No Explicit Reproach Expression of Annoyance or Disapproval Accusations Blaming

xlix 5. The com plainer’s negat ive evaluat ion of t he com plainee as a person is im plicit ly expressed. C evaluat es A as a bad person- ar t iculat ed or im plied 3. Com plaint St rat egies Anna Trosborg 1995: 316-319 set up cert ain com plaint st rat egies: no explicit reproach, expression of annoyance or disapproval, accusat ion, and blam e. Alt oget her, eight sub- cat egories are est ablished, st rat egy 1 is t he m ost indirect , and st rat egy 8 is t he m ost direct . For exem plificat ion, com plaint s are present ed from conversat ions bet w een speaker and hearer in t he sit uat ion w hen t he hearer t urns on t he radio loudly w hile his brot her st udy. The speaker com plains.

1. No Explicit Reproach

The com plainer does not direct ly st at e t hat som et hing is bad, t he com plainee does not know w het her an offence is referred t o or not . This st rat egy is a w eak com plaint st rat egy but it m ight be used successfully t o prepare for m ore forceful st rat egies. Strategy 1: Hints Exam ple: It w as quiet here before you t urn on t he radio.

2. Expression of Annoyance or Disapproval

A com plainer can express his her annoyance, dislike, disapproval, et c. concerning a cert ain st at e of affairs he she considers bad for him her. The com plainer im plies t hat he she holds t he com plainee responsible but avoids m ent ioning him her as t he guilt y person. l Strategy 2: Annoyance Exam ple: What kind of sound is out t here? I am st udying, and I can’t concent rat e. Strategy 3: Ill consequences Exam ple: Oh no Now I can’t concent rat e on t his paper.

3. Accusations

The com plainer can ask t he hearer quest ions about t he sit uat ion or assert t hat he she w as in som e w ay connect ed w it h t he offense and t hereby t ries t o est ablish t he hearer as a pot ent ial agent of t he com plainable indirect accusat ion. Alt ernat ively, t he com plainer can direct ly accuse t he com plainee of having com mit ed t he offense direct accusat ion. Strategy 4: Indirect Accusation Exam ple: Is t hat you t hat t urn t he radio on loudly? Strategy 5: Direct accusation Exam ple: You have just t urn on t he radio loudly, right ? I’m st udying.

