Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Language Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/langsci

Disagreement by Chinese speakers of English: evidence of

pragmatic transfer
Weihua Zhu a, *, Jun Wang b
a
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1220 Linden Dr, Madison, WI 53706, USA
b
Department of English, Nanchang University, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Little research on pragmatic transfer has examined disagreement by Chinese speakers of
Received 13 April 2021 English using naturally occurring conversations. This study uncovers the patterns and
Received in revised form 2 May 2022 frequencies of disagreement in L2 English, L1 English, and L1 Chinese, and the evidence of
Accepted 9 May 2022
pragmatic transfer, by analyzing naturalistic conversations. R is employed to compute
Available online xxx
frequencies, calculate proportions, and perform Chi-square tests and one-sample Z-tests.
Results show a significant difference in the use of disagreement between L1 English and L2
Keywords:
English but no significant difference between L2 English and L1 Chinese, indicating
English
Chinese
negative pragmatic transfer. Strong disagreement significantly outnumbers weak
Pragmatic transfer disagreement in non-L1 English data, suggesting that strong disagreement may be
Disagreement normative in mundane conversations in some regions of China. This study can inform
Naturalistic conversation teaching and learning L2 English.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Pragmatic transfer refers to the integration of first language (L1) culture into second language (L2) use (Wolfson, 1989a). It
is “the influence exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension,
production and learning of L2 pragmatic information” (Kasper, 1992, p. 207). Pragmatic transfer can be positive or negative.
Positive transfer often transpires when linguistic features or cultural norms are shared between L1 and L2 (Kasper, 1992).
Negative transfer emerges due to “the influence of L1 pragmatic knowledge which differs from the L2” (Kasper and Blum-
Kulka, 1993, p. 10) or improper deployment of L1 strategies in the L2 setting (Thomas, 1983).
The majority of previous studies have focused on negative pragmatic transfer (Kasper and Blum-Kulka, 1993) which may
cause communication misunderstandings (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1986; Kasper, 1992). L1 features or norms “being pro-
jected into L2 contexts and differing from the pragmatic perceptions and behaviors of the target community” (Kasper, 1992, p.
213) are often considered a major “source of cross-cultural communication breakdown” or pragmatic failure (Thomas, 1983, p.
97) that may result in the misjudgment of L2 speakers being unfriendly or impolite. Boxer (2002a) rightfully posited that
“individuals from two societies or communities carry out their interactions (whether spoken or written) according to their
own rules or norms, often resulting in a clash in expectations and, ultimately, misperceptions about the other group” (p. 151).
Although L1 speakers can “forgive the phonological, syntactic, and lexical errors made by L2 speakers, they are less likely to
forgive pragmatic errors. Native speakers typically interpret pragmatic errors negatively as arrogance, impatience, rudeness,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wzhu34@wisc.edu (W. Zhu), wangjunwendy@163.com (J. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2022.101487
0388-0001/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487

and so forth” (Nelson et al., 2002, p. 164). Unexpected ways of expressing disagreement might be perceived as a pragmatic
error, considering that disagreement has been said to be potentially face-threatening (Brown and Levinson, 1987) and dis-
preferred (Pomerantz, 1984) in English. Negative pragmatic transfer in disagreement can result in misunderstandings and
hinder intercultural communication between L1 and L2 English speakers.
In this study, we attempt to examine negative pragmatic transfer, if any, in disagreement in naturalistic mundane con-
versations by Chinese speakers of English. We define naturalistic conversations as the type of casual conversations in informal
context in real life that are neither planned by interlocutors nor elicited by researchers with suggested topics. To the best of
our knowledge, most of the prior research on negative pragmatic transfer has used elicited data collected through discourse
completion tasks/tests (DCTs) (e.g., Byon, 2004) or role-plays (e.g., Scarcella and Brunak, 1981). Elicitation makes it more
feasible to collect a large amount of data with controlled variables in a relatively short time. Nevertheless, elicited data reflect
“an idealized and very often stereotypical assumption of how one should perform or act in given situation” (Pan and Kádár,
2011, p. 103), which might differ from how one actually behaves in reality (Yuan, 2001; Golato, 2003). For example, it is less
likely for people to use Chinese particles to preface and soften disagreement in a written DCT than in a naturally occurring
conversation. It is also less authentic for people to disagree in pre-assigned roles than in real-life interaction. Recently, some
studies have examined communicative acts in emails which people can take time to write and revise (Chang and Hsu, 1998;
Yu, 1999; Wang, 2011; Pan, 2012; Chen, 2015; Li, 2018). This type of asynchronous communication is not the same as syn-
chronous communication through naturalistic conversations whose strengths encompass spontaneity, authenticity, conse-
quentiality, and richness in pragmatic structures (Cohen, 1996). The advantages of utilizing naturally occurring data have been
well recognized in the field of pragmatics (e.g., Blum-Kulka et al., 1989).
The difficulty of gathering naturally occurring data may be one of the reasons for negative pragmatic transfer in
disagreement in naturalistic mundane conversations being rarely explored. For this study, we collected naturalistic con-
versations among Chinese speakers of English at English Corners in a southeastern city in mainland China. English Corners
(see Jin and Cortazzi, 2002; Gao, 2009; Gao, 2012) are good venues for Chinese users of English to practice speaking English in
the Chinese-dominated environment (e.g., Li et al., 2001; Cardon and Scott, 2003) and socialize with each other. The speakers
come up with impromptu topics on the spot with no preparation and conduct naturalistic conversations. Studying the
naturalistic conversations at English Corners can answer the call for “the broadening of the traditional SLA database” (Firth
and Wagner, 1997, p. 286). Particularly, it can contribute to L2 pragmatics research because the conversations at English
Corners are the epitome of self-initiated language practice and social practice outside of the classroom. They can display how
Chinese speakers of English express disagreement in non-experimental and non-instructional settings (Zhu, 2014b).
Regrettably, the naturalistic conversations at English Corners have not attracted much research attention.
In addition to disagreement in the naturalistic conversations at English Corners, we also examine baseline data-
ddisagreement patterns in everyday conversations in L1 American English and L1 Mandarin Chinesedfor comparison
purposes. We intend to answer the following questions:

(1) What are the disagreement patterns and the frequencies of these patterns in L2 English by Chinese speakers of English,
L1 English by Americans, and L1 Chinese by Chinese speakers?
(2) Is there negative pragmatic transfer in disagreement from L1 Chinese to L2 English by Chinese speakers of English?

2. Negative pragmatic transfer

With regard to negative pragmatic transfer, requesting has been one of the most frequently studied communicative acts. A
comparison between requests made by English learners of Hebrew, L1 Hebrew speakers, and L1 Canadian English speakers
shows that the English learners of Hebrew transferred less direct strategies into Hebrew (Blum-Kulka, 1982). American
learners of Korean also tended to use indirect query preparatory and precede requests with grounders despite status dif-
ferences between interlocutors, which was similar to L1 American English speakers, instead of using mood derivable and
polite direct requests that L1 Korean speakers preferred except in conversations with higher-status interlocutors (Byon,
2004). In contrast, German and Danish learners of English transferred L1 direct requests into English, instead of using
query preparatory (House and Kasper, 1987). Greek learners of English employed fewer modifiers to soften requests than L1
English speakers as a result of L1 Greek influence (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Woodfield and Economidou-Kogetsidis,
2010). Under the influence of L1 Chinese, Chinese learners of English overused direct want-statements, imperatives, or
supportive moves (Yeung, 1997; Yu, 1999; Cook and Liddicoat, 2002; Wang, 2011; Bu, 2012; Li, 2018) but underused internal
modifiers (Chang and Hsu, 1998; Chen, 2015) when making requests. The learners often complimented professors in their
email requests (Pan, 2012; Li, 2018), which rarely occurs in L1 English.
In addition to requesting, apologizing and complimenting/responding to compliments have been studied in terms of
negative pragmatic transfer. For instance, Russian learners of Hebrew displayed negative pragmatic transfer in apologies to a
higher degree than English learners of Hebrew (Olshtain, 1983). Hebrew learners of English (Cohen and Olshtain, 1981), Thai
learners of English (García, 1989), and Korean learners of English (Jung, 2004) also transferred some L1 pragmalinguistic or
sociopragmatic aspects of apologies into L2 English. Likewise, learners from Asian cultures tended to apply L1 sociolinguistic
rules of complimenting or responding to compliments and even reject compliments to demonstrate modesty in L2 English
 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487 3

