COMPLAINT RESPONSES USED BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS Complaint Responses Used By Indonesian Efl Learners.
COMPLAINT RESPONSES USED BY INDONESIAN
EFL LEARNERS
PUBLICATION ARTICLE
Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for Getting Bachelor Degree of Education
in Department of English Education
Proposed by:
ENDANG SULASTRI
A 320100066
SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
2014
COMPLAINT RESPONSES USED BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS
by
Department of English Education, A320100066
Email: endangsulastri9@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
ENDANG SULASTRI. A320100066. COMPLAINT RESPONSES USED BY
INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS. 2014
This research aims to describe the use of complaint responses strategies,
the use of politeness strategies in complaint responses and different gender induce
the use of complaint responses strategy by Indonesian EFL learners in
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. The study uses descriptive qualitative
research in which the research participants were forty Indonesian EFL learners at
seventh semester at English education department, Muhammadiyah University of
Surakarta. The data were spoken utterances of complaint response strategies
elicited through oral DCT (Discourse Completion Tasks) scenarios. The subject
consists of twenty male and twenty female participants. The data of complaint
responses strategy were analyzed by code schema in Eslami and Rasekh (2004)
also added by Brown and Levinson (1987) theory as the type of politeness
strategy. The research findings showed that Indonesian EFL learners’ strategies of
complaint responses have tendency of IFIDs 4.4% (based on DCT 8), of
explanation or account 5.8% (based on DCT 6), of acceptance responsibility
2.9% (based on DCT 2), of expression of appeal 2.1% (based on DCT 3), of
refusing responsibility 2.4% (based on DCT 4), of concern to the hearer (based on
DCT 6), of offer of repair 2.1% (based on DCT 1), of promise of forbearance
0.8% (based on DCT 2) and emotional exclamation 2.1% (based on DCT 4 and
DCT 7). As for politeness, Indonesian EFL learners have tendency of PP 5.3%
(based on DCT 1), of PP 5.8% (based on DCT 2), of PP 1 7.9% (based on DCT
3), of NP 5.3% (based on DCT 4), of PP 5.4% (based on DCT 5), of PP 6.3%
(based on DCT 6), of PP 5.8% (based on DCT 7), of NP 5.6 % (based on DCT 8)
and of NP 4.7% (based on DCT 9). In the last as different genders of Indonesian
EFL learners induce different use of complaint response strategies have tendency
of explanation or account (female 13.3%, male 10.8%), emotional exclamation
(female 4.2%, male 5.0%), of offer of repair (female 6.0%, male 5.7%), concern
to the hearer (female 0.7%, male 1.1%), of refusing responsibility (female 2.8%,
male 3.8%), of expression of appeal (female 5.0%, male 4.6%), of acceptance
responsibility (female 6.0%, male 6.3%) and of IFIDs (female 11.0%, male
12.5%).
Keywords: pragmatics, speech act, complaint responses strategy, politeness
1
A. Introduction
Interpersonal interactions between speaker and hearer are occurring in
daily activity and occasions involving many kinds of speech acts in which
complaint is one of them. According to Trosborg (1995) complaint is a kind
of speech act especially illocutionary act in which people express their
negative feeling. In the speech act of complaint, a speaker expresses
displeasure or annoyance as a reaction to past or ongoing action. According to
Wierzbicka (in Eslami and Rasekh (2004: 180)), complaint is verbal, fully
intentional and indicates “something bad happened” to the speaker.
In general study, complaint is one of object in which many researchers
expand this study on many perspectives and focuses. Iran, Azarmi (2012)
investigated the ability of the upper intermediate and the intermediate learners
in keeping face in different complaint situations. In Barcelona, Trench (1995)
studied complaint in Catalan and in English. In France, Traverso (2008)
investigated third-party complaints in ordinary conversation between friends.
In Florida, Boxer (1993) analyzed indirect complaint between Japanese and
English speaking peers. In Indonesian, Wijayanto et. al(2012) analyzed interlanguage pragmatics of complaint by Indonesian learners of English. The
previous studies about complaint indicated that complaint was intrinsically
face threatening act. Nevertheless responses to complaint have been under
studied.
For that reason, the current research to continue the previous research
which particularly studies the responses to complaint strategies applying
pragmatic approach in Indonesia. The only research which discussed
complaint responses strategies was that of Eslami and Rasekh (2004) entitled
Face-keeping strategies in reaction to complaints. This present study is also to
develop their research in Indonesian EFL learning context. According to
Frescura (in Eslami and Rasekh (2004)) shows:
Reacting to complaints appropriately is one of the functions of
the language that is remedial in nature. If the complainer is
2
considered by the complainee to have the right to complain, then
the most frequent verbal strategy used to react to the complaint
is to apologize for the offense committed. Hence reacting to
complaints is performed by acceptance of the offence committed
and apologizing or denying the accusation.
The following is an example of a complaint response taken from
Eslami & Rasekh study:
Situation: forgot a meeting a friend for second time with the same
person.
Complainer: “I waited for you more than an hour! What
happened?”
Responses (Persian speakers):
“Oh, my Gosh, Mr. We became ashamed again, to
your soul, I don’t know at all why this happened.
Mr., I am ashamed, the pressure of life has not left
any attention for me! I forgot.”
Responses (American English speaker):
“Oh, my gosh! I’m so sorry. I completely forgot. Can
we schedule another time to meet?”
This example showed that Persian speaker preferred more direct strategies for
performing request speech acts compared to American subjects in the study.
Persian speakers used the formulate ‘expression of appeal,’ (for
understanding, leniency, and self control). While American used ‘I’m sorry’ it
was expression of regret (IFIDs).
The writer would analyze the complaint responses into
classification of nine strategies that certainly contain of politeness strategies
and the effect of different gender on complaint responses by English learners.
The writer conducted the research paper entitled “Complaint Responses Used
By Indonesian EFL Learners in Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta”.
The writer would to analyze the complaint response strategies that certainly
contain of politeness strategies and the effect of different gender on complaint
responses by English learners. The writer conducted the research paper
3
entitled “Complaint Responses Used By Indonesian EFL Learners in
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta”.
B. Research Methods
This research used a descriptive qualitative because the writer
describes complaint responses strategy used by Indonesian EFL students.
This research also describes the use of politeness strategy in complaint
responses and different genders of Indonesian EFL learners induce different
use of complaint response strategies. The research used code schema by
Cohen and Olshtain’s in Eslami and Rasekh (2004) and Brown & Levinson
(1987).
The data utterances of complaint strategies obtained through the nine
DCT scenarios were from the participants; each scenario had two complaints,
those are direct and indirect. The object of the research were complaint
responses utterance that viewed from the politeness strategies and gender in
the complaints responses which done by the participants or subjects of this
research. And the data sources were taken from seventh course degree of
Indonesian EFL learners in Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
In analyzing data, the writer uses descriptive technique as follow: (1)
Describing the difference of complaint responses strategies used by
Indonesian EFL learners: based on CCSARP theory in (Eslami & Rasekh:
2004). (2) Describing the difference of complaint responses strategies used by
Indonesian EFL learners in different gender, the writer uses theory (male and
female): based on Trosborg’s theory (Wijayanto: 2011) (by Wijayanto
(2011)). (3) Describing politeness strategies used in complaint responses
based on Brown and Levinson theory (1987).
C. Research Findings and Discussion
In this finding, the entire coding schema used in Eslami and Rasekh
(2004) found in the data analysis among nine strategies found five strategy
included in each DCT and each sub-category also was found in this analysis.
4
The writer also found politeness strategy of complaint responses and different
gender induce the used of complaint responses strategy. The complaint
responses strategy mostly used by the respondents was explanation or account
25%. In addition the others strategies also found those are emotional
exclamation (8.5%), promise of forbearance (1.0%), offer of repair (11.3%),
concern to the hearer (1%), refusing responsibility (6.8%), expression of
appeal (9.8%), acceptance responsibility (12.8%), account or account
(25.3%), and IFIDs (23%). In this case, there were strategies found
completely in all DCT, such as emotional exclamation, expression of appeal,
acceptance responsibility, explanation or account and IFIDs. Five strategies
mentioned above always found in nine DCTs. The writer also found new
strategy in this study namely ‘agreement’. It was as kind of sub-strategy of
acceptance responsibly. Previously, there were seven sub-strategies in
acceptance responsibility (explicit self-blame, lack of intent, Expression of
self-deficiency, Expression of embarrassment, Self-dispraise, Justify hearer
and Admission of fact. Then, agreement strategy here is only found in DCT 4,
DCT 7 and DCT 9.
The writer concluded that positive politeness as the highest frequency
than the other politeness strategies used by the participants. While off- record
as the lowest frequency. All of DCTs contain of PP, and then DCT 3 has the
highest of PP findings than others DCT. Whereas OR was not found in DCT
3 and DCT 7. The following are the total frequency of politeness strategy .i.e.
PP (45.4%), NP(35.1%), BOR (15%) and OR (4.4%). Then the different
gender induce different used of complaint responses influence by the used of
complaint statement. In this section, the writer found emotional exclamation
(female 4.2%, male 5.0%), offer of repair (female 6.0%, male 5.7%), concern
to the hearer (female 0.7%, male 1.1%), refusing responsibility (female 2.8%,
male 3.8%), expression of appeal (female 5.0%, male 4.6%), acceptance
responsibility (female 6.0%, male 6.3%) and the last is IFIDs (female 11.0%,
male 12.5%).
5
In discussion, the example of explanation or account which is as the
highest strategy used by the participants are “Because I would accompany
your mother, Son. Because yah…she want to buy something…something
in Supermarket. It needs a long time when we went home the bank is
closed”. (DCT3/C2/M/15). The word “because” always indicated that the
respondent give reason to the hearer. But there was also kind of data include
as explanation or account but there was no the word “because” there, those
are “I’m very busy. I have an extracurricular. (DCT2/C1/M/06) this
utterance was explicitly giving account or explanation why the respondents
cannot fulfill the hearer wants. The example of IFIDs is Sorry, if you feel
disturb with my music. (DCT4/C1/F/05). The word “sorry” always showed
as expression of regret. The respondents was directly showing mistake. The
utterance which is shows the version of acceptance to responsibility is I’m
sorry it is my terrible mistake. (DCT5/C1/M/060 the word “it is my terrible
mistake” indicated that the respondents showing his/her mistake by doing
self-blame like that. While the example of expression of appeal is I hope you
will understand my situation Boss…Sorry. (DCT5/C1/M/20) the
respondent tried to persuade in order the Boss can decrease of the offence by
uttering ‘I hope you will understand”. The word “I don’t knew it” in the
example of refusing responsibility Sorry Sir. I don’t knew it.
(DCT5/C2/F/09) indicated that the respondent assumed did not know
anything and avoiding to responsible the mistake. Then the example of
promise of forbearance is I promise I never do it again. (DCT2/C1/F/10) in
this case, the respondents promise not to repeat the mistake anymore. The
varion also more found in this study because to compensate the hearer
damage, namely offer of repair I am sorry; I broke your lens camera. I am so
sorry. I promise I will repair it. If it can’t be repaired. I will change it with
new ones. (DCT1/C2/F/04) The respondents responsible to compensate
about what she/he was done to the hearer. The example of emotional
exclamation is. Oh my God…I forget. (DCT2/C1/F/09) The word “Oh or
Oh my God” show surprise expression by the participants. And the last is
6
concern to the hearer Did you check score from the lecturer?
(DCT9/C1/M/02) the respondent was asking the hearer information in which
reminder her/him about the score. It indicated that the speaker concern to the
hearer about her/his score actually.
In complaint response found politeness strategy to express what kind
of politeness used the participant mostly. Here, the example of PP is I am
sorry because that is an accident and I have no plan for it. Ok I will buy
a new camera for you same as yours. (DCT1/C1/M/01) this example
included as PP no 13 which is by uttering the word “because” the
respondents give reasoning for the hearer about the accident. Then the
example of NP is I am sorry. Your camera is broke. (DCT1/C2/F/09) By
uttering “I’m sorry”, the respondents directly acknowledge the speaker’s
discomfort and potential restriction. The others politeness strategy also found
such as the example of BOR is Just be relax, bro! It is not too late.
(DCT2/C1/F/14). Here, the respondents was tried to express his/her advice to
the hearer not to be emotional when face the bad condition. The last is OR
It’s your fault…why you don’t go to college by bus? (DCT2/C2/M/20). It
was as kind of rhetorical question which is not needs an answer and it was
indicated as angry quotation.
Prastiwi (2013) found BOR was politeness strategy of complaint
utterances mostly used by participants in familiar-equal. But the writer found
PP was politeness strategy of complaint responses strategies mostly used by
participants in all DCT scenarios 45.4%. It might be that the respondents
wanted to make the hearer to be respected, calm, and more friendly with the
speaker. In the second place, there was NP as 35.1%. Astika (2013) stated
that the respondents used NP might be that it was easy to use and respondents
can learn it from mother tongue. In the third place, there was BOR as 15, 0%.
In the last position, there was OR as 4, 4%. The researcher found that positive
politeness used mostly in DCT 3, but the least PP used by the participants in
DCT 8. And mostly it was found as PP no 13 (ask, give reason). As what
7
Wijayanto (2013) stated that asking for reason was the strategy of positive
politeness was frequently used by the participants.
In this study, the writer also found new sub category of acceptance of
responsibility namely ‘agreement’.The reason to adding ‘agreement’ strategy
in this study because of there was no strategy suitable with the data produce
by the participants from main strategy although sub-strategy itself. For
example in DCT 4; Ok! (DCT4/C2/F/17), Yes of course! (DCT4/C2/M/17)
the example showed that the word “Ok” and Yes of course” as kind of
agreement utterance. In this case, the respondents agree to doing what the
hearer was complained in which to turn off the music volume. From, nine
DCTs agreement strategy only found in DCT 4, DCT 7 and DCT 9.
The used of complaint responses strategy between male and female
were more various. in this section, explanation or account mostly used by
male participant in DCT 6, that is male 25 respondents and female 17
respondents, both of them mostly used by male and female than other
strategy. While the least was promise of forbearance, there were only 2 male
respondents and 8 female respondents used from all the researcher
participants. In addition, the other strategies also used by female and male
respondents, those are emotional exclamation (female 4.2%, male 5.0%),
offer of repair (female 6.0%, male 5.7%), concern to the hearer (female 0.7%,
male 1.1%), refusing responsibility (female 2.8%, male 3.8%), expression of
appeal (female 5.0%, male 4.6%), acceptance responsibility (female 6.0%,
male 6.3%) and the last is IFIDs (female 11.0%, male 12.5%).
The writer found significant different number of strategy between
male and female in complaint 1 and complaint 2 in same DCT scenarios.
Blum-Kulka (2006) states ‘there are a number of different factors which
affect the Ss decision to apologize in order to further restore the H’s face,
even at high cost to S’s face. These factors is the degree of violation or the
seriousness of the offence, as perceived by S.’ The writer found unique
phenomenon in the data, such as first; in complaint 1 the participants used
one kind of complaint responses strategy as the highest frequency, but in
8
complaint 2 as the least frequency and the contrary of it. Second, both of
complaints responses strategies as the highest strategy frequency but have
different number of frequency between male and female. Blum-Kulka and
Olshtain (2006) stated that ‘on the individual level, some people tent to
apologize more than others.’ For example: In DCT 3 complaint 2: “Why you
forget takes money in the bank?”, ‘IFIDs’ strategy was rarely used by the
participants to response of complaint 23%. But in complaint 1: “When will I
pay tuition fee?” mostly the respondents used this strategy 8%. Both of them
male respondents have high frequency than female respondents. From the
phenomenon above the writer also found the other factors affected the
different number of frequency between male and female is the language used
of complaint could influence the use of complaint responses strategies by the
participant. Eslami and Rasekh (2004) stated that expressing of complaint is
one of the essential functions of language; however, reacting appropriately to
complaint seems to be even more crucial as it is an important factor in
successful communication and maintaining social relationships.
In this study also found that there are more female respondents choose
opting out strategies than male respondents. It means that more female
refuse to take responsibilities that male. It was related with Fitriani (2010)
research that it is a contradictory fact to the previous theory language and
gender, which stated that women are more polite than men because of their
social responsibility in their community.
D. Conclussion
According to research findings and discussion above, the writer found
the complaint responses strategy, politeness strategy of complaint responses
and different gender induce different used of complaint responses strategy by
Indonesian EFL learners in Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. The
complaint responses strategy used by the respondents include each subcategory are IFIDs (An expression of regret, An offer of apology, A request
for forgiveness), explanation or account, acceptance of responsibility
9
(Explicit self-blame, Lack of intent, Expression of self-deficiency, Admission
of fact), expression of appeal (Appeal to understanding, Appeal to Leniency,
Appeal to Self-control), refusing responsibility (Denial of responsibility,
Blame the hearer), concern to the hearer, promise to forbearance, offer of
repair and emotional exclamation. The most dominant complaint response
strategy is explanation or account.
The politeness strategy of complaint responses used by Indonesian
EFL learners is positive politeness, negative politeness, bald on record and
off record. The most dominant intention of this study is positive politeness.
