Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Impoliteness in EFL: Foreign Language Learners’ Complaining Behaviors Across Social Distance and Status Levels:

Impoliteness in EFL: Foreign Language Learners’ Complaining Behaviors Across Social Distance and... A growing body of literature has investigated impoliteness in many domains. Nevertheless, little research has examined impoliteness done by foreign language learners. Impoliteness used in interlanguage complaints by English as a foreign language learners was observed. The effects of interlocutors’ different status levels and social distance on the use of impoliteness were analyzed. Empirical data were elicited by means of oral discourse completion tasks from 50 Indonesian English as a foreign language learners in Central Java, Indonesia. The overall direction of the findings showed trends that status levels and social distance between interlocutors prompted different frequencies and strategies of impoliteness. The frequent use of impolite complaints was instigated by a number of factors such as the learners’ understanding about the speech act in question, their perceptions on the social distance and status levels of interlocutors, and the nature of the research instrument. Keywords impoliteness, face attack, complaints, interlanguage pragmatics by English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. The inves- Introduction tigation focuses on the influence of EFL learners’ awareness In the last two decades, a growing body of ILP (interlan- of different familiarities and social status levels of interlocu- guage pragmatics) research has investigated the abilities of tors on the applications of impoliteness in the complaints. L2 learners to produce various speech acts such as requests (Biyon, 2004; Félix-Brasdefer, 2007; Hassal, 2003; Schauer, Speech Act of Complaint 2004), apologies (Bataineh & Bataineh, 2006; Kim, 2008; Warga & Scholmberger, 2007), compliment responses A complaint generally refers to an expression of displeasure (Sharifian, 2008), criticisms (Nguyen, 2008), refusals toward an event or situation that offends the complainer (Al-Eryani, 2007; Allami & Naeimi, 2011; Wannaruk, 2008), (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993; Traverso, 2009; Trosborg, and complaints (Kraft & Geluykens, 2002; Tanck, 2002; 1995). It is a part of conversation sequences in which a com- Umar, 2006; Wijayanto, Laila, Prasetyarini, & Susiati, 2013). plainer directly or indirectly points out problems, makes In general, the studies revealed a number of factors influenc- criticisms, requests for repairs, and gives moral judgments ing different use of speech act strategies by L2 learners. relating to perceived offenses (DeCapua, 1989). The com- Some of those factors include target pragmatic competence, plainer may also make negative assessments to undertakings L1 influences, collocutors’ social distance, facework strate- that have caused dissatisfaction, displeasure, unhappiness, gies, and L1 cultural schemata. and anger to him or her (Edwards, 2005; Laforest, 2002; Regarding interlanguage complaints, a number of studies Traverso, 2009). Thus, complaints could threaten the hear- suggest that nonnative speakers (NNSs) or L2 learners tend ers’ positive face as they perform negative evaluations to use direct complaints (e.g., Kraft & Geluykens, 2002; toward the hearers’ actions (Monzoni, 2008; North, 2000) or Murphy & Neu, 1996; Pratiwi, 2013; Tanck, 2002; Umar, 2006). Nevertheless, although studies have revealed the use Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia of inappropriate complaints by L2 learners, little research Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia has examined impoliteness in interlanguage complaints. An Corresponding Author: investigation of this area is essential for avoiding communi- Agus Wijayanto, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Jalan Ahmad Yani cation breakdowns. The purpose of the present study is to Tromol Pos I, Pabelan Kartasura, Surakarta 57102, Indonesia. examine the use of impoliteness in interlanguage complaints Email: agus_wijayanto@ums.ac.id Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open they jeopardize their negative face as they may force the are incapable of choosing appropriate complaint strategies complainees to redress the unpleasant situations (Kraft & (Umar, 2006). In Tatsuki’s (2000) study, a number of Geluykens, 2002). Consequently, complaints could induce Japanese ESL (English as a second language) learners pro- confrontations between interlocutors and incautiously impair duce severe complaints as they are unable to use downgrad- social relationships (Moon, 2001). ers to mitigate their complaints. To anticipate undesirable social consequences related to Although a growing body of literature has reported that complainees, complainers should calibrate the directness NNSs or L2 learners have a tendency to use direct com- levels of their complaints. According to Trosborg (1995), plaints, studies that have systematically investigated impo- indirect complaints can be achieved through the following liteness in complaints produced by NNSs or L2 learners are conditions: (a) their propositional contents should not be limited. Against this backdrop, the present study investigates expressed directly, (b) the agents of the complaints should be impoliteness in complaints used by EFL learners. This brings implied, and (c) the negative evaluations of the propositional us to the issues of impoliteness discussed in the following contents, the complainee’s behavior, and the complainee as a section. person should be implied. By contrast, direct complaints can be expressed with the following conditions: (a) their propo- Impoliteness sitional contents have to be articulated explicitly, (b) the agents of the complaints have to be clearly specified, and (c) Impoliteness is considered as an act intentionally planned to the negative evaluations of the propositional contents, the attack others’ face (Archer, 2008; Bousfield, 2008; Limberg, complainee’s behavior, and the complainee as a person have 2009). Culpeper, Bousfield, and Wichmann (2003) stated to be explicitly stated. that when speakers do impolite acts, they not only intend not The speech act of complaint has attracted research atten- to maintain the hearers’ face but they also intentionally select tion. A growing body of cross-cultural research has revealed offensive language to attack their face. Furthermore, that speakers from different cultural backgrounds have dif- Bousfield (2007b) emphasized that ferent perception of what constitutes appropriate complaints impoliteness constitutes the issuing of intentionally gratuitous (e.g., Henry & Ho, 2010; Mulamba, 2009; Murphy & Neu, and conflictive verbal face-threatening acts (FTAs) which are 1996; Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993; Tatsuki, 2000). Other purposely performed: i. unmitigated, in contexts where studies reported that social variables such as social distance mitigation is required, and/or, ii. with deliberate aggression, that and status levels or power of interlocutors influence the use is, with the face threat exacerbated, ‘boosted’, or maximised in of appropriate or polite complaints (Chen, Chen, & Chang, some way to heighten the face damage inflicted. (p. 7) 2011; Wijayanto et al., 2013; Zhoumin, 2011). Nevertheless, even though speakers can express their While the previous scholars suggest that speakers’ intention- complaints indirectly, NNSs or L2 learners tend to produce ality is central in impoliteness, others view that both speak- direct complaints. Two main reasons may explain their direct ers’ intentionality and listeners’ reception are essential. For complaints. The first reason is that they underuse mitigation example, Tracy and Tracy (1998) averred that impoliteness strategies. For example, NNSs from different first language refers to “communicative acts perceived by members of a backgrounds (Chinese, Haitian Creole, Korean, Polish, social community (and often intended by speakers) to be pur- Russian, Serbian, Spanish, and Thai) rarely produce compo- posefully offensive” (p. 227). In the same vein, Culpeper nents of excusing oneself when opening complaints and they (2005) affirmed that impoliteness comes about when speak- frequently use confrontational questions (Tanck, 2002). ers deliberately communicate face attack, and/or hearers Danish learners of English sound direct as they rarely use observe the behavior as intentionally face-attacking. complaint modifications (Trosborg, 1995). Javanese learners Literature suggests that impoliteness tends to occur in of English frequently use rhetorical questions without incor- situations in which collocutors have conflicts of interest porating hedges to mitigate them (Wijayanto, Prasetyarini, & (Bousfield, 2007a; Culpeper, 2005; Kienpointner, 2008; Hikmat, 2014). Similarly, Indonesian learners of English Kryk-Kastovsky, 2006) or they have very close relationships rarely mitigate their complaints, particularly when they use (Culpeper, 1996). In addition, impoliteness has a close con- rhetorical questions and imperative sentences to express nection with social power. Speakers can manipulate it to get accusations, blames, reproaches, and annoyance (Pratiwi, power over actions of other interlocutors (Locher, 2004; 2013). Japanese learners of English rarely employ softeners to mitigate their complaints (Rinnert & Iwai, 2002). The Locher & Watts, 2008). Although social power is highly other reason is that L2 learners have a low level of pragmatic dynamic and it is subject to negotiation (Locher & Bousfield, competence. For example, many Korean learners of English 2008), studies have indicated that those with more power, often produce aggressive complaints as they are incapable of particularly legitimate and/or expert power, tend to use selecting appropriate pragmalinguistic forms (Murphy & impoliteness (Culpeper, 1996; Kantara, 2010). Neu, 1996). Similarly, a number of Sudanese learners of The last two decades have witnessed a growing body of English produce confrontational and rude complaints as they literature dealing with impoliteness. Studies in this area are Wijayanto et al. 3 generally supported by theoretical frameworks built on clas- arguments. For instance, ad hominem argument techniques sical theories of politeness, such as “verbal aggressions” pro- combined with scorn or ridicule, and sarcastic mock polite- posed