Complaining in English and in Kapampangan For Research 7

COMPLAINING IN ENGLISH AND IN KAPAMPANGAN:
A CONTRASTIVE PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS

Renante D. Dingal

INTRODUCTION
Contrastive pragmatics is a relatively newcomer in the field of contrastive
linguistics. Its domain chiefly covers speech acts differences between and among a spread
of diverse cultures. Among the academically lively topics of interest being considered in
contrastive linguistics is the analysis of speech acts of complaints in which people use
different strategies to express their arguments. How do interlocutors avoid
communication failures or conflicts in their expression of complaints? In this field there
is no shortage of studies conducted by renowned scholars, works such as Austin, 1962;
Farnia, et al., 2010; De Capua, 1998; Han, 1992; Rinnert & Nogami, 2006; just to name a
few.

However, as rich the literatures appear to be, most studies done in this area
involving Asian cultures tend to focus on Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese, or as a
majority of studies call them, Orientals. As a result of this overzealous focus on the said
oriental cultures, the Filipinos pragmatic behavior has been sadly neglected, and as an
extension, the Kapampangans. Thus, this could perhaps be the reason that there is an
abysmal dearth of systematic and structured data concerning the Filipinos pragmatic
behavior.

In the light of this scarcity, this paper attempted to analyze the different strategies
used by both the native English and Kapampangan speakers in their expression of
complaints in various situations. Specifically, it addressed the following questions:

1. What complaint strategies are most commonly used by native speakers of
English and native speakers of Kapampangan?
2. What are the main components of complaints of native English speakers and
native Kapampangan speakers?
3. What are the mitigating expressions used by the respondents?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The end goal of language teaching is to equip learners with communicative
competence. Hymes (1972) greatest contribution to the study of communicative
competence is his bringing into a Chomskyan linguistic view of competence the
sociolinguistic perspective. As a corollary, Canale & Swain (1980) expanded this view of
communicative competence through their three types of knowledge: knowledge of
grammatical principles, knowledge of how to use the language in a social context, and
knowledge of combining utterances and communicative functions with respect to
discourse principles.

Language use in context is the very nature of pragmatics, that is, the way context
contributes to meaning. Pragmatics defines the goal of teaching a language as inducing
the student not merely to manipulate the meaningless sound sequences, but to send and
receive messages in the target language. The necessary and sufficient means for
achieving this objective is the involvement of the student in creative communication in
the target language (OIler, 1973: 47-48). This way pragmatics can provide solutions to
communication problems by searching for methods and principles for language teaching
to teach a learner a language to communicate.

The Speech Act Theory

It was Austin (1962), renowned linguist, who originated the speech act theory
which sits at the heart of pragmalinguistics. His realization of three levels of meaning, i.
e. locutionary, illocutionary, and elocutionary, has spawned a long list of scholarly papers.

Among those who expanded Austins theory was Searle, who, in 1976, classified
Austins illocutionary meaning into five categories, one of which is the expressive
category under which complaints fall. As for politeness markers in English and German,
House and Kasper (1981) state that in the act of complaining, the addressee Y must have
done an action P, which the speaker regards as bad for him/ her. They argue that
expressives, which have the features of post-event/ anti-X, can be referred to as
complaints. In English, these verbs include criticize, accuse, and reproach.
Edmonson (1981: 145) claims that, in making a complaint, a speaker potentially
disputes, challenges, or bluntly denies the social competence of the complainee. Under
this circumstance, a complaint flouts the hearers supportive maxim. However, since the
hearer has already flouted this maxim in a socially offensive event, the grounds for the
complaint are justified.

Face-Threatening Act (FTA)

Brown and Levinson (1987) treat speech acts as face threatening either to the
speaker or to the hearer. All members of a society have face, or the public self-image
that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects: (a)
negative face [and] (b) positive face (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 61). Further, they
state that face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained,
or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction (1987: 61). While
negative face is defined as ones desire to be unimpeded by others, positive face is
characterized as the wish of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some
others (Brown and Levinson 1987: 62). Brown and Levinson propose that different types
of speech acts can affect either the speakers or the hearers negative or positive face, that
is they are face-threatening. Direct complaints, for example, threaten the hearers positive
face, as the speaker holds the interlocutor responsible for the violation of social norms.

Complaint threatens the hearers positive face wants of being admired or
appreciated because the speaker holds a negative attitude toward the hearer and passes
moral judgment. It may also threaten the hearers negative face wants of being free from
imposition, a threat that occurs mostly when a complaint is accompanied by a request for
compensation (Brown and Levinson 1987). A rational complainer will compute the
weightiness of such a face-threatening act based on three criteria: social distance (D),
relative power (P), and ranking of imposition (R).

The Speech Act of Complaint

According to Tanck (2002), the speech act of complaint occurs when a speaker
reacts with displeasure or annoyance to an action that has affected him/her in an
unfavorable manner. As a face-threatening act, complaints offer the highest likelihood of
offending the hearers feelings which, needless to say, may lead to communication
breakdown or conflicts.

Olshtain and Weinback (1987) specify the necessary preconditions for the speech
act of complaint as follows: The speaker expects a favorable event to occur (an
appointment, the return of a debt, the fulfillment of a promise, etc), or an unfavorable
event to be prevented from occurring, (a damage, an insult etc), the action results,
therefore, in the violation of speaker's expectations by either having enabled or failed to
prevent the offensive event. The speaker then sees an action as having unfavorable
consequences for him/her-self. The action is therefore the offensive act. The speaker
holds the hearer responsible for the action. Finally, the speaker chooses to express his/her
dissatisfaction and frustration verbally.

A wide range of studies on the speech act of complaints have shown that people
differ in their use of strategies to express their displeasure, and when cultural diversity is
taken as a factor in the equation, the differences may become even more pronounced.

In an attempt to find out the differences between native English and nonnative
English speakers complaints strategies, Moon (2002) found that nonnative speaker
subjects did not always make complaints following the appropriate ways of NS's
complaints. They tended to make complaints in a more explicit way, whereas native
subjects used more implicit ways of complaints. It was further revealed in the study that
nonnative speakers were not always successful in complaint and in communication, in
general. Moon attributed these failures of nonnative speakers in complaints to be
primarily caused by their grammatical and linguistic limitations, but mainly caused by the
limitation of sociopragmatic knowledge.

Farnia, et al (2010), on the other hand, found that although Americans were more
direct in their expression of complaints in a symmetric situation, they used significantly
more mitigating expressions in their responses in both symmetric and asymmetric
situations compared to their Malaysian counterparts.

Tanck (2002), in one of her studies on the speech acts of refusal and complaint,
arrived at a realization that to help students achieve optimal pragmatic success, teachers
needed to make students aware of specific speech act sets and the accompanying
linguistic features that were necessary to produce appropriate and well-received refusals,
complaints, and other important speech acts.

Trosborgs Complaint Strategies

Complaints can be either direct or indirect. According to Trosborg (1995), the
directness level of the complaint can be decided by the following factors.

1. The complained behavior is or is not mentioned in the propositional content.
2. The speakers negative evaluation of the propositional content is implicitly or explicitly
expressed.
3. The agentive involvement of the complainee is ambiguously or straightforwardly
conveyed.
4. The speakers oppositional attitude towards complainees behavior is indirectly or
directly voiced.
5. The speakers adverse opinion of complainee as a person is unclearly or clearly
communicated. (p. 315)

Trosborg (1995) compares the interlanguage complaints of Danish learners of
English with complaints produced by native speakers of English and native speakers of
Danish by means of role play. She classifies complaint strategies into four main
categories: (1) no explicit reproach; (2) expression of annoyance or disapproval; (3)
accusation, and (4) blame. These strategies are ordered from the most indirect strategy (1)
to the most direct (4) (Trosborg, 1995: 315-320).

The strategy of no explicit reproach is employed when the speaker wants to give a
hint or to imply to the hearer that he/she acknowledges the offense committed by the
hearer. The second strategy, expression of annoyance or disapproval, is a more direct way
of implying that the hearer bears responsibility for the offense. The speaker expresses
displeasure and annoyance at a deplorable state of affairs in the presence of the hearer;
however, the speaker does not explicitly say that the hearer is the guilty person. By using
the third strategy, the speaker can either ask the hearer about the offense or the situation,
or outline the unfavorable consequences of the hearers actions and assert that the hearer
is responsible for that offense in some way. The fourth strategy, blaming, is the most
direct way for the speaker to express his or her bad feeling about the offense. The
blaming strategy consists of three sub-categories: (1) modified blame; (2) explicit
condemnation of the accuseds action, and (3) explicit condemnation of the accused as a
person.

