Im)politeness and disagreement in two Hong Kong Internet discussion forums

Available online at wwwsciencedirectcom

wwwelseviercomlocatepragmaJournal of Pragmatics 50 (2013) 52--83

(Im)politeness and disagreement in two Hong Kong Internetdiscussion forums

Winnie Shum a Cynthia Lee ba Lingnan University Hong Kong

bHong Kong Baptist University Hong Kong

Received 24 July 2012 received in revised form 22 January 2013 accepted 23 January 2013

Abstract

The study of politeness and disagreement in computer-mediated communication (CMC) is a bourgeoning area of study in pragmaticsAdopting the discursive and interactional approaches this paper investigates the issue in two Hong Kong Internet discussion forumsbased on the forum interlocutorsrsquo disagreement strategies Lay participants (ie forum browsers) were also invited to rate the identifieddisagreement strategies in the parameters of politeness appropriateness and positivelynegatively marked behavior on a 5-point Likertscale The correlations among the three parameters were analyzed statistically A follow-up interview was administered to betterunderstand the relationship between disagreement and the three parameters of relational work

Eleven types of disagreement strategies were identified Most strategies were direct and unmitigated but generally perceived aspolitic appropriate and not negatively marked by lay participants The three parameters were found to be correlated statistically andsome shared criteria between them were discovered from the interview data In addition each Internet forum is a unique communitycharacterized by distinctive features The identified disagreement strategies have yielded some support for the applicability of thediscursive and interactional approaches to the analysis of politeness and disagreement in CMC the statistical analysis and layparticipantsrsquo judgment and rating have shed some light on the complicated relational work in performing the speech actcopy 2013 Elsevier BV All rights reserved

Keywords (Im)politeness Disagreement CMC Online forum Hong Kong

1 Introduction

With the advent of the computer and the Internet in the twenty-first century communication styles among humanbeings have experienced a drastic change The development of various communication methods via the Internet suchas e-mail instant messenger weblogs Internet forums Facebook and Twitter has facilitated online communicationapart from face-to-face interactions and letter writing Text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC) enjoyshistorical precedence in particular and it remains more popular than voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) (Herring2010)

CMC comprises both synchronous and asynchronous modes Internet forums belong to the latter communicationmode Asynchronous communication has attracted some researchersrsquo attention to investigate the (im)politeness featuresof CMC (eg Cherny 1999 Harrison 2000 Darics 2010) and disagreements posted on Internet discussion forums

Corresponding author at Centre for English and Additional Languages (CEAL) LBY204 2F B Y Lam Building Lingnan University 8 CastlePeak Road Tuen Mun NT Hong Kong Tel +852 26167770 Corresponding author at Language Centre Hong Kong Baptist University 224 Waterloo Road Kowloon Tong Hong KongTel +852 34117193

E-mail addresses winnieshumlneduhk (W Shum) cfkleehkbueduhk (C Lee)

0378-2166$ -- see front matter copy 2013 Elsevier BV All rights reservedhttpdxdoiorg101016jpragma201301010

W Shum C Lee Journal of Pragmatics 50 (2013) 52--83 53

across cultures including but not limited to Thai (Hongladarom and Hongladarom 2005) Japanese (Nishimura 20082010) and Greek (Angouri and Tseliga 2010) These authors have adopted the frameworks of Brown and Levinson(1987) Ide (1989) and Herring (2004) respectively Despite the application of different frameworks to various researchstudies on (im)politeness and disagreement there has been an obvious paradigm shift from the Gricean approach to thepostmodern discursive and interactional approaches The current study1 attempts to investigate and interpret (im)politeness and disagreement in CMC from a new perspective by combining the discursive and interactional approachesand including two groups of participants namely forum interlocutors who are involved in forum discussion (ie activeparticipants) and forum browsers who often browse various Internet forums but may not respond (ie lay participants) Itaims to add to the literature by (1) examining the features of disagreement used by forum interlocutors in Hong KongInternet discussion forums (2) understanding the (im)politeness issue in Hong Kong Internet discussion forums and (3)facilitating a better understanding of lay participantsrsquo (ie forum browsersrsquo) metapragmatic knowledge of the threeparameters of relational work namely politeness appropriateness and negativelypositively marked behavior when theyjudge and interpret disagreement

2 Developments in politeness research

21 Classic view on politeness

Grainger (2011) divided the development of politeness theory into three waves The first wave is the classic view ofpoliteness or the Gricean approach The politeness model of Brown and Levinson and the Politeness Principle of Leechare milestones in the study of politeness in the first wave Brown and Levinsonrsquos politeness model which is based onGoffmanrsquos (1982) notion of face conceptualizes politeness as an act of a rational agent who has both positive andnegative face wants (Brown and Levinson 1987) Face-saving or mitigating the effect of face-threatening acts by thespeaker to avoid conflicts is the focus of the model They have proposed a range of redressive strategies and a formula tocalculate the possible weightiness of a face-threatening act (Brown and Levinson 198776) Leech who developed thePrinciple of Politeness (POP) on the basis of Gricersquos (1975) Cooperative Principle (CP) provides a post-facto descriptionof language behavior Sharing some similarities with the politeness model of Brown and Levinson Leechrsquos POP equatedpoliteness to indirectness As mentioned by Leech himself indirect illocutions tend to be more polite (a) because theyincrease the degree of optionality and (b) because the more indirect an illocution is the more diminished and tentative itsforce tends to be (Leech 1983108)

Although the politeness model of Brown and Levinson and the politeness principle of Leech have grounded thestudy of politeness they have received substantial criticism First the politeness models assume that politeness ispresent and is a given fact in all human societies but the predicted polite behavior has not been classified by laymembers of the speech community (Watts 2003142) Second Locher and Watts (200510) have commented thatthe politeness model of Brown and Levinson is a theory of facework dealing with the mitigation of face-threateningacts It neither explains why face-threat mitigation is not a priority in the situations of aggressive or rude behavior norcovers other social behaviors such as politic or unmarked behavior In fact the dichotomous division between politeand impolite behavior calls for face-threat mitigation at the expense of rude and inappropriate behavior Its attention tothe hearerrsquos face want rather than the speakerrsquos face want is also problematic as all speakers are also hearers andvice versa (Watts 2003) In such cases politeness in communication should not be viewed as a one-sidedinterpretation rather it is a language behavior that is realized through the context of interaction and is co-constructedby the interactants (Watts 2003 Locher 2004) Third equating indirectness to politeness seems to be an over-generalization and simplification particularly when it comes to the explanation of overly polite or impolite behavior orcommunication that is different from social expectation (Watts 200364) Similarly the Politeness Principle of Leechcorrelates indirectness to politeness (Locher 200464) and is culturally biased (Spencer-Oatey 199230--33 cited inThomas 1995177) Leechrsquos (2007) Grand Strategy of Politeness (GSP) is a response that incorporates both westernand eastern practices in constructing and illustrating the theory Although it is viewed as second-order politeness(politeness 2 ie a scientific theory that builds on first-order understandings -- politeness1 ie interpreted by layparticipants) it does not include any reference to lay participantsrsquo comments The inadequacies of the previousdominant politeness theories have triggered the exploration of alternative frameworks to conceptualize politeness andconduct politeness research (eg Eelen 2010 Watts 2003 Locher 2004 2006 Locher and Watts 2005 Haugh2007 Arundale 2006)

1 This paper is based on the first authorrsquos dissertation

W Shum C Lee Journal of Pragmatics 50 (2013) 52--8354

22 Alternative views on politeness

The second wave of politeness theory is the discursive approach to politeness which is a postmodern view Thisstarted with the work of Watts (1992) and has been developed in the last decade (Watts 2003 Locher 2004 Locher andWatts 2005 cited in Locher 2006250) The discursive approach proposes that (im)politeness should be studied inrelation to the concept of relational work Locher and Watts (2005) do not see relational work as always oriented to themaintenance of harmony cooperation and social equilibrium It is not only a framework that includes impolite polite ormerely appropriate behavior but also a useful concept to help investigate the discursive struggle over politeness (20059)According to Watts (200321 2005xliii cited in Locher 2006257) there is another type of relational work termed politicbehavior Politic behavior is an unmarked behavior both linguistic and non-linguistic that is considered to be appropriateto ongoing social interaction and which lives up to the social norms practices and experiences that the interactants haveacquired The interactants however will adjust their politic behavior according to the needs that arise in the interactionLocher (2006205) perceives relational work as an umbrella term that covers the entire spectrum of behavior fromrudeness and impoliteness to normal appropriate and unmarked behavior through to marked and polite behavior Theentire spectrum incorporates the negatively marked politic and positively marked behavior Impolitenon-politicinappropriate or over-politenon-politicinappropriate behavior can be perceived as negatively marked behavior whilepolitepoliticappropriate behavior can be perceived as positively marked behavior (Locher and Watts 200511--12)Judgment is however a discursive issue subject to negotiation between hearers and speakers in a special local contextbased on their assessments of linguistic behavior with respect to the norms of appropriateness in social interactions andpast experiences in certain events rather than the knowledge of prefabricated inherent linguistic devices (Locher2006249) It is up to participants of the speech community to evaluate and comment on (im)politeness (Watts 2003)Therefore it is incorrect to reply solely on a universal theory of politeness or second-order politeness (politeness 2) (Watts200351) to explain and evaluate everyday discourse across cultures Participantsrsquo knowledge and understanding of (im)politeness in a socio-communicative activity or first-order politeness (politeness 1) (Watts 200327) should also beconsidered when interpreting (im)politeness In everyday talk there are negotiable boundaries so that participants canshift considerably reflecting the different norms of appropriateness in different social events and speech communities aswell as changes over time Locher (2006255--256) has given a continuum describing the spectrum of relational workwhich states that judgment regarding relational work can be broadly classified into four types (a) impolite + inappropriatenon-politic + negatively marked (b) non-polite + appropriatepolitic + unmarked (c) polite + appropriatepolitic + posi-tively marked and (d) over-polite + inappropriatenon-politic + negatively marked

This classification seems to suggest a static relationship between the three parameters though Locher (2006) hascautioned that participantsrsquo judgment may not match the proposed classifications On the other hand the interpretiveapproach preferred by Locher and Watts (200517) has its own detractors Haugh (20076) criticizes the unclearcategorization of (im)politeness (in)appropriateness and negativelypositively marked behavior as well as the subjectiveinterpretation of the researchers and the evaluation of impoliteness by uncertain parties who could be either theresearchers or participants Xie et al (2005449) have made comments consonant with Haughrsquos and have pointed out thelack of clear methodology in this approach

The third wave is the interactional approach The interactional approach (Arundale 1999 2006) which is based on theco-constituting model of communication understands (im)politeness as being interactionally achieved in a collaborativenon-summative manner through interaction by participants (Haugh 2007309) It puts more emphasis on the sociologicalaspect Grainger (2011171) commented that the lsquointeractional approach cannot be said to contrast with either thepostmodern approach or the Gricean approach since it overlaps with bothrsquo In other words the interactional approachembraces both the classic and postmodern views in their interpretation of (im)politeness Regarding the ways to analyze(im)politeness Haugh (2007310) suggests focusing on the ways in which participants interpret understand analyzenegotiate and evaluate one anotherrsquos verbal conduct as displayed in the details of what they say when they respond Theinterpretation and evaluation will be more relevant if the perspective of first-order politeness (politeness1 ie interpretedby the interactantsinterlocutors) is adopted and have the interpretation and evaluation cross-checked by an analyst Theanalyst can further consult the participants for post facto evaluations and interpret them in terms of an analyticalframework

The steps suggested by Haugh (2007) show that the interactional approach provides a clearer method to analyze (im)politeness when compared to the discursive approach The interactional approach tends to focus on how (im)politeness isconstructed during interlocutorsrsquo interactions while the discursive approach is concerned more with interlocutorsrsquojudgment and interpretation of (im)politeness Despite the different foci the two approaches have evidenced the shift fromemphasizing the linguistic features of politeness to interpreting politeness in context The two approaches can becomplementary to each other as framing can be both relational and interactional (Arundale 2006) Both approaches canbe glossed as appropriate methods to better understand participantsrsquo interpretation of (im)politeness In the context ofInternet discussion forums participants include not only interlocutors who are involved in discussions but also lay


participants such as browsers who browse the messages and do not often give responses Thus when a message isposted on an Internet discussion forum it is directed to both groups of participants The multi-directional feature of theInternet discussion forum allows either group of participants to be eligible for consultation as they are familiar with theforum culture Nevertheless the anonymity of the interlocutors makes it more difficult for an analyst to reach them if theanalyst wants to seek post facto evaluations

As (im)politeness and participantsrsquo interpretations have not been adequately examined in the real context especially inthe new communication mode CMC a real context in which communication differs from face-to-face conversations aninvestigation is deemed necessary It is this we turn to next

3 (Im)politeness research and disagreement in CMC

The shift of the paradigm in the study of (im)politeness has left its traces in the (im)politeness research into CMCStarting from Herringrsquos (1994) work of gender differences in politeness in online academic discourse which adoptedthe politeness model of Brown and Levinson the recent studies tend to investigate politeness from a postmodernperspective (eg Angouri and Tseliga 2010 Nishimura 2008 2010 Graham 2007 Darics 2010 Hongladarom andHongladarom 2005 Nishimura 2008 2010 Angouri and Tseliga 2010) This means the concept of politeness is nolonger restricted to an ideational universal theory which mainly deals with linguistic expressions It is a concept that isco-constructed by socially accepted norms and is an agreement that is explicitlyimplicitly built up duringconversations Hongladarom and Hongladarom (2005) investigated politeness ideology in a Thai Internet forum andfound that Thais tend to be more polite in CMC compared to Westerners This according to Hongladarom andHongladarom (2005) is because Thais would seek common ground and express their sympathy and positive feelingstoward other participants even when they argued Nishimura (2008) researched politeness the use of honorifics andpossible determinants of particular linguistic characteristics in two Japanese bulletin board systems (BBS) by adoptingIdersquos (1989) wakimae (discernment) approach and Herringrsquos (2004) computer-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA)Her research results show that each BBS is a distinct community that can be characterized by shared norms valuesand linguistic features Moreover the impoliteness features discovered in the BBS can be regarded as contextuallyappropriate lsquolsquopoliticrsquorsquo behavior (Nishimura 200814) In her 2010 work Nishimura continued to explore howimpoliteness affects Japanese interactants and also the use of honorific and non-honorifics in situations ofimpoliteness However papers that deal with (im)politeness of disagreement in online Internet forums are scarce (egAngouri and Tseliga 2010) Angouri and Tseligarsquos (2010) research probes into the issue of the e-impoliteness ofdisagreements in two online forums by looking at the communicative strategies and how impoliteness is lexicalized byGreek Internet users They discovered that since most CMCs are text-based the use of unconventional spelling andpunctuation are used to emphasize emotion People also seem to be more tolerant of impolite language in the onlinecommunication context Moreover the semantic content the identity of the participants and the topic of conversationplay an important role in how interactions are managed and perceived by the participants (Angouri and Tseliga201077)

