interlocutor by giving objective evidence. With two extra aggressive strategies and less
passive ones, adults are assumed to be more indirect than children in expressing
opposing ideas.
In addition to a quantitative comparison, we qualitatively compare the
disagreement strategies used by children and adults. In the following discussion,
examples from Lin (1999) are presented to demonstrate the similarities and disparities
between children and adults. Since the transcription system adopted here is different from Lin’s, the transcription symbols in Lin’s examples are modified in order to be
consistent with the present study.
As above-mentioned, children make use of challenge and verbal abuse to show
opposition. Despite focusing on disagreement, some examples in Lin (1999) do regard
verbal abuse, as presented in (55).
(55) ((A was complaining that someone ate up all the cookies)) 1
After hearing A’s complaints, B mocked A’s weight. In response to the tease, A did
self-130
defense in a jocular way and playfully criticized B, as shown in line 3. A did not take
the tease seriously, which could be inferred from his laughter. According to Lin (1999),
adults make use of mocking to show solidarity. Hence, to be impolite is a sign of
intimacy (Kuo, 1992; Lin, 1999). This example shows that the purpose of adult mocking is dissimilar to that of children’s. Adult verbal abuse can be used not only to
attack others but also to establish a bond of familiarity. On the contrary, our data show
that children merely make use of verbal abuse to attack and embarrass their peers. The
purpose of establishing and maintaining a close relationship can hardly be seen.
Returning to disagreement, adults do use direct ways to express their opposing
opinions. The following examples, from (56) to (67), reveal the use of aggravated
strategies in adult disagreements. They are exactly similar to those used by children.
(56) ((A and B were talking about the time when B would leave for Taipei.)) 1
Example (56) is a typical correction. B applied a simple negation to negate firstly. Then,
a correct answer to A’s question was provided. Responses like line 3 are quite common
among children.
In addition to simple negation, other aggravated forms are observable. Example
(57) depicts a conversation between A and B. Here, we notice the use of three strategies,
criticism, refutation, and clarification. Here in the example, we only pay attention to
the aggressive ones. The passive type (i.e., clarification) is left to the part regarding
differences between children and adults.
(57) ((A and B were discussing the place where A had been living for a long time.))
1 living here for years. You mean people living here are not human beings?’
‘No…I mean…I mean…’
‘This house…people living in this house’
Above, B initiated a challenge. He firstly made a negative comment on the place where
A had been resident for years. The challenge was in a question form. In the context, B
did not mean to attack his interactant but just to be humorous and to show how surprised
he was through exaggeration. However, A apparently misunderstood and distorted B’s
meaning. He even asked another question to inquire B’s intention (see line 2). Such
types of challenge and refutation are as noticeable as in children’s opposition.
132
disagreement token. In Lin’s classification, MDT is not listed as a category. However,
we still notice a few of them in her examples, as presented below.
(58) ((A and B were chatting.))
‘I heard that there are many…your skin color makes you right for the Airport on the first day (of our trip).’
‘Why did it occur to you?’
At first, B teased about A’s skin color. To stop B from continuing the tease, A interrupted B’s utterances. The use of MDT, 哪有 năyŏu ‘nonsense’, showed her strong opposition
(see line 2). B, still, insisted on making fun of A, as shown in line 3. To express her
disagreement, again, another MDT (i.e., 亂講 luànjiăng ‘wild-talk’) was used by A,
which elicited doubt from B (i.e., line 5). Then, A used an MDT to refute the challenge
from B. Following the MDT, A further used the strategy of evasion, as presented in line
6. She purposely switched to another topic irrelevant to the prior argument. In this
example, two types of MDT are observed, including 哪有 năyŏu ‘nonsense’ and 亂講
luànjiăng ‘wild-talk’. They are as common as in children’s disputes. Other innovative
formulaic expressions are found in this study but absent in Lin (1999) since we
collected data in different times.
To aggressively disagree, the interactant may impede the speaker from finishing
his turn. In (59), A and B were arguing over the term of a people. A refuted B’s claim
with an interruption, which signaled her strong disagreement and impatience. Similar
examples are found in children’s opposition, such as in (47).
