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
COMPLAINT STRATEGIES USED BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS IN
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
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
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 non-material 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
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)
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)
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.”
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 statusconsidered 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.
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
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.
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 andCommunication, 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 insecond 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 secondlanguage 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 Cross- Linguistic 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
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.