Disagreement is generally perceived as a face-threatening act (FTA) (Brown and Levinson 1987) and runs contrary tothe agreement maxim (Leech 1983) regardless of the extent of its indirectness Nevertheless disagreement is not alwaysdispreferred in online Internet forums which are a place for people to freely express their opinions ideas and feelingstoward a certain issue The anonymity feature of Internet forums provides a platform for users to discuss issues with eachother on an equal footing It is a place where disagreement is both likely and expected to happen Therefore disagreementcan be a preferred response in the speech community when a frame of argumentation is established and opponents areexpected to defend their point of view (Kotthoff 1993 cited in Locher 200497) There are some parameters that mightinfluence the production of disagreement namely cultural norms conversational styles speech situations participantsrsquoage status or gender (Locher 200498) and last but not least topics which can be either controversial or non-controversial (Kakavaacute 1993 cited in Locher 200498) Therefore whether an utterance is considered as polite or impoliteor appropriate or inappropriate depends largely on the norms of the local context When one disagrees during anargument one may use one of the eight linguistic strategies the use of hedges giving personal or emotional reasons fordisagreeing the use of modal auxiliaries shifting responsibility giving objections in the form of a question the use of butrepetition of an utterance by the next or the same speaker and unmitigated disagreement (Locher 2004113) In additionsome may challenge or question (Bousfield 2008) while others may use profane or abusive language disagree outrightignore ridicule frighten criticize dissociate from the other be unconcerned use an inappropriate identity markerexplicitly associate the other with a negative aspect select a sensitive topic (Culpeper 1996) use contemptuous anddismissive phrases to devalue personal qualities or abilities mock or offer a one-line rhetorical question (Culpeper2005) All these linguistic strategies may happen in Internet forums when disagreement is an expected and preferredcommon practice As Angouri and Tseliga (2010) posited disagreement in Internet forums may not be regarded as an apriori negatively marked act


The studies of (im)politeness in CMC across cultures and languages are bourgeoning however research on (im)politeness and disagreement in CMC discussion is still lacking With this in mind the current study aims to investigate (im)politeness and disagreement in CMC in Hong Kong Internet forums by adopting the crucial features of the discursive andthe interactional approaches These are (1) identifying disagreement according to the messages in the turns made byforum interlocutors who are involved in discussion while they are interacting with one another and (2) seeking layparticipantsrsquo (ie forum browsers2) judgment and interpretation of the three parameters of relational work -- (im)politeness (in)appropriateness and negativelypositively marked behavior with reference to the identified disagreementresponses To achieve the aim three related research questions were devised

1) H

2

bro

ow do Hong Kong Internet forum interlocutors present disagreement when they discuss

2) H

ow do Hong Kong Internet forum browsers judge (im)politeness and the other two parameters of relational work (ie

(in)appropriateness and negativepositive marked behavior) in disagreement In other words what are their judgmentcriteria for each parameter

3) W

hat is the relationship among the three parameters of relational work in disagreement

4 The study

41 Methodology dialog analysis questionnaire and follow-up interview

To answer the research questions a triangular method was adopted to investigate (im)politeness and disagreementin Hong Kong Internet forums First the posts of two discussion topics were selected from two popular Internet forums inHong Kong Second one of the researchers adopted the interactional approach to identify disagreements from the foruminterlocutorsrsquo interactions in the posts A list of the disagreement strategies reported by Locher (2004) Culpeper (1996)and Bousfield (2008) were also prepared for reference The identified andor new disagreement strategies andresponses were cross-checked by the second researcher Then a second rater who is a Hong Kong online forum userwith some basic training in linguistics related fields was asked to evaluate the identified types of disagreements andresponses Third some instances of the identified disagreement strategies were chosen to compose a questionnaireThe questionnaire was designed with reference to the discursive approach It was administered to the browsers of theInternet discussion forums to find out how they evaluated the identified disagreement strategies and how they would ratethem in the aspects of (im)politeness (in)appropriateness and negativelypositively marked behavior on a 5-point Likertscale The frequency rate and average rating of each disagreement strategy as well as that of the eleven types ofdisagreement strategies in each parameter were computed The Spearman correlation test was used to analyze thecorrelations among the ratings of the three parameters Finally follow-up interviews with the volunteer forum browserswere conducted in order to seek their interpretation and judgment of the three parameters in the speech act ofdisagreement

42 Selection of Internet forums

Following the method used by Nishimura (2008) two popular Internet forums in Hong Kong were selectedaccording to the monthly ranking calculated by a web information company known as Alexa Internet forum A ranked7 and Internet forum B ranked 19 both appearing in the top 20 of Alexarsquos Hong Kong website ranking during theresearch period The interlocutors of both Internet forums communicated in written Cantonese a vernacular that hasunique grammar and words and has become a trend in some newspapers advertising and magazines in modernHong Kong (Snow 2004)

43 Selection of post topics and post types

Two posts of the same nature that had each successfully attracted over a hundred responses were selected from thetwo forums One was about studying overseas and the other was a newspaper commentary on a girl who had died aftersaving her little sister from a fire in Hong Kong The topic of the first post was a general social topic while the second wascomparatively controversial as it involved some moral judgment and values The same number of episodes was identifiedfrom each post of the two forums Table 1 summarizes the information

Browsers are glossed as lay participants of online discussion forums apart from forum interlocutors They visit online discussion forums andwse discussion messages but may not give any responses


Table 1Selected post types topics and number of episodes

Forum Post types Post topic Number of episodes identified

Forum A Less-controversial Studying overseas (G1) 3Controversial A girl died after saving little sister in a fire accident (G2) 2

Forum B Less-controversial Studying overseas (D1) 3Controversial A girl died after saving little sister in a fire accident (D2) 2

44 Data collection and procedures Questionnaire and follow-up interview

The questionnaire was written in standard Chinese but the disagreement strategies in the Internet discussionforums were extracted in verbatim Cantonese It was expected that the respondents of the questionnaire who werethe browsers of the Internet discussion forums were native Cantonese speakers and had learned standard writtenChinese at school would be able to comprehend both languages The questionnaire was divided into two parts Part1 consisted of six questions inquiring about the respondentrsquos personal information Part 2 had 24 questionsrepresenting each type of Cantonese disagreement strategy identified from the four posts in the two Hong Kongonline forums Each type of disagreement strategy was illustrated by one to three scenes The respondents who werethe browsers of the Internet discussion forums were asked whether or not they agreed that the response was adisagreement Then they were asked to judge the disagreement strategies according to the three parameters namely(im)politeness (in)appropriateness and positivelynegatively marked behavior on a 5-point Likert scale The threeparameters were translated as ( jau5 lai5 maau6) (mou4 lai5 maau6)politenessimpoliteness (hap1dong3) (bat1 hap1 don3)appropriateinappropriate and (zing3 min6) ( fu6 min6) positivenegativeThe last question invited the respondents to participate in a follow-up interview (refer to Appendix 1 for thequestionnaire) The questionnaire was posted on Facebook and was also sent to interested respondents (Refer tosection 45) upon request

The respondents who expressed willingness to be interviewed (in Q37) were then contacted The follow-up interviewwas conducted either in Cantonese or in mixed code (ie Cantonese and English) subject to the respondentrsquospreference Three obligatory questions were raised and four to seven optional questions were prepared for use (seeAppendix 2) The interviews were recorded and transcribed3 To support the analysis relevant Cantonese interviewdiscourse was extracted translated to English and edited

45 Respondents and interviewees -- browsers of Hong Kong online forums

A total of 30 Cantonese-speaking respondents completed the questionnaire Nineteen of them were between 22 and32 years old one was between 32 and 41 years old four were between 42 and 51 years old and six were between 51 and52 years old All respondents were Hong Kong online forum browsers They stated that they regularly browsed Hong Kongonline forums possibly including Internet forums A and B though they might not give any responses to the posts Of the 30respondents 15 of them (50) agreed to take part in the follow-up interview

46 Identification of disagreement strategies

Based on the interactional approach identification was made primarily based on a series of turns (at least two turns)made by the forum interlocutors while they were interacting with one another Interlocutorsrsquo comments and evaluations ofeach otherrsquos responses were seen as important information in the identification process To facilitate the identification aspreviously mentioned a list of disagreement strategies relevant to CMC interactions4 was taken from the work of Culpeper(1996) Locher (2004) and Bousfield (2008) The list was not exhaustive and was used as a reference for the identificationof disagreement strategies only (Appendix 3) Some strategies on the list were found in the data but some were not Newstrategies were added during the analysis The strategies that were found in the data together with the correspondingdescriptions are summarized below

3 Cantonese transcription is done via JyutPingEasyNet at httpwwwjyutpingeasynetscgi-bintoJyutPingcgi4 Some strategies that require facial expressions or sounds such as shouting (Bousfield 2008137) were not included


461 Giving negative commentsPersonA makes commentsonan issueprominently ina comparatively negative tone Shestateswhat she thinks tobethe

right thing to do and proceeds toaccusePersonB ormake a comparisonwithwhat they think is the wrongdoing ofPersonB inapersonalized way using the pronouns of (ngo5) I and (nei5) youyour (Culpeper 1996358 Bousfield 2008115--118)

462 Using short vulgar phrasesPerson A uses taboo words when she disagrees with Person B (Culpeper 1996358) such as swear words and the

use of abusive or profane language (Culpeper 1996358 Bousfield 2008110)

463 Raising rhetorical questionsPerson A disagrees in the form of a question such as a negative tag question or a question using negative

interrogatives (Locher 2004133) or another kind of question The question displays a very clear opposite view

464 Making a personal stancePerson A denies association or common ground with Person B (Culpeper 1996357 Bousfield 2008103--104) by

showing onersquos position in a phrase such as lsquoI donrsquot believe thatI donrsquot think sorsquo

465 Making an ironic statementPerson A says something insincerely and it remains a surface realization only (Culpeper 1996356) with the use of an

inappropriate identity marker (Culpeper 1996357)

466 CursingPerson A warns threatens or tries to frighten the recipient by predicting that a certain consequence or detrimental

event will occur to Person B (Culpeper 1996358 Bousfield 2008112)

New types were added during the analysis They were

467 Giving opposite opinionsPerson A disagrees by giving an opinion that is contrary to what is said She has no intention of giving negative

comments on people or an issue

468 RewordingPerson A shows disagreement by making minor changes to or reconstructing Person Brsquos original comments instead of

repeating the utterance

469 Giving personal experiencePerson A refers to his or her previous experience to substantiate disagreement

4610 Giving factsPerson A disagrees by using quotations statistical information pictures videos etc to show a completely opposite view

4611 ReprimandingPerson A tells Person B that hisher actionbehaviorattitude is not approved and the message may involve emotion

(Locher 2004)

5 Findings

In the following sub-sections the variety of disagreement strategies is further discussed along with their occurrenceand distribution in the four posts from the two different Internet forums Detailed analysis of the framing andlinguistic features of each disagreement strategy is presented and juxtaposed with examples Then the respondentsrsquo(ie browsers) judgment of the (im)politeness of the disagreement strategies is summarized followed by the statisticalanalysis of the correlations among (im)politeness (in)appropriateness and negativelypositively marked behavior

51 Ways of expressing disagreement in the two Hong Kong Internet discussion forums

A total of 317 responses in the four posts were studied The less controversial posts had 168 responses whereas thecontroversial posts had 149 responses Ninety-nine disagreement responses (3123) were identified Among them 63responses (6364) came from the two controversial topic posts (G2 and D2) while 36 responses (3636) came fromthe less controversial topic posts (G1 and D1) The responses could be categorized into eleven types of disagreementstrategies As listed above six of the strategies were found on the prepared list based on the work of Culpeper (1996)


Locher (2004) and Bousfield (2008) while five were not Giving negative comments and cursing belonged to the negativeimpoliteness output strategies (Culpeper 1996328) while short vulgar phraserasing rhetorical quesitons makingpersonal stance and making an ironic statement were the positive impoliteness output strategies

Table 2Types of disagreement and frequency rates in the four posts

Posttypes of disagreement Less controversial Controversial Total

G1 D1 G2 D2

Giving opposite opinions 1 3

Giving negative comments -- 3 2

Reprimanding -- -- 7

Using short vulgar phrases 2 -- 6 -- 8 (808)Raising rhetorical questions -- 1 -- 3 4 (404)Making a personal stance 1 4 -- 1 6 (606)Making an ironic statement -- 1 4 1 6 (606)Cursing -- -- 5 2 7 (707)Rewording -- 1 1 -- 2 (202)Giving personal experience 2 4 -- -- 6 (606)Giving facts 1 -- -- 5 (505)Total 10 26 42 21 99 (100)

Bold and italic figures indicated the highest frequency rate of the disagreement types

52 Framing and linguistic devices

The eleven types of disagreement strategies were framed in different ways characterized by various linguistic devicesFor instance a negative comment was sometimes made in the form of a metaphor to describe the userrsquos attitude orbehavior Most negative comments were associated with the Chinese cultural values for support In Example 1 participantC borrowed a Chinese proverb gau2 hau2 zoeng2 bat1 ceot1 zeong6 ngaa4 A dogrsquos mouth cannot growivory5 to comment on Brsquos response