The following are examples of all the complaint strategies mentioned above:
1. The kitchen was clean and orderly when I left it last. (Giving hints)
2a. You know I dont like dust, Im allergic to dust, didnt you know? (Expressing
annoyance)
2b. But look, I mean, try to look at it from my point of view, I mean, Im here and the
whole thing falls back on me, I have got to live in this dump, you know, and its not very
nice sitting here night after night at home, you know, and just looking round at all the
mess. (Mentioning consequences)
3a. Look what I just found in my cupboard, your dirty clothes. (Indirect accusation)
3b. You dont even clean up after you when youve been there, you used to do it, whats up
with you now? (Direct accusation)
4a. Its boring to stay here, and I hate living in a mess, anyway you ought to clean up
after you. (Modified blame)
4b. You never clean up after you, Im sick and tired of it. (Explicit condemnation of the
accuseds action)
4c. Mette (swear-word), really, one can never (swear-word) trust you a damn. (Explicit
condemnation of the accused as a person) (Trosborg, 1995: 316-319)

In addition, Trosborg found that several types of directive acts were joined
together with the complaint strategies. These directive acts comprised (1) request for
repair, (2) threat and (3) request for forbearance. According to her, these acts are used to
support the strategies in case the speaker wants to negotiate with the hearer to repair the
damage caused by the hearer or to prevent a repetition of the mistake.

Rinnert and Nogami (2006) Components of Complaints

A taxonomy of complaints developed by Rinnert and Nogami (2006) was adopted
to analyze the data. This taxonomy consists of three main components of complaints,
namely the main component, the level of directness and the number of softeners used in
the interaction.

These components are presented, as follows:
1. Main component
Initiator (e.g. greetings, address terms, and other opening formulas)
Complaints ( expressions of negative evaluation, including justification)
Request (direct or indirect attempts to get the hearer to redress
the situation)
2. Level of directness
Indirect ( no explicit mention of offense, implied offense only)
Somewhat direct (mention of offense, but no mention of the
hearers responsibility)
Very direct (explicit mention of offense and hearers responsibility for it)
3. Amount of mitigation (counting the softening expressions, e.g. a little, sort
of, you know, would/ could, I think/ I wonder)

Might these studies suggest that advanced studies in the target language can and
will facilitate the socio-cultural communicative competence of learners? While this may
sound logical, Umar (2006) found that advanced Sudanese learners of English, in spite of
the so many years they spend in learning English, were yet not capable of performing
adequate complaints in English. Their utterances were not always consistent with native
speakers in terms of appropriateness to the situation. It is also found that advanced
Sudanese learners of English produce fewer components of the semantic formulas
necessary for making the target speech act of complaints.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

The study focused on the Trosborgs 1995 complaint strategies and Rinnert &
Nogamis (2006) components of complaints. Trosborgs classification suggests four
categories ranging from the most indirect strategy (Hints) to the most direct (Explicit
Blame). In Rinner & Nogamis components of complaints define complaints as having a
Main Component, Level of Directness, and Amount of Mitigation.

For the interest of the present study, some variables were delimited for their
irrelevance and or overlapping tendencies. Among Trosborgs strategies, only Hints,
Indirect Accusation, Direct Accusation, and Explicit Blame (both Person and Action)
were included. The irrelevance of the other strategies (i. e. Ill-consequence, Expressing
Annoyance, etc.) resulted in them being eliminated as variables in the study.
Specifically, the delimitation of the variables is as follows:
For Situation 1 only Hints, Indirect Accusation, and Explicit Blame (Person)
were used.
For Situation 2 only Indirect Accusation and Direct Accusation were
considered.
For Situation 3 only Hints, Explicit Blame (Action) and Explicit Blame
(Person) were used.

Among Rinnert & Nogamis components, the Level of Directness was discounted
from the study because it would overlap with Trosborgs. Only Main Components and
Amount of Mitigation were considered as variables for all three situations in the DCT.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Communicative competence means that learners not only should master the
grammar rules of the target language but also its register. Acceptability and
appropriateness are rules of language use that should also be taught to the learners to
fully claim competence in the target language. This study is significant in that it provides
an insight into the complaining techniques of the Kapampangan learners that teachers
must be aware of in order to avoid shoe-horning the mostly American authored style
manuals prescriptions on pragmatic behavior. Intercultural competence is defined as the
ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on
ones intercultural knowledge, skills and attitudes (Deardorff 2006, p.247). Deardorff
(2006) also suggested that most definitions of intercultural competence have been largely
derived from Western perspectives.

Due to the importance intercultural understanding and competencies have in the
increasingly complex and technological world, universities are facing the challenge to
develop intercultural understanding and competencies in both the formal and informal
curricula. The study is therefore significant in the multicultural setup of a modern
classroom in providing an insight into a slice of culture of the Kapampangan, which may
lead to a deeper cultural understanding and tolerance.

The corpus of Kapampangan linguistics will also benefit from the study in that it
provides baseline data on which future inquiries can be anchored. The study is the first of
its kind for its systematic inquiry into a facet of the Kapampangan pragmatic behavior
and it is strongly recommended that follow-up studies be undertaken to augment or
continue the scholarly investigation of this much-neglected area of Kapampangan
linguistics.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The design of the present study is one of survey and causal-comparative study.
This is a research design that seeks to find relationships between independent and
dependent variables after an action or event has already occurred. The researcher's goal is
to determine whether the independent variable affected the outcome, or dependent
variable, by comparing two or more groups of individuals (Brewer & Kuhn, 2010).

Respondents of the Study

The respondents for this study were native English speakers (15) and native
Kapampangan speakers (14)/ A Kapampangan respondent had opted out during the
course of the study, which explains the imbalance in the number of respondents as to the
language they speal at home. A short demographic profile such as the respondents age,
language or languages spoken at home, and stay in the addresses they currently stay in
was included as a preliminary to the survey.

The respondents were limited to those who speak Kapampangan at home for one
group and those who speak English at home for the other group. All of the respondents
are in First Year college with age range of 16-17.5 years. The mean number of stay in the
address among native Engish speakers is 1.2 years while Kapampangan respondents have
been staying in the same address since birth. Sex was not controlled in the study as the
study focused only on the strategies and components of complaints, while literatures do
exist concerning the gender-difference of complaining, but they focus only on the
frequency and length of complaints, such as the study conducted by Sukyadi and Dyah
(2011) which revealed that females complain more and uses longer sentences when doing
so, while males complain more when the offender is also a male, but somewhat become
reserved when the offender is a female.

For confidentiality, all respondents were asked to refrain from writing their names
on the DCT. Instead they were assigned numeric codes. Following no particular order, the
fifteen English-speaking respondents were coded R1 through R15, and the
Kapampangan-speaking respondents, R1 through R14.

The nature of this sampling technique is in agreement with the very nature of
purposive sampling which, according to Crossman (n. d.), purposive sample, also
commonly called a judgmental sample, is one that is selected based on the knowledge of
a population and the purpose of the study. The subjects are selected because of some
characteristic.

As an example of when purposive sampling may seem more sensible is when a
researcher is studying the nature of school spirit as exhibited at a school pep rally, he or
she might interview people who did not appear to be caught up in the emotions of the
crowd or students who did not attend the rally at all. In this case, the researcher is using a
purposive sample because those being interviewed fit a specific purpose or description.

To elicit complaints from the respondents an adaptation of a Discourse
Completion Test patterned after Hudson, Detmer, and Brown (1995, as cited in Nurani,
2009) was used. The test contained three (3) situations which called for the respondents
to respond as honestly and as spontaneously as they could to the situations described.
Situation 1 featured an asymmetrical relationship in which the respondent was required to
complain to a professor. Situation 2 and 3 both had symmetrical relationship. Situation 2
required the respondent to complain to a friend while Situation 3 required that the
respondent complain to a stranger who was about his/her age. The DCT used in the study
contains the following situations:

SITUATION 1. You will be complaining to your teacher about your grade. You feel its a
little bit unfair that one of your classmates who is always absent from the class has gotten
almost the same mark as you.