by Lachenicht (1980) and “face attacks” by Culpeper ness can attack others’ face. Ad misericordiam arguments, (1996). Both theoretical frameworks are modeled on the which appeal to pity, can turn into destructive emotional seminal work of Brown and Levinson’s (1978) politeness in arguments when speakers formulate them forcefully. In this which the concept of face is dominant. Brown and Levinson case, the appeals to pity block further discussion and they classify two types of face: Negative face—the need to be indirectly attack the negative face of the addressees. independent and free from the imposition of others—and Unlike previous studies, which highlight the importance positive face—the desires to be accepted, ratified, admired, of speakers’ intentionality and/or listeners’ reception, other and appreciated by others. Drawing on these concepts, literature tends to view impoliteness as negative assess- Lachenicht’s verbal aggressions refer to acts intentionally ments of behavior or conduct that does not comply with used to damage others’ positive face (positive aggravations) existing social norms. Locher (2006) affirmed that “what or negative face (negative aggravations). Similarly, is perceived to be (im)polite will thus ultimately rely on Culpeper’s (1996) face attacks refer to communicative strat- interactants’ assessments of social norms of appropriate- egies to attack both positive and negative face or more gener- ness that have been previously acquired in the speech ally to create social disharmony. Culpeper proposed a events in question” (p. 250-251). In the same vein, Locher classification of impoliteness as a reversal system of Brown and Watts (2008) underscored that it is through the judg- and Levinson’s politeness. The system comprises five super ments of other participants that speech acts can be consid- strategies. Bald on-record impoliteness: the use of language ered as polite or impolite and they are dynamically in a direct way in situations in which speakers do not intend negotiated by a variety of contextual factors. Hence, impo- to maintain others’ face. Positive impoliteness: the use of liteness is discursive. Haugh’s (2010) work provided a particular acts to attack others’ positive face. Negative impo- good example of discursive impoliteness in interpersonal liteness: the use of acts to attack others’ negative face. Mock communication. Haugh investigated impolite emails sent politeness: the use of insincere politeness. Withholding by a lecturer to a student at the University of Auckland and politeness, that is, the absence of politeness where it is he analyzed the interpretations of the emails by the lecturer expected. Culpeper’s taxonomy has been applied by research- and student as well as commentators in online discussion ers to study impoliteness in many domains. boards. Haugh revealed the variability in the perceptions Culpeper (1996) applied the taxonomy to analyze impo- underlying evaluations of the lecturer’s impolite emails. liteness in army recruit training discourse. Culpeper found a Through such an approach, however, it would be challeng- number of impolite acts deployed by noncommissioned ing to define impoliteness in communications as it can be officers toward a woman recruit. For example, they underes- relative and subjective. Culpeper (2010) criticized the timated the property of the recruit’s competence, personal approach: “it is difficult to see how communication could value, and mental stability, and they insulted the recruit’s process without some shared conventions of meaning. . . . social roles as an American citizen, a soldier, and a mother. (1) that meanings are very unstable, negotiable, and fuzzy, In general, the findings supported the taxonomy. In a fol- and (2) that communication is a very uncertain business” low-up study, Culpeper et al. (2003) revealed that both lin- (p. 3236). guistic and prosodic aspects (e.g., intonation and loudness) The work on impoliteness thus far has been devoted to can generate impolite behaviors. Culpeper (2005) found a theorizing and observing impoliteness in a number of number of wh-questions and yes–no questions that can con- domains such as in army recruit training (Culpeper, 1996), in vey impoliteness through implicatures. Based on the find- courtroom interactions (Kryk-Kastovsky, 2006), in disputes ings, Culpeper added off-record impoliteness to his previous between traffic wardens and owners of illegally parked cars taxonomy. (Bousfield, 2007a; Culpeper et al., 2003), in TV shows Other studies reported different conversation strategies (Culpeper, 2005), in political speech conflicts (Kienpointner, that can express impoliteness. A study by Bousfield (2007b) 2008), and in email exchanges (Haugh, 2010) among others. correlated organization and conductivity of conversations Nevertheless, despite the growing body of literature on with impoliteness. The study found a number of communica- impoliteness, little attention has been given to impoliteness tion strategies that can deliberately trap target persons into employed by L2 or foreign language learners. Even though impolite situations. For example, rhetorical challenges or studies have explored this area, they are confined to examine unpalatable questions can force listeners to listen to speak- the perception of impoliteness (e.g., Culpeper, 2010; ers’ vented emotions and put them in the position of getting Tajeddin, Alemi, & Razzaghi, 2014). The present study verbal attacks. In addition, response-seeking challenges can function as verbal traps by which speakers provoke further investigates the effects of different status levels and social impoliteness. distance between interlocutors on the applications of impo- A study by Kienpointner (2008) reported that impolite- liteness in EFL complaints by Indonesian learners of English ness can be achieved through destructive emotional in Central Java, Indonesia. 4 SAGE Open and the hearers (complainees) constituted vertical distance Method reflecting the power of one over the others. The familiarities Research Participants between them represented the degree of their social distance. The ODCTs had two levels of imposition (high or low). The The participants of the study were chosen randomly from study adapted four ODCT scenarios (i.e., Situation 2, 4, 5, Indonesian learners of English at the English education and 9) from Wijayanto et al. (2013). The scenarios were sum- department of a private university in Central Java, Indonesia. marized in Table 1 and their full version was presented in the The EFL learners comprised males (n = 25) and females (n = appendix. 25) who were at the third-year course of the degree of English The research participants received some explanations education. The ages of the learners ranged from 21to 24 about the scenarios, their roles in the scenarios, and the tech- years old, with the average age of 22.5 years. The English niques of answering the ODCTs. They read each ODCT sce- proficiency of the research participants was at the lower nario in detail, and they were encouraged to ask questions advanced level and they used English as a medium of com- when they had some problems of understanding the scenar- munication predominantly in the lecture rooms. Prior to par- ios. Upon answering the ODCTs, they had to imagine that ticipating in the study, they reported that they had not they were in the situations as described in the scenarios and previously made complaints in English in real-life they had to respond as spontaneously as they would do in situations. real-life situations. Although they were responding to the ODCTs orally, the researchers recorded them digitally. Then Research Instrument their complaints were transcribed. Written discourse completion tasks (WDCTs) are considered as effective instruments in ILP research as they allow Data Analysis researchers to elicit data with different social aspects of com- The present study discussed impoliteness included in com- munication (Kwon, 2004) and to get large data in very short plaints by Indonesian EFL learners. Considering the char- time (Doğançay-Aktuna & Kamışlı, 1997). Nevertheless, the acteristics of the data (elicited data), the study adopted validity of data obtained through WDCTs is generally ques- Culpeper’s (1996) taxonomy to analyze the impoliteness. tioned. For example, data elicited from WDCTs is deficient The strategies include bald on-record impoliteness, posi- in spontaneous face-to-face interactions and research partici- tive and negative impoliteness, mock politeness, and with- pants answer WDCT scenarios based on what they believe to holding politeness. Bald on-record impoliteness is the use be the appropriate responses. Although data taken from of language in a direct, clear, and concise way in circum- authentic conversations obviously represent real language stances where a speaker does not intend to maintain others’ use, they have some drawbacks too. For example, they pro- face. Expressing impolite beliefs or assertions is its com- vide unreliable speech samples of an identifiable group of monest strategy. Positive impoliteness refers to acts inten- speakers (Beebe & Cummings, 1996). The social attributes tionally deployed to attack others’ positive face. According of collocutors such as age, ethnic backgrounds, and social to Culpeper (1996), the following are the prevalent statuses are rather hard to control (Nurani, 2009). In fact, strategies. gathering natural data is time-consuming (Cohen, 1996; Gass & Houck, 1999). a. Ignore other interlocutors; fail to acknowledge the To enable the research participants to produce spontane- presence of others. ous oral responses, the present study developed oral DCTs b. Exclude others from activities. (ODCTs). Nevertheless, like written DCTs, the ODCTs did c. Disassociate from others, such as denying association not allow them to do face-to-face interactions. Considering or common ground with them. the drawback, the present study focused more on the options d. Disinterested, unconcerned, and unsympathetic to of impoliteness strategies rather than on their interactional others. features. e. Use inappropriate identity markers such as using The ODCTs of the present study consisted of nine sce- a title and surname when a close relationship per- narios of interpersonal communication in Indonesian con- tains, or a nickname when a distance relationship texts. The ODCT scenarios provided the research participants pertains. with specific social