(Wolfson, 1989a). Chinese learners of English transferred compliment response strategies from Chinese to English (Liu, 1995;
Qu and Wang, 2005; Bu, 2010; Cheng, 2011). Low-proficiency Thai learners of English displayed the trace of L1 Thai
compliment responses in L2 English (Phoocharoensil, 2012). American learners of Japanese preferred acceptance of com-
pliments, just like what they would do in L1 English, over avoidance that is typical in L1 Japanese, after receiving compliments
in L2 Japanese (Saito and Beecken, 1997).
Pragmatic transfer has also been discovered in some other potentially face-threatening communicative acts (Brown and
Levinson, 1987). For example, the order, frequency, and content of the semantic formulas of refusals by Japanese learners of
English are similar to those of refusals by L1 Japanese speakers but very different from those of refusals by L1 American
English speakers (Beebe et al., 1990). Pragmatic transfer occurs in refusals from English to Arabic by American learners of
Arabic (Alrefaee and Al-Ghamdi, 2019; Morkus, 2021), from Arabic to English by Iraqi learners of English (Abed, 2011), from
Thai to English by Thai learners of English (Wannaruk, 2008), and from Chinese to English by Chinese learners of English
(Chang, 2009; Jiang, 2015; Li, 2018). Similarly, Takahashi and Beebe (1993) pinpointed pragmatic transfer in the act of
correction by Japanese learners of English who made substantially fewer positive remarks and shifted their communication
style according to addressees’ social status more often than L1 American English speakers. Nguyen (2008) uncovered fewer
modified criticisms by Vietnamese learners of English than by L1 Australian English speakers. Beebe and Takahashi (1989)
also found that Japanese learners of English performed chastisement and disagreement differently from L1 American En-
glish speakers. But no statistical significance was reported. To expand the aforementioned research, this study aims to explore
whether negative pragmatic transfer, based on statistical tests, exists in disagreement in naturally occurring L2 English
conversations conducted by L1 Chinese speakers.
Negative pragmatic transfer has been said to have an association with L2 proficiency. Takahashi and Beebe (1987) pro-
posed a positive correlation hypothesis stating that pragmatic transfer increases as learners’ language proficiency increases.
Advanced language learners possess advanced linguistic resources that they might use, although they still lack necessary
pragmatic knowledge, and thus cause negative pragmatic transfer, whereas lower-proficiency learners’ limited linguistic
resources can hinder negative pragmatic transfer (Blum-Kulka, 1982; Olshtain and Cohen, 1989; Keshavarz et al., 2006; Allami
and Naeimi, 2011; Li, 2018). Nevertheless, opposite conclusions have also been reached. A negative correlation between
negative pragmatic transfer and L2 proficiency is found in apologies by Japanese learners of English (Maeshiba et al., 1996), in
disagreement by English learners (Bardovi-Harlig and Salsbury, 2004), in requests, compliments, or refusals by Chinese
learners of English (Bu, 2012; Ren and Gao, 2012). The negative correlation suggests that with increasing proficiency, L2
learners can gradually move to L2 pragmatic norms without relying on L1 pragmatic norms to realize speech acts (Rose,
2000). Despite the dispute, Trosborg (1987) and Takahashi (1996) did not observe a correlation between L2 proficiency
and L1 pragmatic transfer in their studies on apologies by Danish learners of English and requests by Japanese learners of
English, respectively. In this study, Chinese speakers of English reported their English proficiency level as intermediate or
advanced on a questionnaire administered after each conversation. Due to the relatively small number of the speakers, we do
not examine the potential correlation between their L2 English proficiency and use of disagreement.

3. Disagreement

Disagreement is reactive, oppositional, and varying on levels of weakness and strength. It emerges when a speaker re-
sponds to a verifiable proposition (Takahashi and Beebe, 1993) or advanced point of view (Sornig, 1977; Rees-Miller, 2000).
People employ this type of oppositional talk to reveal differences (Sifianou, 2012), conflicts (Kakava, 1993), disputes (Schiffrin,
1985), or contrasting viewpoints (Bardovi-Harlig and Salsbury, 2004). Generally speaking, disagreement refers to the
expression of a view that diverges from a previous position (Sifianou, 2012). Strong disagreement is “one in which a
conversant utters an evaluation which is directly contrastive with the prior evaluation. Such disagreements are strong
inasmuch as they occur in turns containing exclusively disagreement components, and not in combination with agreement
components” (Pomerantz, 1984, p. 74). Conversely, disagreement that is preceded by partial agreements, pauses, repetitions,
hedges, concessions, repair initiators, or delaying devices is deemed weak agreement. Strong disagreement and weak
disagreement “differ in their relative capacities to co-occur with agreement components” (Pomerantz, 1984, p. 74). Note that
there are varying degrees of ‘weak’ on a continuum from weak to strong disagreement.
The semantic formulas of disagreement have been disclosed more frequently than the lexico-syntactic structures of
disagreement. Semantically, disagreement can be expressed when irrelevancy claims, challenges, contradictions, counter-
claims, or combinations of contradictions and counterclaims are made (Muntigl and Turnbull, 1998). It may also reveal itself in
abuse, criticism, mockery, indifference, dissociation, or dismissal (Culpeper, 2005; Bousfield, 2008). It can be foregrounded
when it is explicit and hostile or backgrounded when it is more implicit and milder (Scott, 2002). Lexico-syntactically,
disagreement may be softened with the use of modal auxiliaries, questions, and repeated utterances (Locher, 2004). It can
be mitigated with linguistic devices such as inclusive first person, partial agreement markers (e.g., yeah, right, that’s true.),
questions, statements that contain downtoners (e.g., maybe, sort of), verbs of uncertainty (e.g., to seem), or expressions such as
I think and I don’t know. In the meantime, it may be aggravated with rhetorical questions, intensifiers, personal and accusatory
you, or judgmental vocabulary (Rees-Miller, 2000). To our best knowledge, the lexico-syntactic structures of disagreement
have been discussed much less than the semantic formulas of disagreement in L1 American English.
In Chinese pragmatics studies, the lexico-syntactic structures of disagreement have not attracted the same attention as the
semantic formulas of disagreement either. The semantic formulas of disagreement delivery in Chinese may encompass
4 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487

contradiction, scolding, criticism, challenge (Li, 2016), giving negative comments, making a personal stance, making an ironic
statement, cursing, giving opposite opinions, giving personal experience, giving facts, reprimanding (Shum and Lee, 2013),
disagreement following concessions, giving reasons, and direct disagreement (Xia and Cui, 2008). Lexico-syntactically,
disagreement can be realized in short vulgar phrases, rhetorical questions, rewording (Shum and Lee, 2013), verbs of un-
certainty such as hǎoxiàng ‘to seem’ (Xia and Cui, 2008), sentences that contain the word bù or méi(yǒu) ‘no/not’, (Ran, 2010),
or tag questions such as hǎobuhǎo, hǎobula, hǎoba, and hǎoma that mean ‘OK?’ (Ran and Bai, 2017). None of the data in these
studies were derived from mundane conversations in real life which might embrace more varieties of lexico-syntactic
structures of disagreement.
A few studies have investigated disagreement cross-linguistically, involving L1 Chinese speakers. For instance, Liang and
Han (2005) adopted Muntigl and Turnbull’s (1998) taxonomy and compared the semantic formulas of disagreement in L1
Chinese and L1 English using a DCT. They found divergence in the application of contradictory statements and politeness
strategies between L1 Chinese and L1 English owing to Chinese participants’ sensitivity to social status differences. Likewise,
Zhu and Boxer (2021) compared turn-taking and disagreement in L1 Chinese and L1 English and revealed both similarities
and differences between the two datasets. But they did not look into disagreement in L2 English spoken by L1 Chinese
speakers or the trace of negative pragmatic transfer in disagreement. Chu (2016) employed a DCT and examined politeness
strategies in disagreement in L1 English by American students and L2 English by Chinese students. She discovered a sig-
nificant difference in the students’ choice of politeness strategies towards parents and tourists, respectively. Unfortunately,
this study does not appear very convincing, as Bella (2012) would say about other interlanguage pragmatics studies that did
not include L2 speakers’ L1 data in their analyses. Furthermore, it did not focus on the lexico-syntactic structures of
disagreement by the students who might have disagreed differently in the real world from in the DCT.
In the present study, we intend to uncover the lexico-syntactic structures of disagreement by Chinese speakers of English
and the frequencies of these disagreement patterns in both L1 Chinese and L2 English, as compared to disagreement by
American English speakers. We attempt to expand the extant research on negative pragmatic transfer through quantitative
analysis of disagreement in naturalistic conversations in everyday life.