SITUATION 2. You have been patiently waiting in line to pay at the cashier for some
grocery items when another person about your age suddenly cut in front of you (he only
has one item to pay for, anyway).

SITUATION 3. While away on a weekend trip to your relatives place in the province,
you let your roommate play with your Xbox. Upon returning, you noticed that the joystick
isnt working. What would you say to your friend?

Kasper and Dahl (1991) define DCT as a written questionnaire containing short
descriptions of a particular situation intended to reveal the pattern of a speech act being
studied, and Nurani (2009) classifies DCT into five loose types, namely: the classic
format, where the prompt is ended by a rejoinder and/or initiated by interlocutors
utterance; the dialogue construction, which may be commenced by an interlocutor
initiation but the rejoinder is not present; the open-item verbal response only, where
participants are free to respond without any limitation from an interlocutor initiation and
rejoinder but they are required to provide verbal response; The fourth type is open item
free response construction. In this type, participants are free to give verbal response or
non-verbal response and even allowed not to respond at all. The last type of DCT is the
new version of DCT developed by Billmyer and Varghese (2000). This new type is
actually a modification of open item-verbal response. The difference is that in the new
version, situational background is provided in details (Nurani, 2009).

DCTs have their own inherent limitations, to wit: the authenticity of the
interaction, the simplification of the complexity of interactions in a real conversation due
to the hypothetical nature of the described situations, their failure to bring out the
extended negotiations found in authentic conversation, among others (Nurani, 2009).

To further augment the data gathering, an interview with a small subgroup of the
respondents to elicit explanations and/or justifications of their responses to the situations
was likewise conducted.

Finally, as an aid in the analysis, the DCT responses were examined using the
strategies of complaints suggested by Trosborg (1995) augmented by Rinnert and
Nogami (2006) taxonomy of complaints.

The novelty of a study on the Filipino pragmatic behavior, and in Kapampangan,
is this present studys biggest limitation. The extreme scarcity of local literatures on
which to anchor this study could blatantly result in conjectures and much guessing which
could compromise data analysis and call to question the interpretation of the collected
data.

Moreover, there is also very limited data collected to justify a comfortably valid
generalization to profile the Kapampangan pragmatic behavior in complaining. The
nature with which the data were collected using exclusively DCT (since time constraint
prevented triangulation of the questionnaire with an exhaustive and probing interview)
also presents a limitation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The classification of the strategies used by the respondents in expressing their
complaints was adapted from Trosborg (1995). According to her, there are eight (8)
complaint strategies, namely: Hints, Annoyance, Ill Consequences, Indirect Accusation,
Direct Accusation, Modified Blame, Explicit Blame (Behavior), and Explicit Blame
(person). Moreover, Rinnert & Nogami (2006) taxonomy of complaints was the basis for
determining the component of complaints (Initiator, Complaint, Request) as well as the
mitigating expressions used by the respondents in their complaints.

TABLE 1. Strategies Used by the Respondents in Situation # 1

Note: ESR = English-Speaking Respondents; KSR = Kapampangan-Speaking Respondents

As shown in the table, ESR chose to use Hints when complaining to a person in
authority such as a professor. Hints as a strategy has no explicit reproach, therefore it is
neutral, by making it appear that there is really no problem but an explanation or
clarification by the offending person is in order.

Hint is followed by Indirect Accusation, but by a considerable margin (60% gap),
among ESR. ESRs tended to ask questions about the situation or a problem and tries to
imply that the offending person is responsible for the offense.

On the other hand, none of the KSRs resorted to Hints. Instead, they used Indirect
Accusations as their strategy for expressing their complaint. Surprisingly, two
STRATEGIES FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
ESR KSR ESR FSR
Hints 12 0 80 0
Indirect Accusation 3 12 20 86
Explicit Blame (Person) 0 2 0 14
Total 15 14 100 100
respondents even resorted to Explicit condemnation of the accused person. This finding
corroborates Umars (2006) study which reveals that nonnative speaker subjects do not
always make complaints following the appropriate ways of NS's complaints. They tend to
make complaints in a more explicit way, whereas native subjects use more implicit ways
of complaints. Sample responses follow:

Table 1.1 - HINTS Responses of the ESR for Situation 1

HINTS Responses of the ESR for Situation 1
R# RESPONSES
1 Sir, I got a 90 in prelims... Id like to talk about it if you have time...
2 Excuse me, sir. I was just wondering... I studied hard in your class so how
come I was given such a low grade?
4 Excuse me... Do you have a minute, sir? Id like to ask about my grade in the
semi-final...
5 Sir, I am unhappy with my grade. Can you please explain how it was
computed?
6 Good morning, professor. I would just like to ask something about my grade...
7 Professor, I was just thinking how my grade was so low?
8 Professor, could u please explain to me why I got this grade?
9 Good morning, sir. May I ask something? I got 92 in prelims so I dont
understand how in finals I got 81...
10 Good morning, sir... Favor? I highly appreciate if you consider my case. I hope
you could do something about it...
12 Excuse me, Prof, but I suppose I need clarification concerning my grade...
13 Good morning, sir. May I know how the grades were computed?
14 Sir, I dont feel I deserve the grade in a class Ive given 110 percent in... I think
there is some mistake...
R1 framed his complaint in the form of a declarative in which no reproach is
present. Instead, it was trying to draw the offending persons attention that there was a
matter that needed to be talked about.

R2, R6, and R7 expressed their complaint with a question that could be read as
for-information-only question and not something that could be interpreted as accusatory.
The neutrality with which the question was phrased is further strengthened by the
mitigating expressions I was just wondering... , I would just like to ask..., and I was
just thinking...

R4 expressed his complaint with a very polite and formal request for an audience
with the offending person.

R5, R8, R9 and R13 dealt with the situation with a direct question but mitigated
by expressions that imply subordination and respect to authority. The inclusion of
evocative expression I am unhappy suggests urgency and importance of the issue at
hand, yet no accusatory tone can be read in the statement.

R10 insinuated the issue that something needed repair. However, the complainer
prefaced the request with the word Favor suggesting that the offender would be doing
the repair but only as a favor to the complainer and not as an amend to his (offenders)
offense.

R12 framed his complaint in the form of a request that took away all the accusing
tone in his purpose. The respondent did not want to sound accusatory and that a simple
explanation was all that he was after.

Table 1.2 - INDIRECT ACCUSATION Responses of the ESR for Situation 1

R3 suggested in his complaint that some carelessness was behind his drop in his
grade. However, no guilty person was ever identified. The use of the passive voice is
INDIRECT ACCUSATION Responses of the ESR for Situation 1
R# RESPONSES
3 Sir, is it possible that some of my quizzes were not recorded? My grade
suddenly dropped like 12 points from last terms.
11 Professor ----, Im very disappointed about my grades cuz its lower than I
expected.
15 Hello, sir... My grades are low this term. What happened?
very effective in maintaining the neutrality and goodwill between the complainer and the
complainee by not naming the agent of the action (not recording some quiz).

R11 indirectly accused the offender by insinuating that he had been expecting a
higher grade and that he had been working hard for it.

The question part of R15s complaint indirectly suggests that it was the offender
and not the complainer who was responsible. What happened? shifts the responsibility
to some person other than the complainer but then again it did not specify that the
offender was at fault.

The above finding corroborates what Trosborg (1995) claims that when speaking
to an authority figure, English speakers adjusted their strategies to a greater extent than
did Danish speakers, opting for more hedging and polite terms.

Table 1.3 - INDIRECT ACCUSATION Responses of the KSR for Situation 1
INDIRECT ACCUSATION Responses of the KSR for Situation 1
R# RESPONSES
1 Sir kapag recite ku naman king class ot kababa ku grade? Enaman pu ata fair
ita...
Sir, I always participate in your class but how come my grade is still low? Id
say thats unfair...
2 Sir, siguradu ka makanta yamu grade ko? Masyadu yang mababa eke deserve.
Sir, are you sure that that is my grade? Its very low and I dont deserve it.
3 Sir king subject mu mu karin ku pekamababa...
Sir, its only in your subject where my grade is the lowest...
4 Sir, kutang ku mu pu sana, makananu ing grade ku? Nung ninu ring mapag-
absent ilang matas...
Sir, I would just like to ask, how is my grade? It seems that those who are
always absent get higher grades...
5 Sir, ot kababa ku grade samantalang ding aliwa ela man makaying lulub mas
matas la ikwa kesa kaku??
Sir, why is my grade so low when my other classmates are even always absent
from the class yet they got higher grade than I did?
7 Excuse me sir, pweding mangutang? Kababa na naman ning grade ku sir!!!
Excuse me, Sir. May I ask a question? My grade in your subject is
disappointingly low, sir.

