David: You are listening to Dialogically Minded. Dialogical Discourse for Second Language Learners. In this program we explore the language used in public, civil, and academic discussion for the purpose of achieving various communication goals. Hi Jennie.
Jennie: Hi David.
David: In this first episode, we are looking at agreeing and disagreeing, two of the most basic parts of communication with other people.
Jennie: Especially with disagreeing, it is important that you do so in a polite manner so that the conversation does not become unfriendly or a shouting match. Some of the phrases used in agreeing are:
I (completely) agree (with you).
That’s a good point.
You do have a point.
That’s true.
That makes sense.
I couldn’t agree more.
David: Some of the phrases used in disagreeing are:
I’m not quite sure I agree with you.
That’s not how I see it.
I don’t see it quite like that.
I don’t really agree with you.
I’m afraid I can’t agree with you.
Jennie: Let’s listen to a few dialogs and see if our listeners can pick out the phrases used for disagreeing. Here’s Dialog 1.
[1:43]
- That Way, No This Way
[Two men on an overnight business trip are returning to their hotel.]
[Speaker A]: I’m completely lost. <1> it’s that way back to the hotel.
[Speaker B]: . . . <2>. <3> there was a large tower down the street from our hotel, and look–there’s a large tower. . . ., we <4> go this way.
Jennie: In this conversation, the second speaker sounds younger than the first. He seems to be disagreeing respectfully. He knows he’s right, because of the large water tower being near their hotel, but instead of saying I’m sure I’m right and you’re wrong, he uses a softer phrase, “I’m not so sure I agree”–even though he is sure.
David: And notice, that although he disagrees respectfully, he ends with a strong expression of the conclusion, “so we should go this way.
Jennie: At the same time, there’s no sense in their walking the wrong way. It’s been a long day, they’re probably tired, and he knows they both just need to get back to the hotel. That’s why he speaks politely but also voices his opinion firmly. Let’s go on to the second dialogue.
- Tip Your Waiter
[A stingy and selfish man explains his philosophy on tipping servers at restaurants.]
[Speaker A]: That was good, but I’m still hungry and I’d like something sweet. This cafe has really good apple pie.
[Speaker B]: _______, but we don’t have much money. _______ we should tip the waiter?
[Speaker A]: _______ he has not refilled my coffee, and _______ you should only tip when you’ve received good service. So, if he wants a tip, then he should refill my coffee. _______, I’m going to order the pie.
[Speaker A]: Hmm. _______ it’s my belief that you’re thinking with your stomach and not with your heart.
Jennie: In this dialogue, we have a very unpleasant and boorish man stating his opinions on what servers in restaurants need to do to earn some pocket change from him.
David: He does sound a bit stingy doesn’t he? So this is basically his argument about why he thinks he should use the money to buy pie instead of tipping. The first thing he does is give a premise–that is a fact that he will use as a reason for his final conclusion, that reason being, the waiter hasn’t refilled his coffee.
Jennie: The phrase, it’s my belief is the second reason. It’s a kind of conclusion too, but he doesn’t give reasons for his belief. The woman then agrees with the logic of the argument, with I see what you mean, but then gives a reason why she questions his conclusion.
David: Right, she thinks that his reasoning may be biased. Bias is when you are not thinking straight because of personal circumstances. In our list of critical dispositions that we gave you last week, we mentioned being aware of your own biases. We can be biased by assumptions based on our worldview, lifelong prejudices, or just how we happen to feel at the moment, if we are happy, sad, angry, worried, and we allow our emotions to do our thinking.
Jennie: That’s why they say you should never do your weekly grocery shopping when you’re very hungry. You’ll make poor choices. In this case, you might say, that his choice was fine, and he got the pie he wanted. But the woman he’s with now has a lower opinion of him. Is the momentary pleasure of eating pie worth losing your friends’ respect?
David: That had better be some very good pie.
Jennie: Let’s hear the third dialogue.
[6:19]
- Environmental Problems
[A professor of international law takes questions, after lecturing on the problem of pollution.]
[Speaker A]: . . . For example, the pollution from car exhaust gases is another worldwide problem, and such problems can only be solved by international action. So, for this reason, it is clear that many environmental problems cannot be solved by local action. I’ll now answer questions. Yes, sir?
[Speaker B]: I’d like to ask, _______ I agree with you that car exhaust gases are a worldwide problem. I mean, _______ _______ international action can get people to make the necessary lifestyle changes. _______ people will only change their lifestyle when their attitudes change. And as far as I’m concerned, local action changes people’s attitudes more than international action.
David: This is a very interesting dialogue for several reasons. First, notice that Speaker 1 makes a claim without giving any reasons. He states that “such problems can only be solved by international action,” but he doesn’t say why he thinks so.
Jennie: That’s right. He just goes on to the conclusion, saying, “For that reason . . .”
David: But then the second speaker challenges him on this point, asking him to give reasons for his belief. The second speaker then goes on to state his opposing view.