Example 1 -- Giving negative comments Post G2

B

5 ThHong

6 Thmore

Jau6

e ChineKong sis meandetails

siu2

se procietys a pe

gwo3

overb

rson is

jan4

not ab

zaang1

ga

le to say s

faan6

u2 hau2

omethin

sik6

zoen

g nice

good

g2 bat1

and civ

good

Itrsquos good to have fewer persons to compete with

C

Gu2

m4

dou3

jau5

jan4

waa6

siu2

go3

deoi3

sau2

ceot1

ilized R

ngo5

soeng1

seon3

nei5

maa1

mai5

jau5

daai6

baa2

zoe

efe

deoi3

ng6 nga

r to http

sau2

(I) could not imagine that someone would say in this way I believe your mum has many competitors

B

Nei5

maa1

mai

sin1

hai6

Perhaps your mum is

C

Gau2

hau2

zoeng2

bat1

ceot1

zoeng6

ngaa4

6

A dogrsquos mouth cannot grow ivory

A short vulgar phrase was usually expressed directly by the interlocutors without any mitigation It included the

use of taboo words Sometimes a short vulgar phrase can function as straightforward disagreement like the use oflsquolsquoNorsquorsquo

a4 (A dogrsquos mouth cannot grow ivory) is also widely used in

wwwzdicnetcdci8ZdicE7Zdic8BZdic97293498htm for


Example 2 -- Using short vulgar phrases Post G1

B

7 Na

X

mes o

ni1

f cou

gaan1

ntries wil

zan1

l be repl

hai6

aced by A

m4

BC

caa1

D etc

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS

X that college is not bad and it is not much different from Y college X college seems to rank number 1 amongtop SS colleges in Country C7

F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3

I wouldnrsquot believe you even if you fking hit me to death

B

wai4

gei1

ceot1

gei3

dou1

m4

seon3

ngo5

zan6

gaan1

jau5

si4

gaan3

zoi3

bong1

nei5

wan2

di1

D

gang3

jau5

gung1

seon3

lik6

gei3

loi4

jyun4

hou2

m4

hou2

If you donrsquot even believe in Wikipedia would you like me to help you find some more trust-worthy sources later when Ihave time

F

m4

hou2

daa2

fei1

gei1

laa1

D

zung6

ging3

gwo3

nei5

D

Donrsquot jerk off (the implied meaning in Cantonese is lsquolsquodonrsquot be too self-obsessedrsquorsquo) D is tougher than you

Raising a rhetorical question was made by posting a question to the majority of the people that has a very obviousanswer In Example 3 interlocutor K queried if interlocutor F had the four virtues using a yes-no rhetorical form inCantonese jau5mou5

Example 3 -- Raising rhetorical questions Post D2

B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

----

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5

Both beautiful and smart When someone dies she will become an excellent and beautiful young girl in conductand study

F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5

You call that pretty Arenrsquot there any pretty girls in Hong Kong

K

Nei5

jau5

jan4

ji6

lai5

zi3

maa1

Do you possess the four virtues (benevolence righteousness propriety and wisdom)

Making a personal stance was achieved by giving an explicit phrase to show an opposite view Phrases like lsquolsquoI donrsquot

agreersquorsquo lsquolsquoI am notrsquorsquo lsquolsquoso my understanding is rsquorsquo were often used for this purpose In Example 4 interlocutor B showed hisposition at the beginning of the discourse

Example 4 -- Making a personalstance Post D1

A

Saang1 wut6 fong1 min6 gwok3 gaa1 A gei3 mat6 gaa3 soeng1 deoi3 gwok3 gaa1 B dou1 ping4 di1 ping4 si4soeng2 haang4 gaai1 sik6 je5 dou1 jau5 hou2 do1 hou2 hou2 gei3 ban2 paai4 tung4 maai4 caan1 teng18 ngo5 zi1so2 ji5 fan1 hoeng2 ni1 di1 hai6 jan1 wai6 gok3 hou2 do1 hoeng1 gong2 jan4 dou1 gok3 dak1 gwok3 gaa1 B duk6syu1 sin1 hai6 zeoi3 hou2 kei4 sat6 ngo5 zan1 hai6 gok3 dak1 m4 hai6 heoi3 gwok3 gaa1 A duk6 syu1 sin1 wui5tai2 jim6 dou3 lau4 hok6 gei3 lok6 ceoi3


In terms of lifestyle the cost of living in Country A is cheaper than that in Country B If you want to eat out there are alot of brand names and restaurants Irsquom sharing this with you because I feel a lot of Hong Kong people think that itrsquosbest only if you study in Country B but I really donrsquot feel in that way Studying in Country A allows you to reallyexperience the joy of studying abroad

B Bt1 tung4 ji3 ze2 jat1 dim2 zoi6 gwok3 gaa1 A gong2 sik6 je5 gaan2 zik6 soeng2 sei2 A

I donrsquot agree on one point eating in Country A makes me want to die

An ironic statement was made in the Internet forums by manipulating respectable honorific terms of address InExample 5 interlocutor F used gok3 haa6 your highness to create a sarcastic tone

Example 5 -- Making an ironic statement Post D2

A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

(A link to a news report)

zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1

This young girl who sacrificed her life for her sister was commended by her classmates for being both beautiful and smart

B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5


L

Deoi3

jat1

go3

ji5

gwo3

san1

dik1

jan4

gam2

ban2

ping4

jan4

dei6

dei6

kau4

zan1

hai6

m4

hai6

hou2

ngaam4

gok3

haa6

Assessing someone who has already died the Earth is not the right place for your highness

Cursing was made by threatening the interactant with a detrimental consequence within a definite period of time InExample 6 interlocutor P cursed interlocutor A by threatening himher saying lsquolsquoYou need to be cautious during the last twoyears of your lifersquorsquo

Example 6 -- Cursing Post D2

A

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


P

Jan4

zoi6

zou6

tin1

zoi6

hon3

zeoi3

mei5

loeng5

nin4

Heaven is watching us as we live my dear brother you need to be cautious during the last two years of your life

The opposite opinion was framed in a direct manner without mitigation It was not accompanied with any standard

phrases such as lsquolsquoI donrsquot agree with yoursquorsquo or lsquolsquoI donrsquot thinkbelieve sorsquorsquo nor with any preparatory ground In Example 7interlocutor D stated the opposite opinion outright lsquolsquoPretty or not is not that importantrsquorsquo

Example 7 -- Giving opposite opinions Post D2

A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5 jau6 cung1

min

g4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1


Exam

A

J

This young girl who sacrificed her life for her sister was commended by her classmates for being both beautiful andsmart

ple 8 -- Rewording Post D1

sin1 gong2 haa5 bui3 ging2 sin1

ngo5 heoi3 zo2 gwok3 gaa1 A xx duk6 hihi

sau2 sin1 gwok3 gga1 A zan1 hai6 hou3 doA

gwok3 gaa1 gei3 jan4 hai6 dou6 duk6 syu1

ngo5 gei3 hou2 pang4 jau5 jau5 daai6 luk6 ja

jau5 hon4 gwok3 jan4 jau5 jat6 bun2 jan4

Letrsquos talk about the background first I have studied in xx in CFirst students who are studying in Country A really come froMainland Chinese Koreans and Japanese jyu4 gwo2 jiu3 heoi2 ngoi6 gwok3 duk6 syu1

sau2 syun2 gwok3 gaa1 B jan1 wai6 gwok3 ga

B

hou2 do1 m4 tung4 gwok3 gaa1 jan4 hai6 do

jyu4 gwo2 jiu3 heoi2 ngoi6 gwok3 duk6 syu1

sau2 syun2 gwok3 gaa1 D jan1 wai6 gwok3 gaD

tung4 gwok3 gaa1 jau4 kei4 si6 aa3 zau1 ja

jyu4 gwo2 jiu3 heoi2 kei4 taa1 dei6 fong1 du

sau2 syun2 gwok3 gaa1 EE

jan1 wai4 gwok3 gaa1 E zan1 hai6 hou2 doE

jan4 hai6 dou6 duk6 syu1

gh school ji5

gh school

1 m4 tung4

n4

ountry A for 4 y

m different countr

a1 B zan1B

u6 duk6 syu1

a1 D zan1D

n4 hai6 dou6

k6 syu1

1 m4 tung4

ging

earsies M

hai6

hai6

duk

zik6

1 sei34

y goo

hou

6 syu1

gun

B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


D

Leng3

m4

leng3

gan1

bun2

m4

zung6

jiu3

Pretty or not is not that important

Rewording was presented by making minor changes to part of the message expressed by another interlocutor or byreconstructing onersquos comments repeatedly In the following instance interlocutor J repeatedly used interlocutor Arsquosstructure of lsquolsquostudents (in a country) really come from different countriesrsquorsquo In addition the pattern of lsquolsquoIf you want to studyabroad (a country) is the first choice because (a reason)rsquorsquo appeared three times in interlocutor Jrsquos message (Example 8)

nin4 liu5

d friends include

2 do1 m4

3


If you want to study abroad Country B is the first choice because students really come from differentcountries If you want to study abroad Country D is the first choice because students really come fromdifferent countries especially there are many Asians If you want to study in other countries CountryE is the first choice becausestudents really come from different provinces

Giving personal experience was accomplished by stating an opposite previous experience of the interactant (Ngo5)Iwas usually used to indicate that this was the interactantrsquos own experience In Example 9 interlocutor F referred to hisherown eating experience in B Chinatown to show hisher disagreement with interlocutor Ersquos view

Example 9 -- Giving personal experience Post D1

E

Ngo5

hai6

B

dei6

ngo5

ho2

ji5

gong2

hai6

B

dei6

gei3

tong4

jan4

gaai1

gei3

B

B

sik6

mat6

zi2

hai6

bei2

nei5

jung6

lai4

wai4

ci4

saang1

ming6

Irsquom in place B I can say The food from B from BChinatown can only maintain your life

F

Waak6

ze2

ngo5

jiu1

kau4

m4

gou1

ngo5

hoeng2

B

dei6

daa2

dan2

daa2

zo2

sap6

luk6

nin4

B

tong4

jan4

gaai1

di1

je5

gwo3

dak1

heoi3

aa1

D

Perhaps my requirements arenrsquot high Irsquove been roaming around B for 16 years the food in B Chinatown is acceptable

Giving facts was usually done by stating some statistical information or quoting facts from other resources to prove a

point of view Interlocutors tended to give a direct quotation of part of the information or give a link to the related resourcesIn Example 10 interlocutor E added the hyperlink in hisher discourse and asked the others to go and read it

Example 10 -- Giving facts Post G1

B

X

ni1

gaan1

zan1

hai6

m4

caa1

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS

X that college is not bad not much different from Y college It seems to rank number 1 SS College inCountry C

C

Dai6

ji6

ze2

FF

daai6

hok6

sin1

hai6

dai6

jat1

FF

Rank second only F College is the one that ranks number 1

F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


E

httpwwwwebometricsinfotop12000aspoffset=250

tai2 haa

5 da

i6 285

ming4


285


Look It

ranks

285

Reprimanding was usually performed in the form of an interrogatory question in which another interlocutor pointed out thewrongdoing without any further comment The pronoun (Nei5) you was found in almost every response (Example 11)

Example 11 -- Reprimanding Post D2

A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1

This young girl who sacrificed her life for her sister was commended by her classmates as being both beautiful andsmart


B

Table

Secon

Disag

GivingGivingReprimUsingRaisinMakinMakinGivingGivingCursinRewoTotal

Jau6

3d read

reemen

oppos negatandin

short vg rhetog a perg an iro

perso facts

g

rding

mei5

errsquos eva

t types

ite opinive comg

ulgar prical qusonal snic stanal exp

jau6

luatio

ions

ments

hrasesestiontance

temenerienc

cung1

n of the

s

t

e

ming4

disagreeme

Numbchose

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

32

nt type

er of rn by s

s and

esponsecond

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

corre

es reade

jau1

spond

r

mei5

ing res

siu3

ponse

Numbdisag

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

31

neoi5

s

er of agreemen


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5

t

Do you call that pretty Arenrsquot there any pretty girls in Hong Kong

M

jau5

mou4

jan4

sing3

gaa3

ji4

gaa1

jan4 dou

1sei

2 z

o

zung6

hei2

dou6

tou2

leon6

leng3

m4

leng3

zou6

jan4

jau5

di1

loeng4

sam1

hou2

mou4 aa

1

d

Do you have any humanity Shersquos dead now and are you still talking about whether or not she is pretty herePlease have a heart canrsquot you

53 Second raterrsquos evaluation

To validate the eleven types of disagreement strategies identified and cross-checked by the researchers a secondrater was asked to evaluate the identified types of disagreements and responses agreed by the researchers The raterwas invited to evaluate responses representing each type of disagreement strategy Thirty-two responses (3232) wererandomly chosen from the 99 responses representing the eleven types of disagreement strategies It was found that thesecond reader agreed with all 32 responses except one which involved rewording (Table 3) Thus the classification andidentified corresponding responses proved to be very reliable with about 97 of agreement between the researchers andthe second rater

reed strategies

Percentage of the agreeddisagreement strategies

100100100100100100100100100100

66679688

54 Respondentsrsquo judgment on the eleven types of disagreement strategies

541 Rating and explanationAn overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that the listed responses were disagreement strategies except for

one question (Q35) which had only 6667 supportTotaling the frequency rates for each of the three parameters within the seven types of disagreement strategies it was

found that 3020 of the respondents rated 3 for (im)politeness (Table 4) 36 rated 3 for (in)appropriateness (Table 5) and2620 rated 3 for negativelypositively marked behavior (Table 6) on a 5-point scale The average ratings for (im)politeness(in)appropriateness and negativelypositively marked behavior were 299 318 and 295 respectively (Table 7)


Table 5Total frequency rates for the eleven types of disagreement strategies in (in)appropriateness

