Review Of Locher's Theory Of Disagreement

2.3.1 Locher’s (2004) Theory of Disagreement
Locher (2004) divides eight categories of expressing disagreement, consisting of the use of hedges, giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing, the use of modal auxiliaries, shifting responsibility, stating objections in the form of question, the use of but, repeating an utterance by next or the same speaker, and non-mitigated disagreement. Locher (2004, p.96) also adds explanation whether each category is threatening one’s face or not. This term is called Face Threatening Act (FTA). FTA is something that said by the speaker that represents a threat to another person’s expectation regarding self image. Thus, the categories that threatening one’s face are unmitigated strategies, and the categories that are not threatening one’s face are mitigated strategies.

2.3.1.1 The use of Hedges
A hedge is a mitigating word, sound or construction

Marry : Uhm.. It Just made me mad I don’t know why

The utterance produced by Marry “ mad I don’t know why”, emphasizing personal emotional reason in disagreement. It is often happen by combining speaker point of view.

2.3.1.3 The Use of Modal Auxiliaries
The modal auxiliary: “may”, “might”, “could”, “would” and “should” be used to soften FTAs. In the appropriate context “may”, “might” and “could” carry the meaning of possibility or ask for permission, would expresses probability or hypothetical meaning and should can express putative, hypothetical or tentative meaning (Quick et al. 1972:97-102 in Locher’s book 2004). The example of this categories is shown in conversation example 3 bellow.
Jane : John would tell us nothing I mean nothing I’ve talked before John : It might mean something In conversation above Jane is trying to criticize John. Jane utterance’s represent FTA for John which is slightly softened by the modal auxiliary.

2.3.1.4 Shifting