Communication in family disputes: surveying American and Vietnamese movies = Giao tiếp trong tranh cãi gia đình (Khảo sát phim Mỹ và phim Việt). Degree of doctor of Linguistics: 62 22 15 01

ABSTRACT This thesis aims at yielding insights into the way American and Vietnamese people communicate during their family disputes, to find out similarities and differences between thes

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYEN THI VIET NGA

COMMUNICATION IN FAMILY DISPUTES (SURVEYING AMERICAN AND VIETNAMESE MOVIES) GIAO TIẾP TRONG TRANH CÃI GIA ĐÌNH

(KHẢO SÁT PHIM MỸ VÀ PHIM VIỆT)

HANOI 2015

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYEN THI VIET NGA

COMMUNICATION IN FAMILY DISPUTES (SURVEYING AMERICAN AND VIETNAMESE MOVIES) GIAO TIẾP TRONG TRANH CÃI GIA ĐÌNH

(KHẢO SÁT PHIM MỸ VÀ PHIM VIỆT)

Field: English Linguistics

Code: 62 22 15 01

A Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Supervisors: Assoc Prof Dr Nguyen Van Do

Assoc Prof Dr Vo Dai Quang

HANOI 2015

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I certify my authority of the thesis submitted entitled

COMMUNICATION IN FAMILY DISPUTES:

SURVEYING AMERICAN AND VIETNAMESE MOVIES

In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgment in the text of the thesis

Hanoi- 2015

Nguyen Thi Viet Nga

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my two supervisors, Assoc Prof Dr Nguyen Van Do and Assoc Prof Dr Vo Dai Quang, for their valuable suggestions, guidance and encouragement throughout the course of this work, for their generous way of giving me time and constant willingness to help me with my thesis

My gratefulness also goes to members of my committees at all levels of the research project (Prof Dr Nguyen Hoa, Prof.Dr Hoang Van Van, Prof Dr Nguyen Quang, Assoc.Prof.Dr Ngo Huu Hoang, Dr Huynh Anh Tuan) as they gave insightful comments and suggestions to my thesis

I am also extremely thankful to Assoc Prof Dr Le Hung Tien, Former Dean of Faculty of Postgraduate Studies for his knowledgeable suggestions, support, understanding and kindness without which I would not have finished this thesis

I am greatly indebted to my colleagues at ESP Division, Faculty of International Affairs, Academy of Journalism and Communication for their ceaseless support and patience, creating all favourable conditions for me to do the research

Last but not least, I owe my deepest gratitude to my parents, my husband and my two sons who helped me endure many difficult times during the process of this study Without their constant love and encouragement, completion of this study would not have been possible

ABSTRACT This thesis aims at yielding insights into the way American and Vietnamese people communicate during their family disputes, to find out similarities and differences between these two cultures in terms of disputing topics, escalation strategies and termination strategies Based on Hofstede’s (1990, 2001, 2010) theoretical framework of cultural dimensions, specifically Power distance, Individualism- Collectivism, Masculinity- Femininity, the study has identified impact of these dimensions on disputing stages between family members: initiation, escalation and termination “Dispute” in the thesis has been conceptualized as a dynamic interactional process which inaugurates with “arguable utterance- initial opposition” model, then progresses with mutual oppositions between disputants and ends with certain termination formats

The thesis puts emphasis on analyzing two pairs of family relationships in American and Vietnamese movies: parent-child, and husband-wife They, in ages of 16-60, all live in urban areas

Cross-cultural, cross-linguistic and discourse analysis approaches are combined to analyze data of movie dialogues Data analysis has been implemented on a revised and combined analytical framework suggested by Eisenberg & Garvey (1981), Maynard (1985), Hutchby (1996) and Vuchinich (1987,1990) From totally 4880 minutes of American movies and 5320 minutes of Vietnamese movies, the author categorized and selected 310 family disputes as samples Qualitative and quantitative methods are integrated to figure out a panorama of family disputes in two cultures

The thesis has fulfilled the task of exploring the most common disputing topics and strategies that American and Vietnamese family members apply to achieve their goals in each disputing stage The language used for each strategy and cultural factors that affect strategies’ verbalization formats are also identified Hence, the similarities and differences between two languages and two cultures are disclosed Researching on family disputes provides a more comprehensive view of human

communication, which is not only formed by consensus but also confrontation This thesis’s results, therefore, are beneficial to understand cultures and also have particular merit for cross-cultural studies and foreign language learning