situations, settings, familiarities between f. Use an obscure or secretive language such as mystify- interlocutors, and their social status levels. Based on the sce- ing others with jargon or using a code known to mem- nario descriptions, they responded to each ODCT orally. The bers in the group, but not the target. speaker in each scenario represented one who had a particu- g. Make others feel uncomfortable. lar social status level constituting a difference either in h. Use taboo words, swear words, or abusive profane seniority or in occupation (lower, equal, higher) and social language. distance or familiarity (close, familiar, unfamiliar). The dif- i. Call the other names: Use derogatory nominations. ferences in status level between the speakers (complainers) Wijayanto et al. 5 Table 1. The Summary of the ODCT Scenarios. levels and familiarities, the study applied Pearson’s chi- square test with a .05 level of significance. The status of the speakers Results Situations Power Distance Imposition The study obtained 450 strategies of interlanguage com- Situation 1: A close friend broke Equal Close High plaints from the Indonesian EFL learners. Out of the total your laptop. number of the complaints, there were 211 (47%) strategies Situation 2: Your younger Higher Close Low that did not contain impoliteness as proposed by Culpeper brother returns your motorcycle late. (1996) and there were 239 (53%) complaints that included Situation 3: Your lecturer has Lower Close High impoliteness. The following sections discuss the use of the been lazy to give feedback to impoliteness in relation to social status levels and interper- your thesis draft. sonal closeness between interlocutors. Situation 4: Your next-door Equal Familiar Low neighbor turns on rock music too loud. Impoliteness in Complaints Across Status Levels Situation 5: Your employee has Higher Familiar High The following section analyzes impoliteness used by the not finished the report as you EFL learners (complainers) across three different status ordered. levels (equal, lower, and higher). The analysis focuses on Situation 6: Your lecturer gave Lower Familiar High you a bad mark. the influences of different status levels on the frequencies Situation 7: A stranger’s car hits Equal Unfamiliar High and types of impoliteness. The section begins with the your motorcycle from the back. analysis of impoliteness expressed by complainers who Situation 8: A recycler scatters Higher Unfamiliar Low are close to complainees. It is then followed by the analy- rubbish in front of your house. sis of impoliteness used by complainers who are familiar Situation 9: Administrative staffs Lower Unfamiliar Low to complainees. Finally, the section analyzes impoliteness ignore your presence. employed by complainers who are unfamiliar to com- Note. ODCT = oral discourse completion task. plainees. It should be noted that the grammar errors exist- ing in the data are not discussed and they are presented as they are. Negative impoliteness relates to acts which are intention- ally used to attack others’ negative face. The following are Impoliteness by close complainers (Situations 1, 2, and 3). The Culpeper’s (1996) output strategies. differences in the status levels induced the complainers to employ certain impoliteness strategies more often than other a. Frighten, instill a belief that an action detrimental to 2 strategies, χ (4, N = 166) = 38.033, p < .05 (Table 2). For others will occur. example, complainers with an equal status level employed b. Scorn, ridicule by emphasizing the speaker’s relative bald on-record and positive impoliteness considerably more power. often than negative impoliteness. By contrast, complainers c. Contemptuous, not treating others seriously. with a lower status level used positive impoliteness more d. Belittle others (e.g., using diminutives). often than negative impoliteness, and they used bald on- e. Invade others’ space—literally or metaphorically. record impoliteness the least often. Higher status complain- f. Explicitly associate others with a negative aspect. ers used negative impoliteness more frequently than positive g. Put others’ indebtedness on record. impoliteness, and they used bald on-record impoliteness the least. Mock politeness is insincere politeness. To achieve impo- The following are some examples of impoliteness strate- liteness through this strategy, speakers use sarcasm or iro- gies used in the responses to Situation 1 (a close friend broke nies. Finally, withholding politeness, that is, the absence of your laptop), Situation 2 (your younger brother returns your politeness where it is expected. motorcycle late), and Situation 3 (your lecturer has been lazy The frequencies of occurrence of impoliteness strategies to give feedback to your thesis draft). Each example may were counted as follows. When more than one of the strate- contain more than one strategy, but we only boldfaced the gies (e.g., bald on-record, negative, and positive impolite- one in focus. The type of impoliteness in the following cases ness) were employed in the same episode, all of them were is bald on-record in which the complainers assert impolite counted. It was also true when there was more than one beliefs straightforwardly. The complainer in (1) or (2) asserts occurrence of the same strategy (e.g., negative impoliteness), that the complainee is intellectually deficit. In (3), the com- all of them were counted. To assess the differences in the plainer asserts that the complainee is an inconsiderate frequency of impoliteness across collocutors’ social status person. 6 SAGE Open Table 2. The Frequencies of Impoliteness by Close Complainers. (11) Ah you are fucking brother you know that I have a test at 2 o’clock if I fail in this test I’ll kill you Complainer’s status okay! And I will kill (.) kill (.) you! (Situation 2) levels Variables Equal Lower Higher Total n df χ p Impoliteness by familiar complainers (Situations 4, 5, and 6). The differences in the status levels tended to influence the com- Bald on- 23 9 4 36 4 38.033 .00001 plainers to use certain impoliteness strategies more often record than other strategies, χ (4, N = 151) = 46.668, p < .05 (Table impoliteness Positive 25 35 10 70 3). For example, complainers with a lower or equal status impoliteness level used negative impoliteness significantly more fre- Negative 9 22 29 60 quently than positive impoliteness, and they used bald on- impoliteness record impoliteness the least often. By contrast, higher status complainers applied bald on-record impoliteness notably more regularly than positive or negative impoliteness. The following are some examples of impoliteness strate- (1) Err (.) you are stupid! Why you broke my laptop? gies in the responses to Situation 4 (your next-door neighbor (Situation 1) turns on rock music too loud), Situation 5 (your employee (2) Oh idiot! I am late. (Situation 2) has not finished the report as you ordered), and Situation 6 (3) . . . this is three weeks ago I submit my thesis, but (your lecturer gave you a bad mark). Each example may con- you never know about my thesis. You don’t care tain more than one strategy; the one in focus was boldfaced. about it! Oh my lecturer. (Situation 3) The examples below indicated that complainers employed bald on-record impoliteness through two strategies. First, Some other examples indicated that the complainers they asserted their impolite beliefs explicitly, for instance, employed positive impoliteness strategies such as calling the other names and using taboo words. To perform the former, (12) I hate buddy, so damn. You are very annoying you they used derogatory address terms such as “a greedy bas- did not know that I have an exam for tomorrow tard” (4), and “a devil of the house” and “a fucking shit” (5). morning. (Situation 4) (13) Come on! You are moron, you are stupid. (4) Ah, you are a greedy bastard, why you broke my (Situation 5) laptop? You have to fix it right now! (Situation 1) (5) You are late! I can’t go to the campus! Fuck you! Second, they criticized complainees implicitly, for example, You are err (.) a devil of (.) in home! and you are a fucking shit! I know. (Situation 2) (14) Why are you stupid bro? Err (.) do you know that I was studying for a test tomorrow. (Situation 4) To perform the latter, they predominantly used swear words (15) Can you be professional? I need the document such as “fuck” (6), “shit” (7), and “fuck you” (8). today, but you don’t make it. (Situation 5) (16) Are you really a good lecturer? Why I still get a (6) Fuck! What did you do with my laptop? (Situation 1) bad score? It is your false I have a bad score you (7) Ah, shit! Are you blind? I almost late go to the cam- know! (Situation 6) pus. (Situation 2) (8) Fuck you brother, why did you come late to go In (12), the complainer asserts that the complainee is an home because I need my motorcycle to go to cam- annoying person, whereas in (13) the complainer states that pus and what should I do? (Situation 2) the complainee has a low intellectual capacity. The com- plainer in (14) asserts a similar proposition to the one in (13) Raising unpalatable questions and frightening were the most but with a different strategy. The unpalatable question in (15) prevalent negative impoliteness strategies. Unpalatable ques- implies that the complainee is not professional, and the ques- tions were not literally employed to elicit information but tion in (16) suggests that the complainee is not a good rather to attack the complainees (e.g., 9 and 10). They used lecturer. verbal threats to perform the strategy of frightening (e.g., 11). Using taboo words and calling the other names were the most prevalent strategies of positive impoliteness. As for the (9) Oh, what did you do with my laptop, why the screen is broken? Now my important file is in there. You former, they recurrently used swear words, for example, should carefully use it. (Situation 1) (10) What the hell, what are you doing my brother, why (17) What the fuck are you doing man? What time is it? you come so late? I must go to my campus now! It is too late . . . (Situation 4) (Situation 2) (18) Fuck you! You can work or not? (Situation 5) Wijayanto et al. 7 Table 3. The Frequencies of Impoliteness by Familiar Complainers. Complainer’s status levels Variables Equal Lower Higher Total n df χ p Bald on-record impoliteness 8 2 16 26 4 46.668 .00001 Positive impoliteness 17 24 5 46 Negative impoliteness 30 44 5 79 Table 4. The Frequencies of Impoliteness by Unfamiliar Complainers. Complainer’s status levels Variables Equal Lower Higher Total n df χ p Bald on-record impoliteness 2 24 5 31 4 48.750 .00001 Positive impoliteness 20 23 18 61 Negative impoliteness 30 6 35 71 They also used the swear words as intensifiers. For example, Impoliteness by unfamiliar complainers (Situations 7, 8, and 9). The differences in the status levels tended to induce the the complainer in (19) employs a taboo intensifier “the fuck” complainers to use certain impoliteness strategies more often when making a direct request. than other strategies, χ (4, N = 163) = 48.750, p < .05 (Table 4). For example, lower status complainers used bald on- (19) Hey man! Shut the fuck . . . shut the fuck of your record and positive impoliteness significantly more often music! I have to study for my exam tomorrow. than negative impoliteness. By contrast higher and equal sta- (Situation 4) tus complainers employed negative impoliteness more often than positive impoliteness, and they used bald on-record When the complainers used the strategy of calling the other impoliteness the least often. names, they used derogatory address terms, for instance “a The following are some examples of impoliteness strate- fucking asshole” (20). gies in the responses to Situation 7 (a car hits your motorcy- cle from the back), Situation 8 (a recycler scatters rubbish in (20) Hey you are a fucking asshole, can you turn off this front of your house), and Situation 9 (administrative staffs music? It’s so annoying to me. You know I have ignore your presence). Each example may contain more than many tests. And if you don’t turn off your music or I one strategy, but we only boldfaced the one in focus. will kick your eyes. (Situation 4) Asserting impolite beliefs about the complainees was the most common strategy of bald on-record impoliteness, for Regarding negative impoliteness strategies, raising unpal- example, atable questions and frightening were used the most often. Unpalatable questions basically attacked the complainees (25) Hey you are so damn! What did you do with my rather than asked them for information (e.g., 21 and 22). The motorcycle? You are not responsible people! strategy of frightening was usually used with the forms of (Situation 7) verbal threats (e.g., 23 and 24). (26) You are very selfish. Look my Kartu Hasil Studi (KHS). (Situation 9) (21) What the hell are you doing? You broke my concen- tration I must study hard tonight. (Situation 4) Using taboo words and calling the other names were the (22) What? What are you working? This report has to most prevalent positive impoliteness strategies. Swear words send to Jakarta. Where is your responsible? were recurrently used to express the former, for example, (Situation 5) (23) Y ou don’t finish your job? Do it now or you would (.) (27) Fuck! Clean again you know! (Situation 8) I (.) you will out from my company! (Situation 5) (28) Oh . . .what the fuck you labor! You must give me (24) If you don’t submit your job on time err (.) you will attention. You must check my score now! Because it err (.) I will cut your salary. (Situation 5) most important for me. Fuck you! (Situation 9) 8 SAGE Open Table 5. The Frequencies of Impoliteness by Equal Status Complainers. Complainer’s closeness Variables Close Familiar Unfamiliar Total n df χ p Bald on-record impoliteness 23 8 2 33 4 34.946 .00001 Positive impoliteness 25 17 20 62 Negative impoliteness 9 30 30 69 Meanwhile, derogatory address terms were frequently used often than other strategies, χ (4, N = 164) = 34.946, p < .05 to express the latter, such as “asshole” and “prick” (29), “a (Table 5). For example, when they had a close relationship fucking useless man” (30), and “a half man” (a man with a with the complainees they used bald on-record and positive feminine or womanly behavior) (31). impoliteness more often than negative impoliteness. By con- trast, when they were familiar or unfamiliar to the complain- (29) Hey asshole, look! I got injury, what have you ees, they used negative impoliteness more often than positive done? You haven’t responsibility, hey prick, not be impoliteness, and they used bald on-record impoliteness change is not happen, look I got injure, take me to notably the least often. the hospital, fucking asshole! (Situation 7) Asserting impolite beliefs was the most prevalent strategy (30) Hey you, fucking useless man, you know it is very, of bald on-record impoliteness (e.g., 35). Unpalatable ques- very smelly here because of your garbage that in tions (e.g., 36) and swear words (e.g., 37) were the most front of my house, you know how to put it well . . . common strategies of negative and positive impoliteness (Situation 8) consecutively. (31) Damn! You are a half man. You see sinetron? I’m waiting for a long time but you don’t respond! You (35) Oh damn! What did you do with my motorcycle? are a half man and you are shit! . . . (Situation 9) You are so bad people! (Situation 7). (36) Oh friend, what the hell are you doing? You are As for negative impoliteness, they employed two strate- crazy! You make me angry! Bastard! (Situation 1) gies: asking rhetorical questions (e.g., 32 and 33) and fright- (37) What the fuck you are! (Situation 4). ening (e.g., 34). Impoliteness by lower status complainers (Situations 3, 6, and (32) Are you fucking driver? What do you want to fight 9). The differences in the familiarity between interlocutors to me? Why you hit my motorcycle? (Situation 7) induced the complainers to use certain impoliteness strate- (33) What the fuck are you doing? You have to do your gies more often than other strategies, χ (4, N = 189) = job. Doing the shit like that! (Situation 9) 55.007, p < .05 (Table 6). For example, when they were (34) Hey bro, damn you! Let’s change for it or I will hit close to the complainees, they used positive impoliteness your fucking head! (Situation 7) more often than negative impoliteness, and they employed bald on-record impoliteness the least often. By contrast, when they were familiar to the complainees, they used nega- Impoliteness in Complaints Across Different tive impoliteness more frequently than positive impolite- Social Distance ness, and they used bald on-record impoliteness very rarely. The following section analyzes the effects of interpersonal When they were unfamiliar to the complainees they used closeness or familiarity (close, familiar, and unfamiliar) positive and bald on-record impoliteness more often than between complainers and complainees on the frequencies negative impoliteness. and types of impoliteness. The section begins with the analy- The complainers generally used the same strategies of sis of impoliteness conveyed by equal status complainers bald on-record impoliteness (i.e., asserting impolite beliefs) with three levels of familiarity to complainees. It is then fol- and negative impoliteness (i.e., using unpalatable questions) lowed by the analysis of impoliteness used by lower status across the three levels of familiarity. However, unlike the complainers with three levels of familiarity to complainees. other two groups, the complainers who were unfamiliar to Finally, it discusses impoliteness phrased by higher status the complainees used the strategy of frightening. For complainers with three levels of familiarity to complainees. instance, in (38), the complainer will report the complainee to the dean of the school. In addition, they used the strategy Impoliteness by equal status complainers (Situations 1, 4, and 7). The of ridiculing. For example, in (39) the complainer ridicules differences in the familiarity between interlocutors induced the complainee by stating that he is only interested in giving the complainers to use certain impoliteness strategies more academic services to female students. Wijayanto et al. 9 Table 6. The Frequencies of Impoliteness by Lower Status Complainers. Complainer’s closeness Variables Close Familiar Unfamiliar Total n df χ P Bald on-record impoliteness 9 2 24 35 4 55.007 .00001 Positive impoliteness 35 24 23 82 Negative impoliteness 22 44 6 72 Table 7. The Frequencies of Impoliteness by Higher Status Complainers. Complainer’s closeness Variables Close Familiar Unfamiliar Total n df χ P Bald on-record impoliteness 4 16 5 25 4 37.889 .00001 Positive impoliteness 10 5 18 33 Negative impoliteness 29 5 35 69 awareness of different status levels and social distance (38) So please man, I know that you are busy, but I know induce different applications of impoliteness. The data of the that this is not time to take a rest but this is time to research were elicited through ODCTs from Indonesian serve, so please! If you don’t, I will make a call for (Javanese) EFL learners. The study adopted Culpeper’s Mr. Sofyan Anif, like that? (Situation 9) (1996) taxonomy to analyze the impoliteness. Pearson’s chi- (39) Oh maybe you are not interesting with the man square test was applied to determine the differences in the students like that? Should I . . . must change to be frequency of impoliteness across social distance and status woman? So you will interest of our waiting? You levels. will attentions with me. (Situation 9) The results of the chi-square test showed trends that social distance and status levels prompted different complaining Regarding positive impoliteness, the three groups of com- behaviors of the EFL learners (the complainers) in the pres- plainers used swear words frequently. ent study. Indonesian cultural dimension may play a part in bringing about the results. Indonesians particularly Javanese Impoliteness by higher status complainers (Situations 2, 5, and people are generally status conscious (Koentjaraningrat, 8). The differences in the familiarity between interlocutors 1985; Magnis-Suseno, 1997); thus, this cultural dimension induced the complainers to use certain impoliteness strate- might have informed the EFL learners’ complaining behav- gies more often than other strategies, χ (4, N = 127) = 37.889, ior across the different status levels. In addition, there is evi- p < .05 (Table 7). For example, when they were close and dence from ILP research that both social variables exert a strong influence on the use of speech acts by Indonesians unfamiliar to the complainees, they used negative impolite- (Hartuti, 2014; Purnomo, 2015; Wijayanto, 2012). Regarding ness more often than positive impoliteness, and they the effects of social distance on the use of impoliteness, the employed bald on-record impoliteness the least