R1 brought to the fore the fact that there had been an effort to get a better grade
but it was futile. Somebody was at fault but the respondent was careful not to name the
offender.

R2s response is interesting in that there is unmistakable ill-will in the way the
first part of the complaint was framed. However, the absence of a direct accusation in the
expression of complaint may have been meant to avoid any offense to the complainee.

R3 insinuated that it was not his intelligence, or the lack of it, which was
responsible for the low grade, as he did well in all his other subjects. Clearly, R3 was not
at fault.

8 Sir eme asamasan ing grade ko? Sabi mu basta perfect attendance atin
incentive...
Sir, can you do something about my grade? You promised incentives to those
with perfect attendance...
9 Good morning, sir... Ikit ke ing grade ku sir neng kababa matas la pa di ------
bagus mapangopya la mu.
Good morning, sir...Ive seen my grade, sir, and it is lower than I expected.
Even ------- got higher grade when they just copy from others.
10 O Sir eke ata deserve ing grade ku keka sir. Mangutang kumu pu sana nung
nokarin ku mibaba...
Sir, I dont think I deserve the grade I got in your subject, sir. I would like to
know in which area I got very low rating in...
11 Sir, unfair... Buti pa ring aliwa mapangopya la mu mas matas la pa kaku...
Sir, its just unfair... Others who just copy from others works got higher grade
than I did...
12 O Sir ot mipakanyan ya ing grade ku?
Hey Sir, what happened to my grade?
13 O Sir, ala kung absent king klasi pero mababa ku pa rin grade... Alang plus
ita?
Sir, I have never been absent from your class but still my grade is still low...
Dont I get a bonus for that?
R4 and R5 might sound like accusing their professor of unfair treatment but with
the formers complaint prefaced by a direct, information-only question, the negative
effect of the complaint had been dampened.

R7 used mitigating expression to soften the impact of the offense of his
complaint.

R8 expressed his complaint in the form of a request. He did not say that there was
some mistake in the computation of his grade but that he was merely suggesting that
there was some other way points could be sourced to improve his grade by reminding the
offender of a promise of incentive.

R9 and R11 resorted to comparing their grades with others to make the
discrepancy even more pronounced. Again, like R4 and R5, there is a suggestion of an
unfair treatment of students by the professor but without specifying it.

R10 softened his complaint with the use of hedging expression ata which
complements with the neutrality of his complaint.

R12s last part of his complaint, a question, shifts the responsibility to some
person other than the complainer but then again it did not specify that the offender was at
fault.

R13s complaint is very similar to R8s in that he suggested a way to correct the
infraction by considering other factors.

Table 1.4 EXPLICIT BLAME (PERSON) Responses of the KSR for Situation 1

EXPLICIT BLAME (PERSON) Responses of the KSR for Situation 1
R# RESPONSES
6 Sir, favoritism ka. Sabi mu basta perfect attendance matas ka bie grade...
Ninanan me ing grade ku?
Sir, you have favorites. You promised higher grades for perfect attendance...
What have you done to my grade?
14 Eke sir buri ing grade binye mu kaku. Eke deserve.
I dont like the grade you gave me. I dont deserve it.
R6 used the second person pronoun ka that directly addressed the offender.
Further, the last part of the complaint states in unambiguous terms that the professor was
the one directly responsible for the offense.

R14 also used the second person pronoun mu that directly puts the burden of
responsibility squarely on the professor.

Rightly or wrongly, all these may suggest a prevalence of a more familiar
relationship among KSR and their professors compared to ESRs who maintain a
somewhat professionally distant relationship with their professors.

Unlike most Asian students , such as Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc
who regard their teachers as higher in authority than their own parents, and that special
form of politeness is reserved for them, Filipino students treat this relationship with a
more open and less-threatening outlook that could be explained away as having been
indoctrinated by the practice of democratic authority that extends not only to the
government but into the Filipino family child-rearing practice as well. A modern Filipino
child is not treated as voiceless and without human rights, unlike the majority of their
Asian counterparts (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, or Vietnamese) who have been trained
in an autocratic homes.


When complaining to their friends, ESRs are more direct in their accusation.
Direct Accusation points to the offending person as the source or cause of the problem.
This finding contradicts with Farnia, et al (2010) study that native speakers of English
were much more direct than native speakers of Malay when the setting is casual and
personal.
ESR KSR ESR KSR
Indirect Accusation 11 7 73 50
Direct Accusation 4 3 27 21
Total 15 10 100 71

Table 2.1 - INDIRECT ACCUSATION Responses of the ESR for Situation 2
R1 and R13 draw the offenders attention to the present state of the gadget
without pointing an accusing finger to the latter.

With the question part it is clear that R2 had not been aware of the damage to the
gadget. He made it unambiguously clear that the gadget had been properly working
before he lent it to his friend. R2 indirectly accused the offender but without specifying
him as the one who damaged it.

R3s last part of the his complaint, a question, is a clear statement that somebody
damaged his gadget, but again without naming the guilty person.

R4 expressed his complaint by suggesting that something other than playing with
the gadget happened which might have caused the damage.
INDIRECT ACCUSATION Responses of the ESR for Situation 2
R# RESPONSES
1 Dude! Look what happened to my joystick!
2 Hey, dude... Why is the joystick not working? It was fine before...
3 Wow, bro... The joystick isnt working properly... Did something happen to it
while I was gone?
4 Dude!!! WTF!!! You were supposed to only play with the Xbox... The joystick
doesnt work now...
5 The joystick was ok when I left it to you, bro...
6 Dude, what happened to my Xbox? I left it to you to look after...
7 Hey I need to talk to you about my Xbox... Guess what? It stopped working.
8 Hey bro my Xbox isnt working. I lent it to you ok but now its not working.
9 Hey I think we need to talk about the Xbox. You were the last one to use it.
10 Hey, did someone other than you play with my Xbox? The joystick isnt
working..
13 Dude!!! I go home and I find my Xbox not working... What happened, dude?

R5 insinuated that his friend might have damaged the gadget but without directly
accusing him.
R6s complaint is similar to R2 in that the gadget had been working properly
when the offender borrowed it. It was now damaged but by whom was not mentioned in
the complaint.

R7 and R9 tried to draw the offenders attention to the damage to the gadget by
saying they needed to talk about it. The complainers were hoping that the offender would
acknowledge their fault without being accused directly.

R8 expressed his complaint by using a declarative sentence in the first part of the
complaint. The fact that something happened to the gadget while the offender was in
possession of it placed the blame on the offender without the complainer stating directly
his (offenders) guilt.

R10 hoped to avoid blaming his close friend by suggesting somebody other than
the latter might have damaged the gadget.

Indirect Accusation is the proper way to deal with such a situation given the fact
that the owner was not present during the commission of the offense and therefore, not in
the best position to directly accuse somebody however huge the odds against to the
contrary may be. Complaining is still to be done with caution even when directed at
somebody who has been a close personal friend as there is a great risk of offending him/
her.

Table 2.2 - DIRECT ACCUSATION Responses of the ESR for Situation 2

R11, R14, and R15 accused the offender directly by using you as the agent of
the action.

DIRECT ACCUSATION Responses of the ESR for Situation 2
R# RESPONSES
11 Hey what the f--- happened to my Xbox? What did you do to it?
12 Dude! Youre such a careless parasite!
14 Bro! Goddamit what did you do to my Xbox??? It stops working, you dork!
15 F-----ng Xbox dont work when I got home. F-----ng what did you do to it???
R12 used exaggeration for expressing his complaint, although it goes without
naming the guilty person. By using derogatory words, it is clear that the object of the
respondents ire is none other than his friend, the guilty one.

Table 2.3 - INDIRECT ACCUSATION Responses of the KSR for Situation 2

R1, R5, and R9 asked a question about the state of the gadget instead of accusing
the offender. This strategy may be effective when the accuser is not certain of the
circumstances surrounding the offense, and the safest way to prevent conflict inevitable
in false accusation is to ask a question that may sound neutral to the offender.