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT i

PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale 1

2 New contributions and significance of the study 2

3 Aims and research questions of the study 3

4 Scope of the study 4

5 Methodology 5

6 Organization of the study 5

PART 2 CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 7

1.1 Family defined 7

1.1.1 Family structurally defined 7

1.1.2 Family functionally defined 8

1.1.3 Family interactionally defined 9

1.2 Communication in family 11

1.2.1 Interpersonal communication 11

1.2.2 Strategies in communication 13

1.2.3 Communication and family relationships 15

1.3 Culture and family communication 17

1.3.1 Hofstede’s cultural dimensions 17

1.3.2 American culture 21

1.3.3 Vietnamese culture 23

1.4 Conceptualization of dispute 25

1.4.1 Related concepts to Dispute 26

1.4.1.1 Argument 26

1.4.1.2 Debate 27

1.4.1.3 Disagreement 28

1.4.1.4 Conflict 29

1.4.2 Dispute and family dispute 30

1.4.2.1 Concept of dispute 30

1.4.2.2 Dispute as one basic process in family communication 31

1.5 Reviewing related studies to disputes 33

1.5.1 Disputes among children 33

1.5.2 Disputes among adults 35

1.5.3 Disputes among family members 38

1.6 Summary 40

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 42

2.1 Research questions 42

2.2 Combined approach 42

2.3 Research methods 43

2.4 Data 45

2.4.1 Movie dialogues 45

2.4.2 Data selection criteria 48

2.4.3 Data collection procedure 49

2.4.4 Data description 49

2.5 Designing a framework for analysis 51

2.6 Coding system 54

2.7 Summary 58

CHAPTER 3: FAMILY DISPUTE INITIATION STAGE 59

3.1 Arguable utterances 59

3.2 Initial opposition 65

3.2.1 Recognizing initial opposition 65

3.2.2 Strategy of initial opposition 67

3.3 Concluding remarks 74

CHAPTER 4: FAMILY DISPUTE ESCALATION STAGE 76

4.1 Escalating strategies 76

4.1.1 Reprimanding……… 77

4.1.2 Disassociating 84

4.1.2.1 Ignoring others 85

4.1.2.2 Denying common interest 86

4.1.2.3 Using inappropriate addressing forms 88

4.1.3 Swearing 95

4.1.4 Threatening 100

4.1.5 Challenging 103

4.1.6 Demanding 105

4.1.7 Interrupting 109

4.1.8 Sulking 112

4.2 Combination of escalating strategies 116

4.3 Concluding remarks 122

CHAPTER 5: FAMILY DISPUTE TERMINATION STAGE 124

5.1 Termination strategies 125

5.1.1 Solvable disputes 125

5.1.1.1 Submitting 125

5.1.1.2 Compromising 129

5.1.2 Unsolvable disputes 131

5.1.2.1 Standing-off 131

5.1.2.2 Withdrawing 135

5.2 Concluding remarks 136

PART 3: CONCLUSION 141

1 Recapitulation ….141

2 Major findings ….142

2.1 Similarities 142

2.2 Differences and cultural influences 144

3 Review on application of theoretical framework and analytical framework 146

4 Implications 148

5 Limitations of current study and suggestions for further research 150

REFERENCES APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 iii

APPENDIX 2 iv

APPENDIX 3 v

APPENDIX 4 vi

APPENDIX 5 vii

APPENDIX 6 viii

LISTS OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Key terms in defining communication 12

Figure 2: Pattern of dispute initiation 52

Figure 3: Revised pattern of family dispute initiation in the present study 52

Figure 4: Overview of adapted and revised analytical framework 54

LISTS OF TABLES Table 1: Six cultural dimensions defined by Hofstede (2010) 18

Table 2: Data collection criteria 48

Table 3: Number of selected extracts in American movies 50

Table 4: Number of selected extracts in Vietnamese movies 50

Table 5: Four basic family dispute termination strategies (adapted) 53

Table 6: Coding system 55

Table 7: Realization of negating strategy as initial opposition move 74

Table 8: Changes of addressing forms in Vietnamese family disputes 94

Table 9: Categories of strong swear words in American family disputes 96

Table 10: Categories of weak swear words in American family disputes 96

LISTS OF CHARTS Chart 1: Scores of cultural dimensions for the USA (Hofstede 2010) 22

Chart 2: Scores of cultural dimensions for Vietnam (Hofstede 2010) 23

Chart 3: Position of arguable utterances in spouse conversations 61

Chart 4: Position of arguable utterances in parent - child conversations 61

Chart 5: Frequencies of strategies in parent - child disputing situations 120

Chart 6: Frequencies of strategies in spouse disputing situations 120

Chart 7: Parent-child dispute termination strategies 138

Chart 8: Spouse dispute termination strategies 138

Chart 9: Submitting strategies used in spouse disputes 140

Chart 10: Submitting strategies used in parent-child disputes 140

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

People, as social beings, frequently communicate with others by using language to convey their messages, to share their ideas and feeling with each other In communication, it cannot be denied that harmony and confrontation are compatible and equally important to the development of human society When two people communicate, sometimes there are disputes between them because both of them have different opinions or thoughts about something, or they do not understand or

do not believe in each other As a result, they try to defend their own opinions Sometimes they cannot restrain their emotion, which leads to quarrels in which they make all effort to defend their own opinions Disputes are emergent social phenomena, which are noticeable by participants through their communicative behaviour Although many people have prejudice against disputes and think that they have negative meanings, it should be pointed out that dispute phenomenon is value-neutral and impartial Whether the fact that its result is positive or negative mainly depends on how the dispute is managed by interactants Apparently, disputes may have destructive consequences Throughout their lives, people are faced with many kinds of disputes and conflicts Many disputing situations go by just as quickly as they emerge Others, however, have a long-lasting (positive or negative) impact on people’s lives and their social relationships, leading to noncooperation, suspicion, hostility and even violence and crime However, if managed properly, disputes can produce positive effects, which are helpful to improve interpersonal relations

Few relationships are more important, long lasting, and influential to people's lives than their family relationships, which apparently are built, maintained, and even destroyed by communication This is to reflect the importance of communication in family interactions “Our families, and our images of families, are constituted through social interaction” (Vangelitsti, 2004: xii) It is through communication that family members enact their relationships The constitutive link between

communication and families is one reason why studying family communication is

so important

Since harmony and confrontation occur in nearly all settings, family interaction is not an exception Disputes between family members are frequent occurrences and in fact a constitutive element of family relationships Anyone is closely linked to family life and spends much time with family members, who, either in the same generation or not, support or collide with each other in daily activities While the intimacy and stability of the relationship may even be conducive to the production

of direct disagreement and the expression of hostility, family disputes may take more or less serious forms, ranging from normal disagreement to mild bickering to heated disputes Sillars et al (2004) affirm that occurrence of conflict/dispute is inevitable in families, therefore identify conflict/dispute as one of the four fundamental processes in family communication Accordingly, examining family disputes is essential to understand family members and family relationships

Communication between family members in their disputes has been chosen for investigation in this study firstly because of the researcher’s desire to investigate on confrontational perspective of daily communication, which naturally combines both cooperational and confrontational strategies Secondly it will be of great help to have a clearer picture of family relationships, to understand more deeply about how disputes arise, how they are dealt with and how they are resolved, and to identify the linguistic strategies that family members often employ Due to difficulties of obtaining natural data, the thesis uses movie dialogues as data All findings are therefore applied to family disputes via movie dialogues

2 New contributions and significance of the study

This current study is the combination of cross-cultural, cross-linguistic studies and discourse analysis aimed at clarifying similarities and differences between Vietnamese and American family disputes when comparing each stage of their communication process In detail, it will provide a clearer picture of family disputes

in terms of stages (especially the escalation stage that has been ignored in previous research) and strategies family members employ