Rating Frequency Percent

1 34 8102 62 14803 151 36004 80 19005 62 1480Invalid 31 740

420 100

The rating category with the highest frequency was shaded

Table 6Total frequency rates for the eleven types of disagreement strategies in negativelypositively marked behavior


1 70 16702 72 17103 110 26204 76 18105 61 1450Invalid 31 740

420 100


Table 7Average ratings for the eleven disagreement strategies in the three parameters

(Im)politeness (In)appropriateness Negativelypositively marked behavior

299 318 295

Table 4Total frequency rates for the eleven types of disagreement strategies in (im)politeness


1 56 13302 71 16903 127 30204 86 20505 49 1170Invalid 31 740

420 100


Examining closely the rating for each type of disagreement strategy in relation to the three parameters it was found thatsix out of the eleven types of disagreement strategies were rated 3 by the majority of the respondents (Tables 8--10) Thesix types of disagreement strategies were giving opposite opinions giving negative comments making a personalstance reprimanding raising rhetorical questions and rewording The rating of 3 indicated that the respondents weregenerally inclined to view the six types of disagreement strategies as neither polite appropriate and positively markedbehavior nor impolite inappropriate and negatively marked behavior Nevertheless cursing and using short vulgarphrases were rated as impolite inappropriate and negatively marked behavior (rating = 1) by a great majority of therespondents Giving personal experience was rated as polite and positively marked but neither appropriate norinappropriate by about 30 of the respondents Giving facts was rated as appropriate (rating = 4) and positively markedbehavior (rating = 5) but neither polite nor impolite (rating = 3) by over 30 of the respondents Making an ironic statementwas the disagreement strategy that was positively rated on all three parameters (rating = 4) by the majority of therespondents Table 11 presents their average rating


Table 9Frequency rate for each type of disagreement strategy in (in)appropriateness

Frequency (Percent)strategy Rating = 1 veryinappropriate

Rating = 2 Rating = 3 Rating = 4 Rating = 5 veryappropriate

Invalid

Giving opposite opinions 3 (5) 7 (117) 27 (45) 12 (20) 7 (117) 4 (67)Giving negative comments 2 (33) 11 (183) 25 (417) 7 (117) 8 (133) 7 (117)Making a personal stance 2 (67) 5 (167) 13 (433) 5 (167) 3 (10) 2 (67)Giving personal experience 2 (33) 8 (133) 20 (333) 12 (20) 12 (20) 6 (10)Reprimanding 3 (5) 11 (183) 20 (333) 12 (20) 9 (15) 5 (83)Raising rhetorical questions 0 (0) 4 (133) 12 (40) 7 (233) 5 (167) 2 (67)Rewording 1 (33) 1 (33) 9 (30) 4 (133) 2 (67) 13 (433)Making an ironic statement 1 (33) 1 (33) 10 (333) 11 (367) 5 (167) 2 (67)Giving facts 2 (67) 3 (10) 8 (267) 10 (333) 7 (233) 2 (67)Cursing 8 (267) 8 (267) 6 (20) 3 (10) 3 (10) 2 (67)Using short vulgar phrases 11 (367) 4 (133) 10 (333) 1 (33) 3 (10) 1 (33)

The rating categories with the highest frequency for each disagreement type in (in)appropriateness were shaded

Table 10Frequency rate for each type of disagreement strategy in negativepositive marked behavior

Frequency (Percent)strategy Rating = 1 negativelymarked

Rating = 2 Rating = 3 Rating = 4 Rating = 5positively marked

Invalid

Giving opposite opinions 9 (15) 12 (20) 16 (267) 11 (183) 8 (133) 4 (67)Giving negative comments 8 (133) 11 (183) 18 (30) 9 (15) 7 (117) 7 (117)Making a personal stance 6 (20) 5 (167) 10 (333) 4 (133) 3 (10) 2 (67)Reprimanding 8 (133) 12 (20) 15 (25) 12 (20) 8 (133) 5 (83)Raising rhetorical questions 2 (67) 2 (67) 14 (467) 5 (167) 5 (167) 2 (67)Rewording 1 (33) 1 (33) 8 (267) 4 (133) 3 (10) 13 (433)Giving personal experience 6 (10) 11 (183) 12 (20) 16 (267) 9 (15) 6 (10)Making an ironic statement 3 (10) 5 (167) 7 (233) 8 (267) 5 (167) 2 (67)Giving facts 2 (67) 2 (67) 7 (233) 8 (267) 11 (367) 2 (67)Cursing 14 (467) 6 (20) 4 (133) 2 (67) 2 (67) 2 (67)Using short vulgar phrases 12 (40) 6 (20) 7 (233) 1 (33) 3 (10) 1 (33)

The rating categories with the highest frequency for each disagreement type in negativepositive marked behavior were shaded

Table 8Frequency rate for each type of disagreement strategy in (im)politeness

Frequency (Percent)strategy Rating = 1very impolite

Rating = 2 Rating = 3 Rating = 4 Rating = 5very polite

Invalid

Giving opposite opinions 4 (67) 10(167) 23(383) 13(217) 6(10) 4(67)Giving negative comments 3 (5) 13 (217) 21 (35) 10 (167) 6 (10) 7 (117)Making a personal stance 2 (67) 7 (233) 14 (467) 3 (10) 2 (67) 2 (67)Reprimanding 5 (83) 15 (25) 18 (30) 13 (217) 4 (67) 5 (83)Raising rhetorical questions 2 (67) 2 (67) 11 (367) 9 (30) 4 (133) 2 (67)Rewording 1 (33) 1 (33) 7 (233) 6 (20) 2 (67) 13 (433)Giving facts 0 (0) 3 (10) 11 (367) 9 (30) 7 (233) 3 (10)Giving personal experience 1 (17) 7 (117) 16 (267) 17 (283) 13 (217) 6 (10)Making an ironic statement 0 (0) 4 (133) 9 (30) 11 (367) 4 (133) 2 (67)Cursing 19 (633) 4 (133) 3 (10) 0 (0) 2 (67) 2 (67)Using short vulgar phrases 20 (667) 6 (20) 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33)

The rating categories with the highest frequency for each disagreement type in (im)politeness were shaded

Table 11Average rating for each disagreement type in terms of the three parameters

Disagreement types Politeness Appropriateness Positivelynegatively marked behavior

Giving opposite opinions 313 323 295Giving negative comments 306 315 292Reprimanding 293 324 300Using short vulgar phrases 152 234 221Raising rhetorical questions 339 346 332Making a personal stance 286 307 275


Table 11 (Continued )


Making an ironic statement 354 325Giving personal experience 363 344 320Giving facts 357

Cursing 164 246 200Rewording 341 329 341

Respondent 27 for instance gave 4 3 and 4 points to the three parameters for the strategy of giving facts with thefollowing explanation provided in the follow-up interview

Table 1Five sp

Q No

Q8

Q20

Q26

Q28

Respondent 27

R3 is polite because it doesnrsquot contain any verbal or personal attacks The speaker of R3 tried to provide evidencesupporting hisher point of view which has a positive effect on the flow of conversation this is why I rated 4 forwhether the response is negative or positive As for appropriateness even though the speaker tried to givesupporting evidence there is too much irrelevant information involved that is not necessary so I rated 3 forappropriateness (Edited English translation)

Respondents 10 and 20 rated 2 5 5 and 2 4 2 points respectively for the three parameters for using irony Their

explanations are reported as follows

Respondent 10

I donrsquot like the expression used What R41 means is that Speaker B cannot be counted as human beings This is notgood so I rated 2 for politeness However it is ok to do so in online forums and they were talking about the issues notother things I feel like Speaker F is correcting the morality so I gave 5 to appropriateness (Edited English translation)

Respondent 20

I rated 2 for politeness because the implied meaning of R41 is a bit humiliating I rated 4 for appropriatenessbecause Speaker F didnrsquot go off topic (Edited English translation)

Studying the average rating of the eleven disagreement strategies it was found that there was a slight fluctuation in therating of the three parameters for the strategies of using short vulgar phrases and cursing (Table 12) Although using shortvulgar phrases was rated the lowest in politeness and appropriateness it was not the lowest in negativelypositivelymarked behavior Cursing was found to be the most negatively marked behavior but it was slightly better than using shortvulgar phrases in the parameters of politeness and appropriateness Interestingly both short vulgar phrases and cursinghad about a one-point difference (= 082) between the ratings of politeness and appropriateness

Question 26 (Response 52) which belonged to the short vulgar phrases category was rated the lowest in politeness(152 points Table 12) because lsquolsquoIt uses swear words which makes it impolite It is very directrsquorsquo (Respondent 10 EditedEnglish translation) However it was rated slightly above 2 in appropriateness and negativelypositively marked behaviorRespondents 10 and 36 gave their reasons as follows

Respondent 10

(R52 -- short vulgar phrase) For appropriateness because what was said by the other party is really morallyincorrect it is normal to have such a response Moreover this is also how people communicate in online forums(Edited English translation)

Respondent 36

(R52 -- short vulgar phrase) Impolite because of the use of rude language but appropriate because this is just howpeople express themselves in online forums (Edited English translation)

Question 28 (Response 76) which was a curse received the lowest points in negativelypositively marked behavior forthe following reason

2ecific responses and the average score of each parameter

Response code Politeness Appropriateness Positivelynegatively marked behavior

Giving facts -- R13 367 357 380Making an ironic statement -- R41 354 364 325Using short vulgar phrases -- R52 152 234 221Cursing -- R76 164 246 200


Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3

It is a negative response since the message it conveyed can potentially trigger another argument in the post (EditedEnglish translation)

542 Metapragmatic knowledge and criteria for judgmentThe follow-up interviews with the 15 respondents provided further insights into their metapragmatic knowledge of and

judgment criteria for the three parameters In response to the three obligatory questions 10 of them felt that politeness andappropriateness were different issues whereas three felt that they were similar Two thought that they were different buthad an influence on each other Twelve interviewees held a similar view that the three parameters were different butrelated to or could affect each other Only two thought that they were not closely related As regards the negatively andpositively marked responses eight said they would consider the interlocutorrsquos feelings and message content six wouldconsider the consequences of the comment and morality while three would consider whether the comment was off-topicwhether the comment was an agreement or a disagreement and the interlocutorrsquos attitude (Table 13)

13 intervieweesrsquo answers to the three obligatory questions in the follow-up interview

Questions Answers Frequency

Do you think (im)politeness and(im)appropriateness are the same thing

Different 10Similar 3Different but can affect each other 2

Do you think (im)politeness and(im)appropriateness (negativepositive)markedness are related

Different but can affect each other 7Different but related 5Related but not very closely related 2

What are the criteria you will considerwhen you are asked to judge whethera response is a negative or positive one

Consequences 3Feeling 4Morality 3Content 4Off-topic 1Attitude 1Disagreementagreement 1

14 intervieweesrsquo judgment criteria for each parameter

meters Criteria Parameters Criteria

lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive

No swear words Have swear words

Indirect Show no respect humiliating full commentstone negative of

adjectives

Disagree with supporting ideas supporting any without Disagree ideas

Normal conversational behavior Trigger further arguments

opriate

of amount appropriate With information

Inappropriate

Too much of lack information

No swear words

Indirect

Correct morality negative attacks Personal adjectives

Did not go off-topic Off-topicComment on the issue only Trigger further arguments

Consonant view

Normal conversational behavior

itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked

DiscouragingRational Subjective

Facilitate discussion Personal attack

Direct disagreement

= same criterion shared between politeness and appropriateness = same criterion shared between appropriateness and positively marked = same criterion shared between impoliteness and inappropriateness= same criterion shared among impoliteness inappropriateness and negatively marked haded+ italics = unique criterion of each parameter


Concerning judgment criteria the interviewees mentioned a number of criteria that could be shared between parametersAccording to the interviewees politeness and appropriateness were thought to be related as they shared the criteria ofindirectness lack of swear words and normal conversational behavior Similarly correct morality was the criterion sharedbetween appropriateness and positively marked behavior (Im)politeness seems to be determined by the provision ofsupporting ideas (in)appropriateness is affected by the ability to discuss relevantly and positivelynegatively markedbehavior is the extent to which onersquos response encourages or discourages others to continue the discussion (Table 14)

55 Correlations among the three parameters

Correlations among the three parameters were examined Politeness had a 657 correlation with appropriateness anda 656 correlation with negativelypositively marked behavior while appropriateness had a 677 correlation with negativelypositively marked behavior (Table 15) The Spearman correlation coefficient showed that the three parameters had amoderately8 positive linear relationship with one another This means if one category is marked high another category islikely to be marked high The relationship was further confirmed in the partial correlation analysis It was found that whenone category was controlled the correlation between the other two categories still remained positive but became weakerFor instance the correlation between positivelynegatively marked behavior and politeness changed from 656 (Table 15)to 369 (Table 17) when appropriateness was controlled In other words the three parameters affect each otherTables 16--18 show the partial correlation analysis results

Table 15Spearman correlation test results

(Im)politeness (In)appropriateness Positivelynegatively marked behavior

(Im)Politeness Correlation Coefficient 1000 657 656

Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385

(In)Appropriateness Correlation Coefficient 657 1000 677

Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385

Positivelynegativelymarked behavior

Correlation Coefficient 656 677 1000Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385

Correlation is significant at the level of 001 (2-tailed)

Table 16Partial correlation analysis between (im)politeness and (in)appropriateness when positivelynegatively marked behavior was controlled

Control variable (Im)politeness (In)appropriateness

Positivelynegatively marked behavior (Im)politeness Correlation 1000 391Sig (2-tailed) 000df 0 382

(In)appropriateness Correlation 391 1000Sig (2-tailed) 000df 382 0

Table 17Partial correlation analysis between (im)politeness and positivelynegatively marked behavior when (in)appropriateness was controlled

Control variable (Im)politeness Positivelynegatively marked behavior

(In)appropriateness (Im)politeness Correlation 1000 369Sig (2-tailed) 000df 0 382