R8 and R13 avoided directly accusing his friend by omitting from the complaint
the agent of the offense. By not saying who has done the offense, the complainer shifts
the blame from the agent to the object of the offense.

By saying that the gadget is expensive, the offense takes on a different level of
gravity. However, R14 refrained from accusing the offender, but instead opting for a more
neutral question.

R# RESPONSES
1 Ot eya gagana ing Xbox kaybat meng indam?
Why isnt my Xbox not working properly after you borrowed it?
5 Oy bro, ot kabud ne mu e gagana ing Xbox?
Bro, why did my Xbox all of sudden stop working properly?
8 Oy tol ikit ke ing Xbox ku makakalat ya king room, sira ya.
Tol, I saw my Xbox lying around in the room, it stopped working properly
9 Pare, bakit mesira ya ing controller na ning Xbox? Kasi ali ne man dating
makanyan...
Bro, why is the Xbox controller not working properly? It worked properly
before...
13 Kauli ku eya gagana ing Xbox. Eku tuluy makapamyalung...
When I got home, I found out that the Xbox was not working properly. Now I
cant play any games with it.
14 Makananu ya kanyan ing Xbox ku? Kakamal na pamo nyan!
What would happen to my Xbox now? They dont come cheap, you know!

Table 2.4 - DIRECT ACCUSATION Responses of the KSR for Situation 2

All responses from the KSR in the above table directly accuse the offender by
specifying him through the liberal use of Kapampangan second person pronoun me. The
degree of certainty is such that there is no ambiguity to be discern from the expression of
complaints.

However, there are responses from the KSR that cannot be classified into the
taxonomy of strategies. Responses like the following defy classification based on
Trosborgs:

Table 2.5 - UNMITIGATED THREATS Response of the KSR for Situation 2

The responses above are what makes Kapampangan complaining distinct from
that of their English-speaking counterpart. None of the ESR ever reported willingness to
DIRECT ACCUSATION Responses of the KSR for Situation 2
R# RESPONSES
2 Kapanyira mo! Peparam ke keka tas sinira me mu!
You are destructive! I was only lending it to you but you damaged it!
6 Pepandam ke ing Xbox keka dapat ginamit meng maingat. Ngeni babalik me
sira ne Joystick. Dapat king susunud samasnan mu. Kung mandam ka man e
me sisiran.
I let you borrow my Xbox thats why you should have used it with care. Now
you return it to me with damaged joystick. You should be careful next time. If
you borrow things you should take care of them.
12 Luse ka ne tol? Eya keka ini siran me pa!
You are insane, arent you, Bro? This isnt yours and you destroyed it!
UNMITIGATED THREATS Response of the KSR for Situation 2
R# RESPONSES
10 Ot kabud yamu e pwedi ing Xbox pare? Pag eme elilan yan masapik ka!
Why is the Xbox not working? If you dont replace it, I will hurt you!
11 Ninanan me ing Xbox kasalese dakang likwan misan me mung siran.
Panyagapan daka ken e.
What have you done to my Xbox? I left it with you in good condition and you
damaged it just like that! I will hit you in the head!
inflict physical harm to the offender even when the offense was serious. The Trosborgs
classification does not account for such types of complaints even in her strategy most
readers would consider extremely serious, the explicit blame. In the above responses,
there is a direct accusation conforming with Trosborg definition but the addition of an
unmitigated threat in the same complaint creates a structural impediment to the definition
of direct accusation, thus the need to create a special classification to allow for such types
of strategy, unmitigated threats

Table 2.6 - MITIGATED REQUEST FOR REPAIR Responses of the KSR for Situation 2

The three responses above are interesting in that there is a mitigated request for
repair found at the last part of each complaint. Again, Trosborg (1995) complaint
strategies does not allow classification of such a complaint that contain both a direct
expression of a complaint and a mitigating request for repair in the same breath. It
appears that Kapampangan in particular, and by a very likely extension, other non-
Kapampangan Filipinos, may, in all probability, respond in these manner given the same
situation because of the level of intimacy and trust close friendship among Filipinos is
held, as solid and binding. As a testament to this, many foreigners find awkward what is
commonly practiced by Filipinos: two male friends walking in the street, out in public,
with their hands on each others shoulder.
MITIGATED REQUEST FOR REPAIR Responses of the KSR for Situation 2
R# RESPONSES
3 Oi bro ene gagana ing joystick ku. Nanung gewa mu? Palitan mu ne mu bro
kung ok mu.
Bro, my joystick stopped working. What did you do to it, pare? Just replace it
if its ok with you, bro.
4 Ah mipakananu ya ing joystick ayni ot ali ya pwedi? Nanung gewa mu par ot
mekanyan ya? Baka pweding bayaran mu ne mu para alang problema?
Ah what happened to my joystick? It stopped working. What did you do to it?
Could you just pay for it so we wouldnt have any problem?
7 Sira ya ing Xbox ku. Siguru atin kang gewa... Palitan mu ne mu mura la
naman deng joystick e.
My Xbox stopped working. Maybe you did something to it. Just replace it with
a new one. Anyway, joysticks are cheap.
KSR may not be as direct as their ESR counterparts but there was still no
qualms about accusing their friend when expressing their complaints. However, KSR
are more level-headed in dealing with the situation that their ESR counterpart in that the
former tend to soften the negative impact of the complaint by using mitigating request for
repair usually at the end of the complaint.


When complaining to a stranger who cut in front of them in a line, ESR used
Explicit Condemnation of the offending persons action. ESRs stated directly that the
strangers action had been really offensive to them.

Table 3.1 - EXPLICIT BLAME (ACTION) Responses of the ESR for Situation 3

R1 expressed his complaint by drawing the offenders attention on his action by
reminding him that his action is unacceptable.

R7 reminded the offender that everybody was in a hurry and it was wrong for the
offender to want to be served first even though he was not in the line.

Table 3.2 - EXPLICIT BLAME (PERSON) Responses of the ESR for Situation 3
ESR KSR ESR KSR
Hints 0 2 0 14
Explicit Blame (Action) 2 0 13 0
Explicit Blame (Person) 13 4 87 29
Total 15 6 100 43
EXPLICIT BLAME (ACTION) Responses of the ESR for Situation 3
R# RESPONSES
1 Excuse me, there is a line. Please go to the back of the line.
7 Excuse me... Could you just go the last of the line? We all want to be served
first but there is a line.

R2 directed the complaint squarely on the offending person by ordering him/her
to go behind the last person in the line and not cut in front.

R3, R4, R5, R6, R10, and R14 explicitly blamed the person by labeling the
offender.

R8, R9, R11, R13, and R15 used second-person pronoun which directly addressed
the offender, putting the offensive act unambiguously on the person.

R12 expressed his complaint by blurring the line between the person and the act
by suggesting if the person leaves, the problem leaves with him.

EXPLICIT BLAME (PERSON) Responses of the ESR for Situation 3
R# RESPONSES
2 Excuse me... Youre not special! Go behind the line and wait till youre served.
3 Excuse me... What is your problem? You are rude, mister! Dont jump in front
of me in the line.
4 Excuse me??? Rude! Didnt you notice we all are in line here???
5 Ummm hello? Did your mom teach you manners? How rude!
6 Hey wait for your turn. Its rude to cut in front of a person in line, you know...
8 Uhmmm... Hi... In case you didnt notice... Theres a line here. You dont just
cut in.
9 Excuse me, please... Didnt you notice the line? No cutting in, please!
10 Dude, that is so rude of you... I got in first...
11 Hello! Excuse me... Can you just wait till its your turn? We all are in a hurry
here...
12 WTF dude!!! Like hell Ill allow you to cut in front of me! Get lost!
13 Mister, theres a reason we line up, ok? You should line like all the rest.
14 Hey! Excuse me? Dont you think you are being rude here for cutting in front
of everybody?
15 Hey! No cutting! Whats wrong with you?
However, among KSR tend to resort to sarcasm and think-aloud strategy as their
way of condemning the act of the offending person. They may not state directly that the
offending person was an irresponsible person but that it is hoped that with their
thinking-out-loud would get the persons attention and call to his attention his/her
inappropriate behavior. This strategy, like that of Situation 2, defies Trosborgs
classification. Whereas ESR may be comfortable with directly and explicitly blaming the
offender, KSR would address no one yet their sarcasm is unambiguous and clear. The
responses follow:

Table 3.3 - HINTS Responses of the KSR for Situation 3

Table 3.4 - EXPLICIT BLAME (PERSON) Responses of the KSR for Situation 3

Table 3.5 - SARCASM Response of the KSR for Situation 3
HINTS Responses of the KSR for Situation 3
R# RESPONSES
1 - Tol, pare-parehu tamung mamalagwa kaya nung pwedi mu sana alang mag-
overtake.
- (Bro, we all are in a hurry so if you may, please do not overtake.)
14 - Excuse me, makapila tamu keni oh...
- (Excuse me, we fall in line here ok...)
EXPLICIT BLAME (PERSON) Responses of the KSR for Situation 3
R# RESPONSES
3 - Excuse me, mamalagwa ta ngan kaya eka sasamal.
- (Excuse me, we all are in a hurry here. Dont rush.
9 - Excuse me... Akakit mung pipila keni tas sumingit ka? Swelu mo!
- (You see the line here and still try to cut in front? Wise guy!)
10 - Ala kang modu ne? Emu balung ating pila?
- (You dont have some manners, do you? Didnt you know there is a line?)
12 - Ot gagagad kang muna? Ating pila o...
- (Why cut in front of us? Theres a line here...)

R8 chose to express his complaint with sarcasm using the phrase para masaya
which clearly is the opposite of what the line-jumper is causing.

Table 3.6 - THINK-ALOUD Responses of the KSR for Situation 3

It is interesting how the two sets of respondents of the present study differ in their
object of condemnation. As shown in the first of the two tables above, Kapampangan tend
to express their annoyance through sarcasm, as in the case of R8. This strategy may then
SARCASM Response of the KSR for Situation 3
R# RESPONSES
6 - Pwedi palang sumingit keni sana nandin ku pa yari keni...
- (I didnt know that line-jumping is allowed here... I wouldve finished
earlier.)
8 Ay sana alang mapanyingit keni para mas masaya...
(Ay! This would be more fun if there were no line-jumpers...)
THINK-ALOUD Responses of the KSR for Situation 3
R# RESPONSES
2 Ding aliwang tau ken ala lang modu ne?
(Some people just do not have manners, do they?)
8 Ay sana alang manovertake ken o...
(Ay! I wish theres be no overtaking here...)
4 Sana alang samal makiunahan...
(I wish thered be no one trying to push ahead of others in line...)
5 Ay nako ding aliwa pin naman ela byasang mamasang sign...
(Ay nako! [sigh] Some people just cant read signs...)
7 Ding kararatang ken o sana munta la king talwing pila...
(Those who just arrived should be the last in line...)
11 Ay sana alang manovertake...
(I wish no one would overtake...)
13 Ding aliwang tawu ala lang modu... Sumingit na la mu kabud...
(Some people just dont have manners... They just insert themselves in line
without asking first...)
be viewed as somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek comment and thus not to be taken
seriously but still a grain of truth is embedded in the comment. Or, Kapampangan
could try think-aloud as a strategy to prevent a direct confrontation with persons who
may be hostile or worse, violent. Think-aloud strategy is done when the complainer is not
talking to any one in particular, similar to an apostrophe, where the addressee is absent.
As a complaint strategy, thinking-aloud may also solicit sympathy or support from those
who are present in the same situation who may also be thinking the same. Many
Filipinos do actually resort to this strategy because by nature the majority of the
Filipinos are not confrontational, and would rather resort to avoidance in order to
save face. Filipinos who tend to express their thoughts in direct manner are
generally considered tactless. Interestingly, none of the ESR resorted to this strategy
as a way to express their annoyance. In corroboration to this, Du (1995) collected the
complaints from the university students in Mainland China in response to a situation in
which the speaker was bothered by the noise from a neighbors evening violin lesson
taken in the evening. The results showed that there was a tendency for the Chinese to
avoid open confrontations by complaining in a modest and casual manner for the sake of
the hearers face.

TABLE 4. Summary of Respondents DCT responses in all 3 Situations

The table above summarizes the various distribution of the respondents DCT
responses in all three situation. As seen in the table, ESR and KSR responded quite
markedly different from each other except in Situation 3 where the difference is not that
much pronounced.

The biggest difference can be seen in Situation 1. In effect, the result in Situation
STRATEGIES SITUATION 1 SITUATION 2 SITUATION 3
ESR KSR ESR KSR ESR KSR
Hints 12 0 0 0 0 2
Indirect Accusation 3 12 11 7 0 0
Direct Accusation 0 0 4 2 0 0
Explicit Blame (Action) 0 0 0 0 2 0
Explicit Blame (Person) 0 2 0 0 13 2
TOTAL 15 14 15 9 15 4
1 suggests that KSR are comfortable in expressing their complaint to a person whose
authority supersedes theirs, although done indirectly. In comparison, ESR tend to use
caution when complaining to a person who is considered above their own level of power.

There are KSR responses in Situation 2 and Situation 3 where the Trosborgs
1995 complaint strategies do not fit squarely, necessitating the framing of a separate
classification for the responses.

In summary, therefore, there is an apparent difference in the complaining
strategies used by the two groups of culturally distinct respondents.

TABLE 5. Respondents Main Components of Complaint in Situation # 1

Table shows that for both groups of respondents the use of Initiators was the
main component of their complaints when complaining to their professor
concerning unfair grades.

This finding contrasts with Farnia, et al (2010) study which found the use of
complaints to be the most frequently used strategy of the main component category for
native speakers of English.

Initiators include greetings, address terms, and other conversation openings
(Excuse me, Hello, Hi, etc.). In the case of the respondents the most commonly used
initiators was a formal address (Sir). However, KSR followed their initiator with a
request whereas ESR proceeded with stating the problem after the initiator.

Filipinos are not much different from other culture (esp. Western) in expressing
deference to persons in authority although unlike most other Asians, there is not much
ritual, most conspicuously, bowing or hand-clasping (found among Malays, Thai,
Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese) (Dyah & Sukyadi, 2011). Below is the table for the
DCT responses of both groups. Initiators employed are in bold print.

Table 5.1 - INITIATORS as used by the ESR for Situation 1
MAIN COMPONENT FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
ESR KSR ESR KSR
Initiator 15 14 100 100
TOTAL 15 14 100 100

Table 5.2 - INITIATORS as used by the KSR for Situation 1
INITIATORS as used by the ESR for Situation 1
R# RESPONSES
semi-final...
computed?
6 Good morning, professor. I would just like to ask...
10 Good morning, sir... Favor? I highly appreciate if you consider my case. I
hope you could do something about it...
expected.
15 Excuse me, sir... My grades are low this term. What happened?
INITIATORS as used by the KSR for Situation 1
R# RESPONSES
ita...
say thats unfair...
incentive...


The main component of ESR complaint to their friend is Initiator although I
venture that the initiators used by ESR were more of direct and personal compared
to the distant, impersonal, or deferential initiators they used in Situation # 1.
Complaints, on the other hand, made up the main component of complaint to
friend by KSR. This may suggest an even more intimate friendly relationship they have
toward their friend than the ESR toward theirs. Initiators follow closely after complaint as
the main component. Most common initiators are OY, to call attention and Pare, to show
comraderie. Cuss words were also used by one FSR, which, according to him, was
supposed to be taken as a mere expression and not to be taken seriously. The table below
than I did...
ita?
MAIN COMPONENT FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
ESR KSR ESR KSR
Initiator 13 4 87 29
Complaint 2 9 13 64
Request 0 1 0 7
TOTAL 15 14 100 100
shows the groups DCT responses grouped according to the main components of
complaints.


The table below shows the complaints as used by ESR for Situation 2. It can be
seen that the expression may contain cuss words in expressing the respondents
annoyance, which is very common among people who share close, intimate, and personal
relationship.

Table 6.2 - COMPLAINTS as used by the ESR for Situation 2
R# RESPONSES
while I was gone?
doesnt work now...
working..
11 Hey what the f--- happened to my Xbox?

R5 expresses a negative evaluation of the issue without resorting to a greeting or
Initiator. Instead, he went directly to the expression of his complaint.

R15 used cuss words in expressing his negative evaluation of the issue. Ironically,
cuss words are meaningless when used in the type of context as Situation 2.

