PART I: INTRODUCTION1. RationaleDisagreement is defined as an "everyday phenomenon," and an expression of a view that differs from that expressed by another speaker (Sifianou, 2012, p.1). This speech act is generally considered dispreferred it threatens the speakers face (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Most of the research on argumentative discourse focuses on the expression of disagreement (Holtgraves, 1997; Locher, 2004; Rees-Miller, 2000). Also, it is suggested that context plays an important role in the analysis of the matters of disagreement. One of the likely influences on disagreement strategy selection is the differences in power and social distance between speakers and listeners. To date, studies of pragmatics and power are fragmented and made in deduction across research attempts. This study is conducted aiming at comprehending power and social distance and pragmatic politeness strategies in disagreement as more than a linguistic aspect of communication. As such, the study may uncover the characteristics of power and social distance, and the nature of the relationship between these factors and the use of language. As a former student in the faculty of English (F.O.E), Hanoi National University of Education (HNUE), the researcher is well aware of the teaching and learning situation, and some language features of English lecturers and learners in the faculty. For this reason, English majors of the faculty, particularly English seniors, who are believed to gain a certain competence in English use, are selected as the subjects of the study. 2. Aims of the study and Research questionsThe study is expected to fulfill the following aims: First, the study aims to investigate the disagreement strategies used by English major seniors at F.O.E, HNUE.Second, the study aims to find out the most-frequently-used politeness strategies in disagreement by English major seniors at F.O.E, HNUE.Last but not least, the study aims to uncover the influences of power and soical distance differences on the disagreement politeness strategy selection of English major seniors at F.O.E, HNUE.Subject to the aims raised above, the study seeks the answers to the following research questions:1. What are the types of the disagreement strategies used by Vietnamese English seniors at F.O.E, HNUE.2. What are the types of politeness strategies used in disagreement by Vietnamese English seniors at F.O.E, HNUE?3. How do power and social distance differences influence the use of politeness strategies in disagreement by Vietnamese English seniors at F.O.E, HNUE?3. Design of the studyThis study consists of three parts:Part I, Introduction, presents the rationale, aims, research questions, scope and design of the study.Part II, Development, comprises 3 chapters.Chapter 1, Literature review, outlines the theoretical knowledge about power and social distance, politeness strategies and disagreementChapter 2, Methodology, offers research approach, subjects of the study, research instruments, and data collection procedures.Chapter 3, Findings and discussions, provides the analysis and research findings.Chapter 4, Conclusion, summarizes the main contents of the study, points out the limitations of the study, and gives suggestions for future studies.PART II: DEVELOPMENTI. Theoretical background1. Overview of politeness strategiesThe academic study of politeness was a new field when Leech (1977) published his first paper on the subject-language and Tact, shortly before the introduction of a more extensive and influential study by Brown and Levinson in 1987. In recent years, politeness is still a topic that has been extensively studied in sociolinguistics, and Brown and Levinson`s model of politeness (1987) undoubtedly remains one of the most well-known in spite of some criticism. In line with many former studies, the politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1987) is favorably used as the theoretical framework in this paper.The core concept of this model is face, i.e the public self-image of a person. Face wants denotes the expectation that ones self-image is respect. Face, as Brown and Levinson state, includes positive face and negative face. The positive face defines the desire that the self -image be appreciated and approved of by interactants, while negative face means the freedom of action and freedom from imposition. Brown and Levinson (1987) also refer to the concept of face threating acts (FTAs) as the communicative acts; by their nature, running contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/or the speaker. Regarding the term politeness as a pragmatic notion, according to Kasper (1991), it refers to ways in which the relational in linguistic action is expressed. In another view, politeness can be interpreted as a strategy, or a series of strategies, employed by speakers aiming at the goal of promoting and maintaining harmonious relations with other people. Meanwhile, linguistic politeness, presents the use of language to carry out social actions where mutual face wants are respected.In this study, five sets of politeness strategies, namely the on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness, off-record and dont do the face-threatening act provided by Brown & Levinson (1987) is applied for analysis.2. Overview of disagreementMost of the languages consist of all sorts of speech acts and of course, including disagreements. Though continuously used, the manner of disagreeing is different in different cultures, power relations and even in different genders. According to Rees-Miller (2000), he defines disagrement as the speakers reaction by a verbal or paralinguistic response to some untrue proposition uttered or presumed to be espoused by an addresse. Brown and Levinson (1987) simplify the definition of disagreement as they refer it to a kind of speech acts, which threatens the addressee's negative face when being imposed the speakers will. However, what type of speech acts disagree is varies between authors. Sama et al (2013) summaries a list of classifications to which disagreement is attibuted. Accordingly, disagreement can be subsumed into commissive speech act (Austin), an act of asserting (Fraser, 1975), and a representative act (Searle, 1976). It may be a reactive speech act stimulated by preceding utterances (Sornig, 1977) or a conflictive speech act causing social disharmony between/among interlocutors (Leech, 1983).All in all, the above theories view disagreement as dispreferred , and as a form of conflict in communication events, which 'is largely destructive for social solidarity and threatens interlocutors face. On the other hand, recent studies on disagreement can provide us with a different view on this kind of speech act as they are not in favor of looking at disagreement as an act of threatening or destroying, but as a multidimensional act which may foster solidarity among people in their interactions. As Angouri and Locher (2012) state, disagreement is an everyday speech act which is expected in certain interactional practices such as problem solving and decision making. Sifianou (2012) describes disagreement as a situated activity, interactionally managed by interlocutors (p.4). He clarifies that this activity is multidirectional as it can affect either or both positive and negative face of the interlocutors, and multifunctional as it can serve various functions such as establishing hostility or solidarity. In summary, disagreement is considered preferred or dispreferred, face-threatening or face-enhancing. The notion of preference or dispreference depends on the context and the nature of the communication in which it performs. Muntigl and Turnbull (1998) suggest a taxonomy of disagreement strategies, including five types of disagreement: irrelevancy claim, challenge, contradiction and counterclaim and contradiction followed by counterclaim, which is flavorable in this study.3. Overview of politeness strategies in disagreementMany researchers draw interest in applying the theory of politeness into the speech act theory, and the study of pliteness strategies in disagreement is not out of their favor.On the one hand, in the view of disagreement as negative-face threat, Brown and Levinson (1987) propose two positive politeness strategies to avoid this threat: 1. 