COMPLAINT STRATEGIES USED BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS IN MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA Complaint Strategies Used By Indonesian EFL Learners In Muhammadiyah University Of Surakarta Viewed From Social Distance, Status, And Gender.

COMPLAINT STRATEGIES USED BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS
IN MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
VIEWED FROM SOCIAL DISTANCE, STATUS, AND GENDER

PUBLICATION ARTICLE

Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for Getting Bachelor Degree of Education
in English Department

Proposed by :
DHEFTYA CAHYA ASTIKA
A 320 090 271

SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
2013

COMPLAINT STRATEGIES USED BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS IN
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
VIEWED FROM SOCIAL DISTANCE, STATUS, AND GENDER

Dheftya Cahya Astika
(A320090271)
Agus Wijayanto,Ph.D
Dra. Malikatul Laila, M.Hum

Department of English Education, School of Teacher Training and Education
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta
e-mail: Dheftyacahya@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This research describes the differentiated of complaint strategies use in complaint relation of
distance, status (relative power), and gender by Indonesian EFL learners in Muhammadiyah
University of Surakarta. This constituted descriptive research in which the research
participants of this research were fifty the first semester of Indonesian EFL learners at
English department in Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. The data were on the spoken
utterance form, of complaint strategies obtained through oral DCT (Discourse Completion
Task) scenarios. The subjects of the research were taken using proportional random
sampling technique consisting twenty five male and twenty five female EFL partisipants. The
writer analyzed the data of complaint strategies basd on Trosborg (1995). The writer also
conected the research with sociopragmatics theory about the relation of complaint strategies
with distance, status (relative power), and gender. The result findings showed that there are

any differences in the use of complaint strategies based on different status (relative power),
distance, and gender.
Keyword: Complaint, Sociopragmatics
A. Introduction
Complaint is one realization of expressive speech act. “This category includes
moral judgments which express the speaker’s approval as well as disapproval of the
behavior mentioned in judgment but here we shall be concerned almost invariably
with the act of moral censure of blame involved in the communicative act of
complaining” (Trosborg, 1995: 12). There are many researches about complaint.
Many researchers expand this study on many focuses. First, Interlanguage Pragmatics
of Complaint by Indonesian Learners of English by Wijayanto et. al (2012). This
research is for identifying and formulating the development of pragmalinguistics and
sociolinguistics. There are so many previous studies about complaint which have not
been mentioned. With the number of the researchers who examined complaint it
shows that complaint is an interesting topic which should be discussed.

For that reason, the writer is interested to conduct further studies about
complaint. Beside that complaint is one kind of speech act which is familiar,
encountered very often and used every day by people in their daily life. Because of
that the writer tries to study and extend the complaint strategies that people usually

used in their daily communication. This research will observe complaints used by
Indonesian ELF learners. The data of complaint will consider different social
distance, status and gender. It particularly focuses on the different of social distance,
status, and gender give effect to their complaint strategies.
B. Literature Review
1. Complaint strategies
Trosborg (1995: 311) stated A complaint is defined here as an illocutionary
act in which the speaker (the complainer) expresses his/her disapproval, negative
feeling etc. Towards the state of affairs described in the proposition (the
complainable) and for which he/she holds the hearer (the complainee)
responsible, either directly or in directly. A complaint is a “face-threatening act”
(cf. Brown- Levinson 1978: 19). As formulated by Place (1986: 28) “the act of
moral censure or blame is an act of social rejection- an act whereby the accuser
breaks ties of affection, mutual support and co-operation”(Trosborg, 1995: 312).
In Leech’s terminology, the complaint is a representative of the conflictive
function, which includes acts of threatening, accusing, cursing, and
reprimanding. These acts are by their very nature designed to cause offence and
they are therefore highly threatening to the social relationship between speaker
and hearer (Trosborg, 1995: 312).
2. Distance, status, and gender

According to Trosborg (1995: 38) aspects of social variation, as, for
example, the setting and the aim of the communication, the power relationship of
the participants, etc. are important in accounting for variation in speech act
realization. Trosborg (1995: 40) societies, or sub-cultures within societies, differ
in terms of what might be called “ethos”, i.e. “the affective quality of interaction
characteristic of members of society” (Brown – Levinson 1987: 243). The term
“ethos” is derived from Bateson (1958), but used by Brown – Levinson in a more
restricted sense, is “a label for the quality of interaction characterizing groups, or
social categories of persons, in a particular society” (Brown –Levinson, 1987:
243).

From that statement can be concluded that power or status affect speech
production. The world of the upper and middle groups is constructed in a stern
and cold architecture of social distance, asymmetry, and resentment of
impositions, while the world of the lower groups is built on social closeness,
symmetrical solidaritty, and reciprocity” (Trosborg, 1995: 42).
Distance is a symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference within
which speaker and addressee stand for the purpose of this act. It is based on an
assessment of the frequency of interaction and the kinds of material or nonmaterial good exchanged between speaker and addressee. An important part of the
assessment by distance will usually be measured of social distance based on stable

social attributes (Brown and Levinson, 1987:77).
Power or status is an asymmetric social dimension of relative power,
roughly in Weber‟ s sense. In general there are two sources of power, either of
which may be authorized or unauthorized – material control (over economic
distribution and physical force) and metaphysical control (over the actions of
others, by virtue of metaphysical forces subscribed to by those others). In most
cases an individual’s power is drawn from both these sources or is thought to
overlap them. The reflex of a great power differential is perhaps archetypal
difference‟ (Brown and Levinson, 1987:77).
Brown and Levinson (1987: 30) said in trying to understand the often very
elusive and subtle differences between language use of men and women, they
need to be crystal clear about exactly where and how the differences are supposed
to manifest themselves. For example, they need first to distinguish behaviour in
same-sex dyads and cross-sex dyads. They also need to distinguish effects due to
sex of speaker from those due to sex addressee.
C. Research method
In writing this research, the writer employs the descriptive research in
which to investigaed the used of complaint stategist viewed from different social
distance, status, and gender by Indonesian EFL learners of English departement,
in Muhammadiyah University of Surakata. Proporsional random sampling was

involved in this research. The data were in the form of complaint spoken
utterance. Elicited from nine DCT (Discourse Completion Tasks) scenarios (see
appendix). The data of complaint strategiest were analyzed based on Trosborg
(1995).

D. Findings
Annoyance was the most popular complaint strategy chosen by participants
of EFL learners in their head act of complaint strategist. Annoyance was one of
the strategies initiated by Trosborg (1995), the researcher found that strategy used
mostly in complaint relations (close – equal, close – lower, close – higher etc.)
and gender (male – female), for examples, Oh my God, why my camera is broke?
(01/FM/CE/11). Although Trosborg (1995) said that complaint was such of
threatening act, in this research found that several participants was forgive and
accept the situations. For examples, It’s ok girl ... no::: dosen’t matter.
(01/MM/CE/02), No problem Mother, because everyone exactly do mistake!
(03/MF/FH/25).
Requesting was mostly used in familiar – equal relation of complaint, by
male or female participants and at the same time became the head act of
complaint. Participants prefer to complain by requesting to the interlocutors who
familiar and had equal status with them. Such as:

(1) Turn off your-turn off radio please ::: (04/FM/FE/01)
(2) Exuse me Miss, can you minimize your music? Because it is distrub
me. (04/FF/FE/10)
(3) Can you set the volume lower? The volume lower? (04/MF/FE/02)
(4) Turn off your music! (04/MM/FE/11)
Disappointment usually appeared as head act in close – higher relation of
complaint, uttered by EFL learners. This strategy was used by male or female
participants. This result proved that EFL learners prefer to complain by uttered
disappointment expression. But in order to soften their disappointment,
participants expressed it in rhetorical question form. Such as:
(5) Why you forgets ... your promise dad? (03/FM/CH/14)
(6) Mom, are you forget ? (03/FF/CH/05)
(7) Oh Mom, why you forget this? I would pay my tuition fee fro this
month. (03/MF/CH/12)
(8) Why you forget to take my money in the bank? (03/MM/CH/16)
Rebuking were mostly chosen by EFL learners either male or female to
complain interlocutors who familiar but in the lower status of them. It’s proved
that participants often rebuked interlocutor in familiar – lower status to utter their