Table 6.3 - INITIATORS as used by KSR for Situation 2

As can be seen in the table, the most commonly used initiator for informal and
personal context such as Situation 2 is an informal address (see above in bold print).

COMPLAINTS as used by the ESR for Situation 2
R# RESPONSES
R# RESPONSES
kung ok mu.
makanyan...
before...

TABLE 6.4 - COMPLAINTS as used by the KSR for Situation 2

Complaints as a main component of complaints (Rinnert & Nogami, 2006) is
defined as an expression of a negative evaluation of the situation at hand. The speaker-
complainer directly expresses his/her concern without the formality of a greeting or an
COMPLAINT as used by the KSR for Situation 2
R# RESPONSES
me sisiran.
initiator. The sample responses above exemplify this fact.

Table 6.5 - REQUEST as used by the KSR for Situation 2

R4 did not use greeting or any form of opening, nor did he start with a
complaint. Instead, a request is the main component of the complaint as it is the
speaker-complainers main purpose of expressing his complaint.


For both groups of respondents, the use of initiators was more prevalent than any
other main components of their complaints to a stranger.
However, ESR tended to show more anger toward the offending person with the
use of cuss words, sarcastic address, even threat of physical harm. ESRs showed more
restrain by using Excuse me as an initiator.
During the interview, an FSR claimed the very public setting of the offense
somewhat dampened their desire to directly reprimand the offending person.
Below are the respondents DCT responses:

REQUEST as used by the KSR for Situation 2
R# RESPONSES
MAIN COMPONENT FREQUENCY FREQUENCY
ESR KSR ESR KSR
Initiator 15 12 100 86
Complaint 0 2 0 14
TOTAL 15 14 100 100

The Use of Mitigating Espressions
The use of mitigating expressions may help diffuse tension brought about by the
confrontation. The following table shows the mitigating expressions used by the
respondents:

R# RESPONSES
of me in the line.
6 Hey, wait for your turn. Its rude to cut in front of a person in line, you know...
cut in.
here...
12 Hey! Like hell Ill allow you to cut in front of me! Get lost!
14 Hey! Excuse me? Dont you think you are being rude here for cutting in front
of everybody?
15 Hey! No cutting! Whats wrong with you??

Table 7.2 - MITIGATING EXPRESSIONS used by the ESR in all 3 Situations

Table 7.3 - MITIGATING EXPRESSIONS used by the KSR in all 3 Situations
MITIGATING EXPRESSIONS USED BY THE ESR IN ALL THREE
SITUATIONS
R# RESPONSES
semi-final...
computed?
14 Sir, I dont feel I deserve the grade in a class Ive given 110 percent in... I
think there is some mistake...
MITIGATING EXPRESSIONS USED BY THE KSR IN ALL THREE
SITUATIONS
R# RESPONSES

The use of mitigating expressions is a communication strategy employed to
express politeness and distance. The more these expressions are used in the
communication, the more polite the interlocutors appear. Or seen in another light,
the more polite and formal the situation becomes, the more mitigating expressions
are used. The above expressions sit very harmoniously with the strategies used by
the respondents (see Table 1.) This is also consistent with Farnia, et al (2010) finding
that Americans used significantly greater mitigation than native speakers of Malay
in the formal setting. Based on the data, KSR appear to use mitigating expressions
very sparingly compared with their ESR counterparts.

In terms of frequency, ESR used more mitigating expressions when the situation
is formal and asymmetrical compared with the KSR who used markedly less mitigating
expressions in the same situation. The sparing use of mitigating expressions by KSR may
be indicative of the open and unthreatening relationship they had with their professors,
and it should not be taken to mean disrespect to authority merely by the small number of
the mitigating expressions used.

There were no mitigating expressions used in both Situations # 2 and # 3. During
an interview both representatives of the two groups of respondents claimed that the
familiarity of the setting in Situation # 2 rendered mitigating expressions irrelevant or
useless while Situation # 3 was perceived to be a blatant affront to them that, again,
ita...
say thats unfair...
MITIGATING EXPRESSIONS USED BY THE KSR IN ALL THREE
SITUATIONS
mitigating expressions just dont cut it. KSR felt that irresponsible people should not be
tolerated and treated with kinds glove.

Table 8. A Summary of the Components of Complaints of the Respondents in All Three
Situations

Table 8 presents an integrated view of the main components of complaints used
by both groups of respondents. As the table shows, there is no pronounced difference in
components of complaints used by both the ESR and KSR. In Situation 1 both groups
mirror each others responses by using initiators because of the formal context of the
situation. Situation 2, however, presents an interesting difference wherein half of the KSR
resorted to expressing their complaint. This becomes logical when one considers the fact
that KSR felt more open and free to complain to their close friends, and did not feel the
need to use Initiators, which are more frequently found in formal situations.

CONCLUSION

The present study has not even begun to scratch the surface of the vast expanse of
the complexity of the Filipino pragmatic behavior. While, admittedly, the present studys
scope was quite limited in many respects, it still provides useful insights into the behavior
of the Kapampangan when involved in a face-threatening-act interaction such as
expressing complaints.

Kapampangan are more comfortable using Indirect Accusations when
complaining to a person in authority, while native English speakers tend to use Hints by
dropping suggestions pointing to a presence of a problem. When the situation becomes
familiar and casual, both Kapampangan- and English-speaking respondents resorted to
Accusations (both Direct and Indirect) and Explicit Condemnation, marking a total
absence of qualms or hesitations in voicing out their complaints. But it is also noteworthy
that Kapampangans preferred way of dealing with formal symmetrical situation when
complaining seems to be to think out loud in hopes of gaining support or sympathy, or
MAIN COMPONENT SITUATION 1 SITUATION 2 SITUATION 3
ESR KSR ESR KSR ESR KSR
INITIATOR 15 14 13 4 15 12
COMPLAINT 0 0 2 7 0 2
REQUEST 0 0 0 3 0 0
TOTAL 15 14 15 14 15 14
both, from others who are present.

In terms of the Components of Complaints, Initiator is the most commonly used
main component of complaints for both Kapampangan- and English-speaking
respondents, regardless of the context.
Finally, mitigating expressions are only used in formal setting but not in familiar,
casual, or hostile setting. Kapampangan use mitigating expressions only sparingly unlike
their English-speaking counterparts which use these expressions in almost every instance
when complaining in an asymmetrical situation.

Unfortunately, the data considered in the study were very limited, thus
formulating generalizations out of them may mislead the readers. It is hoped that future
studies address this major limitation and thus may present a better description of the
Filipino pragmatic behavior.

RECOMMENDATION

The study has proved, albeit the limited sampling, that Trosborgs strategies of
complaint is insufficient in describing the complaining strategies of Kapampangan.
Cultural factors should be taken into consideration, and forcing the Trosborg
classification to shoe-horn and describe complaining in Kapampangan could lead to
misinformation and conflict. It is therefore recommended that, in lieu of the Trosborgs
strategies of complaint, the separate classification should instead be considered when
looking into complaining in Kapampangan, and by extension, other non-Kapampangan
Filipinos pragmatic behavior in complaining. The following matrix to describe
complaining in Kapampangan is suggested:

1. Indirect Accusation - similar to Trosborgs definition. The speaker-complainer resorts
to bringing up the issue or problem at hand without specifying who the offender is.
The hearer is expected to connect the dot (inferential bridging) and perform the
expected reparation.

2. Explicit Blame - similar to Trosborgs definition. However, as Trosborg divides this
classification into Action and Person, the Kapampangan speaker-complainer seems not
to be particular about whether the offense lies in the action or in the offender himself.
The suggested classification will therefore not accommodate such division. In this
situation, the speaker-complainer expresses his dissatisfaction by making it clear it is
the offending persons fault and reparation should therefore be in order. Unlike the
above classification, the terms in the complaint in explicit blame are clear and
unambiguous.

3. Sarcasm - The real novelty of the study lies in the identification of a strategy that has
not been described before. Sarcasm is such a classification. Respondents resorted to
such sarcasm when confronted with issues involving a stranger as the offending
person. In this situation, explicit blame will surely result in conflict and
misunderstanding and in order to avoid such occurrence, the speaker -complainer
resorts to sarcastic remarks that could make the issue seem insignificant but the tone is
unmistakably an expression of dissatisfaction and/or irritation.