4. Blaming

li An act of blam e presupposes t hat t he accused is guilt y of t he offense. The com plainer passes a value judgment on t he com plainee. This is t he m ost direct com plaint st rat egy. Strategy 6: M odified Blame The com plainer expresses m odified disapproval of an act ion for w hich t he accused is responsible. Exam ple: You should be m ore em pat hizing t o ot her people. Honest ly, you should pay at t ent ion t o ot her’s privacy. Strategy 7: Explicit Condemnation of the Accused’s action The com plainer explicit ly st at es t hat an act ion held by t he accused is bad. Exam ple: That ’s t oo bad, bot hering m e w hen I am st udying. How could you do t hat st upid t hing w hen I t ry t o concent rat e t o read? Strategy 8: Explicit Condemnation of the Accused as a person The com plainer explicit ly st at es w hat is im plicit at all ot hers level, namely t hat he finds t he accused as a non- responsible social m em ber. Exam ple: How dare you are, t urn t he radio loudly as t hough you’re living alone? Dam n I can’t concent rat e, t urn t he radio off lii 4. Com plaint perspect ive The speaker hearer’s perspect ive of a com plaint present s a part icular point of int erest . A speaker m ay express his ill feelings t ow ards t he hearer. A speaker m ay also avoid m ent ion t he hearer as t he guilt y person. If t his so, it m ay be an am biguous com plaint . Reference t o t he com plainer and t he com plainee can be expressed in various w ays. Haverkat e 1984: 56 in Trosborg draw s an im port ant dist inct ion bet w een focalizing and defocalizing expressions in a discussion of speaker and hearer- reference. 1. Focalizing reference t o t he com plainer Speaker- perspect ive- I Focalizing reference can be m ade eit her t o t he speaker or t o t he hearer for t he purpose of expressing em phat ic reference. Specific reference t o t he speaker t ypically involves t he first - person singular pronoun I. When a speaker select s a focalizing reference t o t he com plainer w hen expressing his her annoyance or m oral judgem ent , he she ident ifies him herself as a people w ho t akes personal responsibilit y for issuing t he blam e. Exam ple: I really don’t like t o see m y room in a m ess like t his. 2. Defocalizing reference t o t he com plainer Speaker- perspect ive- w e If a com plainer w ishes t o m inimize his her role of com plainer, reference t o t he com plainer can be defocalized. The first - person plural pronoun w e is oft en em ployed w hen a speaker w ant s t o involve his her hearers and or ot her liii persons as w ell by m aking t hem share t he responsibilit y for issuing blam e. Defocalizing reference t o t he com plainer deals w it h t hree cat egories. The first is class- inclusive reference. When em ploying t his cat egory, a speaker present s his her point s of view , assum pt ions, beliefs, et c. This reference is an im port ant t ool for a com plainer w ho w ant s t o avoid at t acking t he com plainee personally. He she is able t o defocalize his her personal point s of view by at t ribut ing t hem t o a specified class rat her t han t o him herself. The second cat egory is all- inclusive reference. This cat egory involves reference t o t he speaker, t o t he hearer, and t o undefined set of ot her persons. In cont rast t o class- inclusive reference, it is not bound t o any par t icular class of persons. The last cat egory is pseudo- inclusive reference. This t ype of reference is frequent ly used by persons of superior social st at us w ho ar e exert ing influence on subordinat es, e.g. by parent s t alking t o children, or by em ployers t o em ployees, et c. Exam ple: Noone w ould approve of such behaviour. 3. Focalizing reference t o t he com plainee hearer- perspect ive- you The com plainer explicit ly m akes t he hearer as t he agent of t he com plainable. Specific reference t ypically involves t he second- person pronoun you and ot her com m on nouns. Exam ple: I hadn’t expect ed you t o behave like t his. 4. Defocalizing reference t o t he com plainee hearer- perspect ive- it liv This cat egory is concerned w it h im plicit or non-specific reference t o t he agent of t he com plainable. This kind of reference is useful for t he st rat egic purpose of suppressing inform ation concerning t he ident it y of t he agent responsible. The cat egories involved are agent less passives, const ruct ions w it h neut ral agent s one, som eone, t hey, people, et c. and const ruct ion in w hich t he undesired st at e of affairs has been m ade t he f ocus of at t ent ion, e.g. Exam ple: Som eone has t aken m y purse. 5. Int ernal M odificat ion In addit ion, t o classify com plaint st rat egies according t o direct ness level, it also useful t o analyze t he com plainer’s use of int ernal modificat ion. A com plaint m ay be soft ened or w eakened by t he inclusion of dow ngraders, or st rengt hened by t he inclusion of upgraders. Dow ngraders com prise: 1 Dow nt oners just , sim ply, perhaps, m aybe, possibly; 2 Underst at ers, t hose are m odifiers t hat under- represent t he st at e of affairs denot ed in t he com plainable, e.g. a lit t le bit , a second, not very m uch, et c. 3 Hedges, adverbials by m eans of w hich t he com plainee avoids a precise proposit ional specificat ion, e.g. kind of, sort of, som ehow , et c. 4 Subject ivizers, m odifiers t hat charact erize t he proposit ion as t he speaker’s personal opinion, or indicat e t he speaker’s at t it ude t ow ards t he proposit ion, e.g. I t hink, I suppose, I’m afraid, in m y opinion, et c. 5 Cajolers, gam bit s funct ioning at t he int erpersonal level of discourse w it h t he funct ion of rest oring harm ony bet w een t w o int erlocut ors, e.g. you know , you see, I m ean,et c. 6 Appealers, discourse elem ent s including t ags int ended t o elicit a lv response from t he com plainer, appealing t o his her underst anding, et c. e.g. okay, right , don’t you t hink? Upgraders. Typical upgraders are int ensifiers which m odify part of a proposit ion, sent ence m odifiers, and lexical int ensificat ion. Int ensifiers are adverbials or adject ives int ensifying part of a proposit ion, e.g. such, so, very, quit e, really, t erribly, aw fully, fright fully, absolut ely, et c. Commit ment upgraders are sent ence m odifiers expressing a special com m it m ent t ow ards t he proposit ion, e.g. I’m sure, I’m cert ain, I’m posit ive, it ’s obvious, and t he corresponding adverbials like surely, cert ainly, posit ively, obviously, unfort unat ely, et c. Lexical int ensificat ion is lexical choice t hat is used t o reveal an at t it ude. In ext rem e cases sw ear w ords m ay be used Trosborg, 1995:327- 329. 6. Ext ernal M odificat ion Several condit ions det ermine w het her a com plainer is successful I pinning t he blam e for som et hing on som eone else. Support ive st rat egies serve t o just ify t he com plainer’s “ right ” t o place t he blam e for somet hing on t he com plainee. They funct ion at t he st ruct ural level of discourse preparat ors, at t he int erpersonal level disarm ers, as w ell as at t he cont ent level. Preparat ors are im port ant w it h regard t o t he successful organizat ion of t he conversat ion in w hich a com plaint is issued. One does not just st art accusing ot her person right away. Inst ead, it is im port ant t o “ prepare” t he speech act or w arn t he hearer t hat a com plaint is fort hcom ing. Disarm ers is a t ool for t he com plainer t o avoid producing an act t hat is t oo face- t hreat ening t o t he com plainee. A com plainer m ust save t he com plainee’s face and his her ow n face. Providing evidence is t he t hird lvi st rat egy. A com plainer m ust prove t hat A did P P is bad, he she m ust be able t o show t hat t he com plainee has in fact perform ed or failed to perform t he deplorable act ion. The last st rat egy is Subst ant iat ion. It is im port ant for a com plainer t o be able t o provide subst ant iat ing m oves in t he form of fact s or argum ent s t o t he effect t hat “ P is bad” , i.e. t he com plainer m ust “ prove” t hat he she is just ified in int erpret ing P as bad for him her, e.g Trosborg, 1995: 329- 331.

J. Response