The writer also classified politeness strategy in type of each strategy those are
PP 1 (2. 8%), PP 3 (0,6%), PP 4 (15.7%), PP 6 (11. 1%), PP 7 (0, 9%), PP 8
(0, 6%0, PP 9 90, 3%), PP 10 ( 23, 5%), PP 11 (0,6%), PP 12 (0, 3%), PP 13
(41, 7%), PP 14 (1, 5%), and PP 15 (0, 3%). And the frequency of NP those
are NP 1 (2, 1%), NP 3 (8, 3%) and NP 6 (89, 6%). The dominant used is PP
no 13 in positive politeness while in negative politeness is NP no 6. Then, in
different gender mostly between male and female used explanation or account
strategy. In this case, female respondents have the highest frequency than
male. And the least is promise of forbearance strategy, female respondent also
has the highest percentage than male.
10
BIBLIOGRAFY
Astika, Dheftya Cahya. 2013. The Influence of Social Distance, Status, and
Gender on the Complaint Strategies by Indonesian EFL Learners.
Unpublished Undergraduate thesis, English Depatment, FKIP University
Muhammadiyah Surakarta. Surakarta.
Austin, JL. 1989. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Azargoon, Maryam. 2012. On Apology Speech Act Realization Patterns in
Persian and English. Tarbiat Modarres University.
Azarmi, Akram. 2012. The Pragmatics of Iranian EFL Learners in Using Face
Keeping Strategies in Reaction to Complaints at Two Different Levels.
Bostan: Islamic Azad University.
Boxer, Diana. 1993. Complaint as Positive Strategies: What the Learner Needs to
Know. TESOL., Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Surnmer, 1993), pp. 277-299.
Blum-Kulka, S., Houses, J., & Kasper, G. 1989. Crosscultural pragmatic:
Request and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. Cambridge University Press.
Eslami, Zohreh and Rasekh. 2004. Face-keeping Strategies in Reaction to
Complaints English and Persian. John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Fitriani, Nani. 2010. Apology Strategies: Are Women’s Different from Men’s?.
Perbanas Institute English: Laboratory Unit.
Frescura, M, 1995. Face orientation in reacting to accusatory complaints; Italian
L1, English L1 and Italian as a community language. Pragmatics and
Language Learning, 6, 65-83.
Herbert, Robert K. 1990. Sex-Based differences in Compliment Behavior.
Language and Society, 19(2): 201-224.
Holmes, Janet. 2001. A corpus-based view of Gender in New Zealand English. In
Gender Across Languages. The Linguistics Representation of Women and
Men, Vol. 1, ed. By Marlis Hellinger and Hadumod Bussman, 115-136.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Istifci, Ilknur. 2009. The Use of Apologies by EFL Learners. An unpublished
M.A. Thesis. Eskisehir: Anadolu University. SBE.
11
Johson, Fiona. 2006. Agreement and Disagreement: A Cross-Cultural
Comparison. Birkbeck: University of London.
Kasper, G., & Rose. K. R. 2002. Pragmatic development in a second language.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Kasper, G., & Roever. 2005. Pragmatics in Second Language Learning. In E.
Hinkel (Ed.). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and
Learning (PP. 317-324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kazlova. 2004. Can you Complaint? Cross-Cultural Comparison of Indirect
Complaints in Russian and American English. Georgis State University.
Khalifah, Amalia. 2013. Analysis of Complaint Speech Act in The Help Movie by
Tate Taylor. University Muhammadiyah Surakarta.
Laforest, Marty. 2008. Complaining in front of a witness: Aspects of blaming
others fortheir behavior in multi-party family interactions. Elsevier B. V.
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row
Leech, Geofrey. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen, C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized
Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maltz, D. & R. Borker. 1982. Acultural Approach to male-female
Miscommunication. In J.J. Gumperz (ed.). Language and Social Identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge Universitty Press.
Mills, S. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mirzaen & Roohani. 2012. Exploring Pragmalinguistic and Sociopragmatic
Variability in Speech Act Production of L2 Learners and Native Speakers.
The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 4 (3), pp. 79-102.
Moleong, Lexy J. 1991. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT Remadja
Rosdakarya.
Moros, Marlyna. 2007. The Social Functions of Complaints in a Malay Speech
Community.
Peceei, J.S.1999.Pragmatics. London: Roudledge.
12
Reza, Anani Sarab, et. Al. 2012. TELLSI 10 Conference proceedings: The 10th
International TELLSI Conference. Shahid Beheshti University.
Romaine, S. 1994. Language in Society. Oxford.
Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G (Eds.). 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching.
Cambridge University Press.
Sukyadi, Didi. 2011. Complaining in EFL Learners: Differences of Realization
between Men and Women. Indonesian University of Education.
Tanck, Sharly. 2003. Speech Act Sets of Refusal and Complaint: A Comparison of
Native and Non-Native.
Thorne, S. 1997. Mastering Advanced English Language. Macmillan.
Traverso, Ve’ronique. 2008. The Dilemmas of Thirty-Party Complaints in
Conversation between Friends.
Trennchs, Mireia. 2007. Complaining in Catanal, Complaining in English: A
Comparative Study of Native and EFL Speakers. Barcelona: Universitat
Pompeu Fabra.
Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interanguage Pragmatics Request, Complaints and
Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wardhaugh. 1992. An Introsuction to Sociolinguistcs. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
LTD.
Watts, R. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: CAMBRIDGE University Press.
Wardhaugh, R. 1993. Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell LTD.
Wijayanto, Agus, et. al. 2012. Intelanguage Pragmatics Complaint by Indonesian
Learners of English.
Wijayanto, Agus, et. Al. 2013. Politeness in Interlanguage Pragmatics of
Complaints by Indonesian Learners of English.
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. New York: Oxfort University Press.
Yule, George. 2006. The Study of language in Third Edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zohreh, Kasalan. 2012. Iranian EFL Learners’ Realization of Complaints in
America English. Journal of Language Studies, Vol 12 (2).
13
EFL LEARNERS
PUBLICATION ARTICLE
Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for Getting Bachelor Degree of Education
in Department of English Education
Proposed by:
ENDANG SULASTRI
A 320100066
SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
2014
COMPLAINT RESPONSES USED BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS
by
Department of English Education, A320100066
Email: endangsulastri9@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
ENDANG SULASTRI. A320100066. COMPLAINT RESPONSES USED BY
INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS. 2014
This research aims to describe the use of complaint responses strategies,
the use of politeness strategies in complaint responses and different gender induce
the use of complaint responses strategy by Indonesian EFL learners in
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. The study uses descriptive qualitative
research in which the research participants were forty Indonesian EFL learners at
seventh semester at English education department, Muhammadiyah University of
Surakarta. The data were spoken utterances of complaint response strategies
elicited through oral DCT (Discourse Completion Tasks) scenarios. The subject
consists of twenty male and twenty female participants. The data of complaint
responses strategy were analyzed by code schema in Eslami and Rasekh (2004)
also added by Brown and Levinson (1987) theory as the type of politeness
strategy. The research findings showed that Indonesian EFL learners’ strategies of
complaint responses have tendency of IFIDs 4.4% (based on DCT 8), of
explanation or account 5.8% (based on DCT 6), of acceptance responsibility
2.9% (based on DCT 2), of expression of appeal 2.1% (based on DCT 3), of
refusing responsibility 2.4% (based on DCT 4), of concern to the hearer (based on
DCT 6), of offer of repair 2.1% (based on DCT 1), of promise of forbearance
0.8% (based on DCT 2) and emotional exclamation 2.1% (based on DCT 4 and
DCT 7). As for politeness, Indonesian EFL learners have tendency of PP 5.3%
(based on DCT 1), of PP 5.8% (based on DCT 2), of PP 1 7.9% (based on DCT
3), of NP 5.3% (based on DCT 4), of PP 5.4% (based on DCT 5), of PP 6.3%
(based on DCT 6), of PP 5.8% (based on DCT 7), of NP 5.6 % (based on DCT 8)
and of NP 4.7% (based on DCT 9). In the last as different genders of Indonesian
EFL learners induce different use of complaint response strategies have tendency
of explanation or account (female 13.3%, male 10.8%), emotional exclamation
(female 4.2%, male 5.0%), of offer of repair (female 6.0%, male 5.7%), concern
to the hearer (female 0.7%, male 1.1%), of refusing responsibility (female 2.8%,
male 3.8%), of expression of appeal (female 5.0%, male 4.6%), of acceptance
responsibility (female 6.0%, male 6.3%) and of IFIDs (female 11.0%, male
12.5%).
Keywords: pragmatics, speech act, complaint responses strategy, politeness
1
A. Introduction
Interpersonal interactions between speaker and hearer are occurring in
daily activity and occasions involving many kinds of speech acts in which
complaint is one of them. According to Trosborg (1995) complaint is a kind
of speech act especially illocutionary act in which people express their
negative feeling. In the speech act of complaint, a speaker expresses
displeasure or annoyance as a reaction to past or ongoing action. According to
Wierzbicka (in Eslami and Rasekh (2004: 180)), complaint is verbal, fully
intentional and indicates “something bad happened” to the speaker.
In general study, complaint is one of object in which many researchers
expand this study on many perspectives and focuses. Iran, Azarmi (2012)
investigated the ability of the upper intermediate and the intermediate learners
in keeping face in different complaint situations. In Barcelona, Trench (1995)
studied complaint in Catalan and in English. In France, Traverso (2008)
investigated third-party complaints in ordinary conversation between friends.
In Florida, Boxer (1993) analyzed indirect complaint between Japanese and
English speaking peers. In Indonesian, Wijayanto et. al(2012) analyzed interlanguage pragmatics of complaint by Indonesian learners of English. The
previous studies about complaint indicated that complaint was intrinsically
face threatening act. Nevertheless responses to complaint have been under
studied.
For that reason, the current research to continue the previous research
which particularly studies the responses to complaint strategies applying
pragmatic approach in Indonesia. The only research which discussed
complaint responses strategies was that of Eslami and Rasekh (2004) entitled
Face-keeping strategies in reaction to complaints. This present study is also to
develop their research in Indonesian EFL learning context. According to
Frescura (in Eslami and Rasekh (2004)) shows:
Reacting to complaints appropriately is one of the functions of
the language that is remedial in nature. If the complainer is
2
considered by the complainee to have the right to complain, then
the most frequent verbal strategy used to react to the complaint
is to apologize for the offense committed. Hence reacting to
complaints is performed by acceptance of the offence committed
and apologizing or denying the accusation.
The following is an example of a complaint response taken from
Eslami & Rasekh study:
Situation: forgot a meeting a friend for second time with the same
person.
Complainer: “I waited for you more than an hour! What
happened?”
Responses (Persian speakers):
“Oh, my Gosh, Mr. We became ashamed again, to
your soul, I don’t know at all why this happened.
Mr., I am ashamed, the pressure of life has not left
any attention for me! I forgot.”
Responses (American English speaker):
“Oh, my gosh! I’m so sorry. I completely forgot. Can
we schedule another time to meet?”
This example showed that Persian speaker preferred more direct strategies for
performing request speech acts compared to American subjects in the study.
Persian speakers used the formulate ‘expression of appeal,’ (for
understanding, leniency, and self control). While American used ‘I’m sorry’ it
was expression of regret (IFIDs).
The writer would analyze the complaint responses into
classification of nine strategies that certainly contain of politeness strategies
and the effect of different gender on complaint responses by English learners.
The writer conducted the research paper entitled “Complaint Responses Used
By Indonesian EFL Learners in Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta”.
