8th semester theme: Ways of expressing agreement and disagreement in speaking classes

I’m sorry, but I disagree.

I'm afraid, I can't agree with you.

The problem is that...

I (very much) doubt whether...

This is in complete contradiction to...

With all due respect,…

I am of a different opinion because ...

I cannot share this / that / the view.

I cannot agree with this idea.

What I object to is...

I have my own thoughts about that.

Partial agreement:

You can also agree but with reservation especially when there is a doubt or feeling of not being able to accept something completely

Expressions to partially disagree

It is only partly true that...

That’s true, but…

I can agree with that only with reservations.

That seems obvious, but...

That is not necessarily so.

It is not as simple as it seems.

I agree with you in principle, but…

I agree with you in part, but…

Well, you could be right.

As we teach in our English classes an important part of speaking English is expressing opinions and agreeing and disagreeing with others’ opinions.

the first one, the two women are speaking. They agree with one another:

Woman A: I think that mothers work harder than fathers!

Woman B: Me too!

Woman A: Father’s Day should be abolished!

Woman B: I agree!

In the second one, one of the women is speaking with a stranger. They disagree with one another:

Woman A: I think mothers work harder than fathers!

Stranger: Really? Not me. I think they both work equally hard.

Woman A: Father’s Day should be abolished!

Stranger: I disagree. I think both of them deserve a day to be honored by their family.

We use different patterns to agree or disagree depending on how the opinion statement begins.
If the opinion statement begins with “I,” then use the chart below to help you answer.
Person #1 – Agrees
Me too!
I do too!
I can too!
I will too!
I did too!
I would too! Person #2 – Disagrees
Not me!
I don’t!
I disagree!
I wouldn’t.
Really?
Person #1 – Disagrees
Not me!
I disagree!
Really? Person #2 – ALSO Disagrees
Me neither!
I don’t either!
I can’t either!
I won’t either!
I didn’t either!
I wouldn’t either!

We hear this catchy phrase often at the tail end of an argument when an irritated and frustrated person who cannot impose their point of view says - Can't we just agree to disagree? Although in theory, it is a good thing to be able to do, few people understand what it actually means to agree to disagree.

We all have opinions on a variety of topics. Many times, those opinions are the opposite of someone else's opinion. Since opinions don't have to be based upon logic, they can be based upon emotion, preference, experience or all sorts of other variables - people will often have differences of opinion and it doesn't necessarily mean one person is right and the other person is wrong.
Agreeing to disagree doesn't mean you have to give up your opinion. To the contrary, you simply keep your opinion to yourself, recognise others' right to hold a different opinion and agree not to argue about it. When you agree to disagree, you promote peaceful relationships. Disagreements will always happen, but you don't have to let them become a real problem. Instead, show others respect by allowing them to hold a different opinion than yours. Agree to disagree and you'll find your friends can remain your friends even if they don't think exactly like you do.
It is possible for 2 people to see and hear the same event and yet each has a totally different experience of what actually took place. Everything we see, hear or feel is processed and interpreted according to our education, knowledge and past life experiences. Since all of us have different past experiences, we will ascribe different meanings, and therefore have different versions, as to what happened.
Agree to disagree does not mean that we just give up on an argument that we feel is important and then hold onto resentment, anger, irritation, frustration or pain because of it. It also doesn't mean that we give in, say we are sorry, or feel that we have done something wrong in thought or action. It simply means that we understand we will be unable to see eye to eye and that it is okay to just disagree on certain things in life.
Arguing on this would be as useless as arguing which wonder of the world is the best. It also means understanding the importance of not being angry for any length of time; especially about things you cannot change. When you decide to just leave something the way it is, accept the fact that you and someone else think differently and move forward, you are making a statement about the trust and importance of the relationship at hand.
You are also making a larger statement about the healthy state of self-worth that you feel. Additionally, agreeing to not let the little things build up and become vicious monsters shows an immense sense of trust and respect to yourself and the other person involved.
In today's world of strong opinions and low tolerance, it is most vital that we really value the significance of agreeing to disagree. Countries have different points of view and may not see eye to eye on various topics. In the interest of world peace and the larger interest of humanity, this tool can be used to salvage many disturbing situations and leverage many conflicts. The world needs more peace and co-operation rather than rage and conflict.
We have retina scans and biometrics at airports. We recognise the fact that we all are different. If our finger prints can be distinct, can't our opinions be different? It is a simple fact of life, yet not easily understood and followed by many. It could be our egos that we are feeding by pressing our opinion on others. The amount of time and energy that is wasted in arguing and trying to impose our opinion could be utilised for so many better things.

It is always best to just let some things go. Being able to realise which things to let go and which things to hang on to is an important relationship skill. In life, there are things to fight for and there are things not worth the energy of an argument.

Agreement can be defined as a concurring stance (verbal or nonverbal) to a preceding action or position taken by another speaker, indicating that an addressee shares the speaker’s attitude to, or opinion of, that action or position. Conversely, disagreement is defined as an oppositional stance to a preceding action or position taken by another speaker. We may say that speaker S disagrees when s/he considers untrue, unfounded, or objectionable some proposition P uttered or presumed to be espoused by an addressee A and reacts with an utterance the propositional content or implicature of which is not P. Disagreement can take a number of forms. It may be stated explicitly, for example, I disagree with you. In such cases a tripartite turn-structure is common: (1) claim by speaker A; (2) speaker B disputes speaker A’s claim; (3) speaker A disagrees with speaker B by supporting the original claim or by directly contesting speaker B’s disagreement. But disagreement may also emerge over an extended section of talk in the course of one exchange, or even over a series of interactions. It may or may not be verbalized, and its form may incorporate a variety of affective markers to signal an emotional association.Disagreement has been researched more extensively than agreement (for reasons outlined below) and the focus of this article will reflect this.

Types of disagreement

Disagreements can be appraised in many ways from supportive (e.g., disagreeing with a negative self- assessment) to highly oppositional, and situational context is important in evaluating which function is being served. Situational context may encompass not only the talk’s referential content but also factors such as interactants’ social and regional affiliations, ethnicity and gender, which may predispose them to realize and interpret disagreements in a particular way. Also pertinent are interlocutors’ personal characteristics, face maintenance concerns and relational histories, the private or public setting, and the number of participants in the interaction, all of which contribute to the joint constitution of extemporaneous norms for evaluating speech behavior in a given social situation. These norms are therefore specific to communities of practice (i.e., groups of people sharing a profession or knowledge) and negotiated over time, and are central to any investigation of disagreement-oriented talk. Some specific types of disagreement which have been identified are: conflictual disagreement, sociable disagreement, and workplace disagreement.
Conflictual disagreement
Conflictual disagreements are oppositional, face-attacking acts that arouse in the addressee feelings of annoyance, irritation, anger, contempt, or disgust in varying degrees. Muntigl and Turnbull (1998) identified five types of conflictual disagreement: irrelevancy claims (the previous claim is not relevant to the discussion at hand, e.g., T1: Yes it should be such a big deal because I’m moving in a week. / T2: So what.);challenges (a speaker questions an addressee’s prior claim and demands that the addressee provides evidence for their claim while suggesting that the addressee cannot do so, e.g., T1: ’Cause if grandma gave Joe a cheque that’d be different. / T2: Why?);contradictions (a speaker contradicts by uttering the negated proposition expressed by the previous claim, e.g., T1: It doesn’t matter who it was. / T2: Yes it does.) counterclaims (speakers propose an alternative claim that does not directly contradict or challenge the other’s claim, e.g., T1: I haven’t got an objection to a ten-thirty phone and an eleven-thirty come-in, seems half way between your present curfew and some of your friends’ curfew. / T2: Yeah but it’s it’s still not hhhh what I like.); and a combination of contradictions and counterclaims.

Sociable disagreement

As well as signifying conflict, disagreement can also signal or reflect intimacy and/or sociability. Interlocutors who are in solidarity relationships share specific interactional norms, allowing them to gauge which forms of disagreement are appropriate within those relationships and which violate relational boundaries. So their agreements and disagreements may be structured, delivered, and evaluated differently than those of interactants whose relationship is oppositional. For instance, Georgakopoulou’s (2001) research into informal conversations between young Greek people revealed that disagreement was a familiar feature of encounters and that interactants valued frankness and debate as foregrounding the camaraderie of their solidarity relationships, particularly among children’s and adolescents’ peer groups.

Workplace disagreement

Not all relational contexts are so innocuous, however. In the workplace, failure to abide by norms of politic behavior can have serious and tangible consequences for team cohesion and employee relations, which is why workplace disagreement has traditionally been characterized as dispreferred. Holmes and Marra’s (2004) study of conflict in workplace meetings revealed that although interactants disagreed, they avoided on-the-record disagreement by means of discursive strategies such as conflict avoidance, conflict diversion, and conflict resolution by negotiation or by authority. Explicit challenges to consensus were discouraged. However, other studies have framed disagreement as an intrinsic feature of business negotiation and problem solving, not only unmarked but also supporting positive outcomes: it has been linked to creativity and better-quality decision making as interactants negotiate and challenge opposing views.

Non-Disclosure Agreement

A legally binding agreement to treat specific shared information as confidential, proprietary or trade secret and not to disclose it to others without proper authorization. It is Mason policy to require Principal Investigators to sign these agreements acknowledging their responsibilities to safeguard such confidential information during the course of preliminary discussions or any research projects.
Teaming Agreement
An agreement involving two parties who wish to combine resources to submit a proposal for a government contract. The agreement will specify which party will serve as the prime award recipient and which will serve as the subaward recipient should the proposal be selected for funding. The prime award recipient is then legally obligated to issue a subaward to the subrecipient within a reasonable amount of time after receipt of award.

Material Transfer Agreement

These are used to document and govern the transfer of biological or
other scientific materials from one party to another for research purposes. They typically address conditions of use and royalties or intellectual property rights that may result from such use.
Cooperative Agreement
A contract whereby the sponsor is substantially involved in the project and the outcome of the research results. The sponsor and university work collaboratively and the reporting requirements are usually more strict

CONCULUSION

Based on the research done, the researcher could manage the classroom effectively.The students also brought dictionary and used it to help them in adding their vocabulary in expressing ideas. The students gave good response to the activities in the classroom and they felt interested in problem solving strategy even though sometimes they were very noisy in teaching process.In the first meeting, most of the students were still confused about the writer purpose and the strategy that the writer used. They asked the writer about what problem solving is and the relation to agreement and disagreement. In the second meeting theystill looked confused but some of them could accept and understand what the writer before. In the third meeting, most of them felt interesting studying the topic by usingproblem solving strategy. They could speak each other. They could express their ideas expressions and disagreement expressions. In the fourth meeting, it was easier for them to understand about the topic provided. In the fifth meeting, they could express their own ideas and enjoyed in interviewing for the last test with the writer

After analyzing the data, it was found out the test I and test II in cycle one until the test III in the second cycle. It means there solving strategy. The result showed the mean of the second cycle was higher than the first cycle. Thus, by using problem solving strategy to improve speaking achievement in expressing agreement and disagreement expressions could be said worked well.

1) To English teachers, it is better to use problem solving strategy in teaching agreement and disagreement expressions because the students can express their critical thinking.
2) It is also suggested to the readers who infers for further study (university students) related to this research should explore the knowledge to enlarge their understanding about how to improve speaking skill and search another references.