Examining teachers’ rhetorical choices

Abstract This study examines the role of disaffiliative reactions, specifically disagreement, in teacher-student interactions. Disagreement is often seen as confrontational and disruptive, but this research investigates whether it is a dispreferred act in these interactions. By analyzing teacher-student interactions and considering students’ final achievement scores, the study explores how teachers respond to students’ arguments. The paper specifically examines the context in which teachers contradict students’ arguments when requesting a reconsideration of their scores. While destructive responses are typically considered face-threatening, the findings suggest that they are the preferred linguistic behavior for teachers in these situations. This is because a constructive or affiliative reaction may potentially undermine the teachers’ fair assessment policy and authoritative power. The study also reveals that the severity of disagreements varies based on the tone of the students’ justifications. When students include compliments in their justifications, teachers tend to respond with mitigated disagreement, whereas openly critical justifications are more likely to elicit aggravated disagreement from teachers. The study illustrates that different cultures may have varying norms and expectations regarding disagreement and confrontational behavior.