Correlation 369 1000Sig (2-tailed) 000df 382 0

8 As for more information about the interpretation of the range of correlation coefficient please refer to Chan (2003 614)


Table 18Partial correlation analysis between (in)appropriateness and positivelynegatively marked when (im)politeness was controlled

Control variable (In)appropriateness Positivelynegatively marked behavior

(Im)politeness (In)appropriateness Correlation 1000 445Sig (2-tailed) 000df 0 382



6 Discussion

With reference to the findings and analysis three issues merit discussion The first issue concerns the relationshipsamong Hong Kong Internet discussion forum culture the identified disagreement strategies and their correspondingframing and linguistic devices The second issue is the consonance between the forum browsersrsquo (ie respondentsrsquo)metapragmatic knowledge and the research analysis The two issues finally lead to the discussion of the applicability ofthe interactional and discursive approaches in interpreting (im)politeness in CMC

61 Hong Kong Internet discussion forum culture (im)politeness and disagreement strategies

The findings have revealed the direct and unmitigated culture of Hong Kong Internet discussion forums as evident inthe framing and linguistic features Of the eleven identified disagreement strategies six of them were found on theprepared list The number of strategies framing and corresponding linguistic features not only reveal the diversity ofresponses but also demonstrate the ways in which the forum interlocutors prefer to have their responses expressed incontext As shown in a number of disagreement types namely giving negative comments using short vulgar phrasescursing giving opposite opinions and reprimanding with no preparatory ground (refer to section 52) the interlocutors ofthe two Hong Kong Internet forums usually disagree outright with no mitigation Unlike the Thai (Hongladarom andHongladarom 2005) the interlocutors of the two Hong Kong Internet forums do not seek common ground prior to theirdisagreement An interlocutor even reprimands and curses the other interlocutors whenever she feels that the attitude oropinion is not acceptable particularly in the controversial topic posts

Considering the overall frequency rate and average rating of the eleven types of disagreement types (Tables 4--7) aswell as the frequency rate for each disagreement strategy (Tables 8--10) given by the 30 Cantonese-speakingrespondents (ie forum browsers) they generally perceive the identified disagreement strategies and behavior asneither polite appropriate positively marked nor impolite inappropriate and negatively marked (rating at about 3)according to the social context of the interactional situation (in this case Hong Kong Internet forums) and their previousexperiences in online discussion forums Nevertheless an overwhelming majority of the respondents judged cursingand using short vulgar phrases as impolite inappropriate and negatively marked behavior Giving personal experienceand facts and making an ironic statement are generally considered as quite appropriate polite and positively markedbehavior possibly because the three strategies provide supporting ideas and facilitate discussion and they are not off-topic (Table 14)

The percentage of disagreement strategies in each post concurs with Kotthoffrsquos view (1993 cited in Locher 200497)that disagreement is likely to happen in the anonymous equal-status Internet forums Each Internet forum is a uniquecommunity characterized by its own features The distribution of the 99 responses in the four posts shows that each post isa community with its own cultural practices They have their shared norms values and linguistic features For instancegiving opposite opinions is the norm in D1 and giving negative comments is commonly practiced in G2 Using short vulgarphrases is common in G1 and G2 regardless of the discussion topic Reprimanding and cursing stand out in controversialtopic discussion (G2 and D2) in particular The number of disagreements tends to vary with the topic of discussion in theposts---there is less disagreement in the posts of the less controversial topic (G1 and D1) than in the posts of thecontroversial topic (G2 and D2) (Table 2)

62 Interviewed respondentsrsquo (ie forum browsersrsquo) metapragmatic knowledge and research analysis of the threeparameters of relational work

The 30 Cantonese-speaking respondentsrsquo metapragmatic knowledge is in consonance with the findings and analysisThe traditional view that politeness equates indirectness (Brown and Levinson 1987 Leech 1983) still remains valid inthe Internet forum communication as evident in the 15 respondentsrsquo interview data (Tables 13 and 14) The judgingcriteria of the 15 interviewed respondents for politeness and appropriateness include indirectness and the absence of


rude language (eg swear words) If a disagreement is morally correct it will be judged as an appropriate and a positivelymarked behavior In contrast personal attacks or the use of negative adjectives that may trigger further arguments are aninappropriate and a negatively marked behavior (Table 14) The correlations and shared criteria between the parametersalign with the statistical analysis The Spearman correlation has demonstrated that there is a moderately positivecorrelation among the three parameters---(im)politeness (in)appropriateness and negativelypositively marked behavior(Table 15) That is to say when a response is considered polite it will probably be rated as appropriate and positivelymarked The analysis holds true for six out of eleven types of disagreements with a difference from 01 to 03 except forthe strategies of using short vulgar phrases cursing making an ironic statement making a personal stance reprimandingand giving personal experience (Table 11) The use of short vulgar phrases and cursing were rated very low on politenessat 152 and 164 respectively However both of them scored 2 or slightly above 2 on appropriateness and negativelypositively marked behavior (Table 12) It is rather difficult to explain the difference without juxtaposing it with theintervieweesrsquo explanations again As reported in section 541 they believe that rude language constitutes impolitenesshowever it is an acceptable online communication norm The 15 interviewed respondentsrsquo answers to the three questions(Table 13) also confirm the view that politeness and appropriateness are two different parameters but that they can affecteach other subject to content and the norm or culture of the Internet forum Both statistical and qualitative data reveal thecorrelation between the parameters but this may not remain consistent instead they interact in a flexible manner Therating and interview data have shed some light on the complicated relational work among the three parameters and havegiven some evidence to prove the applicability of the discursive approach in CMC disagreement data

63 Combining the interactional and discursive approaches in interpreting (im)politeness in CMC

The identification of disagreement strategies has lent some support to the applicability of the interactional anddiscursive approaches in CMC As reported in section 51 identification was made primarily based on the ways theinterlocutors responded to one anotherrsquos messages despite the fixed or formulaic linguistic features such as lsquonorsquo or lsquoI donot agreersquo Therefore according to some Chinese cultural values a short vulgar phrase or cursing or reprimanding isglossed as disagreement strategies in the context The disagreement responses reflect their understanding andevaluation of the posted messages and the interlocutorrsquos conduct It is through interactions with and responses of theinterlocutors to one another that disagreement is successfully identified in the two Internet discussion forums Theadoption of the interactional approach to identify disagreement in CMC is therefore applicable and nearly all categoriesand corresponding examples were confirmed by the second rater The attempt to seek the views of the browsers who arethe lay members and qualified participants of the online discussion forums (Politeness1) in addition to the theoreticalframework (Politeness2) of the interactional approach has to a certain extent yielded useful information to supplementand explain the behavior of the Internet forum interlocutors The judgment criteria listed in Table 14 from the follow-upinterviews with the respondents have provided some evidence

On the other hand the judgment parameters of the discursive approach has given the researchers a set of scales toestimate the degree of (im)politeness in the Internet forums apart from (in)appropriateness and negativelypositivelymarked behavior This constitutes the basis of the design of the questionnaire (refer to section 41) The questionnaireresults have proven the fact that the flexible boundaries shared among the three parameters in the relational work allowfreedom for both the analyst and the interviewees to interpret the judging criteria of each parameter Moreover thestatistical data sheds light on the relationship among the three parameters of (im)politeness (in)appropriateness andnegativelypositively marked behavior according to the discursive approach All these when incorporated with the datagained from the interactional approach present a more complete picture of (im)politeness in Hong Kong Internet forumsIn short the study has exhibited the applicability of both the discursive and interactional approaches to the study of (im)politeness in CMC and the two when combined can provide a better understanding of the issue

7 Conclusion

To conclude the study has attempted to reveal the behavior of two groups of participants in CMC (ie foruminterlocutors and browsers) in disagreement and the unique culture of the Hong Kong Internet discussion forums from theperspective of the discursive and interactional approaches More importantly the findings are further supplemented andjuxtaposed with the metapragmatic knowledge and statistical analysis of 30 respondents who are also Internetdiscussion forum browsers a method which is rarely used As the study has examined only two Hong Kong Internetforums and just a few episodes it deserves further investigation on a larger scale What we can conclude from the currentsmall-scale study is that the two Hong Kong Internet discussion forumsrsquo interlocutor messages tended to be direct andunmitigated but politic Nevertheless the forum interlocutors can be rough in the face of unacceptable messages or ideasby reprimanding giving negative comments and opinions and even cursing Correlations among the three parameters of(im)politeness (in)appropriateness and positivenegative marked behavior which has been proved by statistical analysis


are evident in the interview discourse Although there are shared criteria between the parameters each parameterembraces its own unique feature Judgment of the three parameters in disagreement seems to be made flexibly subject tomany factors one of which is the participantsrsquo interpretation of behavior appropriate in an Internet community

Appendix 1 Questionnaire










Appendix 2 Follow-up interview questions

Question type Questionnumber

Questions

Obligatory Questions Q1 Do you think (im)politeness and (in)appropriateness are the same thingsQ2 What are the criteria you will consider when asked to judge whether a response is a

negatively or positively marked behaviorQ3 Do you think (im)politeness (in)appropriateness and negativelypositively marked

behavior are interrelated

Free Questions(1--4 questions would bechosen fromQ4 to Q19depending on therespondentsrsquoanswers given in theirquestionnaires)

Q4 Why Rx (a response) is considered both impolite and inappropriateQ5 Why Rx (a response) is impolite but acceptable in terms if appropriatenessQ6 Why do you think Rx (a response) is very polite and very appropriateQ7 Why did you see Rx (a response) as impolite but very appropriateQ8 Why Rx (a response) is more politeimpolite than RXX (a response)Q9 Why do you think Rx (a response) is an agreementQ10 Why is Rx (a response) a negativelypositively marked behaviorQ11 Why do you think Rx (a response) is a polite and appropriate responseQ12 Why Rx (a response) is considered polite and very appropriateQ13 Why do you think Rx (a response) is impolitepoliteQ14 Why is Rx (a response) only being acceptable in terms of appropriatenessQ15 Why is Rx (a response) considered as appropriate but not politeQ16 Why do you think Rx (a response) is inappropriateQ17 Why did you rate 12345in terms of the negativelypositively marked behavior for the

responseQ18 Why is Rx (a response) a very impolite inappropriate and negatively marked behaviorQ19 Why Rx (a response) is more appropriateinappropriate than R76


Appendix 3

Categories of disagreement strategies Taken from Culpeper (1996) Bousfield (2008) and Locher (2004)Ignore snub the otherExclude the other from an activityDissociate from the other -- for example deny association or common ground with the otherBe disinterested unconcerned unsympatheticUse inappropriate identity markersUse obscure or secretive language -- eg jargon codeSeek disagreementMake the other feel uncomfortable -- eg use small talk jokeUse taboo words -- use abusive or profane languageCall the other names -- use derogatory nominationsFrightenCondescend scorn mock or ridiculeExplicitly associate the other with a negative aspect -- personalize use the pronouns of lsquoIrsquo and lsquoyoursquoPut the otherrsquos indebtedness on recordCriticize -- dispraiseChallengesHedgesGiving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeingUnmitigated disagreementRepetition of an utterance by a next or the same speakerObjections in the form of a questionShifting responsibility

References

Angouri Jo Tseliga Theodora 2010 You have no idea what you are talking aboutrsquorsquo From e-disagreement to e-politeness in two online foraJournal of Politeness Research 6 (1) 57--82

Arundale Robert B 1999 An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory Pragmatics 9 (1) 119--154Arundale Robert B 2006 Face as relational and interactional a communication framework for research on face facework and politeness

Journal of Politeness Research 2 (2) 193--216Bousfield Derek 2008 Impoliteness in Interaction John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam and PhiladelphiaBrown Penelope Levinson Stephen C 1987 Politeness Some Universals in Language Usage Cambridge University Press CambridgeChan YH 2003 Biostatistics 104 correlation analysis Singapore Medical Journal 44 (12) 614--619Cherny Lynn 1999 Conversation and Community Chat in a Virtual World University of Chicago Press ChicagoCulpeper Jonathan 1996 Towards an anatomy of impoliteness Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3) 349--367Culpeper Jonathan 2005 Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show the weakest link Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1) 35--

72Darics Erika 2010 Politeness in computer-mediated discourse of a virtual team Journal of Politeness Research 6 (1) 129--150Eelen Gino 2010 A Critique of Politeness Theories St Jerome Publishing Manchester and NorthamptonGoffman Erving 1982 Interaction Ritual Essays on Face to Face Behavior Pantheon Books New YorkGraham Sage Lambert 2007 Disagree to agree Conflict (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community Journal of Pragmatics

39 (4) 742--759Grainger Karen 2011 lsquoFirst orderrsquo and lsquosecond orderrsquo politeness institutional and intercultural contexts In Linguistic Politeness Research Group

(Eds) Discursive Approaches to Politeness De Gruyter Mouton Berlin and Boston pp 167--188Grice Paul H 1975 Logic and conversation In Cole P Morgan J (Eds) Syntax and Semantics 3 Academic Press New York pp 41--58Harrison Sandra 2000 Maintaining the virtual community use of politeness strategies in an email discussion group In Pemberton L

Shurvillein S (Eds) Words on the Web Computer-Mediated Communication Intellect Exeter pp 69--78Haugh Michael 2007 The discursive challenge to politeness research an interactional alternative Journal of Politeness Research 3 (2)

317--395Herring Susan C 1994 Politeness in computer culture Why women thank and men flame In BucholtzLiang L Sutton A Hines MC (Eds) A

Cultural Performance Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Langauge Conference CA Berkeley women and language groupBerkeley pp 278--294

Herring Susan C 2004 Computer-mediated discourse analysis an approach to researching online communities In Barab SA Kling R GaryJH (Eds) Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning Cambridge University Press Cambridge and New York pp338--376


Herring Susan C 2010 Computer-mediated conversation Introduction and overview Languageinternet 7 Retrieved at httpwwwlanguageatinternet orgarticles20102801 (200612)

Hongladarom Krisadawan Hongladarom Soraj 2005 Politeness in Thai computer-mediated communication In Lakoff RT Ide S (Eds)Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness John Benjamins Publishing AmsterdamPhiladelphia PA pp 145--162