(59) ((A and B were discussing the name of Chinese people.)) 1
2
B: 所以中國人又叫做河洛人啊..所以我們 河洛人就是..對[人家
A: [可是河洛人不是指閩南 人嗎
‘So Chinese people are also known as Hoklo people. So we Hoklo people…to others…’
‘But Hoklo people means Min-nan, right?’
More than similarities, dissimilarities between children and adults are observed.
In comparison with children, adults are more likely to utilize various linguistic features,
such as modals, contrast markers, and qualifiers, to reduce the strength of disagreement.
Those markers are quite omnipresent. Examples drawn from Lin (1999) are exhibited
as follows. The linguistic markers used in each example are underlined.
Example (60) is concerned with a chain of disagreements. It demonstrates the
employment of contrast markers (e.g., 可是 kěshì ‘but’, and 其實 qíshí ‘in fact’) and
modals (e.g., 好像 hăoxiàng ‘may’, and 可能 kěnéng ‘might’) in disagreements. In
134
the example, B firstly claimed that Chinese people are also known as Hoklo people.
This claim was refuted by A, as in line 2. A’s refutation began with a contrast marker
可是 kěshì ‘but’, signaling the beginning of an opposing argument. In response to A’s
refutation, B directly negated with a simple negation, and restated his own claim.
Insisting on disagreeing with B, A expressed his opposition once again but in a
mitigating way. He used a modal 好像 hăoxiàng ‘seem to be’ to express his opposing
idea. The modal implied his uncertainty and played a role in avoiding direct conflicts.
(60) ((A and B were discussing the name of Chinese people.)) 1
‘So Chinese people are also known as Hoklo people’
‘But Hoklo means Min-nan, right?’
‘No…No…it refers to Chinese.’
‘But (I) think that refers to Min-nan.’
The above example shows how contrast markers and modals are used to mitigate
disagreements. It is found that these markers are not used in a specific strategy. Instead,
they are found in other strategies as well. For instance, the contrast marker 不過 búguò
‘but’ was used to signal the beginning of an account in example (61). By giving this
contrast marker, B could clearly expressed his own opinion in a mitigating way.
(61) ((A and B were discussing the weather.)) 1 A: 不是說下到=..eh..<L2 無無 L2>下到
二月底之後..然後就..開始就..
‘Was it reported that the rain won’t stop until the end of
2 B: (0)我不知道..不過早上=..看今天氣象..
是說=..嗯=..禮拜六禮拜天又有一股..比 較..強烈的..冷..冷氣團..算鋒面又要來 了..所以溫度又要下降了
February? Then, it will start to…’
‘I have no idea. But I watched the weather forecast this morning. It said that a relatively strong cold air mass will arrive this Saturday or Sunday. This will lead to a temperature drop ’
Within the strategy of account, pre-announcement markers are often found.
Pre-announcement markers in Chinese include 就是 jiùshì ‘that is…’, 問題是 wèntí shì
‘the problem is…’, 我覺得 wŏ juéde ‘in my opinion…’, and 我是說 wŏ shì shuo ‘I
mean…’ (Lin, 1999, p.47). The following example exhibits the use of 問題是 wèntí
shì ‘the problem is…’, signaling the explanation of a high expense on the computer.
(62) ((A and B were arguing over B’s expense on the personal computer.)) 1
‘It does not make sense to spend more than 30 thousand dollars. A DIY computer even charges a lower price.’
‘The problem is…the parts I replaced are in a higher quality.
Just a CPU, Pentium two, could cost more than 10 thousand.’
Lin (1999) argued that pre-announcement markers play a role in introducing opinions
and ideas in a speaker’s mind. Also, according to Wang (1997, pp.122–123), they are
discourse markers functioning as linguistic hedging devices. They soften the degree of
disagreement and work as verbal fillers that give a speaker more time to think about
136
what he/she should say.
Pre-announcement markers also occur in suggestions. In example (63), A used 我
覺 得 wŏ juéde ‘in my opinion…’ to initiate a suggestion. To tone down the
disagreement, the modal 可能 kěnéng ‘might’ was employed as well.
(63) ((B told A the way of his brother’s courtship.)) 1 every day. He portrays that girl.’
‘Oh my god. Then?’
‘That’s it. He’s trying so hard.’
‘I think giving flowers may be more effective. Why does he keep drawing every day?’
