Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 31 August 2022

Complaint Responses in Business Emails: An Interlanguage Pragmatic Study of Thai EFL Learners

Tiwahporn Thongtong

Chiang Mai University, Thailand

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1993.05.03.547

Pages: 309-324

Keywords: Complaint Response Strategies, Interlanguage Pragmatics, Politeness Strategies

Abstract

The study's primary objective is to investigate how Thai EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners use politeness and complaint response strategies similarly or differently in email communication. Email data are collected from 30 male and 30 female Thai EFL learners. The learners' complaint response strategies for handling complaints include gratitude, apology, explanation, offer, appeal, and guarantee. The study shows that complaint response strategies differ among Thai male and female EFL learners. Compared to the female group, the male group uses the offer and appeal complaint response strategies more frequently. More often than the male group, the female group opts for the complaint response strategy of guarantee. Additionally, the chi-square analysis reveals that the use of the politeness strategy of the hedge is significantly different between the male and female Thai EFL learners with varying levels of English proficiency. The employment of the indirect politeness strategy is another crucial difference between male and female students in the high group. However, there is no significant difference in how male and female English language learners with high and low competence levels utilize the direct politeness strategy.

References

  1. Austin, J. L., Urmson, J. O., & Sbisà, M. (1975). How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon Press.

  2. Basow, S. A., & Rubenfeld, K. (2003). "Troubles talk": Effects of gender and gender-typing. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 48(3-4), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022411623948

  3. Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2007). Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 59-81. http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/biesenbachlucas/

  4. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press.

  5. Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press.

  6. Burgucu-Tazegül, A., Han, T., & Engin, A. O. (2016). Pragmatic Failure of Turkish EFL Learners in Request Emails to Their Professors. International Education Studies, 9(10), 105-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n10p105

  7. Byon, A. S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1673-1704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.003

  8. Chiravate, B. (2019). An Interlanguage Study of Thai EFL Learners' Apology. English Language Teaching, 12(5), 116-129. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n5p116

  9. Crystal, D., Davy, D., & Morrow, K. (1975). Advanced Conversational English (Vol. 33). London: Longman.

  10. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2011). “Please answer me as soon as possible”: Pragmatic failure in non-native speakers’e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006

  11. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2018). “Mr Paul, please inform me accordingly”: Address forms, directness, and degree of imposition in L2 emails. Pragmatics, 28(4), 489-516.https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17025.eco

  12. Faerch, C. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization, hi S. Blum-Kulka, JJiouse, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 221-247). https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2008.005

  13. Fitriani, Cooper, R. G., & Matthews, R. (2016). Women in Ground Close Combat. The RUSI Journal, 161(1), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2016.1152117

  14. Freeman, R., & Mc Elhinny, B. (1996). Language and Gender. In S. McKay, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp. 218-280). Cambridge: CUP. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551185.011

  15. Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of pragmatics, 14(3), 383-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V

  16. Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press.

  17. House, J. and Kasper, G. (1981) Politeness Markers in English and German. In: Coulmas, F., Ed., Conversational Routine. Mouton. The Hague.

  18. Jitpaisarnwattana, N. (2018). Gender-Differential Tendencies in LINE Use: A Case of Thailand. Journal of Studies in the English Language, 13(1), 53–70. https://so04.tcithaijo.org/index.php/jsel/article/view/159701

  19. King, A. (1995). Viewpoint: What is hospitality? International Journal of Hospitality

  20. Management 14(3), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4319(95)00045-3

  21. Kleinknecht, J. (2019). A man of his word? An experiment on gender differences in promise keeping. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 168, 251-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.10.008

  22. Ko, W. H. (2013). Interlanguage pragmatics and e-mail communication [Unpublished Master of Science thesis,

  23. A&M University].

  24. Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in society, 2(1), 45-79. Cambridge

  25. University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4166707

  26. Lakoff, R., & Lakoff, R. T. (2004). Language and woman's place: Text and commentaries. Oxford: University Press.

  27. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.

  28. Leelaharattanarak, N. (2016). The Dynamic Formulation of a Complaint in a Thai Service Encounter: A Case Study. NIDA Case Research Journal, 8(2), 92–145. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/NCRJ/article/view/72459

  29. Li, R., & Suleiman, R. R. R. (2017). Language proficiency and the speech act of complaint of Chinese EFL learners. 3L, Language, Linguistics, Literature, 23(1).  http://ejournal.ukm.my/3l/issue/view/904

  30. Macaulay, M. (2001). Tough talk: Indirectness and gender in requests for information. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 293-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00129-0

  31. Maltz, D., & Borker, R. (1982). A Cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  32. Merchant, K. (2012). How men and women differ: Gender differences in communication styles, influence tactics, and leadership styles. [Bachelor of Arts Thesis, Claremont McKenna College]. Open Access Senior Thesis. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/513

  33. Migdadi, F., Badarneh, M. A., & Momani, K. (2012). Public complaints and complaint responses in calls to a Jordanian radio phone-in program. Applied linguistics, 33(3), 321-341. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams011

  34. Nwoye, O. G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of pragmatics, 18(4), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90092-P

  35. Neary-Sundquist, C. (2013). Task type effects on pragmatic marker use by learners at varying proficiency levels. L2 Journal, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.5070/L25212104

  36. Panyametheekul, S., & Herring, S. (2007). Gender and turn allocation in a Thai chatroom. The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture, and Communication Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0010

  37. Pin-ngern, A. (2015). An Interlanguage Pragmatic Study of Thai EFL Learners’ Apology: Linguistic Realization and Metapragmatic Awareness [Doctoral dissertation, Chulalongkorn University].
    http://cuir.car.chula.ac.th/handle/123456789/50147

  38. Prachanant, N. (2006). Pragmatic transfer in responses to complaints by Thai EFL learners in the hotel business. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Suranaree University of Technology. http://sutir.sut.ac.th:8080/sutir/handle/123456789/2486

  39. Salkind, N. J. (2016). Statistics or sadistics? It’s up to you. Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

  40. Serva, C. (2017, June 8). Feminism: Definition & Overview. https://study.com/academy/lesson/cultural-feminism-definition-lesson-quiz.html.

  41. Sulastri, E. (2014). Complaint Responses Used by Indonesian EFL Learners. [Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis], Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta, Surakarta, Indonesia.

  42. Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT journal, 8(2), 131-155. https://jalt-publications.org/jj/articles/2838-development-pragmatic-competence-japanese-learners-english

  43. Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. Interlanguage pragmatics, 138, 158-169. Oxford: University Press.

  44. Thongtong, T., & Srioutai, J. (2019). Gender and Questions as Complaints: An Interlanguage Pragmatic Study. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 12(2), 122-140. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/207824

  45. Van de Vijver, F. J. (2007). Cultural and gender differences in gender-role beliefs, sharing household tasks and child-care responsibilities, and well-being among immigrants and majority members in the Netherlands. Sex Roles, 57(11), 813-824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9316-z

  46. Wood, T. (2005). Feminist standpoint theory and muted group theory: Commonalities and divergences. Women and language, 28(2), 61.https://search.proquest.com/openview/12b6dc8936004dc9c0e1bfa8e2f63a52/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=31040.Pdf

  47. Wylie, E.C. and Tannenbaum, R.J., 2006. TOEFL® Academic speaking test: Setting a cut score for international teaching assistants. Research Memorandum (No. RM-06-01). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.