Solidarity and Disagreements: Social Dimensions in Cooperative Writing Group

Juland Dayo Salayo*, April Lontoc-Macam**, Rachelle B. Lintao***
* Research Instructor, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines.
** Master Teacher II, Trece Martires Senior High School, Philippines.
*** Associate Professor, Department of English, Graduate School, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines.
Periodicity:January - March'2018


Using conversational analysis as a methodological framework, this paper aims to analyze the sequential pattern of the turns in cooperative writing group interactions which unfolds solidarity building and disagreement episodes. Recorded verbal and non-verbal interactions of a group, comprised of ten members, were carefully transcribed to closely examine overlapping, latching, cut-off and other pragmatic cues of the turn taking. Results show that solidarity building is displayed using collaborative construction turn strategy and laughter strategies. Disagreement as a preferred act is an effective speech strategy that does not only use in pursuit of knowledge, but could also establish group cohesiveness. Data also opens implications for English Language Teaching (ELT) specifically in promoting pragmatic competence among Engliah as a Second Language (ESL) learners.


Solidarity, Disagreement, Collaborative Construction Turn, Laughter.

How to Cite this Article?

Salayo, J. D., Macam, A. L., and Lintao, R. R. (2018). Solidarity and Disagreements: Social Dimensions in Cooperative Writing Group. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 8(1), 30-43.


[1]. Beller, A. T. (2003). Cognitive conflict, disagreement and repetition in collaborative groups: Affective and social dimensions from an insider's perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60 (2),143-172.
[2]. Cameron, D (2001). Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage.
[3]. Coiro, J., Sekeres, D. C., Castek, J., & Guzniczak, L. (2010). Comparing the quality of Third, Fourth, and Fifth Graders' interactions and cognitive strategy use during structured online inquiry. Journal of Education, 194(2), 1- 15.
[4]. Cole, K. S. (2012). Promoting cooperative learning in an expository writing class. Journal of International Education Research, 8 (2), 114-124
[5]. Fernandez, S. S. (2013). The linguistic realization of disagreements by EFL Egyptian Speakers (Master's Thesis: University Complutense Madrid).
[6]. Johnson, D. W. & Roger T. (1994). An Overview of co o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g . R e t r i e v e d f r o m
[7]. Kessler, G., Bikowski, D. & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16 (1), 99-109.
[8]. Lerner, G. H. (1987). Collaborative turn sequences: Sentence construction and social a c t i o n s ( D o c t o r a l Dissertation: University of California).
[9]. Lerner, G. H. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In G. H. Lerner (Ed). Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 225-256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[10]. Liao, M. Y. (2007). Losing face in Chinese and American culture: Precursors and consequences. Retrieved from documents /LiaoHangzhou07.pdf
[11]. Nevile, M. (2008). Being out of order: Overlapping talk as evidence of trouble in airline pilots' work. In: V. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew & R. H. Jones (eds.), Advances in Discourse Studies (pp. 36-50). London / New York (Routledge).
[12]. Pathinathan, S., & Fung, Y. M. (2012). Intragroup conflicts during collaborative writing in an ESL/EFL preparatory programme. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(7), 8-18.
[13]. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shaped. In Atkinson, J. (Ed.). Structures of Social Action (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction) (pp.57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from h t t p : / / w w w. s o c . u c s b . e d u / f a c u l t y / l e r n e r / p u b / Collaborative.pdf
[14]. Porto, M. (2000). Cooperative writing response groups and self-evaluation. English Language Teaching Journal, 55(1), 38-46.
[15]. Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage Journals, 16(5) 739- 747.
[16]. Razmjoo, S. A., & Hoomanfard, M. H. (2012). On the effect of cooperative writing on students' writing ability, WTC, self-efficacy and apprehension. World Journal of English Language, 2(2), 19-28. doi:10.5430/wjel.v2n2p19
[17]. Samar, R., Abaszadeh, A., & Pourmohamadi, F. (2013). Investigating disagreements through a contextspecific approach: A case of Iranian L2 speakers. Applied Research on English Language, 3(1), 87-100.
[18]. Sawyer, R. K., & Berson, S. (2004). Study group discourse: How external representations affect collaborative conversation. Linguistic and Education, 15, 387-412.
[19]. Sharma, B. K. (2011). Conceding in disagreement during small group interaction in academic writing class (Master's Thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa).
[20]. Stolt, M. (2008). The many faces of overlap: Noncompetitive overlap in a conversation between Finnish and British speaker of English (Post Graduate Thesis: University of JYVÄSKYLÄ).
[21]. Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S., (2014). The Effects of collaborative writing activity using Google Docs on students' writing abilities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 13 (2), 148-156.
[22]. Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
[23]. Vass, E., Littleton, K., Miell, D. & Jones, A. (2008). The discourse of collaborative creative writing: Peer collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 192–202.
[24]. Wang, S. L., Hsu, H. Y., Lin, S. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). The Role of Group Interaction in Collective Efficacy and CSCL Performance. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 242–254.
[25]. Waring, H. Z. (2000). Discourse strategies used in seminar discussion: A conversation analytic approach (Doctoral Dissertation: Columbia University).
[26]. Young, A. C. (1997). The effects of guidedquestioning procedure on quality of group solutions and metacognitive-related discourse in cooperative learning groups (Doctoral Dissertation: The Florida State University).

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article
Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.