4. Method

To ascertain negative pragmatic transfer, we need to examine whether there are “statistically significant differences in the
frequencies of a pragmatic feature between IL-L2 and L1-L2 and lack of statistically significant differences between IL and L1
can be operationally defined as negative transfer” (Kasper, 1992, p. 223). The investigation of negative pragmatic transfer
should involve the comparison of these data: (1) samples of the target language produced by L2 learners; (2) samples of the
target language produced by its L1 speakers; and (3) samples of L2 learners’ L1 (Ellis, 1994). Studying the similarities and
differences between these sets of data would help us “determine to what extent learner performance differs from native-
speaker performance and whether the differences are traceable to transfer from the L1” (Ellis, 1994, p. 162). Therefore, for
the current study, we assembled three datasets of naturalistic conversations: (1) L2 English produced by Chinese speakers of
English; (2) L1 English produced by American English speakers; and (3) L1 Chinese produced by Chinese speakers.
Before collecting the naturalistic conversations in L1 English, L2 English, and L1 Chinese, all participants were approached
and told by our research assistants that we were investigating people’s communication style in everyday life and that they
should speak in the same way they normally did if they were willing to participate. Communication style means “the basic
tools” that people use to talk (Tannen, 2005, p. 4). The tools include phatic communication such as greetings and farewells,
communicative acts such as apologies and compliments, discourse strategies such as turn-taking, and many other “elements
that make up not only what you say but how you say it” (Tannen, 2005, p. 4). We did not instruct the participants to do
anything out of the ordinary. Instead, we totally depended on the data we collected to look for communicative acts that might
have been realized differently in L1 English, L2 English, and L1 Chinese.
Our research assistants approached some participants in person for consent to record their everyday conversations. If they
were going to help record their everyday conversations with their friends or acquaintances in their own social circles, our
research assistants approached those friends or acquaintances by email, Skype, or WeChat, asking for consent before their
conversations were recorded. Written consent was obtained from some of the participants and verbal consent from the others
who did not want to sign the consent form that would have made them feel legally bound.
As previously mentioned, three types of data were collected to look for the evidence of pragmatic transfer. The data of
mundane conversations in L1 English by Americans were collected in a midwestern city in the U.S. in 2018. Provided their
English-speaking friends or acquaintances were willing to participate in this project, our research assistants asked them to
record their everyday conversations in their own social circles after obtaining consent. The research assistants also collected
naturalistic conversations in L2 English produced by Chinese speakers of English who were acquaintances at the English
Corners in a southeastern city in mainland China in 2018. Meanwhile, the research assistants asked the willing participants to
record everyday conversations in Chinese among themselves. We acknowledge that by recording these conversations, we
inevitably generated the observer’s paradox (Labov, 1972). However, this disadvantage might have gradually diminished as
the participants became more and more engaged in their conversations.
We believe that the three datasets are comparable for several reasons: (1) The L2 English speakers were the L1 Chinese
speakers, making it possible to study pragmatic transfer by the same participants speaking two different languages. (2) The L1
English, L2 English, and L1 Chinese conversations lasted for about the same amount of timedten hours. (3) The three
 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487 5

transcripts of the conversations are not much different in terms of the number of pagesd296 pages of 83,481 words for the L1
English conversations, 280 pages of 79,020 words for the L2 English conversations, and 286 pages of 166,498 characters for
the L1 Chinese conversations. Note that one Chinese word ‘cí 词’ may be composed of a few characters ‘zì 字’.
At the end of the conversations, the participants filled out a survey (See Appendix). The results of the survey (See Table 1)
show that the participants ranged from age 20 to age 49 (M: 32.95 for the L1 English speakers and 31.75 for the L2 English/L1
Chinese speakers; SD: 7.74 for the L1 English speakers and 8.06 for the L2 English/L1 Chinese speakers). Of the twenty L1
English speakers, eleven were male and nine were female; three were college students with a high school diploma, twelve
held a bachelor’s degree, and five had a master’s degree; four were friends and sixteen were acquaintances. Of the twenty L2
English/L1 Chinese speakers, nine were male and eleven were female; fourteen received a bachelor’s degree and six were
awarded a master’s degree; all were acquaintances; twelve claimed to be advanced English speakers whereas eight believed
they were at the intermediate level. All the participants came from different families and workplaces and did not have a
conflict of interest, family hierarchy, or administrative power difference. They did not feel bad during their conversations. On
the survey, they also pointed out the inconsequentiality of their conversation topics and the informality of the conversations.
Note that the informal contexts differ from other contexts where power difference plays a part in dissent enactment (e.g., Du,
1995; Liu, 2004; Locher, 2004).

Table 1
Survey results.

L1 English Speakers L2 English/L1 Chinese Speakers

Age 20–30 6 7
30–40 10 11
40–50 4 2
Sex Male 11 9
Female 9 11
Degree High School 3 0
Bachelor’s 12 14
Master’s 5 6
(In)Formality Formal 0 0
Casual 20 20
Topic Consequential 0 0
Inconsequential 20 20
Relationship Family/Relative 0 0
Colleague 0 0
Friend 4 0
Acquaintance 16 20
Stranger 0 0
Status Higher 0 0
About the same 20 20
Lower 0 0
Conflict of Interest Yes 0 0
No 20 20
Feeling Bad Yes 0 0
No 20 20
English Proficiency Advanced 0 12
Intermediate 0 8
Low 0 0

We recruited sixteen college English majors in mainland China to transcribe the conversations based on a revised version
of Schiffrin’s (1987) conventions and four Ph.D. students of linguistics in the U.S. to double check the transcripts completed by
the college English majors. Two of the Ph.D. students were L1 Chinese speakers and asked to examine the transcripts of the L1
Chinese and L2 English conversations. The other two were L1 English speakers and asked to examine the transcripts of the L1
English and L2 English conversations. The transcripts include both verbal and nonverbal features of speech behavior because
we adopt interactional sociolinguistic methods that examine both central linguistic features and marginalized contextuali-
zation cues (Gumperz, 2005, 2006). Interactional sociolinguistic methods are “interpretive methods of discourse analysis to
gain detailed insights into the many communicative issues that arise in today’s social environments, by means of systematic
investigation of how speakers and listeners involved in such issues talk” (Gumperz, 2006, p. 724). This approach, sometimes
“known as a microethnography, is a methodological approach to interactional analysis.taking into account non-verbal
behavior such as facial gestures, postural shifts, and proxemics” in addition to verbal behavior (Boxer, 2002b, p. 13).
Since prior research has not provided a taxonomy of disagreement that focuses on lexico-syntactic structures instead of
semantic formulas, we develop a taxonomy of disagreement (see Table 2). We drew samples of disagreement patterns from
both the English and Chinese transcripts. According to Pomerantz (1984), strong disagreement is in direct contrast to the prior
evaluation and contains no agreement components or delaying devices. Since we could not locate instances of strong
disagreement in the L1 English conversations, we identified and coded strong disagreement in the L2 English and L1 Chinese
6 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487

conversations and provide examples from these two datasets in Table 2. We found instances of statements that contain no/not
in English or bù/méi(yǒu) ‘no/not’ in Chinese, statements that start with but in English or dàn(shì)/búguò/kĕ(shì) ‘but’ in
Chinese, affirmative sentences that display directly dissenting views (e.g., A: “It is not a big deal to spend that much money.”
B: “It IS.”), and adjuncts that stand alone or precede another clause to indicate the current speaker’s strong disagreement with
the prior speaker (e.g., That was incorrect). Since rhetorical questions in the form of wh-questions can indicate strong
disagreement (Rees-Miller, 2000), we listed in Table 2 wh-questions that contain how/what/where/why/who in English or
zĕnme ‘how’/shénme ‘what’/na (li) ‘where’/wèishénme ‘why’/gànmá ‘why’/shéi ‘who’ in Chinese.

Table 2
Taxonomy of disagreement.