The study has both theoretical and practical significance Theoretically, its findings would serve implications for research of sociolinguistics, cross-cultural communication, cross-cultural pragmatics, interpersonal conflicts, argumentative talks, movie discourse, etc A large number of studies have been made from different aspects of disputes by linguists all over the world However, little work has been done to contrast family disputes between two cultures in particular This study gives both language-specific and culture-specific panorama of communication strategies between family members in American and Vietnamese families Therefore, a comparison of the strategies used in family disputes by native American and Vietnamese speakers is considered essential and valuable in the teaching and learning of American English

In addition, detailed analysis of interaction might provide a basis for suggestions to improve family therapy and family counselling training and for the development of communication training programmes that could help family members improve their dispute resolution, building up strategies and interpersonal communication skills to ultimately improve family relationships

2 Aims and research questions of the study

This study focuses on family dispute as a unit of analysis, which enables us to see

how it processes and how family members verbally individualize their disputes In other words, to understand the nature of disputes, we should examine the interactional procedures and strategies participants employ to achieve their goals

In the present study, the emphasis is thus based on the interactive processes through which disputes emerge, develop and end

The research’s ultimate goal is to examine stages of American and Vietnamese family disputes from cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspective, finding out

linguistic strategies that interactants use, trying to give reasons why they conduct those strategies

Basing on the above aims, the study sheds light on three main questions as follows:

1 What strategies do American and Vietnamese family members use in three dispute stages: initiation, escalation, termination?

2 How are these strategies verbally realized?

3 To what extent do cultural dimensions suggested by Hofstede affect choices

of strategies in American and Vietnamese family disputes?

4 Scope of the study

The study exclusively looks at verbal aspect of communication in family disputes, though they can be expressed verbally and/or nonverbally Nevertheless, the study only pays attention to verbal cues and does not involve such issues as nonverbal language (gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, postures, clothing, silence, vocal qualities and vocal interferences like pitch, tone)

Moreover, family disputes are very complicated with mixed relationships among great grandparents-great grandchildren, grandparents-grandchildren, husband-wife, parents-children, uncle/aunt-niece/nephew, siblings not to mention step-mother/step-father, adopted children, sons/daughters-in-law, brothers/sisters-in law… A dispute may also involve lots of interactants but this study only focuses on disputes between two interlocutors of two basic family relations: father/mother-child, and husband-wife

This study chooses movies as main source of data There undeniably exists resemblance between constructed confrontational dialogues in movies and real-life disputing conversations This is not the first research in disputes using movie dialogues as data and some previous studies have been carried out on the assumption that the differences between them are minimal Only contemporary movies with modern context are selected (from 2000 up to date) for this research and all the selected characters are living in urban areas, ranging from 16-60 years

old However, using movie dialogues as data makes it unable to consider such factors as characters’ education background or religion, etc Therefore, the author suggests the findings of this study should not reach beyond the scope of constructed confrontational dialogues and should be considered good reference to the analysis

of real-life disputing conversations

5 Methodology

The research integrates cross-cultural, cross-linguistics and and discourse analysis approaches, aimed at building a clearer picture of American and Vietnamese family disputes The combined approaches are applied to investigate the verbal realization

of strategies basing on each stage of family disputes

Quantitative and qualitative methods are both used in this research with priorities given to qualitative in combination with descriptive, analytic, contrastive and comparative to describe and analyze, to compare and contrast the database so as to draw out similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese family disputes

6 Organization of the study

The dissertation has three main parts:

Part one gives introduction to the study including the rationale, new contributions and significance of the study, research aims and questions, scope, methodology and organization of the study

Part two contains five chapters:

Chapter 1 begins with theoretical background which contains the discussion of related terms such as: family, communication in family, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, American culture, Vietnamese culture, disputes The review of previous studies on disputes in general and family disputes in particular is also included in this chapter

Chapter 2 identifies research methodology for the study In this part, the research questions, approaches, data collection, research methods and data processing procedures are presented

Chapter 3 analyzes the initiation stage of disputes in American and Vietnamese families Patterns of this stage and strategies that people use are also examined Similarities and differences between American and Vietnamese dispute initiation will be drawn out at the end of this chapter Some cultural explanations are also provided

Chapter 4 points out strategies American and Vietnamese family members employ

to escalate their disputes Each strategy is analyzed in detail basing on certain context to see its verbal realization Afterwards, frequencies of strategies and some cultural features which show both similarities and differences between American and Vietnamese families will be inferred

Chapter 5 examines termination strategies in American and Vietnamese family disputes, followed by comparing the percentage of each strategy when family members dispute in these two cultures For concluding remarks of this chapter, similarities and differences between American and Vietnamese dispute termination strategies are presented and explained basing on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions Part three (Conclusion) summarizes the major findings and reviews on the application of theoretical framework and analytical framework Limitations of the study as well as some suggestions for further research are put forward afterwards

PART 2 CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Family defined

It is a fact that until now there has not been any widely accepted definition of family; each theorist looks at family from a different viewpoint However, most scholars including Vietnamese ones base on three types of definitions by forms, functions or interaction

1.1.1 Family structurally defined

Structurally, family can be simply defined by form Popenoe (1993:529) states that family is "a relatively small domestic group of kin (or people in a kin-like relationship) consisting of at least one adult and one dependent person" It can be implied from this definition that family must be comprised of an adult and a dependent (such as a child, possibly a handicapped or an elderly) that is related by blood (or a bloodlike relationship like adoption) and accordingly a sexual bond is unnecessarily sufficient to form a family

Peterson and Steinmetz (1999) suggest that like the biologists, we had better have ways of naming and describing the diversity of family forms, which have evolved and will still be evolving

Some labels for specific family forms are

- Extended family (usually refers to the family in which one is born, including persons who are connected by blood or law (i.e marriage or adoption) such

as parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc Johnson’s (2000: 625) uses the term “extended family” as synonymous with the concept of kinship, as “social relationships among those related by blood, marriage, or self-ascribed association that extend beyond the marital dyad, the nuclear family of parents and dependent children, or one-parent households”

In Vietnam, an extended family may include 3 or 4 generations 3-generation families are often considered traditional families consisting of spouses, their children and their parents In Vietnam there remain 4 or even 5 generations living in one house including spouses, their children, their parents and their grandparents (N.D.Thinh, 2003:48)

- A nuclear family consists of two heterosexual parents and children

- A binuclear family is an original family split into two by divorce The mother or the father may remain single or remarry

Social changes have brought about some deviations of family forms in the world:

- A cohabitating family "consists of two people of the opposite sex living together, sharing sexual expression, who are committed to their relationship without formal legal marriage," and who may or may not have children (DeGenova & Rice, 2002: 4)

- A gay or lesbian family "consists of a couple of the same sex, living together and sharing sexual expression and commitment Some gay or lesbian families include children, usually the offspring of one of the partners" (DeGenova & Rice, 2002:4)

Vietnamese researchers have stressed of consanguinity and marriage relationship to define family (L.N.Van 1998, H.Dat 2000, T.N.Them 2003, T.Q.Vuong 2001) The U.S Census Bureau (2002:4) shares the same view by regarding family as "a group

of two people or more related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together"

To put it in another way, individuals form a family as long as they are blood-related

or law-related and live together It can be inferred from this definition that two siblings, two cousins, or a single mother and her son/daughter living together may

be considered a family

1.1.2 Family functionally defined

Lerner and Spanier (1978) define family as a social unit that accepts responsibility for the socialization and nurturance of children In other words, the social unit may

involve a single mother, two grandparents, or even an adult who is not biologically

or legally related to a child Obviously, this task-orientation definition is more flexible than the aforementioned structural definitions because whoever fulfills the required tasks of family members is considered family, regardless of the biological

or legal connection to other members However, the problem is how to identify what tasks must be performed in order to term someone family (Sergin & Flora, 2005:7)

Echoing this idea, researchers in Vietnam identify two main functions of families First, a family has a task of creating a new generation (reproductive function and educational function) Second, family is the place to nurture and care for family members (economic functions, meeting biological and psychological demands (M.H.Bich 2011, L.N.Van 2011)

1.1.3 Family interactionally defined

This approach puts great importance on the communication among individuals and the subjective feelings generated by interaction (Sergin & Flora, 2005:7)

Burgess (1926:5) puts forward one of the first transactional definitions when defining family as “a unity of interacting personalities” Wamboldt and Reiss (1989:728) define family as "a group of intimates [whose interaction generates] a sense of home and group identity; complete with strong ties of loyalty and emotion, and an experience of a history and a future" Echoing this, Whitchurch & Dickson, (1999:690) claim that “the focus is not on the family's task performance but on the interaction among communicators”

Many Vietnamese scholars also confirm that blood ties or marriages are not prerequisites to form a family V.N.Khanh (2007:48) state that feeling of sentimental attachment is more important to name family members

This approach is also an extension of the functional definitions but while orientation definitions place more emphasis on the instrumental role of family, transactional definitions emphasize the interaction in the family Accordingly, what

task-makes a group of people a family is that they perform their tasks within a certain system of interaction

Considering three approaches, it can be seen that task-orientation and transactional definitions are more flexible and broader than structural definitions because biological ties are unnecessarily as important to the psychosocial tasks and feelings

of intimacy in many cases In contrast, these definitions are too broad for some purposes For example, even people who are not "family" may fulfill psychosocial caretaking tasks, for example, teachers, babysitters, close friends And even people who are not "family" may generate subjective feelings of home, identity, loyalty, strong emotion, and an experience of history and future, for example, fraternities and sororities and religious groups (Sergin& Flora, 2005: 10)

Besides those approaches, some other scholars try to combine structural, orientation, and transactional components in one definition For example, the definition by Baxter & Clark (1996; 30): “Family in every society is a basic small unit of social structure in which family members united by blood, marriage and adoption communicate with each other in a certain manner to meet universal human needs across their life cycle” or another definition by DeGenova and Rice (2002:2) which may be taken as the widely-accepted one: "family is any group of persons united by the ties of marriage, blood, or adoption, or any sexually expressive relationship, in which (1) the adults cooperate financially for their mutual support, (2) the people are committed to one another in an intimate interpersonal relationship, and (3) the members see their individual identities as importantly attached to the group with an identity of its own"

task-P.M.Hac (1996:190) offers a definition of family that has been widely-affirmed by many Vietnamese sociologists, who also share the same viewpoint as mentioned above: “Family is a social group formed on the basis of marriage, blood ties or nurture Family members attach together for the responsibilities and benefits in terms of economy, culture and emotion There are legal constraints among them which are recognized and protected by law”

Dekovic & Buist (2005) define family as a system of relationship that influences each other and the whole family system is different from the sum of its dyadic relations

Despite the various definitions, all agree that family is formed from the sum of its dyadic or triadic relations Dekovic & Buist (2005) found out measures of affective quality between six dyadic family relations in nuclear families:

- Marital

- Mother and older child

- Mother and younger child

- Father and older child

- Father and younger child

- Siblings

The current study focuses on two dyadic relations that are accepted by all approaches of defining that we have just mentioned: husband-wife and parents- child However, they are viewed from the basic traditional structural scope, which identifies husband-wife as hetero-gender and parent-child as blood-relationship

1.2 Communication in family

1.2.1 Interpersonal communication

Communication is so deeply rooted in all human behaviors and is such an indispensable part of human society that it is difficult to think of any social or behavioral events without communication Hybels, et al., (1992:5) emphasize

“Communication, then, is vital to our lives To live is to communicate.”

The idea of West and Turner (2010) tends to be widely accepted among others They pointed out five key terms in communication (Figure 1): social, process,

symbols, meaning and environment Social suggests that communication involves

people and interaction, whether face to face or online, with their various intentions,

motivations and abilities Process refers to ongoing, dynamic and unending occurrence so communication has no definable beginning and ending A symbol,

either a concrete or an abstract one, is an arbitrary label given to a phenomenon

Meaning, which is central in the definition of communication, is what people extract from a message And environment is the situation or context in which

communication occurs, including time, place, historical period, relationship and speaker’s and listener’s cultural background

Combining all those factors, they have drawn a comprehensive definition of communication: “Communication is a social process in which individuals employ symbols to establish and interpret meaning in their environment” (West and Turner, 2010: 5)

West and Turner (2009:10) consider interpersonal communication as “the process

of message transaction between people to create and sustain shared meaning” with three critical components embedded: process, message exchange and shared meaning

Communication

Figure 1: Key terms in defining communication (West & Turner,2010:3)

Looking at external situational factors such as number of interactants involved and physical proximity, communication can be categorized into several different types The most minimal type of communication is intrapersonal communication, which is

“an activity that is processed internally with various levels of awareness or

social environment

process meaning

symbols

consciousness” (Riccillo, 1994:35) with examples as daydreaming, fantasizing, working out a problem in your head, etc In other words, intrapersonal communication is a form of thinking inside us, a kind of self-talk or a conversation with oneself The second type: interpersonal communication, or sometimes called dyadic communication, generally takes place face-to-face, as well as through electronic channels like video-conferencing, chat rooms e-mail and social networks such as Facebook or Twitter

Developmental theorists distinguish between three levels of information exchanged during communication: cultural level data, sociological level data and psychological level “Only when communication reaches the psychological level does dyadic communication become interpersonal” (Trenholm & Jensen, (2007:35) Other types

of communication include group communication and public communication

Interpersonal communication may range from the impersonal to the very personal Impersonal communication is when you talk with an unfamiliar person or a person you do not care about When engaging in this kind of communication, you show coldness or indifference in your attitude Meanwhile, talking with your friends, your colleagues or your family members are some of the most common types of personal communication

1.2.2 Strategies in communication

A good communicator is supposed to know when it is appropriate to open a conversation and how, what subjects to choose for particular speech events, which forms of address are to be used to whom, and in which situation and how such speech acts as compliments, request, refusing, etc… are to be given, interpreted and responded to Factors determining their choice of language may include age, sex, social status, goals of interaction and the setting in which communication occurs (Saville Troi, 1982) The nature and extent of this diversity also vary across cultures

Choosing suitable strategies is among components that create good communication

As a matter of fact, people employ a variety of strategies when interacting with each other “In communicative interaction, communication strategies are often used, since communication is basically functional Communication is not only concerned with what a message is about but also with what a message intends to achieve, i.e., the intended meaning is the focus” (El-Samir, 2011:16) Accordingly, El-Samir refers to strategies as “different tactics by language users to deliver the intended meaning (message) of the addresser (sender) to the addressee (receiver)” (El-Samir, 2011:2) In order to communicate that intended meaning, the interlocutors use communication strategies which may vary according to the needs and the intentions

of the interlocutors The choice of communicative strategy is based on a speaker’s perception of the communicative need of an interlocutor or is founded on the result

of an assessment of shared knowledge between the two (Cheong,1983:82)

A communicative strategy is defined from the position of the purpose of utterance Zyubina ( 2011:135-136) takes politician speeches as examples to illustrate that a strategy in political communication means a motivated sequence of speech techniques in a struggle for power “Each communicative strategy is characterized

by a number of certain tactics We see a communicative tactic as a range of the practical language means of communicative intention realization in a real process of speech interaction”

It is noteworthy that “strategy use can be seen as acts of speech, a spontaneous discourse feature and a pragmatic move triggered by the interactional context, and it

is a plan or a response to the need of the communication….Strategy use fits the conditions required for the felicitous performance of speech acts: preparatory, prepositional, sincerity and essential conditions” (Lee 2004:22) However, there are still cases when people actually use different strategies to realize a particular speech act Strazny (2013:870) refers to the classic case of requesting, which can be realized by many strategies which differ in their degree of directness The most

direct strategy is to use an imperative construction, and the least direct strategy is to only hint at the desired action

Dispute can be subsumed under the category of destructive interpersonal communication (Kunitsyna 2012:.398) It contradicts the fundamental principle of communication depicted in G Leech’s Principles of Pragmatics in terms of cooperation This category accommodates those forms of interpersonal communicative contacts which have a hurtful, destructive effect on one’s counterpart’s personality and can complicate the relations The essence of these communicative phenomena is the attacking of one of the communicators using such

“weapons” as words, speech to control and overwhelm another person (Temirgazina, 2013:822) Therefore they use strategies to attack others’ face, to prove that they are right and others are wrong Scholars who did research on similar actions to disputes such as conflict, disagreement, verbal aggression,etc found out strategies to aggravate these actions: blaming, threatening, challenging, demanding, ignoring others, excluding the other from an activity, using swear words, disassociating from the other, frightening, condescending, being unsympathetic, interrupting, insulting, calling one’s communication partner

“names”, sulking, etc (Culpeper 1996, Bousfield 2008, Gilbert 2013)

In family disputes, given the fact that relationship between family members is more intimate and closer than between strangers, it may facilitate more frequent appearance of some strategies to attack others in order to achieve the speakers’ communication goals

1.2.3 Communication and family relationships

“Communication is inevitably and essentially relational in nature, creates a relationship between or among the people interacting Communication takes place

in a relationship, it affects the relationship, it defines the relationship” (Devito, 2012:5) Accordingly, the way you communicate is mostly determined by the type

of relationship between you and the other person

Families, as defined above, involve many intimate relationships, therefore there has

to be a constitutive link between communication and families “Families, and our images of families, are constituted through social interaction” (Fitzpatrick, 1988; Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993)

Firstly, communication is the means that help establish and maintain rules about social interaction and social relationships (Shimanoff, 1985) In family, parents communicate to teach children what, when, how or to whom they should speak These rules shape the way children, who become adults later, can create models of their family life to pass from generations to generations (Bowlby, 1973) The children, from very early childhood, via communication, learn what they should (and should not) behave in family and social context

Second, communication is the tool for family members to establish, maintain, and develop their intimate relationships “When family members communicate, they do more than send messages to each other, they enact their relationships” (Vangelisti,

2004, xiii)

Thirdly, communication reflects the interpersonal connections among family members “Understanding family communication processes, thus, is fundamental to understanding family members and family relationships” (Vangelisti, 2004, xiii) In other words, communication indicates the quality of relationships between spouses

or between parents and children For example, spouses who are in distressed relationship frequently express more negative communication and less positive communication than those who are not (Margolin & Wampold, 1981; Noller, 1984; Notarius &Johnson, 1982) In addition, communication among members of one family relationship (e.g father-mother) may have great impact on other family members (e.g., their children) Studies have indicated that the quality of parents’ communication can affect their children’s problem-solving skills (Goodman, Barfoot, Frye, & Belli, 1999) and their children’s ability to deal with peers (Burleson, Delia, &Applegate, 1995) Other studies show that parents’ tendency to

engage in certain types of conflicts is associated with distress in children (Grych & Fincham, 1990)