Evasion used by adults seems to be distinct from the one used by children. In children’s examples, such as (28), we notice that children tend to distract the interactant
from the current topic. Topic shifting is the most common way for them to evade.
Different from children, adults evade by using qualifiers, such as 我 不 知 道 wŏ
bùzhidào and 我不曉得 wŏ bùxiăodé ‘I have no idea’. An example given by Lin (1999)
is as below.
(64) ((A and B were discussing the relationship between a couple.)) 1
那頭髮..可能也是..也算是女朋友吧 ..只是這兩年好像都沒有聯絡
him a strand of her hair. Maybe she was his girlfriend. But they have not contacted each other in these two years.’
With a qualifier, A evaded her different opinion from B. Following the evasion, an
account initiated with a contrast marker 不過 búguò ‘but’ was given. Within her
account, a modal 可能 kěnéng ‘might’ was used to express her uncertainty. These
markers helped to mitigate the tone of disagreement.
By far, we have mentioned a number of linguistic markers, such as contrast
markers, modals, pre-announcement markers, and qualifiers. Aside from them, other
features are observed. Our data suggest that children are likely to disagree immediately
as long as they hear statement different from theirs. In contrast to children, adults
sometimes disagree in a hesitating way. They may start their disagreement with a long
pause, which signals their reluctance to express their diverse opinions (Lin, 1999, p.50).
Below, an illustrative example is given.
(65) ((A and B were chatting.))
138
utterances was preceded by a long pause, which presented her hesitation to express her
opposing opinion. After the long pause, an interjection was used to soften the degree of
disagreement. In face of A’s blame, B interrupted and defended himself by given an
account. He put the blame on his father. Accounts like line 3 (i.e., to blame others) are quite common in children’s disputes, as mentioned earlier.
Another way for adults to show hesitation is ‘repair’. Example (57), repeated
below as (66), demonstrates the use of repair in clarification. In this example, B firstly
playfully criticized the place where A had been living for years. The criticism caused
misunderstanding and elicited a strong disagreement from A. To solve A’s
misunderstanding, thus, B tried to clarify what he had said.
(66) ((A and B were discussing the place where A had been living for a long time.)) 1 living here for years. You mean people living here are not human beings?’
‘No…I mean…I mean…’
‘This house…people living in this house’
As shown in line 3, B initiated the utterances with a simple negation. Following the
negation, he made use of some repairs, as underlined in his utterances. The repairs
implied that he was trying to find appropriate words to disagree with A. He did not want
to aggressively offend his interlocutor.
In some cases, laughter is utilized to tone down the disagreement. Example (67)
regards the use of refutation by adults. In the example, A said that B could consider to
have A’s younger brother as her boyfriend. However, B had a different opinion.
(67) ((A and B were talking about A’s younger brother.)) 1
‘My younger brother is quite good.
I’m not lying. If you don’t care about the age difference, you can take him into consideration.’
‘Does he have a girlfriend? What’s wrong with you?’
‘He may not marry her.’
In B’s refutation, two question forms were used, such as 不是…啊 búshì…a ‘isn’t it…’
and 有沒有…啊 yŏuméiyŏu…a ‘is there…’. According to Lin (1999), these question
forms were used to signal a disagreement with A’s statement, 你可以考慮一下 nĭ kěyĭ
kăolù yíxià ‘you can consider it’, as shown in line 1. With these questions, B gave A an
opportunity for further negotiation. The questions were accompanied with laughter. In
general, questions used in refutation are aggravated, as in example (41) and (42). From
the example, we notice that adults may use laughter to soften aggravation. In other
140
words, laughter helps adults to express their opposing ideas in a mitigating way.
To sum up, Section 4.6 compares refusals and disagreements in children and adults.
The major difference between these two age groups is the use of linguistic features for
mitigation. We notice that children refuse and disagree directly. They express their
opposing ideas in no time. They sometimes interrupt other’s turn. Similar examples are
found in adults. However, in most cases, adults tend to exploit some linguistic device
like contrast markers, modals, pre-announcement markers, long pause, and laughter to
soften the aggravation. To compare with children, adults oppose in a mitigating and
hesitating way. In addition, these features help to maintain the politeness and
relationships among the adult interlocutors.