2.1.1 Definition of disagreement in authoritative dictionary
Though disagreement is a common and everyday practice which is very familiar to us, to get a preliminary and objective understanding of what is disagreement, it is necessary to investigate its definition in authoritative dictionary. From comprehensive comparison, it was found that authoritative dictionaries unitarily regarded disagreement as an expression of different opinions. Objectively speaking, the definition of disagreement by Longman dictionary was the most neutral one. In Longman dictionary, disagreement was defined as “a situation in which people express different opinions about something and sometimes argue” (from Longman dictionary of contemporary English online).
2.2 The Linguistic realization of disagreement
The linguistic realization of disagreement is one of the most important research problems to be solved in the present study. Considering the scarcity of studies on disagreement or disagreement-related practices in the context of psychotherapy for depression, a thorough review of the linguistic realizations of disagreement in non-psychotherapeutic discourse and psychotherapeutic discourse will be conducted progressively.
2.2.1 Linguistic realization of disagreement in non-psychotherapeutic discourse
The speech act of disagreement had been investigated in numerous discourses like university and classroom discourse (Hamdan & Mahadin 2021; Kakava 2002a; Netz 2014; Rees-Miller 2000), media disputation discourse (An & Peng 2013), computer mediated discourse (Harb 2021; Langlotz & Locher 2012) as well as everyday conversation (Edstrom 2004; Georgakopoulou 2001; Goodwin 1983; Stalpers 2011).
Multiple classifications of disagreement had been made in previous literature. There were generally two standards of classification, i.e., classifying disagreement by its forms or by its contents. For one, the form-driven classification of disagreement was made on account of the (in)directness, (im)politeness, or (un)markedness of disagreement within the perspective of facework and (im)politeness theories. There were confrontational and nonconfrontational disagreement (Edstrom 2004; Hamdan & Mahadin 2021), aggravated and mitigated disagreement (Kakava 2002; Netz 2014; Rees-Miller 2000; Shum & Lee 2013; Stalpers 2011), marked and unmarked disagreement (Angouri 2012; Harb 2021), straightforward and non-straightforward disagreement (An & Peng 2013).
CHAPTER THREE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................. 31
3.1 Analytical framework in explicating therapists’ disagreement strategies ... 31
3.2 Theory of common ground construction adopted for uncovering the communicative function of therapist’ speech event of disagreement ...... 34
CHAPTER FOUR METHODOLOGY .............................. 45
4.1 Data collection ......................... 45
4.2 Data Analysis ......................................... 46
CHAPTER FIVE LINGUISTIC REALIZATIONS OF THERAPISTS’ SPEECH EVENT OF DISAGREEMENT ................... 51
5.1 Confrontational disagreement strategies adopted by the therapist ............. 51
5.1.1 Positive impoliteness strategies employed in therapists’ confrontational disagreement ........... 51
5.1.2 Negative impoliteness strategies utilized in therapists’ confrontational disagreement ......................... 65
CHAPTER SEVEN UNDERLYING MECHANISM AND INFLUENCING FACTORS OF THERAPISTS’ DISAGREEMENT IN COGNITIVE THERAPY FOR DEPRESSION
7.1 Therapists’ relative epistemic and deontic