1.3 Culture and family communication

1.3.1 Hofstede’s cultural dimensions

It is the fact that cultural diversity has great impact on family interaction In their own families, people have different ways of communicating, which are shaped by their cultural background As Gudykunst and Lee (2001: 82) state, people cannot

"assume that family communication is the same within or across ethnic groups Research based on American families may or may not generalize to non-American families" They also argue that "not all members of ethnic groups identify with their ethnic groups or maintain their cultural practices" (Gudykunst & Lee, 2001:83) Hence, it is possible to assess family's orientation (not a general culture's orientation) basing on Hofstede (1980, 1991)'s cultural values Knowing that even though everybody is unique, most people will not deviate too much from the social norms, Hofstede did research focusing on culture of nations, organizations and institutions In fact, he states 'Institutions' are the basic elements of society like the family, school, and the community; 'organizations' are the places where people work” (Hofstede 1991:27) so it is reasonable to apply his cultural dimension theory

to examining family communication in this current study Anyway, family is recognized as a small society with members of different personalities and power, but they are all under influence of national values that have been established from previous generations Individuals are brought up from their families, which are social units Hence, individual culture, family culture and social culture have a close relationship Furthermore, this study also tries to test whether some certain Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can be appropriately applied into family interaction

Cultural dimensions theory, a framework developed for cross-cultural studies

by Hofstede, was one of the first that could be quantified This theory has been used

to explain observed differences between cultures by lots of researchers worldwide

It reflects impacts of a society'scultureon thevaluesof its members, and how these values relate to behavior Hofstede’s original theory suggested four dimensions, representing elements of common structure in the cultural systems of countries: (1) Power Distance , (2) Individualism-Collectivism, (3) Masculinity-Femininity and (4) Uncertainty Avoidance Hofstede (1980, 2005) affirmed that these four cultural dimensions capture the essence of cultural values most commonly observed across cultures The position of a country on each of the four dimensions is identified by a score, which ranges from “0" to “100” Hofstede added a fifth dimension, long-term orientation, to mention aspects of values that were not discussed in his original theory after his independent research

in Hong Kong in 1985 In 2010, Hofstede added a sixth dimension, indulgence versus self-restraint, co-authoring with Michael Minkov

Table 1: Six cultural dimensions defined by Hofstede (2010)

1.Power Distance related to the different solutions to the basic

problem of human inequality

2 Uncertainty Avoidance related to the level of stress in a society in the

face of an unknown future 3.Individualism - Collectivism related to the integration of individuals into

primary groups

4 Masculinity - Femininity related to the division of emotional roles

between women and men

5 Long Term - Short Term

Orientation

related to the choice of focus for people's efforts: the future or the present and past

6 Indulgence - Restraint related to the gratification versus control of

basic human desires related to enjoying life

When we consider cultural values we must generalize These values do not apply to everyone in every situation in one culture and there are exceptions to all of the dominant values For example, Americans need to feel that they belong to a group

just as the Japanese value belongingness and collectivism (Weaver, 2001:10) This research, however, chooses to discuss three dimensions (Power distance,

Individualism-Collectivism, Masculinity-Femininity) as they are mostly related to family communication

Despite the popularity of Hofstede's model, some critics have found out that his conceptualization of culture and its impact on people's behavior might not be correct The most cited criticism of Hofstede’s work is from Brendan McSweeney

at University of London and Stockholm University, who argues that Hofstede's findings about the role of national culture indicate too much determinism that might

be linked to fundamental flaws in his methodology Another critique is by ProfessorBarry Gerhart(University of Wisconsin-Madison) and ProfessorMeiyu Fang(National Central University, Taiwan), who point out that Hofstede's research actually only shows that around 2 to 4 percent of variance in individual values is explained by national differences 96 percent, and perhaps more, is not explained In

2008,Galit Ailonfinds several inconsistencies at the level of both theory and methodology, and cautions against an uncritical reading of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions

Being aware of these fallacies, the researcher in this current research cautiously applies only three of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions aiming at testing whether they are applicable to family disputes or not

- Power Distance illustrates “the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005:56) Actually, Power distance tends to refer to the way people perceive power differences, or how a society deals with the fact that people are unequal It is the fact that inequalities are not pre-determined by nature but are created by the way societies are structured and relationships are arranged In other words, power distance refers to the acceptable degree of hierarchical power inequality existing between the authority and the subordinate (Chao, Cheung and Wu, 2011) Hofstede (2001) reports that there is

“latent conflict between the powerful and the powerless”`, “older people are respected and feared” in high power distance cultures In contrast, there is

“latent harmony between the powerful and the powerless” and “older people are neither respected nor feared” in low power distance cultures (Hofstede, 2001:98)

- Individualism refers to loose relationship between individuals: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family Collectivism, as its opposite, pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive ingroups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede 1991:51) In other words, in individualistic society, people enjoy much freedom and

do not feel burdened with others’ affairs or are not worried about creating a burden for others while in collectivist society everybody is supposed to look after the interest of his or her in-group and to give priority to their in-group opinion and beliefs

Individualism-collectivism is the most well studied in understanding cultural differences (Oyserman, Kimmelmeier, & Coon, 2002; Triandis, 1986; 1994; 1995)

It places emphasis on the self versus the group or the society Markus and Kitayama (1991) claim differences in individualism-collectivism would affect one’s view of self Specifically, individuals in individualistic cultures would have an

"independent” view of self, while those in collectivistic cultures would hold

“interdependent” view of self These different conceptions of self would bind a person to the groups that he/she belongs to which may include the family as well as other reference groups (Ting-Toomey and Chung, 2005:77)

Individualism-collectivism is likely to influence individual perceptions about appropriate family cohesion and about the extent to which parents should nurture their children Lynch (1998:59) remarks that what one person views as nurturance, another may view as spoiling For example, in some cultures, children are let to sleep with their parents; parents follow babies around to feed them, trying to keep

them close While in others, infants sleep alone in their own rooms, feedings are scheduled, and they are encouraged to stay away from the laps of their caregivers

