Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 37:2 (2024) ► pp.518–552

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Disagreeing without tears

The interactive process of mitigating disagreement in a Chinese venture capital reality television show

ORCiD logo with link | Zhejiang University
 | Bank of America
ORCiD logo with link | Zhejiang University
Published online: 29 February 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.22003.zha
Abstract
Disagreement, while generally seen as an act threatening interlocutors’ face, is indispensable in particular contexts. Based on an in-depth linguistic and paralinguistic analysis of 12 cases of disagreement from a Chinese venture capital reality TV show We Are the Hero, we found that in this special context disagreement was a ‘dispreferred’ moment, but also an informative, educational, and amusing occurrence with multiple functions. While disagreements were frequently initiated (particularly by the investors), they were mostly indirect, carefully mitigated by participants with linguistic devices such as explanations, private verbs, questions, humor, as well as paralinguistic devices such as friendly facial expressions and movements. Furthermore, disagreements, especially aggravated ones, were often interactively mitigated by both on-stage participants (particularly the host) and the post-production team in an interestingly cooperative way. The interactive process of mitigating disagreements not only saved the interlocutors’ face, but also contributed to the multiple purposes of the show. Our findings suggest that politeness, as an invisible hand behind communicative acts, is still present despite the ‘conflict’ that characterizes this form of TV show.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Disagreement and its mitigation
    • 2.2Disagreement and its mitigation in the Chinese context
    • 2.3(Im)politeness and disagreement in reality television shows
  • 3.Data and setting
    • 3.1Setting
    • 3.2Selected cases and data processing
  • 4.Analysis and results
    • 4.1Classification and functions of disagreements
    • 4.2The interactive process of mitigating disagreement
      • 4.2.1Identification and classification of primary mitigating devices
      • 4.2.2The interactive mitigation of disagreement
    • 4.3Aggravated disagreement and interactive mitigation
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • References
References (50)
References
Angouri, J. (2012). Managing disagreement in problem solving meeting talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1565–1579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Angouri, J., & Locher, M. (2012). Theorising disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1549–1553. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Angouri, J., & Tseliga, T. (2010). “You have no idea what you are talking about”: From e-disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1), 57–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bjørge, A. (2012). Expressing disagreement in ELF business negotiations: Theory and practice. Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 406–427. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bond, M. (1986). The psychology of the Chinese people. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chan, A., Schnurr, S., & Zayts, O. (2018). Exploring face, identity and relationship management in disagreements in business meetings in Hong Kong. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(2), 279–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, W., & Tsui, A. B. (2009). “ahh ((laugh)) well there is no comparison between the two I think”: How do Hong Kong Chinese and native speakers of English disagree with each other? Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2365–2380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cosier, R., & Schwenk, C. (1990). Agreement and thinking alike: Ingredients for poor decisions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 4(1), 69–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cottle, S. (2004). Producing nature(s): On the changing production ecology of natural history TV. Media, Culture & Society, 26(1), 81–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 35–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., & Holmes, O. (2013). (Im)politeness and exploitative TV in Britain and North America: The X factor and American idol. In N. Lorenzo-Dus, & P. G. C. Blitvich (Eds.), Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action (pp. 169–198). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. (1991). Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics, 1(1), 71–106.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, B. A., & Ellis, D. G. (1980). Small group decision making: Communication and the group process. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2001). Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(12), 1881–1900. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harrison, B. (1973). Form and content. Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hauff, M., & Laaser, W. (1996). Educational video and TV in distance education: Production and design aspects. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 2(6), 456–471.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Higgins, M., & Smith, A. (2016). Belligerent broadcasting: Synthetic argument in broadcast talk. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, A. (2007). Restyling factual TV: Audiences and news, documentary and reality genres. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T. (1997). Yes, but... Positive politeness in conversation arguments. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(2), 222–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jian, M. (2013). Negotiating paternalism and the enterprising self in Taiwanese talent shows. Media International Australia, 147(1), 122–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, T. (2001). Emotional communication in conflict: Essence and impact. In W. F. Eadie, & P. E. Nelson (Eds.), The language of conflict and resolution (pp. 81–104). Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kakavá, C. (1993). Negotiation of disagreement by Greeks in conversations and classroom discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.
(2002). Opposition in modern Greek discourse: Cultural and contextual constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10–11), 1537–1568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, C. L., Chen, Y., & Tan, G. L. (2013). Silence and face-work in two Chinese TV talk shows. Discourse, Context & Media, 2(1), 52–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liao, Y., & Bond, M. H. (2011). The dynamics of face loss following interpersonal harm for Chinese and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(1), 25–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, C. (2020). Exploring judges’ compliments and criticisms on American, British, and Taiwanese talent shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 1601, 44–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, S. (2004). Pragmatics strategies and power relations in disagreement: Chinese culture in higher education. Universal Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
López-Ozieblo, R. (2018). Disagreeing without a ‘no’: How teachers indicate disagreement in a Hong Kong classroom. Journal of Pragmatics, 1371, 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2009). “You’re barking mad – I’m ou”: Impoliteness and broadcast talk. Journal of Politeness Research, 5(2), 159–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N., Bou-Franch, P., & Blitvich, P. G. C. (2013). Impoliteness in US/UK talent shows: A diachronic study of the evolution of a genre. In N. Lorenzo-Dus, & P. G. C. Blitvich (Eds.), Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action (pp. 199–217). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mao, Y., & Zhao, X. (2020). A discursive approach to disagreements expressed by Chinese spokespersons during press conferences. Discourse, Context & Media, 371, 100428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2018). Politeness and pseudo-intimacy in a food radio call-in program. Discourse, Context & Media, 211, 46–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myers, G. (2004). Matters of opinion: Talking about public issues. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Netz, H. (2014). Disagreement patterns in gifted classes. Journal of Pragmatics, 611, 142–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(8), 1087–1111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ren, W., & Woodfield, H. (2016). Chinese females’ date refusals in reality TV shows: Expressing involvement or independence? Discourse, Context & Media, 131, 89–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society, 13(3), 311–335. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schnurr, S., & Chan, A. (2011). Exploring another side of co-leadership: Negotiating professional identities through face-work in disagreements. Language in Society, 40(2), 187–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (2012). Disagreements, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1554–1564. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalpers, J. (1995). The expression of disagreement. In K. Ehlich, & J. Wagner (Eds.). The discourse of business negotiation (pp. 275–289). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tang, C. (2016). Managing criticisms in US-based and Taiwan-based reality talent contests: A cross-linguistic comparison. Pragmatics, 26(1), 111–136.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warner-García, S. (2014). Laughing when nothing’s funny: The pragmatic use of coping laughter in the negotiation of conversational disagreement. Pragmatics, 24(1), 157–180.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, H., Zhao, J., & Wu, Y. (2021). Disagreement and mitigation in power-asymmetrical venture capital reality TV shows: A comparative case study of Shark Tank in the US and Dragon’s Den in China. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(2), pp. 245–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhu, W. (2014a). Managing relationships in everyday practice: The case of strong disagreement in Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 641, 85–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014b). Rapport management in strong disagreement: An investigation of a community of Chinese speakers of English. Text & Talk, 34(5), 641–664. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue