Complaining in english and german:
a comparison of complaint strategies
in context of power and gender

by

 Regina Everinghoff

Introduction (R.R.) 2

1. Research Questions (R.R.) 4

2. The study (R.E.) 6

3. Results 10

3.1 Explicit vs. implicit complaints (R.E.) 10
3.2 Supportive Moves (R. R.) 14
3.3 Use of apologizing expressions as downgraders (R.E.) 18

Conclusion (R.E.) 21

References 22

Introduction (R.R.)

This research on speech acts was carried out at the University of Muenster during a linguistic seminar on cross-cultural communication. As already expressed in the title, this paper deals with complaints and furthermore with complaint strategies. A more detailed description of the circumstances and method of the research will be given further below. In order to find out about different complaint strategies the context in which complaints are uttered will be closer looked at and also the way in which complaints are expressed. It seems therefore necessary, after an outline of what is going to be discussed in this paper, to provide the reader with a short introduction on complaints. Furthermore, an overview of the research field on complaints will be presented in the introduction. The main part of this paper will include the formulation of two hypothesis which form the basis of this project and therefore will be tested throughout this paper. In a next step, the context of this project will be closer looked at and also the method of collecting the data. Furthermore, the different scenarios of the applied "Discourse Completion Test" (DCT)(Appendix 1 and 2) are going to be presented and commented for a better understanding of this project. By then, the reader will have been provided with all necessary background information on this research project and the actual analysis of the collected data can be advanced. With the three formulated hypothesis in mind, our six scenarios will be examined and evaluated according to several categories, such as the level of directness in the headact, the use of downgraders and the number of supportive moves applied in the complaint strategy. The different numbers will be illustrated by help of several tables and figures in order to point out relations and differences between the chosen categories. After this, the results will be discussed on the basis of the earlier formulated hypothesis which will either be confirmed or falsified. Here, we will also try to compare our results to previous findings. Finally, a conclusion will provide a brief summary of what was found out and possibly provide some aspects for further research. If possible, since the project was carried out in the context of teaching English at school, conclusions for the language classroom will be drawn.

After this general outline of our proceedings, the topic of complaints can be approached and illuminated for the reader. First of all, a short definition of complaints as speech acts will be given. Rader understands the term ′complaint′ as "utterances or sets of utterances that identify a problem or trouble source and seek remediation, either from the person responsible for the problem or from a third person who has the power to affect the situation." (Rader 1977:107)

Additionally to what has been said above, one also needs to know that the persons who utters a complaint (the complainer), is referred to as speaker (S) while the persons who caused it is known as hearer (H). Consequently, a complaint does not stand alone but is connected to a previously performed action. Complaints are therefore generally carried out as reactions to a past or ongoing actions performed by H, either by speaking or acting, that is somehow perceived by S in a negative way. Linguistically speaking, H carries out a ′socially unaccepted act′ (SUA), since this act is contrary to a "social code of behavioral norms shared by S and H." In the following, S takes the SUA as "having unfavourable consequences of herself and/or for the general public" and either refers to it in her "verbal expression" in a direct or an indirect way. According to Olshtain and Weinbach, S can perceive the SUA in two different ways, namely (a) as "freeing S from the implicit understanding of a social cooperative relationship with H" by choosing to express her frustration or annoyance and (b) as "giving S the legitimate right to ask for repair in order to undo the SUA either for her or for public benefit".  The second one is aimed at “changing things that do not meet with our standards or expectations” while the main goal is certainly to “make H perform some action of repair”. (Olshtain and Weinbach 1993:108) If we now turn to the linguistic realization of complaints, we first have to take into consideration, that depends on the degree to which they threaten ‘face’. Goffman described ‘face’ as the “the positive social value a person effectively claims for herself by the line others assume she has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes (…)”.( Goffman 1967:5) Although the term ‘face’ in this context is based on the everyday usages ‘losing face’ and ‘saving face’, it goes further in treating almo st every action (including utterances) as a potential threat to someone’s face. But since everybody has face needs, people generally cooperate in maintaining each other’s face.(Holmes 1995:5) Brown and Levinson some years later added a distinction between ‘positive face’ and ‘negative face’ to Goffman’s idea. They defined ‘positive face’ as “the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ claimed by the interactants” and ‘negative face’ which for them was “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves and rights to non-distraction”.(Brown and Levinson 1987:66) Holmes writes of ‘positive and negative face needs’ and describes ‘positive face needs’ as “the need to be liked or admired” while ‘negativ face needs’ is the “need not to be imposed on”. Accordingly ‘positive politeness’ consists of “sociable behaviour expressing warmth towards towards an addressee”, while ‘negative politeness’ “avoids imposing on others or ‘threatening their face’” Consequently any utterance, that could be interpreted as making a demand or intruding on another’s person autonomy, may be perceived as a potential ‘face threatening act’ (FTA), even including suggestions, advice and requests. Obvious FTAs would be insults or warnings, unavoidable ones are requests or warnings. (Holmes 1995:5) By taking all this into consideration, complaints may be classified as “acts that intrinsically threaten face.” (Geluykens and Kraft in press:251)

[...]