Ide Sachiko 1989 Formal forms and discernment two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness Multilingua 8 (2--3) 223--248Leech Geoffrey 1983 Principle of Pragmatics Longman New YorkLeech Geoffrey 2007 Politeness is there an east--west divide Journal of Politeness Research 3 (2) 167--206Locher Miriam A 2004 Power and Politeness in Action Disagreement in Oral Communication Mouton de Gruyter Berlin and New YorkLocher Miriam A 2006 Polite behavior within relational work the discursive approach to politeness Multilingua 25 (3) 249--267Locher Miriam A Watts Richard J 2005 Politeness theory and relational work Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1) 9--33Nishimura Yukiko 2008 Japanese BBS websites as online communities (im)politeness perspectives LanguageInternet 5 article 3Nishimura Yukiko 2010 Impoliteness in Japanese BBS interactions observations from message exchanges in two online communities Journal

of Politeness Research 6 (1) 33--35Snow Don 2004 Cantonese as Written Language The Hong Kong University Press Hong KongThomas Jenny 1995 Meaning in Interaction An Introduction to Pragmatics Longman London and New YorkWatts Richard J 1992 Linguistic politeness and politic behavior reconsidering claims for universality In Watts RJ Ide S Ehlich K (Eds)

Politeness in Languages Studies in its History Theory and Practice Mouton de Gruyter Berlin pp 43--69Watts Richard J 2003 Politeness Cambridge University Press CambridgeXie Chaoqun Ziranand Dajin Lin He 2005 Politeness myth and truth Studies in Language 29 (2) 431--461

(Im)politeness and disagreement in two Hong Kong Internet13 discussion forums


across cultures including but not limited to Thai (Hongladarom and Hongladarom 2005) Japanese (Nishimura 20082010) and Greek (Angouri and Tseliga 2010) These authors have adopted the frameworks of Brown and Levinson(1987) Ide (1989) and Herring (2004) respectively Despite the application of different frameworks to various researchstudies on (im)politeness and disagreement there has been an obvious paradigm shift from the Gricean approach to thepostmodern discursive and interactional approaches The current study1 attempts to investigate and interpret (im)politeness and disagreement in CMC from a new perspective by combining the discursive and interactional approachesand including two groups of participants namely forum interlocutors who are involved in forum discussion (ie activeparticipants) and forum browsers who often browse various Internet forums but may not respond (ie lay participants) Itaims to add to the literature by (1) examining the features of disagreement used by forum interlocutors in Hong KongInternet discussion forums (2) understanding the (im)politeness issue in Hong Kong Internet discussion forums and (3)facilitating a better understanding of lay participantsrsquo (ie forum browsersrsquo) metapragmatic knowledge of the threeparameters of relational work namely politeness appropriateness and negativelypositively marked behavior when theyjudge and interpret disagreement

2 Developments in politeness research

21 Classic view on politeness

Grainger (2011) divided the development of politeness theory into three waves The first wave is the classic view ofpoliteness or the Gricean approach The politeness model of Brown and Levinson and the Politeness Principle of Leechare milestones in the study of politeness in the first wave Brown and Levinsonrsquos politeness model which is based onGoffmanrsquos (1982) notion of face conceptualizes politeness as an act of a rational agent who has both positive andnegative face wants (Brown and Levinson 1987) Face-saving or mitigating the effect of face-threatening acts by thespeaker to avoid conflicts is the focus of the model They have proposed a range of redressive strategies and a formula tocalculate the possible weightiness of a face-threatening act (Brown and Levinson 198776) Leech who developed thePrinciple of Politeness (POP) on the basis of Gricersquos (1975) Cooperative Principle (CP) provides a post-facto descriptionof language behavior Sharing some similarities with the politeness model of Brown and Levinson Leechrsquos POP equatedpoliteness to indirectness As mentioned by Leech himself indirect illocutions tend to be more polite (a) because theyincrease the degree of optionality and (b) because the more indirect an illocution is the more diminished and tentative itsforce tends to be (Leech 1983108)

Although the politeness model of Brown and Levinson and the politeness principle of Leech have grounded thestudy of politeness they have received substantial criticism First the politeness models assume that politeness ispresent and is a given fact in all human societies but the predicted polite behavior has not been classified by laymembers of the speech community (Watts 2003142) Second Locher and Watts (200510) have commented thatthe politeness model of Brown and Levinson is a theory of facework dealing with the mitigation of face-threateningacts It neither explains why face-threat mitigation is not a priority in the situations of aggressive or rude behavior norcovers other social behaviors such as politic or unmarked behavior In fact the dichotomous division between politeand impolite behavior calls for face-threat mitigation at the expense of rude and inappropriate behavior Its attention tothe hearerrsquos face want rather than the speakerrsquos face want is also problematic as all speakers are also hearers andvice versa (Watts 2003) In such cases politeness in communication should not be viewed as a one-sidedinterpretation rather it is a language behavior that is realized through the context of interaction and is co-constructedby the interactants (Watts 2003 Locher 2004) Third equating indirectness to politeness seems to be an over-generalization and simplification particularly when it comes to the explanation of overly polite or impolite behavior orcommunication that is different from social expectation (Watts 200364) Similarly the Politeness Principle of Leechcorrelates indirectness to politeness (Locher 200464) and is culturally biased (Spencer-Oatey 199230--33 cited inThomas 1995177) Leechrsquos (2007) Grand Strategy of Politeness (GSP) is a response that incorporates both westernand eastern practices in constructing and illustrating the theory Although it is viewed as second-order politeness(politeness 2 ie a scientific theory that builds on first-order understandings -- politeness1 ie interpreted by layparticipants) it does not include any reference to lay participantsrsquo comments The inadequacies of the previousdominant politeness theories have triggered the exploration of alternative frameworks to conceptualize politeness andconduct politeness research (eg Eelen 2010 Watts 2003 Locher 2004 2006 Locher and Watts 2005 Haugh2007 Arundale 2006)

1 This paper is based on the first authorrsquos dissertation















1) H

2

bro


2) H



3) W


4 The study










































(Locher 2004)

5 Findings








G1 D1 G2 D2









B

5 ThHong

6 Thmore

Jau6


siu2

se procietys a pe

gwo3

overb

rson is

jan4

not ab

zaang1

ga

le to say s

faan6

u2 hau2

omethin

sik6

zoen

g nice

good

g2 bat1

and civ

good


C

Gu2

m4

dou3

jau5

jan4

waa6

siu2

go3

deoi3

sau2

ceot1

ilized R

ngo5

soeng1

seon3

nei5

maa1

mai5

jau5

daai6

baa2

zoe

efe

deoi3

ng6 nga

r to http

sau2


B

Nei5

maa1

mai

sin1

hai6

Perhaps your mum is

C

Gau2

hau2

zoeng2

bat1

ceot1

zoeng6

ngaa4

6








B

7 Na

X

mes o

ni1

f cou

gaan1

ntries wil

zan1

l be repl

hai6

aced by A

m4

BC

caa1

D etc

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS


F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


B

wai4

gei1

ceot1

gei3

dou1

m4

seon3

ngo5

zan6

gaan1

jau5

si4

gaan3

zoi3

bong1

nei5

wan2

di1

D

gang3

jau5

gung1

seon3

lik6

gei3

loi4

jyun4

hou2

m4

hou2


F

m4

hou2

daa2

fei1

gei1

laa1

D

zung6

ging3

gwo3

nei5

D




B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

----

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5


K

Nei5

jau5

jan4

ji6

lai5

zi3

maa1





A








A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1


B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5


L

Deoi3

jat1

go3

ji5

gwo3

san1

dik1

jan4

gam2

ban2

ping4

jan4

dei6

dei6

kau4

zan1

hai6

m4

hai6

hou2

ngaam4

gok3

haa6




A

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


P

Jan4

zoi6

zou6

tin1

zoi6

hon3

zeoi3

mei5

loeng5

nin4





A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5 jau6 cung1

min

g4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1


Exam

A

J











B









gh school ji5

gh school

1 m4 tung4

n4

ountry A for 4 y

m different countr

a1 B zan1B

u6 duk6 syu1

a1 D zan1D

n4 hai6 dou6

k6 syu1

1 m4 tung4

ging

earsies M

hai6

hai6

duk

zik6

1 sei34

y goo

hou

6 syu1

gun

B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


D

Leng3

m4

leng3

gan1

bun2

m4

zung6

jiu3



nin4 liu5

d friends include

2 do1 m4

3





E

Ngo5

hai6

B

dei6

ngo5

ho2

ji5

gong2

hai6

B

dei6

gei3

tong4

jan4

gaai1

gei3

B

B

sik6

mat6

zi2

hai6

bei2

nei5

jung6

lai4

wai4

ci4

saang1

ming6


F

Waak6

ze2

ngo5

jiu1

kau4

m4

gou1

ngo5

hoeng2

B

dei6

daa2

dan2

daa2

zo2

sap6

luk6

nin4

B

tong4

jan4

gaai1

di1

je5

gwo3

dak1

heoi3

aa1

D





B

X

ni1

gaan1

zan1

hai6

m4

caa1

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS


C

Dai6

ji6

ze2

FF

daai6

hok6

sin1

hai6

dai6

jat1

FF


F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


E


tai2 haa

5 da

i6 285

ming4


285


Look It

ranks

285



A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1



B

Table

Secon

Disag


Jau6

3d read

reemen

oppos negatandin


perso facts

g

rding

mei5

errsquos eva

t types

ite opinive comg


jau6

luatio

ions

ments

hrasesestiontance

temenerienc

cung1

n of the

s

t

e

ming4

disagreeme

Numbchose

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

32

nt type

er of rn by s

s and

esponsecond

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

corre

es reade

jau1

spond

r

mei5

ing res

siu3

ponse

Numbdisag

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

31

neoi5

s

er of agreemen


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5

t


M

jau5

mou4

jan4

sing3

gaa3

ji4

gaa1

jan4 dou

1sei

2 z

o

zung6

hei2

dou6

tou2

leon6

leng3

m4

leng3

zou6

jan4

jau5

di1

loeng4

sam1

hou2

mou4 aa

1

d




reed strategies


100100100100100100100100100100

66679688








1 34 8102 62 14803 151 36004 80 19005 62 1480Invalid 31 740

420 100




1 70 16702 72 17103 110 26204 76 18105 61 1450Invalid 31 740

420 100




299 318 295



1 56 13302 71 16903 127 30204 86 20505 49 1170Invalid 31 740

420 100







Invalid






Invalid






Invalid












Table 1Five sp

Q No

Q8

Q20

Q26

Q28

Respondent 27




Respondent 10


Respondent 20




Respondent 10


Respondent 36







Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3














lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive



adjectives



opriate


Inappropriate


No swear words

Indirect



Consonant view


itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked



Direct disagreement









Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References
































1) H

2

bro


2) H



3) W


4 The study










































(Locher 2004)

5 Findings








G1 D1 G2 D2









B

5 ThHong

6 Thmore

Jau6


siu2

se procietys a pe

gwo3

overb

rson is

jan4

not ab

zaang1

ga

le to say s

faan6

u2 hau2

omethin

sik6

zoen

g nice

good

g2 bat1

and civ

good


C

Gu2

m4

dou3

jau5

jan4

waa6

siu2

go3

deoi3

sau2

ceot1

ilized R

ngo5

soeng1

seon3

nei5

maa1

mai5

jau5

daai6

baa2

zoe

efe

deoi3

ng6 nga

r to http

sau2


B

Nei5

maa1

mai

sin1

hai6

Perhaps your mum is

C

Gau2

hau2

zoeng2

bat1

ceot1

zoeng6

ngaa4

6








B

7 Na

X

mes o

ni1

f cou

gaan1

ntries wil

zan1

l be repl

hai6

aced by A

m4

BC

caa1

D etc

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS


F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


B

wai4

gei1

ceot1

gei3

dou1

m4

seon3

ngo5

zan6

gaan1

jau5

si4

gaan3

zoi3

bong1

nei5

wan2

di1

D

gang3

jau5

gung1

seon3

lik6

gei3

loi4

jyun4

hou2

m4

hou2


F

m4

hou2

daa2

fei1

gei1

laa1

D

zung6

ging3

gwo3

nei5

D




B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

----

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5


K

Nei5

jau5

jan4

ji6

lai5

zi3

maa1





A








A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1


B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5


L

Deoi3

jat1

go3

ji5

gwo3

san1

dik1

jan4

gam2

ban2

ping4

jan4

dei6

dei6

kau4

zan1

hai6

m4

hai6

hou2

ngaam4

gok3

haa6




A

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


P

Jan4

zoi6

zou6

tin1

zoi6

hon3

zeoi3

mei5

loeng5

nin4





A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5 jau6 cung1

min

g4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1


Exam

A

J











B









gh school ji5

gh school

1 m4 tung4

n4

ountry A for 4 y

m different countr

a1 B zan1B

u6 duk6 syu1

a1 D zan1D

n4 hai6 dou6

k6 syu1

1 m4 tung4

ging

earsies M

hai6

hai6

duk

zik6

1 sei34

y goo

hou

6 syu1

gun

B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


D

Leng3

m4

leng3

gan1

bun2

m4

zung6

jiu3



nin4 liu5

d friends include

2 do1 m4

3





E

Ngo5

hai6

B

dei6

ngo5

ho2

ji5

gong2

hai6

B

dei6

gei3

tong4

jan4

gaai1

gei3

B

B

sik6

mat6

zi2

hai6

bei2

nei5

jung6

lai4

wai4

ci4

saang1

ming6


F

Waak6

ze2

ngo5

jiu1

kau4

m4

gou1

ngo5

hoeng2

B

dei6

daa2

dan2

daa2

zo2

sap6

luk6

nin4

B

tong4

jan4

gaai1

di1

je5

gwo3

dak1

heoi3

aa1

D





B

X

ni1

gaan1

zan1

hai6

m4

caa1

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS


C

Dai6

ji6

ze2

FF

daai6

hok6

sin1

hai6

dai6

jat1

FF


F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


E


tai2 haa

5 da

i6 285

ming4


285


Look It

ranks

285



A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1



B

Table

Secon

Disag


Jau6

3d read

reemen

oppos negatandin


perso facts

g

rding

mei5

errsquos eva

t types

ite opinive comg


jau6

luatio

ions

ments

hrasesestiontance

temenerienc

cung1

n of the

s

t

e

ming4

disagreeme

Numbchose

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

32

nt type

er of rn by s

s and

esponsecond

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

corre

es reade

jau1

spond

r

mei5

ing res

siu3

ponse

Numbdisag

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

31

neoi5

s

er of agreemen


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5

t


M

jau5

mou4

jan4

sing3

gaa3

ji4

gaa1

jan4 dou

1sei

2 z

o

zung6

hei2

dou6

tou2

leon6

leng3

m4

leng3

zou6

jan4

jau5

di1

loeng4

sam1

hou2

mou4 aa

1

d




reed strategies


100100100100100100100100100100

66679688








1 34 8102 62 14803 151 36004 80 19005 62 1480Invalid 31 740

420 100




1 70 16702 72 17103 110 26204 76 18105 61 1450Invalid 31 740

420 100




299 318 295



1 56 13302 71 16903 127 30204 86 20505 49 1170Invalid 31 740

420 100







Invalid






Invalid






Invalid












Table 1Five sp

Q No

Q8

Q20

Q26

Q28

Respondent 27




Respondent 10


Respondent 20




Respondent 10


Respondent 36







Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3














lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive



adjectives



opriate


Inappropriate


No swear words

Indirect



Consonant view


itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked



Direct disagreement









Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References




















































(Locher 2004)

