Implicit vs. Indirect Conflict Talk: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract

Conflict talk plays an important role in conversation analysis of pragmatics. There are two types of conflict talk: implicit conflict talk and explicit conflict talk, as well as direct conflict and indirect conflict talk viewed from different perspectives. However, implicit conflict talk and indirect conflict talk sometimes need clarification. Although they have some similarities, implicit conflict talk and indirect conflict talk differ in some respects. The purpose of this paper is to examine the similarities and differences between implicit conflict talk and indirect conflict talk. Conflict talk is a form of conflict communication in which, when two parties are engaged in conflict, one turns, and talks to a third party on the scene, but the purpose of their conversation is to threaten the face of the other party rather than that of the third party. Through the analysis of examples, the paper concludes that implicit and indirect conflict talk have two points in common, two points in difference, and one link. The two things they have in common are that they both belong to conflict talk and face-threatening acts. There are two distinct types of conflict talk: implicit conflict talk occurs between two parties in interaction, and indirect conflict talk occurs between one of the two parties and a third party at the scene. There is a common link between implicit conflict talk and indirect conflict talk, which is that implicit conflict talk may develop into indirect conflict talk.