An Analysis of Conflict Discourse in Why Women Kill from the Perspective of Impoliteness Theory

Mengjia Wang

doi:10.54097/63pegg35

Authors

Mengjia Wang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/63pegg35

Keywords:

Conflict discourse, impoliteness theory, Why Women Kill.

Abstract

Conflict discourse exists widely in daily communication and is one of the important research orientations of discourse analysis. However, few studies have combined pragmatics, especially impoliteness theory, with the analysis of conflict discourse between couples. Based on the impoliteness theory proposed by Bousfield, this article adopts marital conflict discourse in American TV series Why Women Kill, with qualitative and case analysis methods, to explore the output and termination strategies of conflict discourse. Besides, this study also attempts to identify the underlying reasons for impolite phenomena in domestic situations. The results show that some of Bousfield’ s output and termination strategies are reflected in this study, including “hindering/ blocking”, “disassociating from the other”, “seeking disagreement/ avoiding agreement” and “submission to opponent”, “compromise” and “withdrawal”. Unequal family status and personality differences are the reasons that lead to conflict discourse. This study expands the scope of application of impoliteness theory, enriches the study of conflict discourse in domestic context, and helps to avoid conflicts and promote the construction of a harmonious family and society.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Boggs, S. T. (1988). The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiian children. Language in Society. 3.

[2] Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[3] Boxer. D. (2002). Nagging: The familial conflict arena. Journal of Pragmatics. 01: 49-61.

[4] Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[5] Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics. 25: 349-367.

[6] Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalized impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics. 12: 3232-3245.

[7] Grimshaw, A. D. (1990). Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[8] Kuo, S. H. (1992). Formulaic Opposition Markers in Chinese Conflict Talk. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics. 2: 388-402.

[9] Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women’s place. New York: Harper and Row.

[10] Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.

[11] Lein, L. & Brenneis, D. (1978). Children’s Disputes in three speech communities. Language in Society. 3.

[12] Nguyen, H. T. (2010). Boundary and alignment in multiparty conflict talk. Journal of Pragmatics. 6.

[13] Sheldon, A. (1996). You can be the Baby Brother, but You aren’t Born yet: Preschool Girls Negotiation for Power and Access in Pretend Play. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 29: 57-80.

[14] Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.

[15] Vuchinich, S. (1990). The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict. In D. Allen (Ed.). Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic investigation of arguments and conversations (pp.118-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[16] Chen Xiaochun. (2001). Coherence in Controversial Dialogue. Foreign Languages. 4.

[17] Jing Ran. (2018). A Study of Conflict Discourse in American Presidential Debates from the Perspective of Impoliteness. Northeast Normal University.

[18] Ran Yongping. (2010). Overview of Pragmatic Research on Conflict Discourse. Foreign Language Teaching. 1:1-6.

[19] Tan Aiping. (2021). A Study on the Patterns and Causes of Conflict Discourse Structures in Chinese Criminal Trials. Central China Normal University.

[20] Wang Xiaoling. (2019). Pragmatic Analysis of Conflict Discourse from the Perspective of Conformity Theory. Shandong Normal University.

[21] Zhao Yingling. (2004). Conflict Discourse Analysis. Foreign Language Journal. 5: 37-42.

[22] Zhao Zhongde & Zhang Lin. (2005). Discourse Conflict from the Perspective of Relevance Theory. Foreign Language Teaching. 1: 17-21.