4.1.1 Quantitative Analysis Table 4.1 displays the raw frequencies of the six individual strategies used in the American and Chinese productions.

全文

(1)CHAPTER 4 COMPLAINT BEHAVIORS BY NATIVE SPEAKERS OF AMERICAN ENGLISH AND CHINESE. The purpose of this chapter is to provide answers to research question 1: What are the similarities and differences in the performances of complaint behaviors produced by native speakers of American English (NS-A) and native speakers of Chinese (NS-C). Section 4.1 concerns the distributions of individual strategies used in the American and Chinese productions, and section 4.2 addresses two-strategy patterns used by the Americans and Chinese. For each section, a quantitative analysis, which shows the distributions of the strategies or strategy patterns used by the Americans and Chinese, is presented first; followed by a qualitative analysis, which investigates the major differences in the linguistic forms or content shown in the American and Chinese productions. Finally, section 4.3 summarizes and discusses the findings from the first two sections. 4.1 Distributions of the Six Individual Strategies Used by NS-A and NS-C In this section, a total of 594 tokens produced by the Americans and Chinese were investigated quantitatively and qualitatively in terms of the strategies used. These strategies include opting out (OP), indirect complaint (IC), indirect accusation (IA), direct complaint (DC), request for repair (RR) and threat (TH). Section 4.1.1 presents the quantitative findings, and section 4.1.2 presents the qualitative findings. 4.1.1 Quantitative Analysis Table 4.1 displays the raw frequencies of the six individual strategies used in the American and Chinese productions.. 91.

(2) Table 4.1 Distributions of the six individual strategies used by NS-A and NS-C Subjects. OP. IC. IA. DC. RR. TH. Total. NS-A. 2. 141. 15. 24. 119. 10. 311. (0.64%). (45.34%) (4.82%). (7.72%). (38.26%). (3.22%). (100.00%). 1. 116. 24. 102. 11. 283. (0.35%). (40.99%) (10.25%). (8.48%). (36.04%). (3.89%). (100.00%). NS-C. 29. a. Notes.. OP (opting out), IC (indirect complaint), IA (indirect accusation), DC (direct complaint), RR (request for repair), TH (threat) b The numbers in bold face indicate between group significance.. Some generalizations can be derived from the raw frequencies of both the productions. First, the Americans and Chinese followed a similar trend in strategy use. Figure 4.1 shows the tendency of how both groups of subjects used the strategies.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

(3) . .

(4) . .

(5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.1 Distributions of the six individual strategies used by NS-A and NS-C. In Figure 4.1, the horizontal axis depicts the six strategies, and the vertical axis shows the percentages. The values for each strategy produced by the Americans and Chinese were plotted on the diagram and connected along the horizontal axis. From this figure, it can be observed that indirect complaint and request for repair were most frequently used by the Americans and Chinese, while opting out and threat were least 92.

(6) frequently used by both groups of subjects. Indirect accusation and direct complaint were in between. The chi-square test showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the overall strategy distributions between American English and Chinese, χ2(5, N = 40) =7.271, p=.201. However, further test showed that the Americans used significantly more indirect complaint (p=.013) and opting out (p=.032) than the Chinese, while the Chinese used significantly more indirect accusation (p=.000) than the Americans. Furthermore, these strategies can be classified based on the decisions the speaker would make in an offense. According to Brown & Levinson (1987), in a face-threatening situation, the first decision any rational being would make is to determine whether to do the FTA (face-threatening act) or not. In the speech act of complaining, the speaker may opt out of the situation or make complaints to express his/her dissatisfaction. In the present study, it was found that both the Americans and Chinese tended to make complaints when facing an offensive situation. Figure 4.2 shows the comparison of opting out and making complaints in the American and Chinese productions.. 93.

(7) . . . . . . .

(8) .

(9) . Figure 4.2 Opting out and making complaints by NS-A and NS-C As shown in Figure 4.2, 99.36% of the American subjects and 99.65% of the Chinese subjects made complaints. Only less than 1% of the American and Chinese subjects opted out of complaint situations. The chi-square test yielded no statistically significant difference, χ2(1, N = 40) =.000, p=1. This finding is consistent with the findings in Olshtain & Weinbach’s (1993) and Hartley’s (1998) studies, which reveal that the native speakers of Hebrew and American English chose to make complaints more frequently than not to make complaints. These results suggest that people who speak different languages all seem to prefer making complaints when there is a socially unfavorable situation. If the speaker determines to make complaints, the next step he/she should decide is whether to complain on record or off record. As mentioned in section 3.4.2, on-record strategies include indirect accusation, direct complaint and threat because these strategies contain not only the complainable, but also the complainee. Off-record strategies include indirect complaint because they contain only the complainable. Request for repair can be on-record when the speaker directly asks the 94.