5 Findings








G1 D1 G2 D2









B

5 ThHong

6 Thmore

Jau6


siu2

se procietys a pe

gwo3

overb

rson is

jan4

not ab

zaang1

ga

le to say s

faan6

u2 hau2

omethin

sik6

zoen

g nice

good

g2 bat1

and civ

good


C

Gu2

m4

dou3

jau5

jan4

waa6

siu2

go3

deoi3

sau2

ceot1

ilized R

ngo5

soeng1

seon3

nei5

maa1

mai5

jau5

daai6

baa2

zoe

efe

deoi3

ng6 nga

r to http

sau2


B

Nei5

maa1

mai

sin1

hai6

Perhaps your mum is

C

Gau2

hau2

zoeng2

bat1

ceot1

zoeng6

ngaa4

6








B

7 Na

X

mes o

ni1

f cou

gaan1

ntries wil

zan1

l be repl

hai6

aced by A

m4

BC

caa1

D etc

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS


F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


B

wai4

gei1

ceot1

gei3

dou1

m4

seon3

ngo5

zan6

gaan1

jau5

si4

gaan3

zoi3

bong1

nei5

wan2

di1

D

gang3

jau5

gung1

seon3

lik6

gei3

loi4

jyun4

hou2

m4

hou2


F

m4

hou2

daa2

fei1

gei1

laa1

D

zung6

ging3

gwo3

nei5

D




B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

----

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5


K

Nei5

jau5

jan4

ji6

lai5

zi3

maa1





A








A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1


B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5


L

Deoi3

jat1

go3

ji5

gwo3

san1

dik1

jan4

gam2

ban2

ping4

jan4

dei6

dei6

kau4

zan1

hai6

m4

hai6

hou2

ngaam4

gok3

haa6




A

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


P

Jan4

zoi6

zou6

tin1

zoi6

hon3

zeoi3

mei5

loeng5

nin4





A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5 jau6 cung1

min

g4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1


Exam

A

J











B









gh school ji5

gh school

1 m4 tung4

n4

ountry A for 4 y

m different countr

a1 B zan1B

u6 duk6 syu1

a1 D zan1D

n4 hai6 dou6

k6 syu1

1 m4 tung4

ging

earsies M

hai6

hai6

duk

zik6

1 sei34

y goo

hou

6 syu1

gun

B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


D

Leng3

m4

leng3

gan1

bun2

m4

zung6

jiu3



nin4 liu5

d friends include

2 do1 m4

3





E

Ngo5

hai6

B

dei6

ngo5

ho2

ji5

gong2

hai6

B

dei6

gei3

tong4

jan4

gaai1

gei3

B

B

sik6

mat6

zi2

hai6

bei2

nei5

jung6

lai4

wai4

ci4

saang1

ming6


F

Waak6

ze2

ngo5

jiu1

kau4

m4

gou1

ngo5

hoeng2

B

dei6

daa2

dan2

daa2

zo2

sap6

luk6

nin4

B

tong4

jan4

gaai1

di1

je5

gwo3

dak1

heoi3

aa1

D





B

X

ni1

gaan1

zan1

hai6

m4

caa1

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS


C

Dai6

ji6

ze2

FF

daai6

hok6

sin1

hai6

dai6

jat1

FF


F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


E


tai2 haa

5 da

i6 285

ming4


285


Look It

ranks

285



A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1



B

Table

Secon

Disag


Jau6

3d read

reemen

oppos negatandin


perso facts

g

rding

mei5

errsquos eva

t types

ite opinive comg


jau6

luatio

ions

ments

hrasesestiontance

temenerienc

cung1

n of the

s

t

e

ming4

disagreeme

Numbchose

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

32

nt type

er of rn by s

s and

esponsecond

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

corre

es reade

jau1

spond

r

mei5

ing res

siu3

ponse

Numbdisag

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

31

neoi5

s

er of agreemen


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5

t


M

jau5

mou4

jan4

sing3

gaa3

ji4

gaa1

jan4 dou

1sei

2 z

o

zung6

hei2

dou6

tou2

leon6

leng3

m4

leng3

zou6

jan4

jau5

di1

loeng4

sam1

hou2

mou4 aa

1

d




reed strategies


100100100100100100100100100100

66679688








1 34 8102 62 14803 151 36004 80 19005 62 1480Invalid 31 740

420 100




1 70 16702 72 17103 110 26204 76 18105 61 1450Invalid 31 740

420 100




299 318 295



1 56 13302 71 16903 127 30204 86 20505 49 1170Invalid 31 740

420 100







Invalid






Invalid






Invalid












Table 1Five sp

Q No

Q8

Q20

Q26

Q28

Respondent 27




Respondent 10


Respondent 20




Respondent 10


Respondent 36







Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3














lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive



adjectives



opriate


Inappropriate


No swear words

Indirect



Consonant view


itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked



Direct disagreement









Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References






















G1 D1 G2 D2









B

5 ThHong

6 Thmore

Jau6


siu2

se procietys a pe

gwo3

overb

rson is

jan4

not ab

zaang1

ga

le to say s

faan6

u2 hau2

omethin

sik6

zoen

g nice

good

g2 bat1

and civ

good


C

Gu2

m4

dou3

jau5

jan4

waa6

siu2

go3

deoi3

sau2

ceot1

ilized R

ngo5

soeng1

seon3

nei5

maa1

mai5

jau5

daai6

baa2

zoe

efe

deoi3

ng6 nga

r to http

sau2


B

Nei5

maa1

mai

sin1

hai6

Perhaps your mum is

C

Gau2

hau2

zoeng2

bat1

ceot1

zoeng6

ngaa4

6








B

7 Na

X

mes o

ni1

f cou

gaan1

ntries wil

zan1

l be repl

hai6

aced by A

m4

BC

caa1

D etc

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS


F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


B

wai4

gei1

ceot1

gei3

dou1

m4

seon3

ngo5

zan6

gaan1

jau5

si4

gaan3

zoi3

bong1

nei5

wan2

di1

D

gang3

jau5

gung1

seon3

lik6

gei3

loi4

jyun4

hou2

m4

hou2


F

m4

hou2

daa2

fei1

gei1

laa1

D

zung6

ging3

gwo3

nei5

D




B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

----

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5


K

Nei5

jau5

jan4

ji6

lai5

zi3

maa1





A








A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1


B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5


L

Deoi3

jat1

go3

ji5

gwo3

san1

dik1

jan4

gam2

ban2

ping4

jan4

dei6

dei6

kau4

zan1

hai6

m4

hai6

hou2

ngaam4

gok3

haa6




A

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


P

Jan4

zoi6

zou6

tin1

zoi6

hon3

zeoi3

mei5

loeng5

nin4





A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5 jau6 cung1

min

g4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1


Exam

A

J











B









gh school ji5

gh school

1 m4 tung4

n4

ountry A for 4 y

m different countr

a1 B zan1B

u6 duk6 syu1

a1 D zan1D

n4 hai6 dou6

k6 syu1

1 m4 tung4

ging

earsies M

hai6

hai6

duk

zik6

1 sei34

y goo

hou

6 syu1

gun

B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


D

Leng3

m4

leng3

gan1

bun2

m4

zung6

jiu3



nin4 liu5

d friends include

2 do1 m4

3





E

Ngo5

hai6

B

dei6

ngo5

ho2

ji5

gong2

hai6

B

dei6

gei3

tong4

jan4

gaai1

gei3

B

B

sik6

mat6

zi2

hai6

bei2

nei5

jung6

lai4

wai4

ci4

saang1

ming6


F

Waak6

ze2

ngo5

jiu1

kau4

m4

gou1

ngo5

hoeng2

B

dei6

daa2

dan2

daa2

zo2

sap6

luk6

nin4

B

tong4

jan4

gaai1

di1

je5

gwo3

dak1

heoi3

aa1

D





B

X

ni1

gaan1

zan1

hai6

m4

caa1

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS


C

Dai6

ji6

ze2

FF

daai6

hok6

sin1

hai6

dai6

jat1

FF


F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


E


tai2 haa

5 da

i6 285

ming4


285


Look It

ranks

285



A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1



B

Table

Secon

Disag


Jau6

3d read

reemen

oppos negatandin


perso facts

g

rding

mei5

errsquos eva

t types

ite opinive comg


jau6

luatio

ions

ments

hrasesestiontance

temenerienc

cung1

n of the

s

t

e

ming4

disagreeme

Numbchose

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

32

nt type

er of rn by s

s and

esponsecond

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

corre

es reade

jau1

spond

r

mei5

ing res

siu3

ponse

Numbdisag

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

31

neoi5

s

er of agreemen


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5

t


M

jau5

mou4

jan4

sing3

gaa3

ji4

gaa1

jan4 dou

1sei

2 z

o

zung6

hei2

dou6

tou2

leon6

leng3

m4

leng3

zou6

jan4

jau5

di1

loeng4

sam1

hou2

mou4 aa

1

d




reed strategies


100100100100100100100100100100

66679688








1 34 8102 62 14803 151 36004 80 19005 62 1480Invalid 31 740

420 100




1 70 16702 72 17103 110 26204 76 18105 61 1450Invalid 31 740

420 100




299 318 295



1 56 13302 71 16903 127 30204 86 20505 49 1170Invalid 31 740

420 100







Invalid






Invalid






Invalid












Table 1Five sp

Q No

Q8

Q20

Q26

Q28

Respondent 27




Respondent 10


Respondent 20




Respondent 10


Respondent 36







Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3














lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive



adjectives



opriate


Inappropriate


No swear words

Indirect



Consonant view


itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked



Direct disagreement









Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References




















B

7 Na

X

mes o

ni1

f cou

gaan1

ntries wil

zan1

l be repl

hai6

aced by A

m4

BC

caa1

D etc

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS


F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


B

wai4

gei1

ceot1

gei3

dou1

m4

seon3

ngo5

zan6

gaan1

jau5

si4

gaan3

zoi3

bong1

nei5

wan2

di1

D

gang3

jau5

gung1

seon3

lik6

gei3

loi4

jyun4

hou2

m4

hou2


F

m4

hou2

daa2

fei1

gei1

laa1

D

zung6

ging3

gwo3

nei5

D




B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

----

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5


K

Nei5

jau5

jan4

ji6

lai5

zi3

maa1





A








A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1


B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5


L

Deoi3

jat1

go3

ji5

gwo3

san1

dik1

jan4

gam2

ban2

ping4

jan4

dei6

dei6

kau4

zan1

hai6

m4

hai6

hou2

ngaam4

gok3

haa6




A

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


P

Jan4

zoi6

zou6

tin1

zoi6

hon3

zeoi3

mei5

loeng5

nin4





A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5 jau6 cung1

min

g4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1


Exam

A

J











B









gh school ji5

gh school

1 m4 tung4

n4

ountry A for 4 y

m different countr

a1 B zan1B

u6 duk6 syu1

a1 D zan1D

n4 hai6 dou6

k6 syu1

1 m4 tung4

ging

earsies M

hai6

hai6

duk

zik6

1 sei34

y goo

hou

6 syu1

gun

B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


D

Leng3

m4

leng3

gan1

bun2

m4

zung6

jiu3



nin4 liu5

d friends include

2 do1 m4

3





E

Ngo5

hai6

B

dei6

ngo5

ho2

ji5

gong2

hai6

B

dei6

gei3

tong4

jan4

gaai1

gei3

B

B

sik6

mat6

zi2

hai6

bei2

nei5

jung6

lai4

wai4

ci4

saang1

ming6


F

Waak6

ze2

ngo5

jiu1

kau4

m4

gou1

ngo5

hoeng2

B

dei6

daa2

dan2

daa2

zo2

sap6

luk6

nin4

B

tong4

jan4

gaai1

di1

je5

gwo3

dak1

heoi3

aa1

D





B

X

ni1

gaan1

zan1

hai6

m4

caa1

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS


C

Dai6

ji6

ze2

FF

daai6

hok6

sin1

hai6

dai6

jat1

FF


F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


E


tai2 haa

5 da

i6 285

ming4


285


Look It

ranks

285



A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1



B

Table

Secon

Disag


Jau6

3d read

reemen

oppos negatandin


perso facts

g

rding

mei5

errsquos eva

t types

ite opinive comg


jau6

luatio

ions

ments

hrasesestiontance

temenerienc

cung1

n of the

s

t

e

ming4

disagreeme

Numbchose

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

32

nt type

er of rn by s

s and

esponsecond

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

corre

es reade

jau1

spond

r

mei5

ing res

siu3

ponse

Numbdisag

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

31

neoi5

s

er of agreemen


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5

t


M

jau5

mou4

jan4

sing3

gaa3

ji4

gaa1

jan4 dou

1sei

2 z

o

zung6

hei2

dou6

tou2

leon6

leng3

m4

leng3

zou6

jan4

jau5

di1

loeng4

sam1

hou2

mou4 aa

1

d




reed strategies


100100100100100100100100100100

66679688








1 34 8102 62 14803 151 36004 80 19005 62 1480Invalid 31 740

420 100




1 70 16702 72 17103 110 26204 76 18105 61 1450Invalid 31 740

420 100




299 318 295



1 56 13302 71 16903 127 30204 86 20505 49 1170Invalid 31 740

420 100







Invalid






Invalid






Invalid












Table 1Five sp

Q No

Q8

Q20

Q26

Q28

Respondent 27




Respondent 10


Respondent 20




Respondent 10


Respondent 36







Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3














lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive



adjectives



opriate


Inappropriate


No swear words

Indirect



Consonant view


itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked



Direct disagreement









Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References
























A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1


B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5


L

Deoi3

jat1

go3

ji5

gwo3

san1

dik1

jan4

gam2

ban2

ping4

jan4

dei6

dei6

kau4