Types of strong disagreement (in direct contrast to the prior evaluation; containing no agreement Examples of strong disagreement
components or delaying devices)
1. Statements that contain no/not in English or bù/méi(yǒu) ‘no/not’ in Chinese No (no no), I can’t agree.
You don’t know.
You can’t say that.
Bù piányi. ‘Not cheap.’
Méi bìyào jiĕshì. ‘No need to explain.’
2. Statements that start with but in English or dàn(shì)/búguò/kĕ(shì) ‘but’ in Chinese But that doesn’t mean you can graduate next
year.
Dàn ta  bùnéng zài wǎngshàng xiĕ. ‘But he can’t
post it online.’
Búguò xiànzài hái láidejí. ‘But you still have time.’
Kĕshì nà hĕn guì. ‘But that’s expensive.’
3. Affirmative sentences that display directly dissenting views A: It is not a big deal to spend that much money.
B: It IS.
A: Gànhǎo zhè shì bù róngyì. ‘It’s not easy to do
this well.’
B: Hĕn róngyì. ‘Very easy.’
4. Adjuncts that stand alone or precede another clause to indicate the current speaker’s strong That was incorrect.
disagreement with the prior speaker Nǐ gaocuò le. ‘You’re wrong.’
Zhè shì liǎng mǎ shì. ‘This is different.’
5. Wh-questions that contain how/what/where/why/who in English or zĕnme ‘how’/shénme How could you do that?
(li) ‘where’/wèishénme ‘why’/gànmá ‘why’/shéi ‘who’ in Chinese
‘what’/na Why not?
Zĕnme kĕyǐ zhèyàng? ‘How can it be like this?’
Yǒu shénme yòng? ‘What’s useful?’
Wǒ nǎli shuõguo zhè huà? ‘Where did I say this?’
Wèishénme qùbuliǎo? ‘Why can’t we go?’
Shéi shuo  de? ‘Who said that?’
Types of weak disagreement (preceded by delaying devices or partial agreement markers; Examples of weak disagreement
modified by softeners)
1. Statements that are preceded by delaying devices such as well/um/uh/I think/laughter/smile in Well, but that’s expensive.
English or e/en ‘uh’/o ‘oh’/wǒ juéde ‘I think’/laughter/smile in Chinese Uh, no.
(laughter) It isn’t a perfect way.
O, nǐ bùnéng zhème shuo . ‘Oh, you can’t say this.’
Wǒ juéde bú shì zhème huí shì. ‘I don’t think this is
the case.’
2. Statements that are preceded by partial agreement markers such as right/yeah/exactly/that’s Exactly, but I have to learn this skill.
true/this is fine/I’m sure/nods in English or duì ‘right’/shì ‘yes’/nods in Chinese That’s true, but you can find people doing that.
Yeah, but in some cases, I don’t like the Chinese
way.
Duì, dàn zhè bù hélǐ. ‘Right, but this doesn’t make
sense.’
Shì, búguò ta méi qù. ‘Yes, but he didn’t go.’
3. Set phrases that contain bù ‘no’ in Chinese Bújiàndé. ‘Not necessarily.’
Bùyıdìng. ‘Not definitely.’
4. Statements that contain actually in English or qíshí ‘actually’ in Chinese I actually ordered it from that restaurant.
Qíshí, Yìndù bǐ F
eilǜbın gèng hǎo. ‘Actually, India is
better than Philippines.’
5. Statements that contain internal modifiers such as to seem/not really/would in English or hǎoxiàng This is not really possible, not like what you said.
‘to seem’/yìban ‘generally’ in Chinese She doesn’t seem to be interested.
Zǒulù qù nàr hǎoxiàng tài yuǎn le. ‘It seems too far
to walk there.’
 shuo
Ayí  de yìban bú huì cuò. ‘What Aunt says is
generally right.’
6. Statements that end in particles such as o/a/ya/la/ei in Chinese Bù fabiàn ya. ‘Not convenient.’
Bú kùn ei. ‘Not sleepy.’
7. Adjuncts that stand alone or precede another clause to indicate the current speaker’s weak I don’t know (about that).
disagreement with the prior speaker I’m not sure.
It depends.
 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487 7

Table 2 (continued )

Types of strong disagreement (in direct contrast to the prior evaluation; containing no agreement Examples of strong disagreement
components or delaying devices)
Nǐ hen nán shuo  ma. ‘It’s difficult to say.’
Nà yào kàn shì shéi la. ‘That depends on whom it
is.’
8. Polar questions that end in particles such as ba/ma or tag questions such as duìba/duìbuduì in Bú huì ba? ‘It can’t be, can it?’
Chinese Shì ma? ‘Is it?’
Zhè yàng zuò bù hǎo, duìbuduì? ‘It is not right to
do so, is it?’

Note: For the structure of affirmative sentences, examples are in adjacency pairs where the second pair partdBdshows disagreement as a response to the
first pair partdA. Also, be aware that disagreement as a response to self-denigration is not considered in this study since it is normally expected (Pomerantz,
1984).

Moreover, Pomerantz (1984) described a few features of weak disagreement, such as delaying devices (e.g., uh), partial
agreement (e.g., Yeah, but.), and internal modifiers (e.g., would). Accordingly, we identified and coded weak disagreement
that contains internal modifiers or is preceded by delaying devices or partial agreement markers. We were able to locate
instances of weak disagreement in the L1 English, L2 English, and L1 Chinese conversations; hence, we provide examples from
the three datasets in Table 2. For instance, some statements are preceded by delaying devices such as well/um/uh/I think/
laughter/smile in English or e/en ‘uh’/o ‘oh’/wǒ juéde ‘I think’/laughter/smile in Chinese, some are preceded by partial agree-
ment markers such as right/yeah/exactly/that’s true/this is fine/I’m sure/nods in English or duì ‘right’/shì ‘yes’/nods in Chinese,
some contain internal modifiers such as to seem/not really/would in English or hǎoxiàng ‘to seem’/yìba n ‘generally’ in Chinese,
and others have set phrases such as bújiàndé ‘not necessarily’ or bùyıdìng ‘not definitely’. Statements can also be qualified by
actually in English or qíshí ‘actually’ in Chinese and adjuncts that indicate the current speaker’s weak disagreement with the
prior speaker (e.g., It depends) in both languages. What we did not find in English but did in Chinese is statements that end in
particles such as o/a/ya/la/ei, polar questions that end in particles such as ba/ma, or tag questions (e.g., Ran and Bai, 2017) such
as duìba/duìbuduì ‘right?’. Therefore, we add these Chinese-specific sentence-final particles or tags as separate categories of
weak disagreement markers in Table 2.
Two researchers coded separately the lexico-syntactic structures of disagreement that had emerged in the naturalistic
conversations. When more than one lexico-syntactic structure appeared in the same turn of disagreement, only one lexico-
syntactic structure was calculated for statistical tests to avoid repeated counts of the same token of disagreement. In other
words, we counted the weak disagreement marker instead of the strong disagreement marker if both showed in the same
turn. If there were more than one weak disagreement markers in the same turn, we counted the first one only. For cases of
having more than one strong disagreement markers in the same turn, we also counted the first instance only. After finishing
the initial coding with 90.2 percent agreement, we discussed discrepancies, reached a consensus on the disagreement pat-
terns, and achieved interrater reliability.
We employ R to perform a number of statistical tests. We use the table() function to compute frequencies and the
prop.table() function to calculate proportions in R. We also conduct Chi-square tests and one-sample Z-tests to investigate
whether there are significant differences in the frequencies of disagreement patterns among L2 English, L1 English, and L1
Chinese. The findings can indicate the (non)existence of negative pragmatic transfer. Note that the observed significance level
(p-value) in this study is less than 0.05.