The writer would to analyze the complaint response strategies that certainly
contain of politeness strategies and the effect of different gender on complaint
responses by English learners. The writer conducted the research paper
3
entitled “Complaint Responses Used By Indonesian EFL Learners in
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta”.
B. Research Methods
This research used a descriptive qualitative because the writer
describes complaint responses strategy used by Indonesian EFL students.
This research also describes the use of politeness strategy in complaint
responses and different genders of Indonesian EFL learners induce different
use of complaint response strategies. The research used code schema by
Cohen and Olshtain’s in Eslami and Rasekh (2004) and Brown & Levinson
(1987).
The data utterances of complaint strategies obtained through the nine
DCT scenarios were from the participants; each scenario had two complaints,
those are direct and indirect. The object of the research were complaint
responses utterance that viewed from the politeness strategies and gender in
the complaints responses which done by the participants or subjects of this
research. And the data sources were taken from seventh course degree of
Indonesian EFL learners in Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
In analyzing data, the writer uses descriptive technique as follow: (1)
Describing the difference of complaint responses strategies used by
Indonesian EFL learners: based on CCSARP theory in (Eslami & Rasekh:
2004). (2) Describing the difference of complaint responses strategies used by
Indonesian EFL learners in different gender, the writer uses theory (male and
female): based on Trosborg’s theory (Wijayanto: 2011) (by Wijayanto
(2011)). (3) Describing politeness strategies used in complaint responses
based on Brown and Levinson theory (1987).
C. Research Findings and Discussion
In this finding, the entire coding schema used in Eslami and Rasekh
(2004) found in the data analysis among nine strategies found five strategy
included in each DCT and each sub-category also was found in this analysis.
4
The writer also found politeness strategy of complaint responses and different
gender induce the used of complaint responses strategy. The complaint
responses strategy mostly used by the respondents was explanation or account
25%. In addition the others strategies also found those are emotional
exclamation (8.5%), promise of forbearance (1.0%), offer of repair (11.3%),
concern to the hearer (1%), refusing responsibility (6.8%), expression of
appeal (9.8%), acceptance responsibility (12.8%), account or account
(25.3%), and IFIDs (23%). In this case, there were strategies found
completely in all DCT, such as emotional exclamation, expression of appeal,
acceptance responsibility, explanation or account and IFIDs. Five strategies
mentioned above always found in nine DCTs. The writer also found new
strategy in this study namely ‘agreement’. It was as kind of sub-strategy of
acceptance responsibly. Previously, there were seven sub-strategies in
acceptance responsibility (explicit self-blame, lack of intent, Expression of
self-deficiency, Expression of embarrassment, Self-dispraise, Justify hearer
and Admission of fact. Then, agreement strategy here is only found in DCT 4,
DCT 7 and DCT 9.
The writer concluded that positive politeness as the highest frequency
than the other politeness strategies used by the participants. While off- record
as the lowest frequency. All of DCTs contain of PP, and then DCT 3 has the
highest of PP findings than others DCT. Whereas OR was not found in DCT
3 and DCT 7. The following are the total frequency of politeness strategy .i.e.
PP (45.4%), NP(35.1%), BOR (15%) and OR (4.4%). Then the different
gender induce different used of complaint responses influence by the used of
complaint statement. In this section, the writer found emotional exclamation
(female 4.2%, male 5.0%), offer of repair (female 6.0%, male 5.7%), concern
to the hearer (female 0.7%, male 1.1%), refusing responsibility (female 2.8%,
male 3.8%), expression of appeal (female 5.0%, male 4.6%), acceptance
responsibility (female 6.0%, male 6.3%) and the last is IFIDs (female 11.0%,
male 12.5%).
5
In discussion, the example of explanation or account which is as the
highest strategy used by the participants are “Because I would accompany
your mother, Son. Because yah…she want to buy something…something
in Supermarket. It needs a long time when we went home the bank is
closed”. (DCT3/C2/M/15). The word “because” always indicated that the
respondent give reason to the hearer. But there was also kind of data include
as explanation or account but there was no the word “because” there, those
are “I’m very busy. I have an extracurricular. (DCT2/C1/M/06) this
utterance was explicitly giving account or explanation why the respondents
cannot fulfill the hearer wants. The example of IFIDs is Sorry, if you feel
disturb with my music. (DCT4/C1/F/05). The word “sorry” always showed
as expression of regret. The respondents was directly showing mistake. The
utterance which is shows the version of acceptance to responsibility is I’m
sorry it is my terrible mistake. (DCT5/C1/M/060 the word “it is my terrible
mistake” indicated that the respondents showing his/her mistake by doing
self-blame like that. While the example of expression of appeal is I hope you
will understand my situation Boss…Sorry. (DCT5/C1/M/20) the
respondent tried to persuade in order the Boss can decrease of the offence by
uttering ‘I hope you will understand”. The word “I don’t knew it” in the
example of refusing responsibility Sorry Sir. I don’t knew it.
(DCT5/C2/F/09) indicated that the respondent assumed did not know
anything and avoiding to responsible the mistake. Then the example of
promise of forbearance is I promise I never do it again. (DCT2/C1/F/10) in
this case, the respondents promise not to repeat the mistake anymore. The
varion also more found in this study because to compensate the hearer
damage, namely offer of repair I am sorry; I broke your lens camera. I am so
sorry. I promise I will repair it. If it can’t be repaired. I will change it with
new ones. (DCT1/C2/F/04) The respondents responsible to compensate
about what she/he was done to the hearer. The example of emotional
exclamation is. Oh my God…I forget. (DCT2/C1/F/09) The word “Oh or
Oh my God” show surprise expression by the participants. And the last is
6
concern to the hearer Did you check score from the lecturer?
(DCT9/C1/M/02) the respondent was asking the hearer information in which
reminder her/him about the score. It indicated that the speaker concern to the
hearer about her/his score actually.