complaints. The form of rebuking mostly found in here were in rhetorical

question. Can be seen on:
(9) What did you do? why didn’t you finish? (05/FM/FL/12)
(10) How is it? Your assigment is not finish? How-how it can be?
(05/FF/FL/05)
(11) Why did not your complete you work? (05/MF/FL/11)
(12) What ayou doing? Your report because your report will the send.
(05/MM/FL/10)
Dissatisfied used to appear as head act on familiar – higher complaint.
Both male and female participants mostly expressed their complaints by showing
dissatisfied feeling to the collocutors was who familiar, but in higher status of
them. To soften their dissatisfied feeling, participants usually uttered their
complaint in rhetorical question, such as:
(13) I am sorry Sir, why my score can get score D? How it can be?
(06/FM/FH/05)
(14) Miss! Why my score D? (06/FF/FH/16)
(15) Excuse me mam, why my score is bad? beside that I have studied
maximally. (06/MF/FH/04)
(16) Mister, why myscore is bad? ... I always ... submit assigment ...
everyday! (06/MM/FH/22)
This research was not only found complaint strategies defined by Trosborg

(1995) in participants’ head act complaint but also found other complaint
strategies, such as forgiving, inquiring, asking for responsibility, disappointed,
admonishing, showing fault, dissatisfied, angering, unhappy, warning, requesting,
acceptance, criticizing, and reminding etc also chosen by the participants in their
complaint utterances. It proved that the head act strategy closed by participants
(EFL learners) in this research were more varieties. This was caused by DCT
scenario were more diverse. Each DCT scenario led to new strategies could be
seen from DCT 1 showed forgiving became head act of complaint, in DCT 2
found a new strategist such anger, acceptance appears in DCT 3, requesting in
DCT 4, commanding appears in DCT 5, admonishing in DCT 7, warning in DCT
8 etc. Moreover, the influence of the mother tongue was felt on every EFL
complaint utterance. These caused their English utterance of complaints,
resembled the complaints utterance of Indonesian and Javanese that were

translated into English. For examples, How can you forget? But-but you know I
want this motor! (02/FM/CL/04), Don’t ... don’t play music (0,4) loud!
(04/FM/FE/14). It’s also proved that EFL learners didn’t know how to use
English pragmalinguistically but they grammatically could be correct, other
example, It’s very nice my friend! Can you turn off of your music! I am very
uncomfortable for it. (04/FM/FE/09).

E. Discussion
There were several strategies used by the participants in expressing complaint.
The strategies also vary depending on the social distance, status and gender of the
complainers or complainees. There was strategy which is based on the Trosborg
theory such as annoyance. But, the writer also found a new strategy such requesting.
Besides that, the writer also found differences in frequency between male/female
complainer/complainee in the used of complaint strategies. It was also shown in the
result of Wijayanto et.al (2012) entitled Interlanguage Pragmatics Complaint by
Indonesian EFL Learners of English, that the learners mostly could use different
complaint strategies according to different social distance, status, and gender.
The results of this study indicated that the majority of complaints are in the
form of direct strategies. It occurred because the participants likely did not
understand the other complaint strategies. Other possibility was due to stereo type
that western people commonly usually used direct complaint. In close – equal
relation, participants mostly used annoyance strategy to complain interlocutor of an
equal status. Annoyance was one of Trosborg complaint strategist. The same thing
also occurred in close – lower relation. However, this phenomenon did not occur in
close – higher relation. In this relation, disappointment mostly took place as
complaint strategies. From that phenomenon, it could be concluded that social status
influenced participants in electing their strategies, this could be that complaining by

disappointment was more polite than annoyance. Although participants used
annoyance as the strategy, they phrased it in the form of rhetorical question, not
directly annoyance. This result was supported Trosborg (1995) sociopragmatics
theory. Trosborg said that “sociopragmatics involves an analysis of the use of speech
acts in relation to social situations, and the social functions of language seem to
motivate much linguistics detail.”
Whereas in supporting movement, participants used to start their complaint by
attention getter. Attention getter was used in almost every relation: in close – equal

relation, the attention getter expression frequently used were hey, guys, friend, sist,
bro etc. In close – lower relation: hey, brother and sister as the attention getter
expression. Mother, father, mom and dad frequently occurred in close – higher
relation. It showed that social distance influenced complaint strategies.
The researcher found some strategies of complaint in familiar relation. In
familiar – equal relation, the highest strategy was requesting. Participants who had
equal status with the interlocutor preferred to use request strategy in their complaint.
Whereas in familiar – lower, the strategy frequently used by the participants was
rebuking. This phenomenon also proved that social status influenced participant’s
strategist. People in higher status considered themselves as more powerful than those
in lower status. Rebuking also one of Trosborg’s complaint strategist. Familiar –
higher relation also showed similar tendency. In this relation, majority of participants
used request as complaint strategies.
Attention getter also served as the highest of supporting movement in all
familiar relation (equal, lower, and higher). In familiar – lower relation the
expressions of attention getter were hey bro, hey girl, hey lo brai etc. Whereas, in
familiar – lower, the expressions of attention – getter that frequently appeared were
miss, hey you, hey miss etc. The last in familiar – higher relation, the attention getter
expression were sir, mister, miss, mam etc.
Unfamiliar relation complaint included many types strategies. In all unfamiliar
relation (equal, lower, higher), the highest strategist of complaint was request. It was
proved that participants preferred to complain the unfamiliar interlocutors by uttering
request. Besides, attention getter the supporting movement that frequently occurred
in unfamiliar relation was apologizing. This occurred maybe because of the influence
of culture and their mother tongue. In Indonesian or Javanese context, apologizing is
commonly used to show politeness.
In close and higher status relation, harsh words such fuck, deaf, you have eyes
or not, go away etc were not found. It was very different from the complaint in lower
status, in which many harsh words such fuck, what the hell, deaf etc were often
found. Moreover in lower status relation, ordering or commanding were often found.
While in close and higher status relation, the complaint strategies frequently used by
EFL participants was acceptance. Especially, in higher status relation, acceptance
was frequently occurred. This kind of strategy may be influenced by Indonesian
especially Javanese culture. According to Indonesian culture especially Javanese

culture, child/young persons are not allow to complain their parents/ someone older.
This might influence the complaint in higher status relation.
In close and lower status relation, annoyance was frequently served as
complain strategies. Annoyance occurred in most complain of lower relation (close,
familiar, unfamiliar). It was different from those used in the higher relation in which
disappointment and acceptance were frequently used.
In close-lower relation, even though the most commonly strategy was
rebuking, but the complainers would accept that condition. The rebukes were also in
the form of questions, not in direct form. Although in familiar – lower relation
participants rebuked by questioning, they frequently used ordering/commanding.
While in close – lower, admonishing was frequently occurred. Worse phenomenon
occurred in unfamiliar – lower, in this relation, this research found many
ordering/commanding in direct form not in the forms. This suggested that distance
affected the complaint strategies.
The research also found that gender also affected the used of speech act. It was
approved by the differences of frequencies in complaint strategies among male and
female participants. It was found that female complainers were not necessarily more
polite than the male complainer. When interlocutors are in equal or lower status,
female participants often uttered harsh words such fuck, what the hell, deaf etc. This
result is supported Walters (1979) theory that sociopragmatic factors governing
speech performance, such as age, sex, relative status of the interlocutors and other
situational constraints affect in learner comprehension and production of utterances.
F. Conclusion
There were found some differences in the use of complaints strategies
influenced by differences of social distance between the complainers and
complainees. In close distance relation, the strategies that mostly used were
annoyance and disappointment. Annoyance was one of Trosborg (1995) complaint
strategist but disappointment was a new strategy. Other Trosborg strategist that
found in close distance relation were blaming and rebuking, but the frequency was
low. Whereas, the other new strategies that were found in close distance relation
were asking for responsibility, forgiving, inquiring, showing fault, admonishing,
unhappy, anger, warning, reminding, request, acceptance, and explaining. While in
familiar distance relation, the complaint strategists that were frequently used were
request, rebuke, and dissatisfaction. Annoyance was also found in familiar distance