5. Results

5.1. Disagreement patterns

We do not detect any instances of strong disagreement in the L1 American English conversations, although we identify five
lexico-syntactic structures of weak disagreement in the form of statements (83 tokens, 100%). To be more specific, weak
disagreement can be realized when dissent is prefaced by delaying devices, such as well, um, or uh (15 tokens, 18.07%); partial
agreement markers, such as yes, ok, exactly, that’s true, it is, this is fine, or I’m sure/nods (43 tokens, 51.81%); or the discourse
marker actually (5 tokens, 6.02%). Weak disagreement can also be modified internally with words such as not really or would
(2 tokens, 2.41%) or externally with adjuncts, such as I don’t know (about that), I’m not sure, or it depends (18 tokens, 21.69%).
Nevertheless, in the L2 English conversations conducted by the Chinese speakers of English, we find strong disagreement
(167 tokens, 100%) in addition to weak disagreement. The speakers objected in negative sentences that contain no/not (55
tokens, 32.94%); opposing utterances that start with but (101 tokens, 60.48%); affirmative sentences that display directly
dissenting views (4 tokens, 2.39%); adjuncts that demonstrate antagonistic remarks such as that’s wrong (3 tokens, 1.8%); and
forceful rhetorical questions with interrogative words such as why (4 tokens, 2.39%). This is in sharp contrast with the L1
English conversations where no strong disagreement is discovered.
8 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487

Meanwhile, the Chinese speakers of English also adopted weak disagreement strategies (24 tokens, 100%) in L2 English.
They deployed delaying devices such as laughter, repetition of a previous utterance, or a hesitation marker (4 tokens, 16.66%),
partial agreement markers which include maybe or yeah (13 tokens, 54.17%), or the discourse marker actually (7 tokens,
29.17%), before they enacted disagreement. The speakers did not employ any internal modifiers or adjuncts in their con-
versations, which emerged in the L1 English conversations though. The range of the partial agreement markers they used is
much narrower than the range of the markers that the L1 English speakers used.
For comparison purposes, we also sort out the lexico-syntactic structures of strong disagreement (146 tokens, 100%)
employed by the Chinese speakers of English in their L1 Chinese conversations. The speakers realized strong disagreement in
negative sentences that contain the word bù or méi(yǒu) ‘no/not’ (67 tokens, 45.89%); opposing utterances that start with
dàn(shì) or búguò ‘but’ (44 tokens, 30.14%); affirmative sentences that display directly dissenting views (16 tokens, 10.96%);
and adjuncts that demonstrate antagonistic remarks such as zhè shì liǎng mǎ shì ‘This is different’ (8 tokens, 5.48%). They also
disagreed strongly with wh-questions that contain interrogative words such as zĕnme ‘how’, shénme ‘what’ na (li) ‘where’,
wèishénme or gànmá ‘why’, or shéi ‘who’ (11 tokens, 7.53%). Nevertheless, these speakers used a much higher percentage of
but-initiated disagreement expressions in L2 English (60.48%) than in L1 Chinese (30.14%) and a much lower percentage of
affirmative sentences for strong disagreement in L2 English (2.39%) than in L1 Chinese (10.96%).
In addition to strong disagreement, the speakers also deployed weak disagreement strategies in L1 Chinese (19 tokens,
100%). They prefaced disagreement with delaying devices such as laughter, e/en ‘uh’, or o ‘oh’ (7 tokens, 36.84%) or partial
agreement markers such as duì ‘right’ or shì ‘yes’ (5 tokens, 26.32%). They also mitigated disagreement by adding particles,
such as o, a, ya, la, or ei, to the end of statements (4 tokens, 21.05%) or polar questions (3 tokens, 15.79%). A major difference
between these weak disagreement patterns and those in L2 English (and L1 English) is the use of sentence-final particles such
as o, a, ya, la, or ei in L1 Chinese and the nonuse of these particles in L2 English (and L1 English). Moreover, the speakers used a
much lower percentage but wider range of partial agreement markers in L1 Chinese (26.32%) than in L2 English (54.17%). They
did not use qíshí ‘actually’ in L1 Chinese, whereas the word actually makes up 29.17% of their weak disagreement patterns in
L2 English.
After comparing the subcategories of weak disagreement enacted by the L1 English, L2 English, and L1 Chinese speakers,
we find that all the speakers employed delaying devices and partial agreement markers. In particular, the L1 English speakers
and L2 English speakers both deployed more than 50% of partial agreement markers (e.g., yeah in English), although the L1
English speakers used more varieties of partial agreement markers (e.g., exactly, I’m sure, or that’s true in L1 English) than the
L2 English speakers and L1 Chinese speakers. The L1 Chinese speakers used only 26.32% of partial agreement markers, but
36.84% of delaying devices which is twice the percentage of delaying devices in L1 English and L2 English respectively.
Nevertheless, we do not discover other common weak disagreement markers across the L1 English, L2 English, and L1 Chinese
datasets because at least one group of the speakers did not use one of the remaining types of weak disagreement.

5.2. Statistical evidence of pragmatic transfer

We conduct one-sample Z-tests to examine whether there is a significant association between the use of disagreement
and the use of language in any one of the following three linguistic datasets: (1) L2 English by the Chinese speakers of English;
(2) L1 English by the Americans; and (3) L1 Chinese by the same Chinese speakers. Results show that the Chinese speakers of
English used a significantly higher number of strong disagreement than that of weak disagreement whether it was in L1
Chinese or in L2 English (p-value <0.05), while the L1 English speakers employed a significantly higher percentage of weak
disagreement because they did not use strong disagreement at all. This suggests that the Chinese speakers of English
practiced the communicative act of disagreement in L2 English and L1 Chinese in a similar manner. But they disagreed
differently from the L1 English speakers to a substantial extent.
We also conduct two by two Chi-square tests to examine whether there are significant differences in the frequencies of
disagreement patterns between any two of the above-mentioned three linguistic datasets. We find significant differences in
the frequencies of disagreement patterns between L1 English by the Americans and L2 English by the Chinese speakers of
English (X-squared ¼ 185.84, df ¼ 1, p-value < 0.05) and between L1 English by the Americans and L1 Chinese by the Chinese
speakers (X-squared ¼ 178.57, df ¼ 1, p-value < 0.05). Nonetheless, we do not detect a significant difference in the frequencies
of disagreement patterns between L2 English and L1 Chinese by the Chinese speakers of English (p-value > 0.05). See Table 3.
These findings provide statistical evidence of negative pragmatic transfer in the use of disagreement patterns from L1 Chinese
to L2 English.

Table 3
Testing associations between language and disagreement.

Category Strong disagreement Weak disagreement Chi-square test p-value

L2 English 167 (87.43%) 24 (12.57%) <0.05
L1 English 0 83 (100%)
L1 Chinese 146 (88.48%) 19 (11.52%) <0.05
L1 English 0 83 (100%)
L2 English 167 (87.43%) 24 (12.57%) >0.05
L1 Chinese 146 (88.48%) 19 (11.52%)
 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487 9