'Seek agreement' (e.g., by engaging in safe topics), and 2. 'Avoid disagreement' (e.g., by using token agreement, hedging, and white lies) (p. 112113). They additionally suggest three situations in which more direct strategies of disagreement are preferred to less direct strategies: 1. when there is less social distance between the speaker and addressee, 2. when the speaker has greater power than the addressee, and 3. when the severity of disagreement is less.Whereas, viewing disagreement as a multidimensional and multifunctional act has led researchers to investigate the expression of this speech act in relation to the context of interaction. They have tried to explore the possible effects of contextual variables such as age, gender, power, solidarity, personal traits, and the degree of formality of the interaction on the expression of disagreement. For example, Kamisli and Dogancay-Aktunas (1996) study the discourse of power and politeness, through the act of disagreement on native speakers of Turkish and American speakers. They found that lower status interlocutors used more address terms than higher status interlocutors. Although both groups made use of address terms while disagreeing with higher status interlocutors, a thorough analysis indicated the differences in the use of these terms between the intermediate learners and upper-intermediate learners when speaking to a person of higher status. Farahani and Molkizadel (2013) investigate the application of politeness strategies in disagreement by Iranian Advanced EFL learners. The statistical analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between the two genders with regard to the type of politeness strategies in disagreement speech act.4. Overview of power and social distancePower may refer to the degree to which hearer can impose his own plan and his self-evaluation at the expense of the speakers plans and self-evaluation. It may be obtained from the source of material control , i.e the control over economic distribution and physical force, ormetaphysical control, i.e the control over others actions by means of force based on social status or rank (Brown, & Levinson, 1987).Distance may be interpreted as the assessment of frequency of interaction between speaker and hearer, and what kind of material or non-material goods they exchange. Social distance, in the view of Brown and Levinson (1987), is an important part of that assessment based on stable social attributes. Social distance means the difference in social status between the two interlocutors: equal status or unequal status.Social distance and relative power, as.Brown and Levinson (1987) argue, are the two factors involved in the assessment of the seriousness of the face threatening act in addition to the ranking of imposition in particular culture . As such, they propose a fomular to calculate the weightness of a FTA, i.e th amount and kind of politeness: Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx (x denotes a face threatening act). II. Methodology1. Participants The main subjects of the study are altogether 90 English major seniors at F.O.E, HNUE, who were born in Vietnam and have never stayed in English-speaking countries, including 80 females and 10 males. 2. Data Collection Instruments Two instruments are employed to obtain the research data: The English Language Proficiency Test (TOEFL), and Discourse Completion Test (DCT). The English Language Proficiency Test is used to assure the homogeneity of the student group in terms of their English proficiency. This test includes fifty listening comprehension questions, forty structure and vocabulary questions, and fifty multiple choice items with five reading comprehension texts and a essay writing. Each section is respectively assigned to 25, 20, 25 and 30 points, and the overall score is one hundred.The subjects are requested to give response to the English version of the Discourse Completion Test (DCT). In this case, the DCT is a form of questionnaire describing some five scenerios of social interaction, such as teacher student, parent - child manager clerk, friend friend , and husband - wife conversations with a variety of topics and types of situations to avoid intervening effects of topic selection. The respondents are expected to react, making disagreement.3. Data Collection ProcedurePrior to the actual data collection, the situations in the original studies are radically modified and adapted to suit the Vietnamese context. The modified form of the DCT is given to two professors for validation. Their suggestions and observations are well taken into consideration in designing the final form of the DCT. For further validation, the DCT may be piloted on ten subjects not included in the sample to see if the language was comprehensible for EFL learners, and based on their opinion, a few changes may be made. After this stage, an English language proficiency test is given to the participants. The participants, whose score were between 65 and 80 (or maybe a little above), considered upper-intermediates, are selected as respondants of the study, and the students whose score are below 65 are sacked from the study. After a week interval, a DCT is administrated to the selected students. If the responses are incomplete or misunderstood, they are omitted. The researcher will be available during the questionnaire administration to provide assistance.4. Data Analysis ProcedureThe participants' responses will be analyzed in three steps.First, invalid responses to DCT are discarded and the total number of valid responses are determined. In the second step, when identifying the utterances of disagreement from the responses, the taxonomy from Muntigl and Turnbull (1998), which recognizes five types of disagreement is applied for analysis of disagreement realizations. In the last step. the theory of politeness by Brown and Levinson (1987is employed for analysis of politeness strategies.III. Findings and discussionsThis section presents the findings of the analysis of the collected data to find out the answers to the research questions of the study: the types and of disagreement strategies used, the types of politeness strategies employed and the relationship between power and soial distance differences and polieness strategies in disagreement.IV. ImplicationsIn this section, some recommendations for the application of the findings of the study to the English language teaching or translation may be made by the researcher.V. CONCLUSIONThis part gives the summary of the main points of the research, points out some limitations or difficulties made during the study, and recommends the topic the further study.