In complaint response found politeness strategy to express what kind
of politeness used the participant mostly. Here, the example of PP is I am
sorry because that is an accident and I have no plan for it. Ok I will buy
a new camera for you same as yours. (DCT1/C1/M/01) this example
included as PP no 13 which is by uttering the word “because” the
respondents give reasoning for the hearer about the accident. Then the
example of NP is I am sorry. Your camera is broke. (DCT1/C2/F/09) By
uttering “I’m sorry”, the respondents directly acknowledge the speaker’s
discomfort and potential restriction. The others politeness strategy also found
such as the example of BOR is Just be relax, bro! It is not too late.
(DCT2/C1/F/14). Here, the respondents was tried to express his/her advice to
the hearer not to be emotional when face the bad condition. The last is OR
It’s your fault…why you don’t go to college by bus? (DCT2/C2/M/20). It
was as kind of rhetorical question which is not needs an answer and it was
indicated as angry quotation.
Prastiwi (2013) found BOR was politeness strategy of complaint
utterances mostly used by participants in familiar-equal. But the writer found
PP was politeness strategy of complaint responses strategies mostly used by
participants in all DCT scenarios 45.4%. It might be that the respondents
wanted to make the hearer to be respected, calm, and more friendly with the
speaker. In the second place, there was NP as 35.1%. Astika (2013) stated
that the respondents used NP might be that it was easy to use and respondents
can learn it from mother tongue. In the third place, there was BOR as 15, 0%.
In the last position, there was OR as 4, 4%. The researcher found that positive
politeness used mostly in DCT 3, but the least PP used by the participants in
DCT 8. And mostly it was found as PP no 13 (ask, give reason). As what
7
Wijayanto (2013) stated that asking for reason was the strategy of positive
politeness was frequently used by the participants.
In this study, the writer also found new sub category of acceptance of
responsibility namely ‘agreement’.The reason to adding ‘agreement’ strategy
in this study because of there was no strategy suitable with the data produce
by the participants from main strategy although sub-strategy itself. For
example in DCT 4; Ok! (DCT4/C2/F/17), Yes of course! (DCT4/C2/M/17)
the example showed that the word “Ok” and Yes of course” as kind of
agreement utterance. In this case, the respondents agree to doing what the
hearer was complained in which to turn off the music volume. From, nine
DCTs agreement strategy only found in DCT 4, DCT 7 and DCT 9.
The used of complaint responses strategy between male and female
were more various. in this section, explanation or account mostly used by
male participant in DCT 6, that is male 25 respondents and female 17
respondents, both of them mostly used by male and female than other
strategy. While the least was promise of forbearance, there were only 2 male
respondents and 8 female respondents used from all the researcher
participants. In addition, the other strategies also used by female and male
respondents, those are emotional exclamation (female 4.2%, male 5.0%),
offer of repair (female 6.0%, male 5.7%), concern to the hearer (female 0.7%,
male 1.1%), refusing responsibility (female 2.8%, male 3.8%), expression of
appeal (female 5.0%, male 4.6%), acceptance responsibility (female 6.0%,
male 6.3%) and the last is IFIDs (female 11.0%, male 12.5%).
The writer found significant different number of strategy between
male and female in complaint 1 and complaint 2 in same DCT scenarios.
Blum-Kulka (2006) states ‘there are a number of different factors which
affect the Ss decision to apologize in order to further restore the H’s face,
even at high cost to S’s face. These factors is the degree of violation or the
seriousness of the offence, as perceived by S.’ The writer found unique
phenomenon in the data, such as first; in complaint 1 the participants used
one kind of complaint responses strategy as the highest frequency, but in
8
complaint 2 as the least frequency and the contrary of it. Second, both of
complaints responses strategies as the highest strategy frequency but have
different number of frequency between male and female. Blum-Kulka and
Olshtain (2006) stated that ‘on the individual level, some people tent to
apologize more than others.’ For example: In DCT 3 complaint 2: “Why you
forget takes money in the bank?”, ‘IFIDs’ strategy was rarely used by the
participants to response of complaint 23%. But in complaint 1: “When will I
pay tuition fee?” mostly the respondents used this strategy 8%. Both of them
male respondents have high frequency than female respondents. From the
phenomenon above the writer also found the other factors affected the
different number of frequency between male and female is the language used
of complaint could influence the use of complaint responses strategies by the
participant. Eslami and Rasekh (2004) stated that expressing of complaint is
one of the essential functions of language; however, reacting appropriately to
complaint seems to be even more crucial as it is an important factor in
successful communication and maintaining social relationships.
In this study also found that there are more female respondents choose
opting out strategies than male respondents. It means that more female
refuse to take responsibilities that male. It was related with Fitriani (2010)
research that it is a contradictory fact to the previous theory language and
gender, which stated that women are more polite than men because of their
social responsibility in their community.
D. Conclussion
According to research findings and discussion above, the writer found
the complaint responses strategy, politeness strategy of complaint responses
and different gender induce different used of complaint responses strategy by
Indonesian EFL learners in Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. The
complaint responses strategy used by the respondents include each subcategory are IFIDs (An expression of regret, An offer of apology, A request
for forgiveness), explanation or account, acceptance of responsibility
9
(Explicit self-blame, Lack of intent, Expression of self-deficiency, Admission
of fact), expression of appeal (Appeal to understanding, Appeal to Leniency,
Appeal to Self-control), refusing responsibility (Denial of responsibility,
Blame the hearer), concern to the hearer, promise to forbearance, offer of
repair and emotional exclamation. The most dominant complaint response
strategy is explanation or account.
The politeness strategy of complaint responses used by Indonesian
EFL learners is positive politeness, negative politeness, bald on record and
off record. The most dominant intention of this study is positive politeness.