6. Discussion

The L2 English produced by the Chinese speakers of English deviates from the L1 English produced by the Americans. The
L1 English speakers did not employ strong disagreement, which confirms previous research arguing that L1 English speakers
tend to mitigate disagreement and prefer weak disagreement in non-self-denigration cases (e.g., Leech, 1983; Pomerantz,
1984; Brown and Levinson, 1987). On the other hand, the L2 English speakers did not refrain from presenting conflicting
stances directly, which supports the studies that have highlighted the bald directness of English learners who tend to employ
strong disagreement without delaying devices or agreement components (e.g., Salsbury and Bardovi-Harlig, 2000, 2001;
Kreutel, 2007; Habib, 2008). This might be due to the fact that the L2 English speakers did not have a conflict of interest and
they communicated about trivial topics in informal contexts where little aftermath ensues.
Another huge divergence between the L2 English and the L1 English is that the L2 English speakers did not employ any
internal modifiers or adjuncts for weak disagreement, whereas the L1 English speakers did. This echoes the research revealing
English learners’ underuse of internal modifiers when making requests (Chang and Hsu, 1998; Chen, 2015). Also, the L2
English speakers used fewer varieties of partial agreement markers than the L1 English speakers, which aligns with Bu’s
(2012) finding that English learners had difficulty deploying a wide range of internal modifiers compared with L1 English
speakers. This might be due to the fact that L2 speakers have limited vocabulary (Henriksen and Danelund, 2015) and do not
have the same repertoire as L1 speakers. The speakers’ limited linguistic forms or relatively lower L2 proficiency prevents
them from applying L2 pragmatic norms (Maeshiba et al., 1996; Rose, 2000; Bardovi-Harlig and Salsbury, 2004; Cheng, 2011;
Bu, 2012; Ren and Gao, 2012).
Nonetheless, the disagreement patterns in the L2 English produced by the Chinese speakers of English are similar to those
in the L1 Chinese produced by them as well. The number of strong disagreement patterns is significantly higher than that of
weak disagreement patterns, which puts in question previous claims about people across cultures preferring weak
disagreement in non-self-denigration cases (Leech, 1983; Pomerantz, 1984; Brown and Levinson, 1987) and those about
Chinese people preferring an indirect mode of communication (e.g., Hong, 1985; Gao and Ting-Toomey, 1998). The divergence
between Chinese indirectness stated in previous research and Chinese directness reported in this study might be caused by
their different research focuses and methods. For instance, Hong (1985) discussed indirect mentioning of desires and Gao and
Ting-Toomey (1998) talked about indirect requests, based on their native-speaker intuitions. In contrast, based on empirical
data, this study reveals that Chinese people can be direct when expressing disagreement with relatively equal-status, non-
familial interlocutors. This result provides statistical support to the studies that have uncovered the frequent use of strong
disagreement in some cultures (e.g., Schiffrin, 1984; Katriel, 1986; Georgakopoulou, 2001; Kakava, 2002; Zhu, 2014a, 2014b,
2019).
Significant differences are also found in the frequencies of disagreement patterns between L1 English by the Americans
and any one of the two datasets that involve the Chinese people, but not in the frequencies of disagreement patterns between
L2 English and L1 Chinese by the Chinese speakers of English. These findings indicate strong statistical evidence of negative
pragmatic transfer in the use of disagreement patterns from L1 Chinese to L2 English. This falls in line with pragmatic transfer
in compliment responses (Liu, 1995; Qu and Wang, 2005; Bu, 2010; Cheng, 2011), requests (Yeung, 1997; Chang and Hsu,
1998; Chen, 2015; Yu, 1999; Rose, 2000; Cook and Liddicoat, 2002; Wang, 2011; Bu, 2012; Li, 2018), and refusals (Chang,
2009; Jiang, 2015; Li, 2018) that were performed by Chinese learners of English. One of the causes for the negative prag-
matic transfer may be that the Chinese speakers of English share the L1 Chinese language and pragmatic norms. The speakers
might not be able to perceive linguistic and pragmatic differences between an L2 (English in this case) and their mother
tongue (Chinese in this case) (e.g., Beebe et al., 1990; Saeki and O’Keefe, 1994; Lee, 2011). If they lack the knowledge or
awareness of L2 pragmatic norms (Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei, 1998; Schauer, 2006; Lin, 2008), they are inclined to resort to
L1 pragmatic norms despite their high L2 proficiency (Blum-Kulka, 1982; Takahashi and Beebe, 1987; Olshtain and Cohen,
1989; Keshavarz et al., 2006; Allami and Naeimi, 2011).
We acknowledge that the act of disagreement can be affected by various contextual factors including power/status dif-
ference and social distance (Zhu, 2019). For instance, Locher (2004) convincingly posited that higher-status interlocutors tend
to disagree more directly. Status difference would cause lower-status speakers to disprefer or opt out of strong disagreement
in China (e.g., Du, 1995; Pan, 2000). Likewise, Wolfson’s (1989b) Bulge Theory indicates a correlation between direct
disapproval and social distance. Strangers might disapprove as directly as intimates and status unequals. In this study, since
the non-familial participants were friends or acquaintances who did not have institutional power over one another, they were
“on an equal footing to express different points of views” (Angouri and Locher, 2012, p. 1950). In such informal settings where
they socialized with one another, little power difference and short social distance might have made the native Chinese
speakers feel more comfortable to use strong disagreement. Strong disagreement “shows their strong desire to maintain a
sincere and independent self within the interactive frame” (Kuo, 1992, p. 402). Chinese conceptualization of solidarity tol-
erates direct bald-on-record behavior (Lee-Wong, 1994). However, despite little power difference and short social distance,
the native English speakers might still prefer weak disagreement complying with what they believe is polite (Brown and
Levinson, 1987).
Moreover, the choice of topic can affect people’s informal reasoning in everyday argument (Kuhn, 1991). The participants
conducted mundane conversations around inconsequential topics that do not involve conflicts of interest. The L1 English
speakers chatted about family, travel, food, TV shows, work experiences, American cities, ethnic looks, clothing, workout,
video games, sports, foreign countries, college life, pets, and books. The L2 English speakers talked about hobbies, English
10 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487

learning tips, job hunting, Chinese cities, Western culture, drinking habits, local events, college life, work experiences, news,
food, travel, specialization, generation gaps, plans, and workout. The L1 Chinese speakers spoke about weekend plans,
cooking, cosmetics, appearance, shopping, work experiences, family, former classmates, child education, condo price, per-
sonality, hometowns, income, human networks, and travel. The topics in the three datasets are comparable in terms of their
triviality. The trivial topics might have demanded less of the participants’ effort to mitigate disagreement because they were
low-stakes and would not lead to adverse consequences, which could explain why the native Chinese speakers employed
strong disagreement. In contrast, to the native English speakers, the trivial topics might not have been worth getting into an
argument for.
Additionally, the act of disagreement can be affected by face sensitivity and perceived (im)politeness. As mentioned earlier,
in the American culture, speakers tend to mitigate disagreement (Brown and Levinson, 1987) and prefer weak disagreement
(Pomerantz, 1984) to show politeness, save interlocutors’ face, or make them feel comfortable. This might be one of the
reasons why the L1 English speakers were not found to employ strong disagreement. In contrast, the L2 English/L1 Chinese
speakers did not seem to have a problem with using/hearing strong disagreement, although native Chinese speakers have
been known to care about face. One explanation is that strong disagreement might not necessarily damage interlocutors’ face
and could be viewed as politic in certain contexts including friends/acquaintances conversing about trivial topics in informal
settings. For example, Zhu (2014a, b) discovered that face could be maintained or enhanced through strong disagreement in
mundane conversations among relatively equal-status non-familial Chinese speakers. Native Chinese speakers might not
perceive strong disagreement as impolite, if it is delivered with a flat tone, low pitch, and soft volume, in ordinary social
conversations (Zhu and Boxer, 2013; Zhu, 2019). On such occasions, mitigation could be interpreted as a display of social
distancing (Briz, 1993).
This study has important methodological and pedagogical implications. Methodologically, this study shows some ad-
vantages of using naturalistic mundane conversations. We were able to record nonverbal features such as laughter or nods
that softened strong disagreement, which would not have been possible if we had used written elicited data. We also found a
wider range of strong and weak disagreement patterns in the naturalistic conversations than what previous research has
revealed based on conversations in movies, TV dramas, novels, or elicited data. The latter is more or less scripted or
orchestrated by a small number of people who might express disagreement in a limited number of ways. In contrast, the
naturalistic conversations we collected emerged spontaneously among a larger number of people who used a larger pool of
disagreement patterns. Pedagogically, the identified disagreement patterns in the L2 English, L1 English, and L1 Chinese
conversations and the evidence of pragmatic transfer can inform the profession of teaching Chinese or English as an L2. The
great varieties of the disagreement patterns can serve as valuable resources for L2 teachers to use as examples and for L2
learners to build individual linguistic repertoires. The similarities and differences between the Chinese and English
disagreement patterns can help L2 learners develop pragmatic awareness and overcome misconceptions such as strong
disagreement being dispreferred cross-culturally. The evidence of negative pragmatic transfer can open L2 learners’ eyes to a
potential cause of miscommunication in intercultural encounters.

7. Conclusion

This study extends the extant literature on pragmatic transfer by uncovering the patterns and frequencies of disagreement
in L2 English, L1 English, and L1 Chinese, and the evidence of pragmatic transfer, based on naturalistic mundane conversa-
tions among relatively equal-status, nonfamilial participants in informal settings. Results show a significant difference in the
use of disagreement between L2 English and L1 English but no significant difference between L2 English and L1 Chinese. The
fact that strong disagreement in both L1 Chinese and L2 English significantly outnumbers weak disagreement suggests that
strong disagreement may be normative in mundane conversations in the Chinese city of data collection. The statistical ev-
idence of negative pragmatic transfer in disagreement fills the gap in previous research on pragmatic transfer which has
focused more on other communicative acts such as requests, refusals, apologies, compliments, and compliment responses.
The findings can inform the teaching and learning of L2 English and the collected naturally occurring data can be great assets
to L2 teachers and learners.
Future research could investigate how low-proficiency Chinese speakers of English enact disagreement in naturalistic
conversations in informal contexts, how they differ from high-proficiency Chinese speaker of English, and whether there is a
correlation between their English proficiency level and negative pragmatic transfer. It would also be interesting to examine
the potential correlation between negative pragmatic transfer in disagreement by Chinese speakers of English who live in an
English-speaking country and their residence time in that country.

Acknowledgements

This research project was sponsored by the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S.A. (Grant ID: AAC1935). We would like to give special thanks to our research assistants,
transcribers, and participants for their tremendous help with this project. We are also grateful to the editors and the
anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on earlier versions of this paper. Any remaining errors are our own.
 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487 11

Appendix

The English Version of the Survey:

You are cordially invited to participate in a study that investigates the communication style of American English speakers
in everyday life. Please fill out this questionnaire. All information obtained will remain confidential, even if the study may be
presented at a professional conference or published in an academic journal.