- Masculinity versus Femininity describes the division of roles between the sexes in

a society, particularly role patterns that are socially attributed Some societies do not differentiate men and women roles while others make a sharp division between what men and women should do, i.e men are expected to take more assertive and dominant roles and women take more service-oriented and caring roles Hofstede refers masculinity to society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material rewards for success They include competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, so society at large is more competitive On the contrary, feminine cultures place more value on relationships, cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life Society at large is more consensus-oriented and quality of life, helping others, resolving conflicts by compromise and negotiation Masculinity-femininity is “the degree to which people in a culture view sex roles as gender specific (Gudykunst & Lee, 2001:79) According to Kagitcibasi and Berry (1989), gender differences in expressivity and instrumentality found in individualistic cultures might not be echoed in collectivistic cultures They added that a more interdependent and relational self-concepts might be associated with smaller gender gaps compared to an independent and autonomous self-concepts

1.3.2 American culture

The fairly low score on Power Distance of United States (40) reflects itself in the US common practice American people highly appreciate democracy in their law “The United States is a federal republic in which individual states control their own local governments and a constitution ensures the liberties of its people The aim of such a society is to reduce or lower the power distance that separates its people” (O’Rourke 2008:103) A motto familiar to all Americans, engraved in stone at the base of Statue of Freedom, also shows support for human freedom: “give me your poor, your tired, your weak, your huddled

masses yearning to be free” As such, American people expect power relationships to be participatory, democratic and consultative They believe normal people have a right to participate in political and work decisions and leaders are there to guide and help them, not to order them Within American organisations, hierarchy is established for convenience, subordinates are often

on a first-name basis with their bosses Employees view their leader as an equal regardless of his or her formal position or title In families, parents treat children

as equals

Chart 1: Scores of cultural dimensions for the USA (Hofstede 2010)

The United States is the most highly individualistic culture in the world, with score

of 91 in terms of individualism, followed closely by Australia, Great Britain, and Canada (Hofstede 2001: 225) “In the US, you are not socially defined by your family name but by your individual accomplishment” (Jandt 2010:166) In other words, American people put great emphasis on independence, self-reliance and individual achievement When a person fails in his or her personal or economic endeavors, an American feels individually responsible As for family issues, they

freely choose their styles, even same-sex marriage, polygamous long-term relationships, as well as single-parent families

The score of the US on masculinity is high at 62 In fact, high score of masculinity

in the US go along with their highest score of masculinity in the world In other words, Americans, all show their masculine characteristics individually The Hofstede Centre website indicated some reflections of masculinity in the US as American people “strive to be the best they can be” and suppose “the winner takes all” Assertiveness, materialism/material success, self-centeredness, power, strength, and individual achievements are typical in America “They live to work so that they can obtain monetary rewards and as a consequence attain higher status based on how good one can be Moreover, it is believed that a certain degree of conflict will bring out the best of people, as it is the goal to be “the winner” (Hofstede centre.com)

1.3.3 Vietnamese culture

Although not listed in Hofstede’s orginal research, Vietnam was then included in the researched countries through the lens of his cultural dimensions in 2010 (see Appendix 2 for the listed nations)

Chart 2: Scores of cultural dimensions for Vietnam(Hofstede 2010)

Vietnam scores high on Power Distance (70), which means that people accept a hierarchical order People in high distance countries believe that power and authority are facts of life Both consciously and unconsciously, these cultures teach their members that people are not equal in this world and that everybody has a rightful place, which is clearly marked by countless vertical arrangements Social hierarchy is prevalent and institutionalises inequality (Samovar et.al, 1998:71).

In family, “ancestor worship has a huge impact on Vietnamese family life From small kids, children are taught that they owe everything to their parents and their ancestors” (P.C.Son, 2005:84) It is also noteworthy that Vietnam traditional family values were deeply permeated by Confucian ethics after a thousand year of Chinese invasion and Confucianism still exerts a deep influence on Vietnamese society even today.“Confucianism identifies clear hierarchy and different power levels” (V.Khieu 1995:54) Parents in traditional Vietnamese families are those who define the family law to which children have to obey and respect As a Vietnamese old saying goes “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, harsh discipline and physical punishment are regarded as acceptable remedies for children disobedience

With a score of 20 in individualism-collectivism dimension, Vietnam is considered

a collectivistic society This is also influenced by Confucianism, which states that each person to subject one’s own desires to the greater good of the group “Blood is thicker than water” is an old saying engraved in the mind of Vietnamese as they give priority on family relationship compared to other kinds of relationships It

responsibility for fellow members of their group Family ties are not only reflected emotionally but also financially as when you are in trouble you are expected to receive support from other family members, who in turn expect you to help when

encouraging people to improve face and traditions for the whole family” (V.N.Khanh, 2007:121) Traditionally, Vietnamese households followed the extended multi-generational pattern with parents, their sons and their wives, their

children, and unmarried siblings living together Nowadays, even if you choose to live in a nuclear family, frequent contacts with other relatives are maintained, and this constant closeness to family is still emphasized.Elderly parents are expected to

be supported by married or unmarried children until they die to compensate for their birth and upbringing Keeping family heritage is very important, “when one fails there is a sense of shame because the failure affects all those associated with the individual” (Weaver, 2001:9)

Vietnam scores 40 on dimension of masculinity and is thus considered a feminine society “Vietnamese culture leans heavily toward the feminine…A thousand years

of Chinese occupation did impose some masculine characteristics on the dominant Vietnamese group in North Viet Nam delta- the Kinh group Yet if we look up the mountain from the delta, or to the area of South Viet Nam, where the Chinese influence was weaker, the feminity is quite clear” (L.X.Hy et al 2005: 3) They also identified the dimension of femininity manifested in the worship of female Gods such as Mother Heaven (Mau Thien), Mother Earth (Mau Dia), Mother Water (Mau Thuy, worshiped by fishermen), and Mother Mountain (Mau Thuong Ngan) The deeply rooted femininity in Viet Nam is traced by the gradual feminization of the foreign male gods as they entered Viet Nam or the decisive roles of women in Vietnamese festivals as stated in P.Ngoc (1998:389) According to Hofstede, feminine cultures dominant societal values are care and protection of others

1.4 Conceptualization of dispute

The conceptualization of dispute is important because if we can define and specify it we can measure it By measuring disputes we can learn about their nature, their content, and how they are realized in daily life