The writer also classified politeness strategy in type of each strategy those are
PP 1 (2. 8%), PP 3 (0,6%), PP 4 (15.7%), PP 6 (11. 1%), PP 7 (0, 9%), PP 8
(0, 6%0, PP 9 90, 3%), PP 10 ( 23, 5%), PP 11 (0,6%), PP 12 (0, 3%), PP 13
(41, 7%), PP 14 (1, 5%), and PP 15 (0, 3%). And the frequency of NP those
are NP 1 (2, 1%), NP 3 (8, 3%) and NP 6 (89, 6%). The dominant used is PP
no 13 in positive politeness while in negative politeness is NP no 6. Then, in
different gender mostly between male and female used explanation or account
strategy. In this case, female respondents have the highest frequency than
male. And the least is promise of forbearance strategy, female respondent also
has the highest percentage than male.
10
BIBLIOGRAFY
Astika, Dheftya Cahya. 2013. The Influence of Social Distance, Status, and
Gender on the Complaint Strategies by Indonesian EFL Learners.
Unpublished Undergraduate thesis, English Depatment, FKIP University
Muhammadiyah Surakarta. Surakarta.
Austin, JL. 1989. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Azargoon, Maryam. 2012. On Apology Speech Act Realization Patterns in
Persian and English. Tarbiat Modarres University.
Azarmi, Akram. 2012. The Pragmatics of Iranian EFL Learners in Using Face
Keeping Strategies in Reaction to Complaints at Two Different Levels.
Bostan: Islamic Azad University.
Boxer, Diana. 1993. Complaint as Positive Strategies: What the Learner Needs to
Know. TESOL., Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Surnmer, 1993), pp. 277-299.
Blum-Kulka, S., Houses, J., & Kasper, G. 1989. Crosscultural pragmatic:
Request and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. Cambridge University Press.
Eslami, Zohreh and Rasekh. 2004. Face-keeping Strategies in Reaction to
Complaints English and Persian. John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Fitriani, Nani. 2010. Apology Strategies: Are Women’s Different from Men’s?.
Perbanas Institute English: Laboratory Unit.
Frescura, M, 1995. Face orientation in reacting to accusatory complaints; Italian
L1, English L1 and Italian as a community language. Pragmatics and
Language Learning, 6, 65-83.
Herbert, Robert K. 1990. Sex-Based differences in Compliment Behavior.
Language and Society, 19(2): 201-224.
Holmes, Janet. 2001. A corpus-based view of Gender in New Zealand English. In
Gender Across Languages. The Linguistics Representation of Women and
Men, Vol. 1, ed. By Marlis Hellinger and Hadumod Bussman, 115-136.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Istifci, Ilknur. 2009. The Use of Apologies by EFL Learners. An unpublished
M.A. Thesis. Eskisehir: Anadolu University. SBE.
11
Johson, Fiona. 2006. Agreement and Disagreement: A Cross-Cultural
Comparison. Birkbeck: University of London.
Kasper, G., & Rose. K. R. 2002. Pragmatic development in a second language.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Kasper, G., & Roever. 2005. Pragmatics in Second Language Learning. In E.
Hinkel (Ed.). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and
Learning (PP. 317-324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kazlova. 2004. Can you Complaint? Cross-Cultural Comparison of Indirect
Complaints in Russian and American English. Georgis State University.
Khalifah, Amalia. 2013. Analysis of Complaint Speech Act in The Help Movie by
Tate Taylor. University Muhammadiyah Surakarta.
Laforest, Marty. 2008. Complaining in front of a witness: Aspects of blaming
others fortheir behavior in multi-party family interactions. Elsevier B. V.
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row
Leech, Geofrey. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen, C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized
Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maltz, D. & R. Borker. 1982. Acultural Approach to male-female
Miscommunication. In J.J. Gumperz (ed.). Language and Social Identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge Universitty Press.
Mills, S. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mirzaen & Roohani. 2012. Exploring Pragmalinguistic and Sociopragmatic
Variability in Speech Act Production of L2 Learners and Native Speakers.
The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 4 (3), pp. 79-102.
Moleong, Lexy J. 1991. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT Remadja
Rosdakarya.
Moros, Marlyna. 2007. The Social Functions of Complaints in a Malay Speech
Community.
Peceei, J.S.1999.Pragmatics. London: Roudledge.
12
Reza, Anani Sarab, et. Al. 2012. TELLSI 10 Conference proceedings: The 10th
International TELLSI Conference. Shahid Beheshti University.
Romaine, S. 1994. Language in Society. Oxford.
Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G (Eds.). 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching.
Cambridge University Press.
Sukyadi, Didi. 2011. Complaining in EFL Learners: Differences of Realization
between Men and Women. Indonesian University of Education.
Tanck, Sharly. 2003. Speech Act Sets of Refusal and Complaint: A Comparison of
Native and Non-Native.
Thorne, S. 1997. Mastering Advanced English Language. Macmillan.
Traverso, Ve’ronique. 2008. The Dilemmas of Thirty-Party Complaints in
Conversation between Friends.
Trennchs, Mireia. 2007. Complaining in Catanal, Complaining in English: A
Comparative Study of Native and EFL Speakers. Barcelona: Universitat
Pompeu Fabra.
Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interanguage Pragmatics Request, Complaints and
Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wardhaugh. 1992. An Introsuction to Sociolinguistcs. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
LTD.
Watts, R. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: CAMBRIDGE University Press.
Wardhaugh, R. 1993. Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell LTD.
Wijayanto, Agus, et. al. 2012. Intelanguage Pragmatics Complaint by Indonesian
Learners of English.
Wijayanto, Agus, et. Al. 2013. Politeness in Interlanguage Pragmatics of
Complaints by Indonesian Learners of English.
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. New York: Oxfort University Press.
Yule, George. 2006. The Study of language in Third Edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zohreh, Kasalan. 2012. Iranian EFL Learners’ Realization of Complaints in
America English. Journal of Language Studies, Vol 12 (2).
13