zan1

hai6

m4

hai6

hou2

ngaam4

gok3

haa6




A

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


P

Jan4

zoi6

zou6

tin1

zoi6

hon3

zeoi3

mei5

loeng5

nin4





A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5 jau6 cung1

min

g4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1


Exam

A

J











B









gh school ji5

gh school

1 m4 tung4

n4

ountry A for 4 y

m different countr

a1 B zan1B

u6 duk6 syu1

a1 D zan1D

n4 hai6 dou6

k6 syu1

1 m4 tung4

ging

earsies M

hai6

hai6

duk

zik6

1 sei34

y goo

hou

6 syu1

gun

B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


D

Leng3

m4

leng3

gan1

bun2

m4

zung6

jiu3



nin4 liu5

d friends include

2 do1 m4

3





E

Ngo5

hai6

B

dei6

ngo5

ho2

ji5

gong2

hai6

B

dei6

gei3

tong4

jan4

gaai1

gei3

B

B

sik6

mat6

zi2

hai6

bei2

nei5

jung6

lai4

wai4

ci4

saang1

ming6


F

Waak6

ze2

ngo5

jiu1

kau4

m4

gou1

ngo5

hoeng2

B

dei6

daa2

dan2

daa2

zo2

sap6

luk6

nin4

B

tong4

jan4

gaai1

di1

je5

gwo3

dak1

heoi3

aa1

D





B

X

ni1

gaan1

zan1

hai6

m4

caa1

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS


C

Dai6

ji6

ze2

FF

daai6

hok6

sin1

hai6

dai6

jat1

FF


F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


E


tai2 haa

5 da

i6 285

ming4


285


Look It

ranks

285



A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1



B

Table

Secon

Disag


Jau6

3d read

reemen

oppos negatandin


perso facts

g

rding

mei5

errsquos eva

t types

ite opinive comg


jau6

luatio

ions

ments

hrasesestiontance

temenerienc

cung1

n of the

s

t

e

ming4

disagreeme

Numbchose

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

32

nt type

er of rn by s

s and

esponsecond

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

corre

es reade

jau1

spond

r

mei5

ing res

siu3

ponse

Numbdisag

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

31

neoi5

s

er of agreemen


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5

t


M

jau5

mou4

jan4

sing3

gaa3

ji4

gaa1

jan4 dou

1sei

2 z

o

zung6

hei2

dou6

tou2

leon6

leng3

m4

leng3

zou6

jan4

jau5

di1

loeng4

sam1

hou2

mou4 aa

1

d




reed strategies


100100100100100100100100100100

66679688








1 34 8102 62 14803 151 36004 80 19005 62 1480Invalid 31 740

420 100




1 70 16702 72 17103 110 26204 76 18105 61 1450Invalid 31 740

420 100




299 318 295



1 56 13302 71 16903 127 30204 86 20505 49 1170Invalid 31 740

420 100







Invalid






Invalid






Invalid












Table 1Five sp

Q No

Q8

Q20

Q26

Q28

Respondent 27




Respondent 10


Respondent 20




Respondent 10


Respondent 36







Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3














lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive



adjectives



opriate


Inappropriate


No swear words

Indirect



Consonant view


itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked



Direct disagreement









Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References



















Exam

A

J











B









gh school ji5

gh school

1 m4 tung4

n4

ountry A for 4 y

m different countr

a1 B zan1B

u6 duk6 syu1

a1 D zan1D

n4 hai6 dou6

k6 syu1

1 m4 tung4

ging

earsies M

hai6

hai6

duk

zik6

1 sei34

y goo

hou

6 syu1

gun

B

Jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

jau1

mei5

siu3

neoi5


D

Leng3

m4

leng3

gan1

bun2

m4

zung6

jiu3



nin4 liu5

d friends include

2 do1 m4

3





E

Ngo5

hai6

B

dei6

ngo5

ho2

ji5

gong2

hai6

B

dei6

gei3

tong4

jan4

gaai1

gei3

B

B

sik6

mat6

zi2

hai6

bei2

nei5

jung6

lai4

wai4

ci4

saang1

ming6


F

Waak6

ze2

ngo5

jiu1

kau4

m4

gou1

ngo5

hoeng2

B

dei6

daa2

dan2

daa2

zo2

sap6

luk6

nin4

B

tong4

jan4

gaai1

di1

je5

gwo3

dak1

heoi3

aa1

D





B

X

ni1

gaan1

zan1

hai6

m4

caa1

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS


C

Dai6

ji6

ze2

FF

daai6

hok6

sin1

hai6

dai6

jat1

FF


F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


E


tai2 haa

5 da

i6 285

ming4


285


Look It

ranks

285



A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1



B

Table

Secon

Disag


Jau6

3d read

reemen

oppos negatandin


perso facts

g

rding

mei5

errsquos eva

t types

ite opinive comg


jau6

luatio

ions

ments

hrasesestiontance

temenerienc

cung1

n of the

s

t

e

ming4

disagreeme

Numbchose

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

32

nt type

er of rn by s

s and

esponsecond

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

corre

es reade

jau1

spond

r

mei5

ing res

siu3

ponse

Numbdisag

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

31

neoi5

s

er of agreemen


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5

t


M

jau5

mou4

jan4

sing3

gaa3

ji4

gaa1

jan4 dou

1sei

2 z

o

zung6

hei2

dou6

tou2

leon6

leng3

m4

leng3

zou6

jan4

jau5

di1

loeng4

sam1

hou2

mou4 aa

1

d




reed strategies


100100100100100100100100100100

66679688








1 34 8102 62 14803 151 36004 80 19005 62 1480Invalid 31 740

420 100




1 70 16702 72 17103 110 26204 76 18105 61 1450Invalid 31 740

420 100




299 318 295



1 56 13302 71 16903 127 30204 86 20505 49 1170Invalid 31 740

420 100







Invalid






Invalid






Invalid












Table 1Five sp

Q No

Q8

Q20

Q26

Q28

Respondent 27




Respondent 10


Respondent 20




Respondent 10


Respondent 36







Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3














lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive



adjectives



opriate


Inappropriate


No swear words

Indirect



Consonant view


itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked



Direct disagreement









Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References






















E

Ngo5

hai6

B

dei6

ngo5

ho2

ji5

gong2

hai6

B

dei6

gei3

tong4

jan4

gaai1

gei3

B

B

sik6

mat6

zi2

hai6

bei2

nei5

jung6

lai4

wai4

ci4

saang1

ming6


F

Waak6

ze2

ngo5

jiu1

kau4

m4

gou1

ngo5

hoeng2

B

dei6

daa2

dan2

daa2

zo2

sap6

luk6

nin4

B

tong4

jan4

gaai1

di1

je5

gwo3

dak1

heoi3

aa1

D





B

X

ni1

gaan1

zan1

hai6

m4

caa1

tung4

Y

caa1

m4

do1

hai6

si1

haau6

X

Y

hou2

ci5

hai6

cyun4

gwok3

gaa1

C

SS

daai6

hok6

paai4

dai6

jat1

C

SS


C

Dai6

ji6

ze2

FF

daai6

hok6

sin1

hai6

dai6

jat1

FF


F

Nei5

daa2

sei2

ngo5

dou1

m4

seon3


E


tai2 haa

5 da

i6 285

ming4


285


Look It

ranks

285



A

Se2

ming6

gau3

mui6

siu3

neoi5

tung4

hok6

zaan3

jau6

mei5

jau6

cung1

ming4


zan1

hai6

sap6

fan1

ho2

sik1

wu1

wu1



B

Table

Secon

Disag


Jau6

3d read

reemen

oppos negatandin


perso facts

g

rding

mei5

errsquos eva

t types

ite opinive comg


jau6

luatio

ions

ments

hrasesestiontance

temenerienc

cung1

n of the

s

t

e

ming4

disagreeme

Numbchose

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

32

nt type

er of rn by s

s and

esponsecond

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

corre

es reade

jau1

spond

r

mei5

ing res

siu3

ponse

Numbdisag

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

31

neoi5

s

er of agreemen


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5

t


M

jau5

mou4

jan4

sing3

gaa3

ji4

gaa1

jan4 dou

1sei

2 z

o

zung6

hei2

dou6

tou2

leon6

leng3

m4

leng3

zou6

jan4

jau5

di1

loeng4

sam1

hou2

mou4 aa

1

d




reed strategies


100100100100100100100100100100

66679688








1 34 8102 62 14803 151 36004 80 19005 62 1480Invalid 31 740

420 100




1 70 16702 72 17103 110 26204 76 18105 61 1450Invalid 31 740

420 100




299 318 295



1 56 13302 71 16903 127 30204 86 20505 49 1170Invalid 31 740

420 100







Invalid






Invalid






Invalid












Table 1Five sp

Q No

Q8

Q20

Q26

Q28

Respondent 27




Respondent 10


Respondent 20




Respondent 10


Respondent 36







Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3














lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive



adjectives



opriate


Inappropriate


No swear words

Indirect



Consonant view


itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked



Direct disagreement









Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References



















B

Table

Secon

Disag


Jau6

3d read

reemen

oppos negatandin


perso facts

g

rding

mei5

errsquos eva

t types

ite opinive comg


jau6

luatio

ions

ments

hrasesestiontance

temenerienc

cung1

n of the

s

t

e

ming4

disagreeme

Numbchose

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

32

nt type

er of rn by s

s and

esponsecond

jan4

jat1

sei2

go3

go3

dou1

ban2

hok6

gim1

corre

es reade

jau1

spond

r

mei5

ing res

siu3

ponse

Numbdisag

6

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

31

neoi5

s

er of agreemen


F

Gam1

dou1

giu3

leng3

Hoeng1

gong2

mou5

leng3

neoi5

t


M

jau5

mou4

jan4

sing3

gaa3

ji4

gaa1

jan4 dou

1sei

2 z

o

zung6

hei2

dou6

tou2

leon6

leng3

m4

leng3

zou6

jan4

jau5

di1

loeng4

sam1

hou2

mou4 aa

1

d




reed strategies


100100100100100100100100100100

66679688








1 34 8102 62 14803 151 36004 80 19005 62 1480Invalid 31 740

420 100




1 70 16702 72 17103 110 26204 76 18105 61 1450Invalid 31 740

420 100




299 318 295



1 56 13302 71 16903 127 30204 86 20505 49 1170Invalid 31 740

420 100







Invalid






Invalid






Invalid












Table 1Five sp

Q No

Q8

Q20

Q26

Q28

Respondent 27




Respondent 10


Respondent 20




Respondent 10


Respondent 36







Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3














lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive



adjectives



opriate


Inappropriate


No swear words

Indirect



Consonant view


itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked



Direct disagreement









Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References





















1 34 8102 62 14803 151 36004 80 19005 62 1480Invalid 31 740

420 100




1 70 16702 72 17103 110 26204 76 18105 61 1450Invalid 31 740

420 100




299 318 295



1 56 13302 71 16903 127 30204 86 20505 49 1170Invalid 31 740

420 100







Invalid






Invalid






Invalid












Table 1Five sp

Q No

Q8

Q20

Q26

Q28

Respondent 27




Respondent 10


Respondent 20




Respondent 10


Respondent 36







Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3














lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive



adjectives



opriate


Inappropriate


No swear words

Indirect



Consonant view


itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked



Direct disagreement









Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References






















Invalid






Invalid






Invalid












Table 1Five sp

Q No

Q8

Q20

Q26

Q28

Respondent 27




Respondent 10


Respondent 20




Respondent 10


Respondent 36







Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3














lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive



adjectives



opriate


Inappropriate


No swear words

Indirect



Consonant view


itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked



Direct disagreement









Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References
























Table 1Five sp

Q No

Q8

Q20

Q26

Q28

Respondent 27




Respondent 10


Respondent 20




Respondent 10


Respondent 36







Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3














lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive



adjectives



opriate


Inappropriate


No swear words

Indirect



Consonant view


itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked



Direct disagreement









Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References



















Table

Fifteen

Q No

1

2

3

Table

Fifteen

Para

Po

Appr

Posma

Key

S

Respondent 3














lite

Not aggressive

Impolite

Aggressive



adjectives



opriate


Inappropriate


No swear words

Indirect



Consonant view


itively rked

Correctmorality

Negatively marked



Direct disagreement









Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References

























Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385


Sig (2-tailed) 000 000N 385 385 385




















6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References
























6 Discussion













7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References























7 Conclusion
















Questions








Appendix 3


References
































Questions








Appendix 3


References



















Appendix 3


References


















Im)politeness and disagreement in two Hong Kong Internet discussion forums

Documents

Transcript of Im)politeness and disagreement in two Hong Kong Internet discussion forums