The language of disagreeing well
Think of a question you actually hold a position on — something you would argue about with somebody you respect.
Hold it. First, eight moves people make when they disagree.
Eight expressions. Match each to the move it makes.
The same disagreement, twice
Version one
I really disagree with this. The problem is definitely not the money. It is absolutely the timing, which is very obviously the thing nobody has thought about at all. And honestly, the report totally ignores this. It really should have been mentioned.
Version two
I disagree, and not about the money. It is the timing that is the problem — and the timing is what the report does not mention.
What has not been explained is why September was chosen. Nobody has claimed it is a good month; it is simply the month in the plan. It was the plan that fixed the date, not the argument.
Five questions. Both versions make the same objection.
1. How many intensifiers does version one use?
2. How many does version two use?
3. Which one sounds more certain?
4. How does version two emphasise, if not with adverbs?
5. Why does adding intensifiers reduce the emphasis?
Two constructions
The two clefts
| Form | Shape | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| it-cleft | It is / was + X + that / who + the rest | Marks X as the point, and usually implies "and not something else" |
| wh-cleft | What + clause + is / was + X | Builds up to X and delivers it at the end, where English readers weight it |
| Negative it-cleft | It is not + X + that…, it is + Y | The refutation shape: locates exactly where the disagreement is |
Why they work, in one line. A cleft costs a whole clause. Cost is signal: an expensive construction is read as deliberate, and a cheap one is not. Really costs a syllable, so it means very little; it is the timing that costs five words, so it means a great deal.
This is also why you can only afford one or two in a piece. If everything is expensive, nothing is marked.
Six lines of an argument, out of order. Put them into the order that locates the disagreement before it argues.
- It was the plan that fixed the date, and the plan was written in March.
- It is not the funding that is being disputed, then, but the date.
- A date fixed in March by a plan is not an argument, and it should not be treated as one.
- Everybody agrees that the scheme has to be funded from somewhere.
- Nobody has argued that September is a good month for it.
- What has not been explained is why September was chosen.
Structure instead of volume
Six gaps. Choose the version that emphasises with structure rather than with adverbs.
I disagree, and not about the cost. the timing that is the problem. has not been explained is why September was chosen. Nobody has claimed it is a good month; the month in the plan. the plan that fixed the date, not the argument. I would want to know is who wrote the plan, and that matters is that they were not in the room in September.
Seven sentences. One error each — some form, some emphasis.
1. It was the timing what caused the problem.
2. What I want is to be listened.
3. It is really absolutely the timing that is definitely the problem.
4. Is the timing that matters.
5. What has not been explained is why was September chosen.
6. It was them who wrote the plan. — in writing
7. The thing what matters is the date.
Three minutes on something you actually think
Task card · Speaking · Pairs · 3 minutes each, twice
Argue the position you thought of at the start, to a partner who is instructed to disagree.
Three minutes. Then your partner gives you a number, and you do it again.
- Round one: argue however comes out.
- Listener: count the intensifiers — really, very, totally, absolutely, definitely, obviously, honestly, completely.
- Round two: same argument, and every one of those words is banned.
- Listener: count again, and say which version sounded more certain.
What happens in round two. With the intensifiers gone, the emphasis has to be carried by something, and speakers reach — often for the first time — for structure. The pauses where really used to be are the gaps this unit fills.
What round two produced
Five sentences of the kind round two produces. Re-emphasise each with structure.
1. The cost is really not the problem here.
2. They totally never explained the date.
3. I definitely want more evidence.
4. The plan absolutely decided it, not the argument.
5. He very much objects to the process, not the outcome.
Cost is signal
Three questions. Thirty seconds.
1. How does written English emphasise?
2. Why do intensifiers weaken rather than strengthen?
3. How many clefts can a short piece carry?
Next. Four arguments, and the sentences that do the actual work of disagreeing.