Pragmatics of Disagreement and Conflict Management in Pakistani Indigenous Discourse

Abstract

This study investigates how disagreement strategies are pragmatically realized in Pakistani indigenous discourse across different social power relations. Drawing on a qualitative, discourse-analytic framework, the research examines naturally occurring interactions from family, educational, workplace, and community settings to explore how speakers negotiate opposition while managing relational harmony. The study integrates insights from speech act theory, politeness and rapport management theory, and conversation analysis to analyze the linguistic and interactional features of disagreement. Particular attention is given to the influence of hierarchy, honor (izzat), respect (adab), gender norms, and multilingual practices on the design and trajectory of disagreement episodes. The findings reveal that disagreement in Pakistani discourse is predominantly mitigated and relationally oriented, especially in hierarchical contexts such as elder younger or teacher student interactions. Speakers frequently employ hedging, agreement-prefacing structures, honorific forms, indirect questioning, and code-switching to soften opposition and prevent escalation. Escalation occurs primarily when relational norms are violated through direct accusation, interruption, or threats to dignity. However, repair mechanisms including apology, humor, concession, and third-party mediation are commonly used to restore social balance. The study concludes that disagreement in Pakistani indigenous discourse functions as relational work embedded within broader sociocultural values of hierarchy, honor, and communal harmony. By providing a culturally grounded account of disagreement and conflict management, the research contributes to cross-cultural pragmatics and expands theoretical understandings beyond Western-centric models.