3.Research Method 7

3.1 Research Design 7

3.2 Data Collection 8

4. Data Analysis and Discussion 8

4.1 Frequency of each type of strategy 8

4.2 Types of strategies employed by speakers 10

4.2.1 Directives 10

4.2.2 Opposing Questions 13

4.2.3 Threats 15

4.2.4 Sarcasms 16

4.2.5 Withdrawals 17

4.2.6 Humors 18

4.2.7 Combination of Strategies 19

4.3 Summary 20

5. Conclusion 21

5.1 Major Findings 21

5.2 Limitations and Suggestions for FurtherResearch 22

5.2.1 Limitations of the Study 22

5.2.2 Suggestions for Further Research 22

References 23

1. Introduction

1.1 Research Background

Conflict talk is a complicated and universal language phenomenon almost unavoidable in our daily communication. Due to different personal world views, values, life philosophies, or special personal characters, habits, people hold different views on the same topic. When these different views encounter, a conflict talk is inevitable. As Kuo (1992:4) says, “Conflict talk is ubiquitous, normal, and integral to the workings of every society”. 

Conflict talk, in Malloy and McMurray (1996)’s view, is a “relationship”, because when people have “incompatible goals”, they will adopt the “prosocial” or “antisocial” strategies to affect the other communicators. Therefore, it is a topic worthy of careful investigation for if the conflict talk cannot be treated properly and strategically, it is likely to have bad impact on the relationship of the participants, and even lead to turmoil and violence. 

But conflict talk cannot be studied alone, for the phenomenon is usually bonded with specific social context. Power is one of the elements that are usually discussed among such social factors. According to the theories of power and solidarity, which was proposed by the social psychologist Roger Brown, power refers to the social gap between the addresser and the addressee. And it is a vertical standard to reflect the social relation of the speech participants. One who has power over the other participant, can control the other person’s behavior and change his social status, attitudes or feelings. Generally speaking, the older ones are supposed to have more power than the younger ones, such as parents over children, employers over employees, military officers over soldiers, and so on. But it should be clarified that only in a finely-stratified society where each inpidual has an asymmetrical relationship with every other that this power theory will apply.

1.2Objective and Significance of the Study

The current study attempts to look into the conflict talk between people with unequal power relations and try to identify the strategies applied in these conflict conversations. The analysis is made with the help of conversational analysis theory, concerning concepts like turn-taking and adjacency pair, as well as Brown & Levinson’s face theory.

The study would contribute to our understanding of conflict talk between the more powerful part and the less powerful part，masters and servants, upper-level servants and lower-level servants, parents and sons and so on. By analyzing the strategies used by the characters which lead to conflict talk and the strategies which tend to terminate conflict talk, we can have better understanding of the social class difference and help to choose appropriate linguistic strategies to communicate with each other for the avoidance of conflict, which would be beneficial for the building of a harmonious relationship.