The Chinese Version of the Survey:

本项目旨在研究中国人在日常生活中的沟通交流风格。我们热忱地邀请您参加本项研究，请您填写以下信息。即使未来在会
议上宣读论文或杂志上发表论文，您的信息也会保密。
12 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487
 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487 13

References

Abed, A.Q., 2011. Pragmatic transfer in Iraqi EFL learners’ refusals. Int. J. Engl. Ling. 1 (2), 166–185.
Allami, H., Naeimi, A., 2011. A cross-linguistic study of refusals: an analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. J. Pragmat. 43 (1),
385–406.
Alrefaee, Y., Al-Ghamdi, N., 2019. Refusals among Yemeni EFL learners: a study of negative pragmatic transfer and its relation to proficiency. Asian EFL J. Res.
Artic. 25 (5), 191–214.
Angouri, J., Locher, M.A., 2012. Theorising disagreement. J. Pragmat. 44 (12), 1549–1553.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Dörnyei, Z., 1998. Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2
learning. Tesol Q. 32, 233–262.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Salsbury, T., 2004. The organization of turns in the disagreements of L2 learners: a longitudinal perspective. In: Boxer, D., Cohen, A. (Eds.),
Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning. Multilingual Matters Ltd, New York, pp. 199–227.
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., 1989. Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts: chastisement and disagreement. In: Eisenstein, M. (Ed.), The Dynamic
Interlanguage: Empirical Studies in Second Language Variation. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 199–218.
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., Uliss-Weltz, R., 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In: Scarcella, R., Andersen, E., Krashen, S. (Eds.), Developing Communicative
Competence in a Second Language. Newbury House, Cambridge, MA, pp. 55–73.
Bella, S., 2012. Pragmatic development in a foreign language: a study of Greek FL requests. J. Pragmat. 44 (13), 1917–1947.
Blum-Kulka, S., 1982. Learning to say what you mean in a second language: a study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second
language. Appl. Linguist. 3 (1), 29–59.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kaspter, G. (Eds.), 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
Blum-Kulka, S., Olshtain, E., 1986. Too many words: length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Stud. Sec. Lang. Acquis. 8 (2), 165–179.
Bousfield, D., 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. John Benjamins, Philadelphia, PA.
Boxer, D., 2002a. Discourse issues in cross-cultural pragmatics. Annu. Rev. Appl. Ling. 22, 150–167.
Boxer, D., 2002b. Applying Sociolinguistics: Domains and Face-to-Face Interaction. John Benjamins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Briz, A., 1993. Los conectores pragmáticos en español colloquial (II): su papel metadiscursivo. Español Actual 59, 39–56.
Brown, P., Levinson, S., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bu, J., 2010. A study of pragmatic transfer in compliment response strategies by Chinese learners of English. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 1 (2), 121–129.
Bu, J., 2012. A study of relationships between L1 pragmatic transfer and L2 proficiency. Engl. Lang. Teach. 5 (1), 32–43.
Byon, A.S., 2004. Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: pedagogical settings. J. Pragmat. 36 (9), 1673–1704.
Cardon, P., Scott, J., 2003. Chinese business face: communication behaviors and teaching approaches. Bus. Commun. Q. 66, 9–22.
Chang, Y.-F., 2009. How to say no: an analysis of cross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer. Lang. Sci. 31, 477–493.
Chang, Y.-Y., Hsu, Y.-P., 1998. Requests on e-mail: a cross-cultural comparison. RELC J. 29 (2), 121–151.
Chen, Y.-S., 2015. Developing Chinese EFL learners’ email literacy through requests to faculty. J. Pragmat. 75, 131–149.
Cheng, D., 2011. New insights on compliment responses: a comparison between native English speakers and Chinese L2 speakers. J. Pragmat. 43 (8), 2204–
2214.
Chu, Y., 2016. A contrastive pragmatic study of politeness strategies in disagreement between native speakers of English and Chinese EFL learners. Chin. J.
Appl. Ling. 39 (2), 231–245.
Cohen, A., 1996. Speech acts in second language learning context. In: McKay, S., Hornberger, N. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 383–420.
Cohen, A., Olshtain, E., 1981. Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: the case of apology. Lang. Learn. 31 (1), 113–134.
Cook, M., Liddicoat, A., 2002. The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics: the case of request strategies in English. Aust. Rev. Appl.
Ling. 25, 19–39.
Culpeper, J., 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: the weakest link. J. Politeness Res. 1, 35–72.
Du, W.S., 1995. Performance of face-threatening acts in Chinese: complaining, giving bad news, and disagreeing. In: Kasper, G. (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese
as Native and Target Language. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, Hawai’i, pp. 165–205.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M., 2009. Interlanguage request modification: the use of lexical/phrasal downgraders and mitigating supportive moves. Multi-
lingua 28, 79–112.
Ellis, R., 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Firth, A., Wagner, J., 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Mod. Lang. J. 81, 285–300.
Gao, G., Ting-Toomey, S., 1998. Communicating Effectively with the Chinese. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gao, S., 2012. The biggest English Corner in China. Engl. Today 28 (3), 34–39.
Gao, X., 2009. The ‘English corner’ as an out-of-class learning activity. ELT J. 63 (1), 60–67.
García, C., 1989. Apologizing in English: politeness strategies used by native and non-native speakers. Multilingua 8, 3–20.
Georgakopoulou, A., 2001. Arguing about the future: on indirect disagreements in conversations. J. Pragmat. 33, 1881–1900.
Golato, A., 2003. Studying compliment responses: a comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Appl. Linguist. 24 (1), 90–121.
Gumperz, J., 2005. Interactional sociolinguistics: a personal perspective. In: Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., Hamilton, H.E. (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse
Analysis. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Malden, MA, pp. 215–228.
Gumperz, J., 2006. Interactional sociolinguistics. In: Brown, K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier Ltd, Kidlington, UK, pp. 724–729.
Habib, R., 2008. Humor and disagreement: identity construction and cross-cultural enrichment. J. Pragmat. 40, 1117–1145.
Henriksen, B., Danelund, L., 2015. Studies of Danish L2 learners’ vocabulary knowledge and the lexical richness of their written production in English. In:
Pietilä, P., Doró, K., Pípalová, R. (Eds.), Lexical Issues in L2 Writing. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, pp. 29–56.
Hong, B., 1985. Politeness in Chinese: impersonal pronouns and personal greetings. Anthropol. Ling. 27 (2), 204–213.
House, J., Kasper, G., 1987. Interlanguage pragmatics: requesting in a foreign language. In: Lörscher, W., Schulze, R. (Eds.), Perspectives on Language in
Performance: Studies in Linguistics, Literary Criticism, and Language Teaching and Learning. Narr, Tübingen, Germany, pp. 1250–1288.
Jiang, L., 2015. An empirical study on pragmatic transfer in refusal speech act produced by Chinese high school EFL learners. Engl. Lang. Teach. 8 (7), 95–113.
Jin, L., Cortazzi, M., 2002. English language teaching in China: a bridge to the future. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 22, 53–64.
Jung, E.H., 2004. Interlanguage pragmatics: apology speech acts. In: Moder, C.L., Martinovic-Zic, A. (Eds.), Discourse across Languages and Cultures. John
Benjamins, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 99–116.
Kakava, C., 1993. Conflicting argumentative strategies in the classroom. In: Alatis, J. (Ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics
1993. Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C., pp. 402–420.
Kakava, C., 2002. Opposition in modern Greek discourse: cultural and contextual constraints. J. Pragmat. 34 (10–11), 1537–1568.
Kasper, G., 1992. Pragmatic transfer. Sec. Lang. Res. 8 (3), 203–231.
Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S., 1993. Interlanguage pragmatics: introduction. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University
Press, New York, pp. 3–17.
Katriel, T., 1986. Talking Straight: Dugri Speech in Israeli Sabra Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Keshavarz, M., Eslami, Z., Ghahraman, V., 2006. Pragmatic transfer and Iranian EFL refusals: a cross-cultural perspective of Persian and English. In: Bardovi-
Harlig, K., Félix-Brasdefer, C., Omar, A. (Eds.), Pragmatics Language Learning (Vol. II). National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i at
Mãnoa, pp. 359–402.
Kreutel, K., 2007. ‘I’m not agree with you’: ESL learners’ expressions of disagreement. TESL-EJ 11 (3), 1–35.
14 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487

Kuhn, D., 1991. The Skills of Argument. Cambridge University Press.

