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.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Definition of “complaints”
2.2 Face-threatening acts
2.3 Preconditions for complaints
2.4 Payoff considerations
2.5 Five categories of complaining
3 Hypotheses
4 Methodology
5 Data Collected
5.1 Problems of Categorization
5.2 Results & Discussion
5.3 Evaluation of the Hypotheses
6 Conclusion
6.1 Summary
6.2 Limitations and Perspectives
Research Goals and Key Topics
The primary goal of this paper is to investigate and analyze how individuals formulate complaints in various everyday situations, focusing on cross-cultural and interlanguage differences. The research evaluates the performance of three different groups—German native speakers, advanced German learners of English, and native English speakers—based on their responses to a discourse completion test (DCT) to test specific linguistic hypotheses regarding utterance length and complaint severity.
- Linguistic theory of speech acts, specifically regarding complaints.
- The concept of 'face' and face-threatening acts (FTA) in communication.
- The influence of social variables and social distance on complaint realization.
- Comparison of complaint strategies across different linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
- Evaluation of the "bulge" phenomenon in relation to language production and social roles.
Excerpt from the Book
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).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter introduces the topic of analyzing complaints in everyday situations and outlines the structure and goals of the study, including the discourse completion test methodology.
2 Theoretical Background: This section provides the linguistic framework, defining complaints and discussing concepts such as face-threatening acts, preconditions, payoff considerations, and established categories of complaining.
3 Hypotheses: This chapter presents three specific working hypotheses regarding the length of complaints among different learner groups, the influence of social relationships, and the impact of speaker and addressee gender.
4 Methodology: This part details the construction of the discourse completion test, the demographics of the subject groups, and the variables (social distance and sex) used to construct the scenarios.
5 Data Collected: This chapter presents and analyzes the collected data, discusses the challenges in categorizing responses, and evaluates the validity of the proposed hypotheses based on statistical findings.
6 Conclusion: This chapter summarizes the findings of the study, notes that the hypotheses were only partially proven, and discusses the limitations of the methodology used.
Keywords
Complaints, Speech acts, Interlanguage pragmatics, Cross-cultural communication, Discourse completion test, Face-threatening acts, Utterance length, Social distance, Politeness, Complaint severity, Learner language, Sociolinguistics, Linguistic analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on investigating and analyzing how complaints are formulated in everyday social situations by comparing the linguistic behavior of German native speakers, English learners, and native English speakers.
What are the central themes examined in the study?
Central themes include the linguistic definition of complaints, the impact of face-threatening acts, the influence of social distance on communicative strategies, and the differences in complaint severity across demographics.
What is the main objective or research question?
The objective is to evaluate whether specific hypotheses—such as learners using more words than native speakers or the influence of addressee gender on complaint style—can be verified through collected questionnaire data.
Which scientific method is utilized in this study?
The author uses a discourse completion test (DCT), where participants provide written responses to six specific scenarios designed to elicit complaints under controlled variables.
What is covered in the main part of the paper?
The main part analyzes the collected data, addresses categorization problems for non-standard responses, compares average word counts and severity scores, and evaluates the formulated hypotheses.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Key terms include complaints, interlanguage pragmatics, face-threatening acts, discourse completion test, and social distance.
Why did the study compare German learners with both German and English native speakers?
This comparison allows for a better understanding of interlanguage development, specifically identifying how learners negotiate intentions in a foreign language compared to their native language and the target language norms.
How does the author interpret the "bulge" phenomenon in this study?
The author investigates whether social uncertainty in acquaintance scenarios leads to longer, more verbose complaints, as suggested by the "bulge" phenomenon, though the results ultimately contradicted this expectation.
What does the study conclude regarding the influence of addressee gender?
The study concludes that the addressee's gender does not show a definite tendency to change the severity of complaints; rather, the specific type of situation appears to be a more influential factor.
- Quote paper
- Studienreferendar Lars Friese (Author), 2004, An analysis of questionnaires about complaints, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/37667