(10) hearer to do an act (e.g. “Can you…”) or off-record (e.g. “Can I…”) when the speaker only mentions his/her desires. The American and Chinese subjects were found to make complaints off record more frequently than on record. Figure 4.3 shows the comparison between off-record and on-record strategies..

(11) . .

(12) . . . . .

(13) .

(14) . Figure 4.3 On-record and off-record strategies used by NS-A and NS-C In Figure 4.3, both groups of subjects had greater proportions of off-record strategies (NS-A: 65.37%, NS-C: 70.22%) than on-record strategies (NS-A: 34.63%, NS-C: 29.78%) in their productions, and the chi-square test yielded no statistically significant difference, χ2(1, N = 40) =.1.579, p=.209. This finding corroborates the findings in Trosborg’s (1995) and Hartley’s (1998) studies that there was a preference for off-record strategies in British English and Hebrew complaints. The general tendencies indicated from Figures 4.1 to 4.3 can be explained in terms of payoffs in tackling an offensive act. Brown & Levinson (1987) argue that any rational being tends to regard payoffs as parameters for their strategy choices. In 95.

(15) the speech act of complaining, the speaker who chooses to opt out may gain the reputation of being tactful, but he/she may also lose the opportunity of expressing annoyance (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993). Therefore, opting out occurs most frequently when the speaker intends to preserve social harmony with the hearer or when the speaker is addressing someone higher in status or someone unfamiliar (Bonikowska, 1988). If the speaker intends to make complaints, he/she may go on record or off record. When choosing to go on record, the speaker may benefit from expressing annoyance clearly, but may also run the risk of harming the relationship with the hearer, which explains why indirect accusation, direct complaint, and threat were used less frequently. However, if the speaker chooses to go off record, he/she may be able to strike a balance between expression of annoyance and preservation of social harmony, which explains why indirect complaint was the strategy most frequently used by the Americans and Chinese. Finally, request for repair, which has the second highest percentage in strategy use, implies that the purpose of a complaint involves more than expressing annoyance, which will be further discussed in requestive complaints/non-requestive complaints in section 4.2.1. In summary, section 4.1.1 presents quantitative analyses in terms of the distributions of each individual strategy used in the American and Chinese productions. There were three similarities derived from their strategy distributions. First, the American and Chinese productions shared a similar tendency in the use of the six strategies. Indirect complaint and request for repair were most frequently used, while opting out and threat were least frequently used. Indirect accusation and direct complaint were in between. Second, the Americans and Chinese tended to make complaints when facing a complaint situation. Finally, both groups of subjects tended to use off-record strategies more than on-record strategies.. These similarities can be. explained in terms of payoff considerations, which are driven by rationality of human 96.

(16) beings. 4.1.2 Qualitative Analysis Previous research has shown that languages may share an identical set of strategies but differ in linguistic manifestations (Blum-Kulka, 1983). 14 In the comparison of the strategies of a given speech act, it is essential to investigate the linguistic forms by which a certain strategy is performed. The researcher’s investigations into the linguistic forms of the six strategies showed that indirect accusation and request for repair revealed the most diverse linguistic realizations between American English and Chinese, which are discussed in the following. 4.1.2.1 Indirect Accusation In terms of indirect accusation, the Americans were found to use wh-questions most frequently (75.14%) as shown in (1). The Chinese were found to use yes/no questions15 with negative orientation most frequently (65.31%) as indicated in (2), followed by yes/no questions with neutral polarity, as shown in (3) (31.48%). Wh-questions had the least frequency of occurrence (3.21%). (1) Why did you open my letter? (NS-A 1) (2) Ni 2SG. bushi. daying. wo. buzai. kai. didn’t. promise. me. not again. open. wode my. xin letter. ma 14. Blum-Kulka (1983) pointed out that in English, one of the conventionalized ways of making indirect requests is to use “Would you…” (e.g. “Would you like to go to the store?”), while in Hebrew, the functionally similar equivalence is “Are you ready…” (e.g. “Are you ready to go to the store?”). Both utterances are query preparatory, but the linguistic realizations are different. 15 According to Quirk et al. (1972), a yes-no question can be presented with neutral polarity, which means that the speaker has no prior expectations of a positive or negative response (e.g. “Did anyone call last night?”), or it can be presented in a form which is biased towards a positive or negative answer. A question with positive orientation indicates that the speaker has reasons to expect a positive answer and he/she asks this question only to confirm the assumption (e.g. “Would you like some cake?”). On the other hand, a question with negative orientation is more complicated due to the existence of old assumption and new assumption implied in the speaker’s utterance. One of Quirk et al.’s example is “Isn’t your car working?” What the speaker is trying to convey is “Do you really mean that your car isn’t working? I had assumed it was.” (Quirk, et al., 1972: 389). 97.