often. By EFL learners tended to show similarities in the use of impo- contrast when they were familiar to the complainees, they liteness toward close and unfamiliar complainees. The find- used bald on-record impoliteness notably more frequently ing seems to support Wolfson’s (1986) Bulge theory: People than either positive or negative impoliteness. at the extreme ends of social spectrum tend to have similar In general, the three groups of complainers employed speech behaviors as they understand exactly their social similar strategies of bald on-record (e.g., asserting impolite position and the expectation of one another. beliefs), negative impoliteness (e.g., raising unpalatable The present finding agrees with that of the earlier studies questions, ridiculing, and frightening), and positive impolite- (e.g., Pratiwi, 2013; Wijayanto et al., 2013). However, in ness (e.g., deploying swear words). Pratiwi’s (2013) and Wijayanto et al.’s (2013) research, both social variables prompt EFL learners to use different polite- Discussion ness strategies, whereas in the present study, they induced the research participants to use different impoliteness strate- The objectives of the present study were to examine impo- gies. This slight discrepancy is obviously due to the different liteness employed by EFL learners and to observe if their 10 SAGE Open objectives of the studies; the earlier studies observe polite- It is interesting to note that the differences in the status levels between interlocutors influenced the applications of ness, whereas the current study examines impoliteness. swear words. For example, when responding to Situations 3 Despite the differences, it can nevertheless be argued that and 6 that involved higher status complainees (lecturers), both social variables generate different complaining behav- they hardly employed swear words. The possible explanation iors. Other previous studies (e.g., Culpeper, 1996; Kantara, for the finding maybe that in Indonesian social contexts par- 2010) have found that imbalance social power induces inter- ticularly, and in other cultures, swearing students are gener- locutors to use impoliteness. They reported that interlocutors ally judged as shocking and very impolite. It is intolerable with more social power tend to exercise impoliteness. The for students to swear to their teachers or lecturers. The EFL present finding confirms and extends the earlier finding learners understood this knowledge very well. By contrast, (Culpeper, 1996; Kantara, 2010). It shows that in addition to they used swear words very frequently when they com- social power, social distance can induce different strategies plained to equal status complainees (ODCTs 1, 4, and 7). of impoliteness. This confirms Culpeper’s (1996) claim that impolite behav- The review of the literature indicated that L2 learners tend ior in equal relationships tends to escalate as such relation- to use direct complaints (e.g., Murphy & Neu, 1996; Tanck, ships lack a default mechanism by which interlocutors 2002; Trenchs, 1995; Trosborg, 1995; Umar, 2006). The achieve their dominance. Interestingly, they did similarly present finding is consistent with the studies. Nevertheless, when they responded to Situations 2, 5, and 8 that involved unlike the second language (SL) or EFL learners in those lower status complainees. This supports Locher and studies, the EFL learners in the present study recurrently Bousfield’s (2008) claim that impoliteness can be used to employed swear words, derogatory address terms, harsh crit- influence others. In this case, collocutors with more social icisms, and verbal threats that could convey impoliteness, at power would often do impolite acts. least according to Culpeper’s (1996) model. The following Furthermore, the results indicated that different social dis- sections discuss the EFL learners’ use of impoliteness in rela- tance prompted different use of swear words. A number of tion to social distance and status levels of interlocutors. excerpts showed that complainers addressed swear words to complainees across the three degrees of social distance, The Use of Swear Words except for those in Situations 3 and 6. Nevertheless, when they were close and unfamiliar to complainees they used the Culpeper (1996) claimed that swear words or profanity can swear words more frequently. This confirms Culpeper’s attack others’ positive face. This could be because they are (1996) claim that people in a close relationship tend to speak developed on the basis of taboo categories, which are sanc- their mind more directly and so impoliteness usually occurs tioned and restricted on both institutional and individual lev- in such a relationship. In the situations in which they com- els (Andersson & Trudgill, 2007). When spoken, they insult, plained to the unfamiliar complainees, they might not have threaten the face, and injure the persons being the target (Jay, felt the necessity to maintain the complainees’ face as they 2000). did not know them well personally. A number of examples indicated that many EFL learners recurrently applied swear words that express propositional The Use of Insults swearing. This confirms Jay and Janschewitz’s (2008) claim that such swearing is consciously planned. In other words, Supporting Culpeper’s (2010) work, the present study found the speakers control the contents and meanings of the swear- a number of insults expressed through personalized negative ing. For example, the word bastard, shit, and fuck are seman- vocatives and personalized negative assertions. When using tically neutral. However, when they were used in the the former, the EFL learners (the complainers) identified the complaints above, they became very offensive as they inten- complainees as having defective characteristics or qualities. tionally expressed the complainers’ negatively charged atti- By contrast, when using the latter, they asserted or declared tudes toward the complainees. that the complainees had defective or negative performance, Previous studies (e.g., Baba, 2010; Trenchs, 1995) abilities, behaviors or traits with the intentions of disrespect- reported that L2 learners do not usually use swear words ing or humiliating them. For example, they used the strategy when making complaints. The L2 learners in Baba’s study of calling the other names such as in (4), (5), (20), (29), (30), stated that they did not feel comfortable using curse words, and (31). Congruent with the finding of Culpeper’s (1996) study, insults with personalized negative vocatives used by whereas the learners in Trenchs’s study stated that they had the EFL learners expressed bald on-record impoliteness. never learned them in class. Surprisingly, in contrast to the Regarding the influence of the social variables (social dis- earlier finding (Trenchs, 1995), the EFL learners in the pres- tance and status levels) on the use of insults, a number of ent study frequently employed various swear words even examples indicated that equal and higher status complainers though they had never learned them in class. They might tended to use insults to attack complainees. In other words, have learned the bad words from other resources such as those with less power did not usually employ insults. The films, novels, books, and online media. Wijayanto et al. 11 EFL learners’ hierarchy conscious, as discussed earlier, psychologically. The finding lends support to Culpeper’s might have informed the use of the insults based on differ- (1996) claim that threats can generate bald on-record ences in status levels. impoliteness. The complainers addressed verbal threats to equal and lower status complainees commonly, regardless of their The Use of Criticisms social distance. Two different purposes of using the threats A number of examples showed that the EFL learners used were found: (a) to frighten equal status complainers and (b) direct criticisms. They directed the criticisms to complainees to force lower status complainees what to do. The second across the three status levels and familiarities very frequently. purpose lends support to Culpeper’s (1996) study. It shows The finding confirms the earlier studies (e.g., Deveci, 2010; that complainers can use threats to control others. Murphy & Neu, 1996) that reported that criticisms are com- There were 32 (out of 50) EFL learners in the present mon complaint strategies used by L2 learners. study included impoliteness in their interlanguage com- It is interesting to note that some EFL learners might plaints. Several possibilities may explain the finding, have experienced strong tension between, on one hand, although they still require further investigation. They might expressing clear or explicit complaints, and, on the other lack pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge of hand, avoiding attacking the complainees’ face. Thus, they expressing direct but polite complaints. Koike (1989) sug- chose indirect criticisms as a compromise. For example, gested that high knowledge of both pragmatic aspects is cru- they expressed the criticisms through rhetorical questions. cial for performing L2 politeness. Another factor such as However, they might not have realized that the questions having limited models of the target language complaints could induce impoliteness. For example, the rhetorical could well be responsible for the finding. Even though question in (16) Are you really a good lecturer? implies English has been included as one of the subjects in the that the complainee does not have any good quality of a Indonesian national curriculum since 1950, it is not spoken lecturer. Likewise, the question in (15) Can you be profes- on a daily basis. Consequently, Indonesian EFL learners in sional? implies that the complainee is not qualified or general have limited access to authentic use of English. ignorant. The finding is consistent with that of the earlier Finally, Indonesians generally believe that the communica- studies (e.g., Bousfield, 2007b; Wijayanto et al., 2013) tion style of native English speakers is direct or outspoken which have revealed that rhetorical or unpalatable ques- (Hassal, 2004; Wijayanto et al., 2013). Unfortunately, the tions can compel listeners to get verbal attacks. Regarding EFL learners in the present study might have misconstrued the use of indirectness, the finding seems to contest Brown the directness of native English speakers. and Levinson’s (1987) claim on the close connection In summary, this article has