4. Think-Aloud - Another novel classification arising from the study is the use of
Think-Aloud strategy. Culturally, Filipinos are less confrontational and would avoid
facing the issue head on if given a choice. Americans, and many from the Western
world, prefer and even value straight-forwardness and directness and see anything in
the contrary as a character weakness. Avoidance should not be interpreted as
cowardice or avoidance when Asians in general, and Filipinos in particular, are
concerned, however. It is a culturally bound norm for face-saving which is very
common among Asians. Filipinos do not feel comfortable saying anything in the face
of the person, even in the most informal situations. It is in this light that Think-Aloud
is in fact the most commonly used strategy for complaining in a situation similar to
Sarcasm. The idea is that the speaker-complainer is able to express his dissatisfaction
in a manner of avoidance, hoping that the offending person who is at a hearing
distance would hear the remark. At the same time, the speaker-complainer hopes to
solicit approval and/or support from the people who are in the same situation and are
also at a hearing distance. It is important to point at this point that the aim of this
strategy is not public shaming of the offending person but an indirect request for
reparation.

The above classification is flexible and should therefore be refined as more and more
evidence to support of refute the suggestion.

REFERENCES

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brewer. E. W. & Kuhn, J. (2010). Causal-Comparative design. In Salkind (ed.)
Encyclopedia of Research Design. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches
to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1, 1-47.

Crossman, A. (n. d.). Purposive sampling. Retrieved on Oct 2, 2013 from
http://sociology.about.com/od/Types-of-Samples/a/Purposive-Sample.htm

De Capua, A. (1998). Complaints: a comparison between German and English
Unpublished manuscript. Concordia College, English Language Center, Bronxville,
NY.

Dyah Ayuh T. & Sukyadi, D. (2011). Complaining in EFL learners: Differences of
realizations between men and women. Parole, 2(1).

Deardoff, D. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a
student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 10(3), pp. 241-266.

Farnia, M., Buchheit, L., & Shahida Banu binti Salim. (2010). I need to talk to you A
contrastive pragmatic study of speech act of complaint in American English and
Malaysian. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture. Retrieved
on 11 Sept. 2012 from www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/JOURNAL/.

Han, C.-h. (1992). A comparative study of compliment responses of female Koreans in
Koreans-speaking situations and in English-speaking situations. WPEL: Working
Papers in Educational Linguistics, 8(2), 17-31.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J. (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics, 269-293. Baltimore: Penguin Education, Penguin Books
Ltd.

Kasper, G. and Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18/21, 49-69.

Moon, K.(2001). Speech act study: Differences between native and nonnative
speaker complaint strategies. Retrieved 22 Oct 2012 from http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/
bitstream/handle/1961/5225/Kyunghye_Moon.pdf;jsessi
nid=332D6D7E79BDDC1E1C8146034F959726?sequence=1

Nurani, L. M. (2009). Methodological issue in pragmatice research: Is discourse
completion test a reliable data collection instrument? Retrieved 13 October 2012
from http://www.fsrd.itb.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/6bulus-deal.pdf

Oller, J. W. (1973). Some psycholinguistic controversies. In Oller, J. W. & Richards,
J. (Eds.). Focus on the Learner: Pragmative Perspective for the Language Teacher.
Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishing.

Olshtain, E. and Weinbach, L. (1987). Complaints: A Study of speech act behavior
among native and nonnative speakers of Hebrew. In J. Verschueren and Bertucelli-
Papi(Eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective (PP. 195-208) Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

Prykarpatska, I. (2008). Why are you late? Cross-cultural pragmatic study of complaints
in American English and Ukrainian. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21:
87-102.

Rinnert, C., & Nogami, Y. (2006). Preferred complaint strategies in Japanese and
English. Authentic Communication: Proceedings of the 5th Annual JALT PanSIG
Conference, 32-47.

Sukyadi, D. & Dyah, A. T. (2012). Complaining in EFL learners: Differences of
realizations between men and women. Retrieved on October 22, 2013 from
http://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/parole/article/download/article/1435/1213.

Tanck, S. (2002). Speech act sets of refusal and complaint: A comparison of native and
non-native English spearkers production. TESL 523 Second Language Acquisition.
Retrieved 22 Oct. 2012 from http://www.american.edu/cas/tesol/pdf/upload/WP-2004-
Tanck-Speech-Act.pdf

Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Request, complaints, and apologies.
New York: Walter de Guyter & Co.

Umar, A. M. (2006). The speech act of complaint as realized by advanced Sudanese
learners of English. Umm Al-Qura University Journal of Educational & Social
Sciences & Humanities. Vol. 18-N0.2.

APPENDIX A - RESPONDENTS ANSWERS TO THE DCT
RESPONSES OF THE ESR FOR SITUATION 1
R# RESPONSES
semi-final...
computed?
expected.

15 Excuse me, sir... My grades are low this term. What happened?
RESPONSES OF THE KSR FOR SITUATION 1
R# RESPONSES
ita...
say thats unfair...

incentive...
than I did...
ita?
R# RESPONSES
while I was gone?

doesnt work now...
working..
11 Hey what the f--- happened to my Xbox?
R# RESPONSES
kung ok mu.
me sisiran.
makanyan...
before...

R# RESPONSES
of me in the line.
6 Hey, wait for your turn. Its rude to cut in front of a person in line, you know...
cut in.
here...
12 Hey! Like hell Ill allow you to cut in front of me! Get lost!
14 Hey! Excuse me? Dont you think you are being rude here for cutting in front of
everybody?

15 Hey! No cutting! Whats wrong with you??
R# RESPONSES
1 - Tol, pare-parehu tamung mamalagwa kaya nung pwedi mu sana alang mag-
overtake.
- (Bro, we all are in a hurry so if you may, please do not overtake.)
2 Ding aliwang tau ken ala lang modu ne?
(Some people just do not have manners, do they?)
3 - Excuse me, mamalagwa ta ngan kaya eka sasamal.
- (Excuse me, we all are in a hurry here. Dont rush.
4 Sana alang samal makiunahan...
(I wish thered be no one trying to push ahead of others in line...)
5 Ay nako ding aliwa pin naman ela byasang mamasang sign...
(Ay nako! [sigh] Some people just cant read signs...)
6 - Pwedi palang sumingit keni sana nandin ku pa yari keni...
- (I didnt know that line-jumping is allowed here... I wouldve finished
earlier.)
7 Ding kararatang ken o sana munta la king talwing pila...
(Those who just arrived should be the last in line...)
8 Ay sana alang mapanyingit keni para mas masaya...
(Ay! This would be more fun if there were no line-jumpers...)
9 - Excuse me... Akakit mung pipila keni tas sumingit ka? Swelu mo!
- (You see the line here and still try to cut in front? Wise guy!)
APPENDIX B - DISCOURSE COMPLETION TEST USED IN THE STUDY

NAME (Optional) ________________________ AGE: ____________________
LENGTH OF STAY IN THE ADDRESS IN YEARS: ____________________
LANGUAGE/S SPOKEN AT HOME: ________________________________

DIRECTIONS: The following scenarios ask you to respond accordingly based on what
you would actually say in the real-life situation.

SITUATION 1

1. You will be complaining to your teacher about your grade. You feel its a little bit
unfair that one of your classmates who is always absent from the class has gotten
almost the same mark as you.

SITUATION 2

1. You have been patiently waiting in line to pay at the cashier for some grocery items
when another person about your age suddenly cut in front of you (he only has one item
to pay for, anyway).

SITUATION 3

1. While away on a weekend trip to your relatives place in the province, you let your
roommate play with your Xbox. Upon returning, you noticed that the joystick isnt
working. What would you say to your friend?
10 - Ala kang modu ne? Emu balung ating pila?
- (You dont have some manners, do you? Didnt you know there is a line?)
11 Ay sana alang manovertake...
(I wish no one would overtake...)
12 - Ot gagagad kang muna? Ating pila o...
- (Why cut in front of us? Theres a line here...)
13 Ding aliwang tawu ala lang modu... Sumingit na la mu kabud...
(Some people just dont have manners... They just insert themselves in line
without asking first...)
14 - Excuse me, makapila tamu keni oh...
- (Excuse me, we fall in line here ok...)

Complaining in English and in Kapampangan For Research 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaining in English and in Kapampangan For Research 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMPLAINING IN ENGLISH AND IN KAPAMPANGAN:

A CONTRASTIVE PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS

You might also like