Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
Hauptseminar: Cross-Cultural Pragmatics
10. Fachsemester

An analysis of questionnaires about complaints

von: Lars Friese

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Theoretical Background 1

2.1 Definition of “complaints”  1
2.2 Face-threatening acts 1
2.3 Preconditions for complaints 2
2.4 Payoff considerations 2
2.5 Five categories of complaining 3

3 Hypotheses 4

4 Methodology 5

5 Data Collected 6

5.1 Problems of Categorization  8
5.2 Results & Discussion 8
5.3 Evaluation of the Hypotheses 14

6 Conclusion 15

6.1 Summary 15
6.2 Limitations and Perspectives 15

7 Bibliography 17

8 Appendix  18

1 Introduction

What would you say if your best friend destroys your camera he has borrowed from you? And how do you react if you wait a long time for your meal in a restaurant, and when it is finally served, it is cold? How would another person react? This paper tries to investigate and analyze complaints in such everyday situations. Therefore, our group in the seminar Cross-Cultural Pragmatics (summer semester 2002) at the English department of the University of Münster constructed a discourse completion test about complaints and distributed it to several volunteers. Based on current linguistic theory, I will now evaluate the data with respect to self-formulated hypotheses.

First, I will deal with theoretical background information on complaints which is mostly based on Olshtain’s and Weinbach’s research (Olshtain and Weinbach 1993). This chapter introduces a linguistic definition of “complaints” and some basic facts about the concept of ‘face’ and so-called face-threatening acts. In addition to this, preconditions for complaints, “payoff” considerations and different categories of complaints will be presented and analyzed. Then, in chapter 3, I will put forward 3 working hypotheses which will establish the focus of the following analysis. Furthermore, in chapter 4, the construction of our questionnaire is explained in detail as well as different social variables that are essential for the study. In the main part, chapter 5, the collected data are presented and analyzed. Moreover, not only difficulties in evaluating the data are reflected here, but also an evaluation of my 3 hypotheses. The conclusion in chapter 6 summarizes the findings and presents perspectives as well as limitations of the study. Chapter 7 is the bibliography, and the appendix (chapter 8) contains both the English and the German version of the questionnaire and tables of the data which is the basis for my diagrams.

2 Theoretical Background

2.1 Definition of “complaints”

In the speech act of complaining, the speaker (S) expresses displeasure or annoyance – censure – as a reaction to a past or ongoing action, the consequences of which are perceived by S as affecting her unfavorably. This complaint is usually addressed to the hearer (H) whom the S holds, at least partially, responsible for the offensive action (Olshtain and Weinbach 1993: 108).

2.2 Face-threatening acts

Complaining is a face-threatening act (FTA) directed towards H, i.e. the complaint threatens the hearer’s positive face. Because of its conflictive nature, such an FTA might result in a breach of “the social goal of establishing and maintaining comity” between S and H (Leech 1983: 104). It can be distinguished between a person’s positive and negative face. If S, for example, insults H or shows disapproval, he threatens H’s positive face. If S restricts H’s freedom of action, e.g. if he asks him for a favour, he threatens his negative face. According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 60), the realization of a face-threatening act, such as the speech act of complaining, follows a certain path of decision-making, which will be explained in the following.

2.3 Preconditions for complaints

S and H are considered to share a common code of behavioural norms. If this code is disregarded by the hearer performing a “socially unacceptable act” (SUA) which S perceives as having unfavourable consequences for himself or the general public, S might choose to utter a complaint relating directly or indirectly to the SUA. By complaining, S asks for repair from H in order to undo the SUA. However, S must be aware that complaining is a face-threatening act and might thus injure harmony between H and him. Therefore, S is faced with “payoff” considerations before he actually performs the speech act of complaining, which will be explained in the following paragraph.

2.4 Payoff considerations

There are four steps of decision making for S. At the first juncture, S can choose between completely opting out from complaining and performing the speech act of complaining. Opting out can have certain payoffs from S’s point of view: S avoids threatening H’s face and can thus get credit for being tactful and polite. On the other hand, S might remain frustrated if he does not express his feelings of disappointment at all.

If S decides to perform the speech act of complaining, he can choose at the second juncture to do so “on” record or “off” record. By choosing the “off” record strategy, he just gives a hint related to the SUA without explicitly mentioning either the SUA or the hearer. The advantages of this “off” record complaint are similar to the advantages of opting out, but if H manages to pick up the hint, he might apologize to H or offer repair, which may then help that S does no longer feel annoyed. If S chooses the “on” record strategy, which would include an explicit mention of either H or the SUA, his decision-making process has arrived at the third step. Here, S has the possibility to complain with or without redress. Not using redress would mean that S airs his frustration unmitigatedly, being well conscious that he risks an open conflict with H. Using redress on the other hand is a way of trying to avoid an open conflict. S has now arrived at the fourth and last step of his decision-making process. He can use redress either with a positive politeness orientation or with a negative politeness orientation. A positive politeness orientation in the speech act of complaining includes an explicit mention of H and the SUA. However, S tries to express his understanding and concern for H at the same time in order to create mitigation. Negative politeness oriented complaints mention the SUA explicitly, but are not directly related to H. Thus it is a form of a mitigated expression which is supposed to lower the risk of a conflict. The following illustration will demonstrate the 4 stages in the decision-making process [Abbildung in der Downloaddatei vorhanden]

2.5 Five categories of complaining

Five different categories concerning the degree of face-threat S is willing to undertake when expressing censure are established by Olshtain and Weinbach (1993: 111).

1. Below the level of reproach
Here S refrains from focussing on H or explicitly mentioning the SUA. It is more or less a general remark of S that leaves room for H’s interpretation as to whether a complaint was actually voiced or not. S makes sure that there is no real breach in social harmony due to the SUA.

2. Expression of annoyance or disapproval
In this category, S still tries to avoid open confrontation with H. Neither the SUA nor the responsible party, H, is mentioned explicitly, and it is still a matter of H’s interpretation whether he considers S’s utterance a complaint or not. Nevertheless, S makes it clear that there was some kind of violation.

3. Explicit complaint

[...]