Disagreement in Persian Academic Discussions

Expressing an opposing view is a complex process. Research into English casual conversation based on how disagreement tends to be structured has classified disagreement as a dispreferred or disaffiliative action or a face-threatening act. On the other hand, there are cultures in which taking an opposing position results in sociability and intimacy; and there are institutional settings where orientation towards disagreement is determined by the interactional aims of the setting. This study examines the production and negotiation of disagreement in Persian academic discussions. Working within the framework of Conversation Analysis, twelve multiparty discussions by Iranian Persian-speaking students of social sciences are analysed to explore how disagreement is initiated, sustained, and resolved and how preference organisation applies in this context, where there is no asymmetry of power and age relationships. First, in terms of disagreement sequences, the findings indicate that disagreement sequences start when a speaker presents some degree of knowledgeability of a particular state of affairs through the production of a new assertion. First disagreements then come into being when a recipient of that initial assertion presents opposing knowledge of that particular issue. This means that doing disagreement is an interactional achievement because its realization depends on how both interactants design their turn for their recipient: the initial interactant designs their turn so that it presents a new assertion, the disagreeing interactant designs their turn to show epistemic superiority over the issue. The interactants' epistemic asymmetry plays an essential role in the sustainment of disagreement. That is to say, opposition is sustained if the interactants make further opposing knowledge contributions to the conversation and by that means bring about sequence expansion. The opposing interactants commonly move away from disagreement as they change the topic in a stepwise fashion, without resolving their disagreement. Disagreement resolution occurs as one of the opposing interactants acknowledges arrival at new knowledge or displays prior access to the knowledge presented by another party. However, the sequence does not commonly come to closure with disagreement resolution as the interactants continue the talk on the topic until a stepwise topic shift takes place. In terms of structure, the interactants in this study display a general tendency to delay and/or soften their disagreement, whether it be a first disagreement or a disagreement responsive to a prior disagreement deep into the sequence. This suggests that in these Iranian Persian academic discussions, disagreement is dispreferred and oriented to as a disaffiliative action or a face-threatening act. Many of the findings of this study are consistent with what has already been found for English conversation, thus pointing to the robustness of the CA methodology in terms of its interactional norms. But the differences that emerge suggest the great complexity of the action of disagreement which results from the interplay of several factors, including academic setting, Persian culture and the multiparty nature of the discussions. Overall, the present study makes a significant contribution to the understanding of human communication as it gives a detailed account of the emergence and negotiation of disagreement in conversation and unveils the interactional nature of this social action. It also contributes significantly to the understanding of how disagreement is communicated in an academic context in general and in Persian academic discussions in particular. The findings of this study can highly benefit those who are interested in teaching and learning Persian as a foreign or second language. It is also beneficial to the researchers interested in cross-cultural studies as it helps them to understand how native speakers of Persian disagree in other languages