Jennie: Maybe he’s a little nervous speaking in a large room with a lot of people, so, after that challenge, he mentions points they agree on, and uses the soft phrase, “I’m not sure . . .” But then–
David: Well, he can’t end on such a weak note. He finds a way of disagreeing without saying that he thinks the first speaker is wrong. That’s when he says, “It’s my opinion” and a moment later, “As far as I’m concerned” which basically means “as for myself” or “this is what I think.”
Jennie: The speaker in this next dialogue isn’t shy at all and has no problem disagreeing directly about an issue he thinks is important. Let’s listen.
- Dangerous Intersection
[At a town hall meeting, two citizens disagree about how to make a traffic intersection safer.]
[Speaker A]: _______ seven serious traffic accidents, two of them resulting in death, at the intersection of Main Street and Vine, some people believe that the city should install a traffic signal. _______. Four of those accidents involved drivers who had been drinking alcohol, and so _______a traffic signal would have prevented those accidents.
[Speaker B]: Yes, that may be true, but what about the three accidents that didn’t involve alcohol? _______ that a traffic signal might have prevented those accidents? The city should install a traffic signal there if the signal prevents just one accident.
[Speaker A]: _______. You have no good reason to believe that the reason for the accidents was that there was no signal. A traffic signal would cost tens of thousands of dollars. Can’t you see that having the police watch that intersection more closely would be a more effective and less expensive way to solve the problem?
David: The first speaker has an interesting way of making his argument. He first states the opposing view, giving the reasons for what “some people” believe, and telling what they believe.
Jennie: He then takes a sharp turn, strongly disagreeing with “That’s not the way I see it,” and challenging the other speaker’s reasons for her belief.
David: That leaves an opening for the second speaker to come in and speak her mind on the subject. She opens by showing that she has heard the first speaker’s argument, and acknowledging the facts of what he has said, but then opposes all that on the grounds that no number of deaths–not even one, are acceptable.
Jennie: The first speaker then repeats his fact-based argument, this time attacking the second speaker’s claims, saying “You have no good reason to believe . . .”
David: And finally he creates focus, and invites the other speaker to accept his viewpoint with the phrase “Can’t you see that . . .?”
Jennie: It’s phrased as a question, but what it is really saying is, look, what I’m saying is clearly correct and I’m amazed that you don’t see it too.
David: It’s a question that has a double edge, because it invites the other speaker to share his point of view, but at the same time suggests that there is something that the other speaker can’t see.
Jennie: Let’s go on to our last dialogue.
[12:13]
- Wedding Presents
[A woman explains her ideas about good manners when giving presents at wedding parties, and a man questions her reasoning.]
[Speaker A]: I am amazed at the number of people who cause unnecessary trouble for a bride and groom by bringing presents to the wedding reception. <1> that the couple then must carry all the presents back to their home. When I go to a wedding and see a table with a lot of presents, I feel sorry for the bride and groom.
[Speaker B]: . . .?
[Speaker A]: I certainly can. <2>, it is thoughtless for guests to expect the couple to take these presents home on such a busy day. I believe this happens for two reasons: first, people wait too long before they buy presents, and . . . people are too lazy to go to the post office. <3>, many couples cannot enjoy their wedding party.
[Speaker B]: <4>, <5>that the bride and groom cannot enjoy their wedding party. <6> the bride and groom and the guests enjoy seeing the table with a lot of with presents. <7>, but we mustn’t forget that friends or family members can carry the presents for the bride and groom. <8> it is really the big problem that you say that it is.
Jennie: So, here we have a woman who, like the man in the first dialogue, is not considering the total situation. After hearing her basic idea, the man asks her to explain her argument, that brides and grooms suffer from guests bringing gifts to the wedding, instead of mailing them directly to their home. The phrase used was Can you explain why you think so? She does do a good job of listing her reasons, signposting her premises with First of all, first, second, for two reasons. She also signposts her conclusion with the phrase, For those two reasons.
David: The man signals that he agrees with the woman’s reasons, saying You do have a point. But he disagrees with her conclusion that the bride and groom cannot enjoy their party, using the direct statement, However, I disagree about and he demonstrates the critical disposition of considering the total situation when he notes that other people will take care of the presents for them.
Jennie: He ends by restating his disagreement, I don’t really think it’s the problem that you say it is. . . . So listeners, we hope that helps you to get the basic idea of how dialogic discourse works and how we’ll spend this podcast series looking at the way certain phrases are used to express certain critical dispositions.
David: As we said in our previous episode, these are the kinds of phrases that are used by English speakers whenever they engage in discourse in public, professional and academic discussion and if you want to be part of the conversation in those contexts, you won’t get far without these phrases. We hope that you’ll join us next time when we discuss more ways of achieving your communication goals and expressing critical dispositions.
Jennie: So until next time, think critically,
David: and speak dialogically.