(17) (Q). (NS-C 6). Didn’t you promise me not to open my letter again?. (3) Ni 2SG. you. kai. wode. xin. ma. have. open. my. letter. (Q). (NS-C 10). Did you open my letter?. In (1), the complainer presupposes that the complainee opened the letter and asked for a reason. Sentence (2), however, is more complicated. According to Quirk et al. (1972), a yes-no question with negative orientation has two assumptions. The old assumption refers to the speaker’s positive attitude which shows his/her hopes or wishes. On the other hand, the new assumption refers to the speaker’s negative attitude which expresses his/her disappointment or annoyance. Therefore, in (2), the complainer implies that a promise was made previously with the complainee (old assumption). At the same time, the complainer shows his/her disappointment at the complainee’s act of breaking the promise and disturbing privacy (new assumption). As for (3), the speaker has no prior assumptions about a positive or negative response, so it is left open to the hearer to answer the question. From the above analysis, it can be seen that wh-questions are the most direct because they threaten the complainee’s negative face straightforwardly by holding him/her responsible for the offense. Yes-no questions with neutral polarity are the least direct because they do not imply that the complainee is guilty of the deplorable act. Yes-no questions with negative orientation are in between because they partially indicate positive face redress (Brown & Levinson, 1987). In the case of complaining, the redress is realized through the old assumption, which refers to the fact that both the complainer and complainee share the same wants, goals or values. In (2), the “common ground” points to the respect for privacy agreed upon by the interlocutors. Such claiming of common ground is one of the important mechanisms for positive 98.

(18) politeness strategies in Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Model16. Therefore, it can be concluded that in the use of indirect accusation, the Americans tended to employ more direct forms (i.e. wh-questions), while the Chinese tended to employ less direct forms (i.e. yes-no questions with neutral polarity or negative orientation). 4.1.2.2 Request for Repair With regard to the linguistic forms of request for repair, the major difference between the American and Chinese productions occurs when the speaker wishes to express requestive intention through illocutionary verbs. For example, (4) I would like to ask you to give me extra pay. (NS-A 4) (5) Wo. xiwang. wo. yihou. keyi. zhunshi. xiaban. buyao. 1SG. hope. 1SG. later. can. on time. off duty. NEG. han. yiqian. yiyang. tuodao. 12dian. and. before. same. postpone 12:00. (NS-C 10). I hope I can get off duty on time in the future, and do not postpone until 12:00. like before! (6) Wo. xiangyao. 1SG want to. huan. yijian. exchange a. xinde. chenshan. new. shirt. (NS-C 15). I want to exchange a new shirt.. In (4), the American subjects tended to use the modal verb “would” to modify the illocutionary verb “like”, but the Chinese subjects tended to use subjectivizers such as “wo xiwang”I hope…”) or “wo xiangyao” (“I want to…”) to make requests as shown in (5) and (6). According to the CCSARP coding scheme for requests (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989)17, (4) would be coded as hedged performative, 16. Brown & Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Model points out three broad types of positive politeness strategies: claiming common ground, conveying that S and H are cooperators, and fulfilling H’s wants. 17 The CCSARP coding scheme (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989) classifies nine request strategies which fall into three major categories: direct requests, conventionally indirect requests and unconventionally indirect requests. Five strategies belong to the category of direct requests: mood 99.

(19) which is defined as “the utterance whose illocutionary verb expressing the requestive intention is modified by modal verb”, while (5) and (6) would be coded as want statement, which is defined as “the utterances which express the speaker’s desire for the hearer to carry out the act” (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989: 18). One problem seems to arise from the application of the CCSARP coding scheme. According to Blum-Kulka (1983: 43), the equivalence of any two request forms in different languages can be achieved when the forms “share a similar potential illocutionary force relative to the contexts in which they are conventionally used”. It appears that “wo xiwang”I hope…”) or “wo xiangyao” (“I want to…”) in Chinese correspond functionally to “I would like to…” in English because all of them are desire statements concerning the speaker’s wish or want that the hearer will do the act. Therefore, based on Blum-Kulka’s criterion, these conventionalized expressions seem to fall into the same category. The only difference lies in the different perceptions of want statement between Americans and Chinese. Zhang (1995) argues that Americans perceive the expressions of the speaker’s wants as impolite or even rude, while Chinese perceive such expressions as soft, tentative and polite. Yu (1999a) also argues that Chinese are inclined to employ “wo xiwang” I hope…”) when addressing a higher status person because this linguistic form can reflect Chinese value of solidarity politeness. Through the use of this routine formula, the speaker gives face to the hearer by showing respect, and the powerful hearer gives face to the speaker by honoring the request in return. Therefore, although the CCSARP coding scheme has been extensively used to classify request strategies in different languages, it is necessary to derivable (e.g. Clean up the mess), explicit performative (e.g. I am asking you to clean up the mess), hedged performative (e.g. I would like to ask you to clean up the mess), obligation statement (e.g. You’ll have to clean up the mess) and want statement (e.g. I really wish you’d clean up the mess). Two strategies belong to the category of conventionally indirect requests: suggestory formula (e.g. How about cleaning the mess) and query preparatory (e.g. Could you clean up the mess, please). Two strategies belong to the category of unconventionally indirect requests: strong hint (e.g. You have left the kitchen in a mess, right?) and mild hint (e.g. The kitchen is such a wonderful place for mice and cockroaches). 100.

(20) modify the categories which relate to linguistic specificity to meet the structure or culture of the language under investigation. To conclude, section 4.1.2 discusses the linguistic forms of indirect accusation and request for repair used in the American and Chinese productions.. With regard to. indirect accusation, it was found that the Americans tended to use wh-questions, while the Chinese tended to use yes/no questions with negative orientation or yes/no questions with neutral polarity. Among the three forms, the most direct is wh-question, and the least direct is yes/no questions with neutral polarity.. Yes/no questions with. negative orientation are in between. Request for repair, “wo xiwang”I hope…”) or “wo xiangyao” (“I want to…”) in Chinese are functionally similar to “I would like to…” in American English.. All the three expressions show the speaker’s intention to. ask the hearer to do an act, though they are coded as different strategies according to the CCSARP coding scheme. From the quantitative and qualitative analyses, it can be seen that American and Chinese complaints are governed by some general principles, but they also show differences in the perceptions of directness. Americans tend to be more direct than Chinese when responding to an offensive situation. The American directness can be evidenced by the use of wh-questions in indirect accusation, which presupposes that the hearer is responsible for the deplorable act. On the other hand, Chinese tend to be less direct than Americans in the performance of complaint behaviors. The Chinese indirectness can be evidenced by the use of negative questions in indirect accusation, which imply positive face redress for the hearer, or by the use of “wo xiwang”, I hope…”), which is a routine formula showing indirect requests in Chinese. 4.2 Distributions of the Two-strategy Patterns Used by NS-A and NS-C As mentioned in section 3.4.2.1, more than half of the Americans (53.37%) and the Chinese (58.49%) tended to employ two strategies at the same time in issuing a 101.

(21) complaint. In this section, investigations into two-strategy patterns were therefore conducted, with a quantitative analysis being presented first, followed by a qualitative analysis. 4.2.1 Quantitative Analysis Table 4.2 displays the distributions of all the two-strategy patterns performed by the Americans and Chinese. Table 4.2 Distributions of the two-strategy patterns used by NS-A and NS-C Subjects. NS-A NS-C. IC+RR. DC+RR. IC+IC. IA+IC. RR+TH. IA+IA. Total. 64. 10. 6. 5. 2. 0. 87. (73.56%). (11.49%). (6.90%). (5.75%). (2.30%). (0.00%). (100.00%). 61. 7. 5. 8. 4. 8. 93. (65.59%). (7.52%). (5.38%). (8.60%). (4.30%). (8.61%). (100.00%). a. Notes. OP (opting out), IC (indirect complaint), IA (indirect accusation), DC (direct complaint), RR (request for b. repair), TH (threat) The numbers in bold face indicate between group significance.. In order to see the overall tendency of how the Americans and Chinese used the six patterns, Figure 4.4 is presented below to show a comparison of their pattern choices. . . . . . . . . .

(22)

(23) .

(24) . . . . .

(25) . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4.4 Distributions of the two-strategy patterns used by NS-A and NS-C 102.

(26) This figure shows that the use of the patterns follows a similar trend in the American and Chinese productions. The chi-square test showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the strategy distributions between American English and Chinese, χ2(5, N = 40) =9.862, p=.079. However, a further test indicated that the American subjects used significantly more IC+RR than the Chinese subjects (p=.020), while the Chinese subjects used significantly more IA+IA (p=.000) than the American subjects. These patterns can also be classified as either on-record or off-record, which, as mentioned earlier, is the next choice for a speaker if he/she has decided to issue a complaint. The on-record/off-record dichotomy is contingent upon the first strategy of a given pattern. In other words, if the first strategy of a certain pattern is on-record, then the pattern itself belongs to the on-record category, and the reverse is also true. Based on this criterion, on-record patterns include DC+RR, IA+IC and IA+IA because the first strategies of these patterns are on-record. On the other hand, off-record patterns include IC+RR and IC+IC because the first strategies of these patterns are off-record. As for RR+TH, though the first strategy can be classified as either on-record or off-record, a closer investigation into the data revealed that request for repair in this pattern was exclusively on-record in both the American and Chinese productions, so RR+TH was classified as an on-record pattern. Figure 4.5 shows the comparison of on-record and off-record patterns produced by the Americans and Chinese.. 103.

(27)

(28)

(29) . . . . .

(30) .

(31) . Figure 4.5 On-record and off-record patterns used by NS-A and NS-C Like the proportions of on-record and off-record strategies, both groups of subjects used off-record patterns (NS-A: 80.45%, NS-C: 70.97%) more frequently than on-record patterns (NS-A: 19.55%, NS-C: 29.03%), and the chi-square test showed that there was no significant difference, χ2(1, N = 40) =2.193, p=.139. It shows that the speaker tends to avoid too much face threat in the performance of a complaint not only in the overall strategy use, but also in the use of two strategies within a conversational turn. In addition, these patterns can be classified into two major categories based on their functions: requestive complaints and non-requestive complaints. Requestive complaints are instrumental because the complainer not only displays his/her frustration or dislikes, but also intends to prevent the repetition of or to ask for compensation for the deplorable act (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993). The patterns which contain request for repair belong to this category. On the other hand, non-requestive complaints are informational because the speaker either shows to the hearer negative attitudes towards the bad act or questions the hearer about the bad act, but he/she does 104.

(32) not ask for repair for the damages the hearer has caused. The patterns which do not contain request for repair belong to this category. Table 4.3 summarizes the characteristics of requestive and non-requestive complaints. Table 4.3 The classification of requestive and non-requestive complaints Characteristics. Requestive complaints. Non-requestive complaints. Function Form Pattern types. instrumental with request for repair. informational without request for repair IC+IC IA+IC IA+IA. IC+RR DC+RR RR+TH. Figure 4.6 shows the comparison between requestive and non-requestive complaints produced by the American and Chinese subjects.. .

(33) . . . . . .

(34) .

(35) . Figure 4.6 Requestive and non-requestive complaints used by NS-A and NS-C In both the productions, requestive complaints were more frequently used than non-requestive complaints. In the American productions, 87.35% of the complaints 105.

(36) were requestive.. In the Chinese productions, 77.42% of the complaints were. requestive. The chi-square test yielded no significant difference, χ2(1, N = 40) =3.036, p=.081 between the American and Chinese subjects’ use of requestive complaints. The explanation for greater use of requestive complaints may be that they pertain more closely to the two major purposes of making a complaint. The first purpose is to show the speaker’s negative attitudes, which include frustration, dislikes or disagreement towards the bad act performed by the hearer (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993). In addition to expressing negative attitudes, the speaker may ask the hearer to refrain from the bad act or to compensate for the damages he/she has caused, which is generally made explicit in request for repair (Trosborg, 1995). To conclude, section 4.2.1 presents quantitative findings about two-strategy patterns used in the American and Chinese productions.. It was found that the. Americans and Chinese shared a similar trend in overall tendency, with IC+RR being the most frequently used pattern.. In addition, the analyses also showed that both the. Americans and Chinese tended to use off-record patterns and requestive complaints more frequently than on-record patterns and non-requestive complaints. 4.2.2 Qualitative analysis The above quantitative assessment discusses the frequencies of the strategy patterns used in the American and Chinese productions. As pointed out by Bardovi-Harlig & Griffin (2005), different languages may employ identical strategies for realizing a speech act under investigation, but what counts as appropriate content in a speech community may vary from culture to culture. Therefore, a qualitative analysis was conducted in this section to compare how each pattern gives specific information in the American and Chinese productions. It was found that the content differed mostly in indirect accusation + indirect complaint (IA+IC) and indirect complaint + request for repair (IC+RR), which will be discussed in the following. 106.

(37) 4.2.2.1 Indirect Accusation + Indirect Complaint (IA+IC) The differences in the use of IA+IC between the American and Chinese productions were found to lie not only in the linguistic forms of indirect accusation, but also in the content carried by indirect complaint. As discussed in section 4.1.2.1, the Americans tended to use wh-questions (83.67%), while the Chinese tended to use negative questions in indirect accusation to interrogate the hearer about the offense (74.53%). As for the content in indirect complaint, the Americans tended to state the fact of annoyance (84.67%) as indicated in (7), while the Chinese tended to express personal feelings (75.64%) as indicated in (8). (7) Why did you open my letter? We just talked about giving me some privacy. (NS-A 10) (8) Ni. bushi. daying. wo. buzai. kai. 2SG. didn’t. promise. me. not again. open. my. xin. ma. zheyang. taibu. zunzhong. wo. le. this. too not. respect. me. (LE). letter (Q). wode. (NS-C 12) Didn’t you promise me not to open my letter again? This is not very respectful!. In (7), the speaker mentioned in indirect complaint that there was an agreement with the hearer about privacy. In (8), however, the speaker did not mention the agreement, but expressed negative feelings towards the bad act. According to Lii-Shih (1999), Americans in general emphasize efficiency and directness and believe that words should reflect what the speaker is trying to say. On the other hand, stating the facts may not be as important in Chinese society. Therefore, Americans may feel that Chinese are inscrutable because they usually beat around the bush, while Chinese may feel that Americans are outspoken and forthright because they stick to facts all the time. 107.

(38) 4.2.2.2 Indirect Complaint + Request for Repair (IC+RR) The first difference in the use of IC+RR occurred when the speaker intends to give general remarks to a lower-status person. For example, (9) Oh, it’s ok, accidents happen.. Can you bring me some napkins or a towel though,. please? (NS-A 4) (10) Meiguanxi it’s ok It’s ok.. xiaci. xiaoxin. yidian. next time. be careful a little (NS-C 10). Be careful next time.. The differences between (9) and (10) are twofold. When using indirect complaint, the Americans tended to let the complainee off the hook first (e.g. “It’s ok”), followed by a statement of understanding (e.g. “Accidents happen”) (78.61%). On the other hand, the Chinese tended to let the complainee off the hook without further elaboration (80.18%). With regard to request for repair, the Americans tended to ask for compensation for the damage the complainee has caused (76.92%). However, the Chinese did not orient their requests to the current damages, but carried a moral overtone instead to advise the complainee that such an act should be prevented and care should be taken in the future (69.74%). Table 4.4 shows the comparison. Table 4.4 IC+RR to a lower-status person by NS-A and NS-C Indirect complaint. NS-A NS-C. Request for repair. off the hook (statement of understanding) compensation off the hook advice. Although the differences discussed above were not directly reported in previous complaint studies, similar findings can be observed in Beebe et al.’s (1990) investigation into how the native speakers of American English and Japanese responded to a scenario where the speaker refused to accept the payment for a broken 108.

(39) vase from a cleaning woman. They found that the Americans tended to say sentences such as “Don’t worry, I know it was an accident” (Beebe, et al., 1990: 60), which function the same as off the hook + statement of understanding in the present study. In addition, the native speakers of Japanese, like the Chinese subjects, tended to provide the complainee with advice by saying sentences like “Be careful from now on” (Beebe, et al., 1990: 60), which may imply that Chinese parallels non-western languages such as Japanese to a greater extent than western languages such as American English. The second difference occurred when the speaker is addressing someone higher in status. For example, (11) I love working here at the gas station and I took the established hours believing that is what I would be working.. Is there any way that I can possibly get off. exactly at 10? (NS-A 6) (12) Wanshang. zhemowan. huijia. tai. weixian. at night. so late. go home. too. dangerous. wo. jiaren. butai. fangxin. my. family. do not. release heart. wo. xiwang. neng. zaodian. xiaban. 1SG. hope. can. earlier. off duty (NS-C 13). It’s too dangerous to go home so late and my family is worried. I hope I can get. off duty earlier. The above utterances demonstrated that the Americans were straightforward since they expressed explicitly facts of annoyance as shown in the italic part in (11). In addition, they tended to use disarmers (e.g. “I love working here at the gas station”) to reduce face threat (68.27%) (Trosborg, 1995). However, the Chinese may not resort to the facts, but find excuses such as family concerns as shown in (12) (73.64%). Such 109.

(40) excuses serve as downgrading devices to reduce face threat. Table 4.5 shows the comparison. Table 4.5 IC+RR to a higher-status person by NS-A and NS-C Indirect complaint. NS-A NS-C. (downgrader) fact of annoyance (fact of annoyance) downgrader . Request for repair compensation compensation. The above analysis showed that the Americans valued facts of annoyance more than face-saving attempts, while the Chinese valued face-saving attempts more than facts of annoyance in their complaints. In addition to the face-saving attempts, there was another alternative with which the Chinese were found to respond to someone higher in status (e.g. an old man). For example, (13) Meigeren. douyao. paidui. chadui. shi. hen. everyone. all. line up. cutting in line. is. very. budaodede. buyao. chadui. haoma. immoral. don’t. cut in line ok. (NS-C 1). Everyone should wait in line and cutting in line is very immoral! Don’t cut in. line, ok? Sentence (13) showed that the Chinese appealed to the hearer’s moral conscience. From (11) to (13), it seems that the Americans tended to express facts of annoyance all the time no matter they were speaking to lower-status and higher-status interlocutors. However, the Chinese tended to vary their responses based on the status of a person. In Chinese society, higher-status people may include those who have institutionalized power in official settings (e.g. an employer or a teacher) as well as those who are older in age because seniority is a symbol of experience and power (Lii-Shih, 1999). At the one extreme, as indicated in (12), the superior is entitled to receive respect, and the inferior is supposed to recognize such power by employing 110.

(41) some kind of face-maintenance strategies. At the other extreme, some Chinese subjects responded to the old man’s offense with condemnation as indicated in (13) because cutting in line is a socially unacceptable behavior. Distance seems to play a role in this case because condemnation occurred when the speaker and hearer did not know each other. To conclude, section 4.2.2 showed that the content differences between the American and Chinese productions mainly existed in IA+IC and IC+RR.. In terms of. IA+IC, the Americans tended to interrogate the hearer with wh-questions, followed by statements of annoyance. The Chinese, however, tended to interrogate the hearer with negative questions, followed by expressions of negative feelings about the offense. With regard to IC+RR, the differences occurred when the speaker is addressing lower-status and higher-status interlocutors. When IC+RR was used to give general remarks to a lower-status interlocutor (e.g. a waiter), both the Americans and Chinese would let the complainee off the hook. However, the Americans tended to add a statement of understanding afterwards, while the Chinese did not add further elaboration. In addition, the Americans tended to request for compensation under this circumstance, while the Chinese tended to make requests which provide advice for the complainee’s future act. Furthermore, when IC+RR was used to speak to a person higher in status (e.g. an employer), the Americans tended to place greater importance on facts of annoyance more than downgrading devices, while the Chinese tended to value downgrading devices or moral consciousness more than facts of annoyance. All these differences could be ascribed to the fact that Americans in general believe that words should reflect efficiency and directness, while Chinese believe that face and morality should be given priority. From the quantitative and qualitative analyses, it can be seen that although some general principles govern the use of two-strategy patterns in American and 111.

(42) Chinese complaints, social parameters seem to exert different degree of influences on American and Chinese complaints. In American complaints, social parameters seem to have less influence, which can be evidenced from facts of statements expressed across various social contexts. On the other hand, social parameters, especially social power, seem to have a stronger effect on Chinese complaints because the content may vary based on the parameters selected. However, in Chinese society, it is a shared belief that the younger or inferior should pay respect to the older or superior through face-saving attempts, and such respect would be lost and condemnation would occur if people of higher standing behave contrary to the expectations of the society (Hu, 1944). 4.3 Summary of Chapter 4 This chapter basically has two parts, each of which is composed of a quantitative as well as a qualitative analysis. Section 4.1 deals with the distributions of the six individual strategies, and section 4.2 deals with the distributions of the two-strategy patterns in the American and Chinese productions. The findings of the present study can be generalized as similarities and differences between American and Chinese complaints. There were four similarities in the complaints produced by the Americans and Chinese. First, they exhibited similar tendencies in the use of strategies and strategy patterns. For example, both Americans and Chinese tended to use indirect complaint and request for repair most frequently, and to use opting out and threat least frequently. The analysis of the strategy patterns also showed that both groups of subjects used IC+RR more frequently than the other strategy patterns. Second, the speakers of both languages were more likely to make complaints when an offensive action occurred. Third, both the Americans and Chinese were inclined to make complaints off record rather than on record. Lastly, both groups of subjects employed 112.

(43) requestive complaints more frequently than non-requestive complaints. In addition to the similarities, there were pragmalinguistic as well as sociopragmatic differences between the American and Chinese complaints. Pragmalinguistic differences existed primarily in the forms of indirect accusation and request for repair. In terms of indirect accusation, the Americans tended to use wh-questions, while the Chinese tended to use yes/no questions with neutral polarity or negative orientation. Wh-questions are considered to be more direct than yes/no questions because the latter implies positive face redress. With regard to request for repair, Americans tended to use hedged performative, while the Chinese tended to use want statement to make requests for repair. Though coded differently, these two request forms seem to have the same pragmatic function because both of them express the speaker’s requestive intention through the use of illocutionary verbs. Furthermore, sociopragmatic differences lead to different content, which was mostly found in IA+IC and IC+RR. The Americans seemed to state facts of annoyance in their complaints all the time whether they were speaking to someone higher or lower in status. The way to show politeness to a higher-status person is reflected in the use of downgrading devices. However, the Chinese complaints seemed to vary their complaints based on different social parameters, which can be evidenced through the content carried by indirect complaint. In the present study, the Chinese were found to save the face of superiors through finding excuses or expressing personal feelings on the one hand, and they were found to impose stricter moral standards on the elder by condemning socially distasteful behaviors on the other hand. It can be observed from the above findings that cultural norms play an important role in the language used. The American culture stresses social equality (Lii-Shih, 1999), which is represented by a suppression of asymmetric power relations 113.

(44) and social distance in day-to-day interactions (Brown & Levinson, 1987). In this culture, politeness captures the individual’s wants and desires, and is not subject to external pressure or interactional dynamics. This may explain why when making complaints, Americans tend to state facts of annoyance or disapproval, no matter if they are addressing someone higher in status or someone of greater distance. Compared with American complaints, Chinese complaints seem to be more complicated. In a vertical class structure like Chinese society, the considerations of contextual factors (i.e. imposition, social power and social distance) are important. Among the contextual factors, social power overrides the other two (Yu, 2003), which can be recognized by two dimensions: superiority and seniority. The respect for superiority and seniority is generally shown in a one-way direction: from a person lower in status to a person higher in status. One of the approaches to show deference to a person of higher status is to maintain his/her face. In American culture, face is treated as a self-image and is not known to the general public (Mao, 1994; Yu, 2003), but in Chinese culture, face is treated as a public image which reflects the communal demand of the society. In other words, face in Chinese culture is not a “God-given” right, but is “earned through an interactional process” (Mao, 1994: 460). In Chinese, there are two words which denote the meaning of face: mianzi and lian. Mianzi refers to “a reputation achieved through getting on in life, through success and ostentation”, while lian refers to “the respect of the group for a man with a good moral reputation” (Hu, 1944: 45). The loss of mianzi refers to the loss of one’s reputation or prestige due to some failure or misfortune. The loss of lian, on the other hand, refers to a condemnation by the community for immoral or social unfavorable behavior (Hu, 1944; Mao, 1994). In the speech act of complaining, the Chinese express censure to the complainee for an offensive action, which counts as loss of lian rather than loss of 114.

(45) mianzi. A person higher in status is entitled to be respected by the inferior or younger, so attempts for face-maintenance are necessary to avoid loss of lian and to keep the person’s dignity. This may explain why in the present study, the Chinese subjects tended to justify their complaints by attributing to personal concerns. The attempts can be considered as the employment of face-maintenance strategies. On the other hand, the higher status a person has, the more vulnerable this lian becomes (Hu, 1944). If such person conducts socially distasteful or immoral behavior, condemnation will occur in varying degrees of intensity (Mao, 1994). This may explain why some Chinese subjects responded with condemnation when there is an occurrence of a socially unacceptable behavior.. 115.

(46)