Dispute is a common but complex phenomenon which has been extensively researched in numerous disciplines including philosophy, rhetoric, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and also linguistics Its popularity is due to the fact that it is one of the most commonly occurring speech events in daily interaction Generally,

dispute has often been viewed as a hostile and aggressive behavior owing to the deficiencies in terms of social skills or in terms of communication breakdowns

As for linguistics, the multifaceted studies on dispute have resulted in a variety of conceptualizations, terms, and definitions of dispute Dispute may be linguistically denoted from very narrow to broad concepts, which may list as follows according to the time schedule: the contracting routine (Boggs, 1978), the adversative episode (Eisenberg & Garvey, 1981), disagreement (Pomerantz, 1984; Rees-Miller, 2000), oppositional argument (Schiffrin, 1985), disputes and disputing (Brenneis, 1988), conflict talk (Grimshaw, 1990), argument or quarrel (Antaki, 1994) and opposition (Kakava, 2002)

One of the most noteworthy common features of all previous researchers is that they did not pay much attention to make a clear distinction between related terms In many studies, those words are not clear-cut Scholars applied these terms interchangeably and considered them to be synonyms, therefore indicated in the scope of the study that they mentioned the certain term in its broadest meaning That situation stems from the fact that defining dispute is still such a big dispute among researchers all over the world that the author actually does not harbour an ambition of solving it Nevertheless, an attempt will be made to explain why the term “dispute” instead of other terms is used consistently in this study after discussing its related concepts

1.4.1 Related concepts to Dispute

This is also a classical perspective which sees argument as an interactive process between two or more participants based on logical reasoning According to Antaki (1994), argument can be seen as a persuasion process whereas according to other scholars, argument is a communication process For example, Jacobs and Jackson (1981: 119-132) make a distinction between two concepts of argument reflected in everyday language: one as a type of speech acts and the other as a type of interaction Schiffrin (1985: 37) also makes a similar distinction between rhetorical arguments, where “a speaker presents an intact monologue supporting a disputable position”, and oppositional arguments, where “one or more speakers openly support disputed positions” In other words, a rhetorical argument happens in the way of the “monologic” argument and oppositional argument occurs in the way of the dialogic argument However, Schiffrin acknowledges that this distinction may not

be supported empirically because sometimes oppositional arguments may include rhetorical factors or rhetorical arguments may be interactional when targeted at certain kinds of audience Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004:123) then suggest that argument is the “rhetorical construction” and is a “verbal, social and rational activity”, which can “convince a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a standpoint by putting forward a constellation of proposition justifying or refuting the proposition expressed in the standpoint”

1.4.1.2 Debate

Another term associated to dispute is debate, which is based upon arguments

“Debate provides reasoned arguments for and against a proposition It requires two competitive sides engaging in a bipolar clash of support for and against that proposition Because it requires that listeners and opposing advocates comparatively evaluate competing choices, debate demands critical thinking” (Freeley & Steingberg, 2012: 7) A formal debate usually takes place in a formal setting, each team or each person representing a different side of the argument The participants

in the debate have to understand the issue clearly, both its pros and cons They must

be able to defend and support their reasoning with reasonable evidence According

to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange, as far as the issues are concerned,

“debate” is normally used to describe conversations about social and political topics, while “argument” is used to describe personal differences Thus, a debate is more formal than an argument; it requires methods while an argument does not necessarily do Moreover, in most of the cases, an argument can be substituted by another informal word such as a row, a quarrel, a bickering, etc On the contrary, a debate cannot be replaced by one of those words

To sum up, according to linguistic researchers, the activity of persuasion or conviction is mostly involved in arguments and debates, where evidences are essential to support for the argumentative opinions

1.4.1.3 Disagreement

Disagreement is a common term and the most general term used to express a view that differs from that expressed by another speaker Corsaro & Rizzo (1990:26) suggests disagreements “are displayed by the occurrence of some sort of opposition

to an antecedent event”

According to Kakava (1993:408), disagreement is “an oppositional stance (verbal or nonverbal) to an antecedent verbal (or nonverbal) action” Definitions of these two researchers differ from the term of argument mentioned above because “opposition”

or “oppositional stance” may express the speaker’s judgment or attitude about the antecedent event/action

Heritage (1984:26) views disagreement as ‘‘largely destructive for social solidarity’’ Likewise, in earlier politeness theories of Brown and Levinson (1978/1987) and Leech (1983), disagreement is seen as impoliteness so it should be avoided for the interest of interlocutors’ face However, Schiffrin's (1984) has contradictory views, arguing that disagreement among friends can signal sociability rather than a violation of politeness Later studies have also shown that disagreement should not be necessarily seen only in negative terms because it does not always result in conflicts Otherwise, disagreement can be a sign of intimacy and sociability (Tannen 1984, Kakava, 1993/2002; Corsaro and Maynard, 1996;

Locher, 2004; Angouri and Tseliga, 2010) and plays an important role in strengthening interlocutors’ relationships rather than destroying them (Georgakopoulou, 2001)

However, in most studies, disagreement is considered as one speech act, not viewed

as a phenomenon or an event

1.4.1.4 Conflict

Conflict and dispute are the most often-interchangeable terms It is very difficult to immediately recognize the difference between them because of great confusion Many scholars and experts have tried to differentiate between the two

One particularly prominent distinction, however, is made by Burton (1990) who distinguishes the two terms based on time and issues in contention Burton suggests that disputes and conflicts are two types of disagreements The formers are short-term that are relatively easy to resolve while the latter refers to long-term, deep-rooted problems that involve seemingly non-negotiable issues and are resistant to resolution Although these two types can occur independently of one another, they may also be interconnected In other words, conflicts can be imagined as a larger umbrella, under which smaller and more short-term disputes occur Thus, some disputes may exist within a larger, longer conflict A similar illustration is about battles, which occur within the broader context of a war

Further, Burton points out that disputes can result in the disputants reaching some sort of resolution, or involve issues that are negotiable In a dispute, both sides are likely to find a solution that at least partially meets their interests and needs Spangler and Burgess (2003) take the following examples as illustrations for disputes: it is frequently possible to eventually reach an agreement on the price for a piece of goods that is acceptable to both the seller and the buyer even though at first the seller may want more and the buyer may want to pay less Similarly, two family members may disagree about where to go on holiday but after negotiating, they can compromise to settle the dispute although one of the two may have to do something they are not willing to do