Kuo, S.-H., 1992. Formulaic opposition markers in Chinese conflict Talk. In: Alatis, J. (Ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics
1992. Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 388–402.
Labov, W., 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Blackwell, Oxford.
Lee, C., 2011. Strategy and linguistic preference of requests by Cantonese learners of English: an interlanguage and crosscultural comparison. Multilingua 30,
99–129.
Leech, G., 1983. Principles of Politeness. Longman, London, UK.
Lee-Wong, S.M., 1994. Imperatives in requests: direct or impolite - observations from Chinese. Pragmatics 4 (4), 491–515.
Li, H., 2016. Analysis of the management mechanism of interpersonal relationship-based conflict talk. J. Changchun Univ. 26 (5), 37–40.
Li, W., 2018. Pragmatic Transfer and Development: Evidence from EFL Learners in China. John Benjamins, Philadelphia, PA.
Li, W., Zhu, H., Li, Y., 2001. Interpersonal harmony and textual coherence in Chinese business interaction. Multilingua 20, 285–310.
Liang, G., Han, J., 2005. A contrastive study on disagreement strategies for politeness between American English & Mandarin Chinese. Asian EFL J. 7 (1), 1–12.
Lin, M.-X., 2008. Pragmatic failure in intercultural communication and English teaching in China. China Media Res. 4 (3), 44–52.
Liu, D., 1995. Sociocultural transfer and its effect on second language speakers’ communication. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 19 (2), 253–265.
Liu, S., 2004. Pragmatics Strategies and Power Relations in Disagreement: Chinese Culture in Higher Education. Universal Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Locher, M., 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co, Berlin.
Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., Rose, S., 1996. Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In: Gass, S., Neu, J. (Eds.), Speech Acts across
Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 155–187.
Morkus, N., 2021. Negative pragmatic transfer and language proficiency: American learners of Arabic. Lang. Learn. J. 49 (1), 41–65.
Muntigl, P., Turnbull, W., 1998. Conversational structure and facework in arguing. J. Pragmat. 29, 225–256.
Nelson, G., Carson, J., Al Batal, M., El Bakary, W., 2002. Cross-cultural pragmatics: strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Appl.
Linguist. 23 (2), 163–189.
Nguyen, T.T.M., 2008. Criticizing in an L2: pragmatic strategies used by Vietnamese EFL learners. Intercult. Pragmat. 5 (1), 41–66.
Olshtain, E., 1983. Sociocultural competence and language transfer: the case of apology. In: Gass, S., Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language
Learning. Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp. 232–249.
Olshtain, E., Cohen, A., 1989. Speech act behavior across languages. In: Dechert, H.W., Raupach, M. (Eds.), Transfer in Production. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 53–
68.
Pan, P.C., 2012. Interlanguage requests in institutional e-mail discourse: a study in Hong Kong. In: Economidou-Kogetsidis, M., Woodfield, H. (Eds.),
Interlanguage Request Modification. John Benjamins, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 119–162.
Pan, Y., 2000. Politeness in Chinese Face-to-Face Interaction. Ablex Publishing Corporation, New York.
Pan, Y., Kádár, D., 2011. Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese. Continuum International Publishing Group, New York.
Phoocharoensil, S., 2012. L2 English compliment responses: an investigation of pragmatic transfer. Int. J. Appl. Ling. Engl. Lit. 1 (6), 276–287.
Pomerantz, A., 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/disperferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.),
Structures of Social Interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57–102.
Qu, J., Wang, L.-Y., 2005. Pragmatic transfer in compliment responses by Chinese learners of English. Sino-US Engl. Teach. 12, 66–75.
Ran, Y., 2010. A pragmatic study of the divergence orientation of conflict utterances. Mod. Foreign Lang. 33 (2), 150–157.
Ran, Y., Bai, J., 2017. The interpersonal pragmatic orientations of disagreement markers in interaction. Shandong Foreign Lang. Teach. 38 (1), 11–20.
Rees-Miller, J., 2000. Power, severity, and context in disagreement. J. Pragmat. 32 (8), 1087–1111.
Ren, J., Gao, X., 2012. Negative pragmatic transfer in Chinese students’ complimentary speech acts. Psychol. Rep. 110 (1), 149–165.
Rose, K., 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Stud. Sec. Lang. Acquis. 22, 27–67.
Saeki, M., O’Keefe, B., 1994. Refusals and rejections: designing messages to serve multiple goals. Hum. Commun. Res. 21, 67–102.
Saito, H., Beecken, M., 1997. An approach to instruction of pragmatic aspects: implications of pragmatic transfer by American learners of Japanese. Mod.
Lang. J. 81 (3), 363–377.
Salsbury, T., Bardovi-Harlig, K., 2000. Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality in English L2. In: Swierzbin, B. (Ed.), Social and Cognitive Factors in
Second Language Acquisition: Selected Proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, pp. 57–76.
Salsbury, T., Bardovi-Harlig, K., 2001. I know your mean, but I don’t think so”: disagreements in English L2. In: Bouton, L. (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language
Learning 9. Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, pp. 131–151.
Scarcella, R., Brunak, J., 1981. On speaking politely in a second language. Int. J. Sociol. Lang. 27, 59–75.
Schauer, G.A., 2006. Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: contrast and development. Lang. Learn. 56 (2), 269–318.
Schiffrin, D., 1984. Jewish argument as sociability. Lang. Soc. 13, 311–335.
Schiffrin, D., 1985. Everyday argument: the organization of diversity in talk. In: v. Dijk, T.A. (Ed.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Discussion and
Dialogue, vol. 3. Academic Press, London, pp. 35–46.
Schiffrin, D., 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Scott, S., 2002. Linguistic feature variation within disagreements: an empirical investigation. Text 22 (2), 301–328.
Shum, W., Lee, C., 2013. (Im)politeness and disagreement in two Hong Kong Internet discussion forums. J. Pragmat. 50 (1), 52–83.
Sifianou, M., 2012. Disagreement, face and politeness. J. Pragmat. 44, 1554–1564.
Sornig, K., 1977. Disagreement and contradiction as communicative acts. J. Pragmat. 1 (4), 347–374.
Takahashi, S., 1996. Pragmatic transferability. Stud. Sec. Lang. Acquis. 18, 189–223.
Takahashi, T., Beebe, L., 1987. The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT J. 8 (2), 131–155.
Takahashi, T., Beebe, L., 1993. Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 138–157.
Tannen, D., 2005. Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Thomas, J., 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Appl. Linguist. 4 (2), 91–112.
Trosborg, A., 1987. Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. J. Pragmat. 11 (2), 147–167.
Wang, V.X., 2011. Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners. John Benjamins, Philadelphia, PA.
Wannaruk, A., 2008. Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. RELC J. 39 (3), 318–337.
Wolfson, N., 1989a. The social dynamics of native and nonnative variation in complimenting behavior. In: Eisenstein, M. (Ed.), The Dynamic Interlanguage:
Empirical Studies in Second Language Variation. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 219–236.
Wolfson, N., 1989b. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Heinle and Heinle Publishers, Boston, MA.
Woodfield, H., Economidou-Kogetsidis, M., 2010. ‘I just need more time’: a study of native and non-native students’ requests to faculty for an extension.
Multilingua 29, 77–118.
Xia, Y., Cui, Y., 2008. On pragmatic strategies of expressing disagreement. J. Yibin Univ. 11 (11), 80–82.
Yeung, L., 1997. Polite requests in English and Chinese business correspondence in Hong Kong. J. Pragmat. 27, 505–522.
Yu, M.-C., 1999. Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics 9
(2), 281–312.
Yuan, Y., 2001. An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. J. Pragmat. 33
(2), 271–292.
Zhu, W., 2014a. Managing relationships in everyday practice: the case of strong disagreement in Mandarin. J. Pragmat. 64, 85–101.
Zhu, W., 2014b. Rapport management in strong disagreement: an investigation of a community of Chinese speakers of English. Text Talk 34 (5), 641–664.
 W. Zhu, J. Wang / Language Sciences 93 (2022) 101487 15

Zhu, W., 2019. Interaction in Mandarin Chinese and English as a Multilingua Franca: Context, Practice, and Perception. Routledge, New York.
Zhu, W., Boxer, D., 2013. Strong disagreement in Mandarin and ELFP: aggressive or politic? J. Lang. Aggress. Confl. 1 (2), 194–224.
Zhu, W., Boxer, D., 2021. Turn-taking and disagreement: a comparison of American English and Mandarin Chinese. Contrastive Pragmat. 2, 227–257.