relation but in low frequency. Rebuke was also Trosborg (1995) complaint strategist,
whereas request and dissatisfaction were new strategies. In this familiar distance
relation, the writer found annoyance and rebuke in which Trosborg (1995) complaint
strategist. New strategies were more often found in familiar distance relation, such
as anger, explaining, warning, inquiring, commanding, disappointment, reminding,
forgiving, criticizing, dissatisfaction, and convincing. In unfamiliar distance relation,
the strategy that frequently used was request. Trosborg (1995) complaint strategist
such as annoyance, rebuking, and blaming were also found in unfamiliar distance
relation but the frequency was not significant. New strategies that were found in
unfamiliar distance relation were admonishing, requesting, showing fault, warning,
reminding, inquiring, acceptance, threatening, prohibition, anger, commanding,
criticizing, and explaining. Besides, the differences of strategy use, also found
differences in the frequency of complaint strategist used.
There were also found differences complaint strategy used, influenced by
social status. In equal status relation were found annoyance and requesting as the
strategy that often used by participants. Besides annoyance, other Trosborg (1995)
complaint strategist that found in equal status relation was blaming and rebuke. The
new strategies also found in this relation such as admonishing, request, showing
fault, warning, reminding, inquiring, threatening, acceptance, prohibition, anger,
disappointment, asking for responsibility, and forgiving. In lower status relation, the
complaint strategies that frequently used were annoyance, rebuke, and requesting.
Trosborg (1995) complaint strategies that found in lower status relation were
annoyance, rebuke, hints, and blaming. Whereas the new strategies that were found
in this relation were admonishing, criticizing, inquiring, warning, request, anger,
forgiving, reminding, disappointment, commanding, and unhappy. While in higher
status relation the strategy that frequently used were disappointment, dissatisfaction,
and requesting. In the other hand, the result of equal and lower status relation,
annoyance was not the highest strategy. As before, the frequency of strategies use
was also different.
Gender also influenced complaint strategy participant. It showed by the
differences of frequencies in complaint strategies among male and female
participants. It was found that female complainers were not necessarily more polite
than the male complainer.

BILIOGRAPHY
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests
and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A crossculture study of
speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy.
In Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and Communication, 2-27.
London: Longman.
Cutting, Joan.2002. Pragmatics and Discoure.New York:Routledge.
Hudson, T. (2001). Indicators for pragmatic instruction: Some quantitative tools. In K. R.
Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge University
Press.
Kasper, G. (1989). Variation in interlanguage speech act realization. In S. M. Gass, C.
Madden, D. Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.). Variation in second language acquisition:
Discourse and Pragmatics (pp. 37- 58). Clevedon/Philadephia: Multilingual Matters.
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.).
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317-334).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Kraft, Bettina and Geluykens, Ronald.2002. Complaining in French L1 and L2 A CrossLinguistic Investigation. EUROSLA Yearbook 2 :John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Leech, Geofrey.1974.”Semantics” Harmons Worth. Penguin Book England
Leech, Geofrey.1983.The Principle of Pragmatics. New York: Longman

Levinson, Stephen, C.1983.Pragmatics. Cambridge University Presss.
Monzoni,Chiara Maria.2008. Introducing Direct Complaints ThroughQuestions: The
Interactional Achievementof ‘Pre-Sequences’?

Nunan, David.1993.Introducing Discourse Analysis.England:Penguin English.

Traverso, Ve´ronique.2008.The Dilemmas of Third-party Complaints in Conversation
Between Friend.
Trosborg, Anna.1995.Interlaguage Pragmatics Request, Complaints and Apologies.New
York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Wijayanto, Agus. et.al. 2012.Interlaguage Pragmatics Complaint by Indonesian Learners of
English.
Yule, George.1996.Pragmatics. New York:Oxfort University Press.