shown that the EFL learners between conventional indirectness and politeness. Indeed, in the present study recurrently used impoliteness in their the finding confirms Nguyen and Ho’s (2013) claim that complaints. The finding implicates a need for pragmatic indirectness does not always perform politeness. teaching to the EFL learners or L2 learners in general. Teaching politeness strategies of the target language may help them to use direct but polite complaints. In addition, The Use of Threats providing examples of mitigation or hedging strategies A number of examples indicated that complainers used ver- through teaching materials could be very useful for L2 learn- bal threats with the intention of imposing injury on others. ers, who usually get limited exposure to target language use. Some “if-then” threats such as (23), (24), and (34) above The learners also need to be taught how to recognize inap- obviously reveal the complainers’ intention while they con- propriate or impolite complaints so that they can make better vey the possible punishment to impose on the complainees. pragmatic choices. Importantly, pragmatic instruction should The threat in (23) sounds much stronger as it employs a assist them to learn pragmalinguistic forms of the speech act directive utterance in the “If you do/don’t do X” clause. The in question and their use in various social contexts, and it finding is consistent with that of the earlier studies (e.g., should make the learners aware of their previous knowledge Limberg, 2009; Thanh-Hà Do, 2013; Trenchs, 1995). It of a similar speech act in their L1. shows that verbal threats can attack others’ face as they force people what to do. It is interesting to compare the strategies Conclusion used by the EFL learners in Trenchs’s study and the ones used by the EFL learners in the present study. The EFL learn- Impolite complaints made by Indonesian EFL learners have ers in Trenchs’s study involve an authority, for example, call- been investigated. Complaints can become impolite when ing the police. Such an action is considered to be too they contain outrageous address terms, swears words, direct intimidating that it can damage the social relationships criticisms, insults, and threats. Impoliteness can be commu- between the interlocutors. By contrast, the EFL learners in nicated not only with offensive expressions but also with the the present study mostly expressed statements containing ways of conveying them. The findings indicate that the learn- information to harm complainees psychically and ers’ awareness of different degrees of social distance and 12 SAGE Open status levels prompts different frequencies and strategies of 1. Your close friend borrows your laptop to type his or impoliteness. The frequent use of impolite complaints was her assignment. When it is returned, you find that its instigated by a number of factors such as the intensity of screen is broken. You have your assignment in the social situations in the ODCTs, the learners’ understanding laptop. You do not copy it into your flash disk and about the speech act in question, their perceptions on the you have to submit your assignment this week. You social distance and status levels of interlocutors, their prag- complain your friend about it. matic competence, and the nature of the research instrument. Taken together, the findings suggest that without obtaining You say: . . . pragmatic instruction, the EFL learners tend to adopt impo- lite complaints. 2. Your brother borrows your motorcycle to visit his A number of limitations need to be considered. One limi- friend. You say that you are going to ride your motor- tation of the present study lies in the research instruments cycle to go to your campus at 2 o’clock. Your brother (ODCTs). Although the ODCTs were able to elicit complaint promises that he will return it as soon as possible. strategies, the complaints only reflect what the EFL learners Now you are about leaving for your campus but your believed to be the right responses and, therefore, they may brother has not come up yet. Finally, your brother represent different communicative strategies as compared comes home very late. He said that he is forgotten with data taken from authentic conversations. In addition, as that you are going to go to campus. You make a com- the learners communicated only with imaginary interlocutors plaint to your brother. in the ODCTs, they were inclined to express their complaints explicitly. This might have induced many impolite com- You say: . . . plaints. Furthermore, most of the scenarios in the ODCTs 3. You are writing your thesis and you have to finish contain Indonesian contextual features. Thus, the data elic- your study this semester. You do not have money to ited might be a mere transference from Indonesian language pay tuition fee if you have to extend your study next to English language. The findings should therefore be treated semester. Your thesis supervisor is the one whom you with considerable caution. Next, the number of research par- know very well. Unfortunately, he or she has been ticipants was limited; the findings therefore might not be the lazy recently and he or she is difficult to meet. The representative of EFL learners at large. Finally, impoliteness draft of your thesis has been on the table of your revealed by the present study was the result of interpretation supervisor for 3 weeks and you have not received any on the linguistic data produced by the learners. In real inter- feedback from him or her yet. Today you meet him or personal communication, impoliteness could be discursive. her and you make a complaint to him or her. Despite the downsides, we believe that our findings could serve as a base for future studies of impoliteness in other L2 You say: . . . learning contexts. Paralinguistic aspects such as intonation and stress could 4. You are living in a dormitory. It is 22:30 now and you inflict impoliteness; research should be done to examine this are still studying for the exam of tomorrow morning. area. The present study did not conduct a systematic analysis You hear that the next-door neighbor is playing rock of the strategy use based on gender differences and levels of music. The music is getting louder and louder and it imposition; investigation on the topics is therefore recom- disturbs your concentration. You go to your neighbor mended. In addition, the EFL learners in the present study to complain about it. were at the same level of language proficiency; studies should be undertaken to investigate whether different levels You say: . . . of language proficiency will induce different impoliteness strategies. Finally, future studies need to innovate their meth- 5. You are working at an electronic company as a sales ods of data collection to elicit natural data of impoliteness. supervisor. You asked one of your staffs to make a sales report last week. As it was promised, the report Appendix will be ready this morning. Now you need the report and you will send it to Jakarta. You ask the staff for it, Discourse Completion Task (DCT) Scenarios but he said that it is not completed. You make a com- Direction: plaint to him. Read the scenarios before you answer them. Please imagine that you are in the situation as described by You say: . . . each DCT scenario. Respond each DCT scenario orally and please do it as spon- 6. You are reading the results of the final exam on the taneously as you will do in face-to-face interaction. announcement board at your department. You find Wijayanto et al. 13 out that the score of your Teaching English as a Notes Foreign Language II subject (TEFL), which you have 1. KHS = student record. predicted you would get A, is E. You are not happy 2. Indonesian soap opera. with the score. You meet the lecturer and make a complaint. References Al-Eryani, A. (2007). Refusal strategies by Yemeni EFL learners. You say: . . . The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 19-31. Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refus- 7. You are queuing at the gas station for about 10 min. als: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Suddenly a car hits your motorcycle from the back Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 385-406. and it makes your motorcycle broken badly. Andersson, L. G., & Trudgill, P. (2007). Swearing. In L. Monaghan, Nevertheless, the driver of the car is pretending as if J. E. Goodman, & J. M. Robinson (Eds.), A cultural approach he or she did not know the accident and he or she to interpersonal communication (pp. 195-199). Oxford, UK: looks so indifferent. The driver is about your age. Blackwell. You approach the driver and make a complaint. Archer, D. E. (2008). Verbal aggression and impoliteness: Related or synonymous? In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power You say: . . . in theory and practice (pp. 181-210). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. 8. You dispose of rubbish to the dustbin in the front yard Baba, J. (2010). Interlanguage pragmatics study of indirect com- garden of your house. An hour later a recycler picks plaint among Japanese ESL learners. Sino-US English through the dustbin to collect recycling rubbish. You Teaching, 7(12), 23-32. see that he or she scatters the rubbish and leaves it Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2006). Apology strategies of everywhere. You run to the recycler and make a com- Jordanian EFL university students. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, plaint to her or him. 1901-1927. Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data You say: . . . versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), 9. You are at the administrative office to ask some Speech acts across cultures (pp. 65-86). Berlin, Germany: information about your examination scores which Mouton de Gruyter. you have not obtained. You have been queuing at Biyon, A. S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: the office for about 30 min. Now it is your turn. Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1673-1704. Bousfield, D. (2007a). Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of You try to explain your problem, but the office the dynamics of impolite exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, staffs are talking with other staffs about the film 39, 2185-2216. they watched on TV. You are ignored and you are Bousfield, D. (2007b). Impoliteness, preference organization and not happy with it, so you make a complaint to the conductivity. Multilingua, 26(1-2), 1-33. staffs. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in the struggle for power. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: You say: . . . Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 127-154). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Acknowledgments Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language We would like to thank Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian pada usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions Masyarakat (LPPM) Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta for the and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). administrative supports, Fitri and Yafi for assistances with the data Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. transcription, and the research participants for providing us with the Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universal research data. usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chen, Y. S., Chen, C. Y. D., & Chang, M. S. (2011). American Declaration of Conflicting Interests and Chinese complaints: Strategy use from a cross-cultural per- spective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 253-275. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech acts. In S. L. Mackay & N. H. to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 383-420). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Funding Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support of Pragmatics, 25, 349-367. for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the tele- work was supported by the Directorate General of Higher Education vision quiz show: The weakest link. Journal of Politeness of Indonesia (Grant Number 194.43/A.3-III/LPPM/V/2014). Research, 1, 35-72. 14 SAGE Open Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalized impoliteness formulae. Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3232-3245. English. Multilingua, 23, 339-364. Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness Lachenicht, L. G. (1980). Aggravating language: A study of abusive revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic and insulting language. Papers in Linguistics, 13, 607-687. aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545-1579. Laforest, M. (2002). Scenes of family life: Complaining in every- DeCapua, A. (1989). An analysis of pragmatic transfer in the speech day conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1595-1620. act of complaints as produced by native speakers of German Limberg, H. (2009). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of in English complaints in German and English (Doctoral dis- Pragmatics, 41, 1376-1394. sertation, Columbia University). Retrieved from http://pocket- Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements knowledge.tc.columbia.edu/home.php/viewfile/15507 in oral communication. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Deveci, T. (2010). The use of complaints in the interlanguage of Locher, M. A. (2006). Polite behaviour within relational work: The Turkish EFL learners. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua, 25(3), 249-267. 12(2), 25-42. Locher, M. A., & Bousfield, D. (2008). Introduction: Impoliteness Doğançay-Aktuna, S., & Kamışlı, S. (1997). Pragmatic transfer and power in language. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), in interlanguage development: A case study of advanced EFL Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power learners. ITL—International Journal of Applied Linguistics, in theory and practice (pp. 1-13). Berlin, Germany: Mouton 117, 151-173. de Gruyter. Edwards, D. (2005). Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjec- Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. (2008). Rational work and impolite- tive side of complaints. Discourse Studies, 7, 5-29. ness. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. practice (pp. 77-100). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 253-286. Magnis-Suseno, F. (1997). Javanese ethics and world-view: The Gass, S. M., & Houck, N. (1999). Interlanguage refusals: A cross- Javanese idea of good life. Jakarta, Indonesia: Gramedia. cultural study of JapaneseEnglish. Berlin, Germany: Mouton Monzoni, C. M. (2008). Direct complaints in (Italian) calls to the de Gruyter. ambulance: The use of negatively framed questions. Journal of Hartuti, M. (2014). A study of politeness strategy in refusal used Pragmatics, 41, 2465-2478. by English teachers in Madiun regency (Master’s thesis). Moon, K. (2001). Speech act study: Differences between native and Retrieved from http://eprints.ums.ac.id/32467/ non-native speakers’ complaint strategies (TESOL Working Hassal, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. papers (AU-CAS-TESOL) Series 1). Washington, DC: Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1903-1928. TESOL, College of Arts and Sciences, American University. Hassal, T. (2004). Through a glass, darkly: When learner pragmat- Mulamba, K. (2009). Social beliefs for the realization of the speech ics is misconstrued. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 997-1002. acts of apology and complaint as defined in Ciluba, French, and Haugh, M. (2010). When is an email really offensive? English. Pragmatics, 19, 543-564. Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Murphy, B., & Neu, J. (1996). My grade’s too low: The speech Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 7-31. act set of complaining. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech Henry, A., & Ho, D. G. E. (2010). The act of complaining in acts across cultures (pp. 191-216). Berlin, Germany: Mouton Brunei—Then and now. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 840-855. de Gruyter. Jay, T. (2000). Why we curse: A neuro-psycho-social theory of Nguyen, T. T. M. (2008). Modifying L2 criticisms: How learners speech. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. do it? Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 768-791. Jay, T., & Janschewitz, K. (2008). The pragmatics of swearing. Nguyen, T. T. M., & Ho, G. A. L. (2013). Requests and politeness Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 267-288. in Vietnamese as a native language. Pragmatics, 23, 685-714. Kantara, A. (2010). Impoliteness strategies in “House M. D.” Lodz North, S. (2000). Cultures of complaint in Japan and the United Papers in Pragmatics, 6, 305-339. States (Working paper No. 17). Berkeley: Center for Working Kienpointner, M. (2008). Impoliteness and emotional arguments. Families, University of California, Berkeley. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 243-265. Nurani, L. M. (2009). Methodological issue in pragmatic research: Kim, H. (2008). The semantic and pragmatic analysis of South Is discourse completion test a reliable data collection instru- Korean and Australian English apologetic speech acts. Journal ment? Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 17, 667-678. of Pragmatics, 40, 257-278. Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features on Koentjaraningrat, R. M. (1985). Javanese culture. Singapore: the speech act of complaining. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka Oxford University Press. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 108-122). Oxford, UK: Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acqui- Oxford University Press. sition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modem Language Pratiwi, E. H. (2013). Politeness strategies used in complaint by Journal, 73, 279-289. Indonesian EFL learners in Muhammadiyah University of Kraft, B., & Geluykens, R. (2002). Complaining in French L1 and Surakarta (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://eprints.ums. L2: A cross-linguistic investigation. EUROSLA Yearbook, 2, ac.id/23376/ 227-242. Purnomo, A. P. (2015). Compliments and compliment responses Kryk-Kastovsky, B. (2006). Impoliteness in early modern English used by English teacher association of senior high school in courtroom discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 7, Pacitan (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://eprints.ums. 213-243. ac.id/33663/ Wijayanto et al. 15 Rinnert, C., & Iwai, C. (2002). Variation in compliment strate- Wannaruk, A. (2008). Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. gies in three regions. Proceedings of JALT, 2002, 372-378. RELC Journal, 39, 318-337. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceed- Warga, M., & Scholmberger, U. (2007). The acquisition of French ings/2002/372.pdf apologetic behavior in a study abroad context. Intercultural Schauer, G. A. (2004). May you speak louder maybe? Interlanguage Pragmatics, 4, 221-251. pragmatic development in requests. EUROSLA Yearbook, 4, Wijayanto, A. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatics of refusal strat- 253-272. egies by Javanese EFL learners (Doctoral dissertation, Sharifian, F. (2008). Cultural schemas in L1 and L2 compliment University of Aberdeen). Retrieved from http://ethos.bl.uk/ responses: A study of Persian speaking learners of English. OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.553852 Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 55-80. Wijayanto, A., Laila, M., Prasetyarini, A., & Susiati, S. (2013). Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M., & Razzaghi, S. (2014). Cross-cultural Politeness in interlanguage pragmatics of complaint by perception of impoliteness by native English speakers and Indonesian learners of English. English Language Teaching, EFL learners: The case of apology speech act. Journal of 6(10), 188-201. Intercultural Communication Research, 43, 304-326. Wijayanto, A., Prasetyarini, A., & Hikmat, M. H. (2014). Tanck, S. (2002). Speech act sets of refusal and complaint: A Ketidaksantunan (impoliteness) dalam tindak tutur keluhan comparison of native and non-native English speakers’ pro- oleh pembelajar bahasa Inggris berlatarbelakang budaya duction (TESOL Working papers (AU-CAS-TESOL) Series Jawa: kajian pragmatik interlingual [‘Impoliteness in com- 2). Washington, DC: TESOL, College of Arts and Sciences, plaints by Javanese learners of English: Interlanguage prag- American University. matic study’] (UMS research report 5612). Retrieved from Tatsuki, D. H. (2000). If my complaints could passions move: An https://publikasiilmiah.ums.ac.id/handle/11617/5612 interlanguage study of aggression. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, Wolfson, N. (1986). The Bulge: A theory of speech behavior and 1003-1017. social distance. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, Thanh-Hà Do, H. T. (2013). Complaints in Vietnamese by native 2(1), 55-83. and non-native speakers. In C. Roever & H. Nguyen (Eds.), Zhoumin, Y. (2011). A contrastive study of American and Chinese Pragmatics of Vietnamese as native and target language (pp. university students’ complaining strategies. Chinese Journal of 111-135). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 111-129. Center, University of Hawaii. Tracy, K., & Tracy, S. J. (1998). Rudeness at 911: Reconceptualizing Author Biographies face and face attack. Human Communication Research, 25, Agus Wijayanto is a lecturer at the faculty of Teacher Training and 225-251. Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia. His Traverso, V. (2009). The dilemmas of third-party complaints in research interests involve pragmatics, interlanguage pragmatics, conversation friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2385-2399. and second language acquisition. Trenchs, M. (1995). Complaining in Catalan, complaining in English: A comparative study of native and EFL speak- Aryati Prasetyarini is a lecturer at the faculty of Teacher Training ers. Revista española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), 10, and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia. 271-288. Her research interests are primarily in the areas of teaching English Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, com- to young learners, interlanguage, and second language acquisition. plaints, and apologies. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Mauly Halwat Hikmat is a lecturer at the faculty of Teacher Umar, A. M. A. T. (2006). The speech act of complaint as real- Training and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, ized by advanced Sudanese learners of English. Umm Al-Qura Indonesia. Her research interests primarily focus on foreign lan- University Journal of Educational, Social Sciences and guage teaching methodologies and second language acquisition. Humanities, 18(2), 9-40. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

Impoliteness in EFL: Foreign Language Learners’ Complaining Behaviors Across Social Distance and Status Levels:

Download PDF
15 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/impoliteness-in-efl-foreign-language-learners-complaining-behaviors-LpOHNyvFwP

References (76)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244017732816
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

A growing body of literature has investigated impoliteness in many domains. Nevertheless, little research has examined impoliteness done by foreign language learners. Impoliteness used in interlanguage complaints by English as a foreign language learners was observed. The effects of interlocutors’ different status levels and social distance on the use of impoliteness were analyzed. Empirical data were elicited by means of oral discourse completion tasks from 50 Indonesian English as a foreign language learners in Central Java, Indonesia. The overall direction of the findings showed trends that status levels and social distance between interlocutors prompted different frequencies and strategies of impoliteness. The frequent use of impolite complaints was instigated by a number of factors such as the learners’ understanding about the speech act in question, their perceptions on the social distance and status levels of interlocutors, and the nature of the research instrument. Keywords impoliteness, face attack, complaints, interlanguage pragmatics by English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. The inves- Introduction tigation focuses on the influence of EFL learners’ awareness In the last two decades, a growing body of ILP (interlan- of different familiarities and social status levels of interlocu- guage pragmatics) research has investigated the abilities of tors on the applications of impoliteness in the complaints. L2 learners to produce various speech acts such as requests (Biyon, 2004; Félix-Brasdefer, 2007; Hassal, 2003; Schauer, Speech Act of Complaint 2004), apologies (Bataineh & Bataineh, 2006; Kim, 2008; Warga & Scholmberger, 2007), compliment responses A complaint generally refers to an expression of displeasure (Sharifian, 2008), criticisms (Nguyen, 2008), refusals toward an event or situation that offends the complainer (Al-Eryani, 2007; Allami & Naeimi, 2011; Wannaruk, 2008), (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993; Traverso, 2009; Trosborg, and complaints (Kraft & Geluykens, 2002; Tanck, 2002; 1995). It is a part of conversation sequences in which a com- Umar, 2006; Wijayanto, Laila, Prasetyarini, & Susiati, 2013). plainer directly or indirectly points out problems, makes In general, the studies revealed a number of factors influenc- criticisms, requests for repairs, and gives moral judgments ing different use of speech act strategies by L2 learners. relating to perceived offenses (DeCapua, 1989). The com- Some of those factors include target pragmatic competence, plainer may also make negative assessments to undertakings L1 influences, collocutors’ social distance, facework strate- that have caused dissatisfaction, displeasure, unhappiness, gies, and L1 cultural schemata. and anger to him or her (Edwards, 2005; Laforest, 2002; Regarding interlanguage complaints, a number of studies Traverso, 2009). Thus, complaints could threaten the hear- suggest that nonnative speakers (NNSs) or L2 learners tend ers’ positive face as they perform negative evaluations to use direct complaints (e.g., Kraft & Geluykens, 2002; toward the hearers’ actions (Monzoni, 2008; North, 2000) or Murphy & Neu, 1996; Pratiwi, 2013; Tanck, 2002; Umar, 2006). Nevertheless, although studies have revealed the use Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia of inappropriate complaints by L2 learners, little research Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia has examined impoliteness in interlanguage complaints. An Corresponding Author: investigation of this area is essential for avoiding communi- Agus Wijayanto, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Jalan Ahmad Yani cation breakdowns. The purpose of the present study is to Tromol Pos I, Pabelan Kartasura, Surakarta 57102, Indonesia. examine the use of impoliteness in interlanguage complaints Email: agus_wijayanto@ums.ac.id Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open they jeopardize their negative face as they may force the are incapable of choosing appropriate complaint strategies complainees to redress the unpleasant situations (Kraft & (Umar, 2006). In Tatsuki’s (2000) study, a number of Geluykens, 2002). Consequently, complaints could induce Japanese ESL (English as a second language) learners pro- confrontations between interlocutors and incautiously impair duce severe complaints as they are unable to use downgrad- social relationships (Moon, 2001). ers to mitigate their complaints. To anticipate undesirable social consequences related to Although a growing body of literature has reported that complainees, complainers should calibrate the directness NNSs or L2 learners have a tendency to use direct com- levels of their complaints. According to Trosborg (1995), plaints, studies that have systematically investigated impo- indirect complaints can be achieved through the following liteness in complaints produced by NNSs or L2 learners are conditions: (a) their propositional contents should not be limited. Against this backdrop, the present study investigates expressed directly, (b) the agents of the complaints should be impoliteness in complaints used by EFL learners. This brings implied, and (c) the negative evaluations of the propositional us to the issues of impoliteness discussed in the following contents, the complainee’s behavior, and the complainee as a section. person should be implied. By contrast, direct complaints can be expressed with the following conditions: (a) their propo- Impoliteness sitional contents have to be articulated explicitly, (b) the agents of the complaints have to be clearly specified, and (c) Impoliteness is considered as an act intentionally planned to the negative evaluations of the propositional contents, the attack others’ face (Archer, 2008; Bousfield, 2008; Limberg, complainee’s behavior, and the complainee as a person have 2009). Culpeper, Bousfield, and Wichmann (2003) stated to be explicitly stated. that when speakers do impolite acts, they not only intend not The speech act of complaint has attracted research atten- to maintain the hearers’ face but they also intentionally select tion. A growing body of cross-cultural research has revealed offensive language to attack their face. Furthermore, that speakers from different cultural backgrounds have dif- Bousfield (2007b) emphasized that ferent perception of what constitutes appropriate complaints impoliteness constitutes the issuing of intentionally gratuitous (e.g., Henry & Ho, 2010; Mulamba, 2009; Murphy & Neu, and conflictive verbal face-threatening acts (FTAs) which are 1996; Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993; Tatsuki, 2000). Other purposely performed: i. unmitigated, in contexts where studies reported that social variables such as social distance mitigation is required, and/or, ii. with deliberate aggression, that and status levels or power of interlocutors influence the use is, with the face threat exacerbated, ‘boosted’, or maximised in of appropriate or polite complaints (Chen, Chen, & Chang, some way to heighten the face damage inflicted. (p. 7) 2011; Wijayanto et al., 2013; Zhoumin, 2011). Nevertheless, even though speakers can express their While the previous scholars suggest that speakers’ intention- complaints indirectly, NNSs or L2 learners tend to produce ality is central in impoliteness, others view that both speak- direct complaints. Two main reasons may explain their direct ers’ intentionality and listeners’ reception are essential. For complaints. The first reason is that they underuse mitigation example, Tracy and Tracy (1998) averred that impoliteness strategies. For example, NNSs from different first language refers to “communicative acts perceived by members of a backgrounds (Chinese, Haitian Creole, Korean, Polish, social community (and often intended by speakers) to be pur- Russian, Serbian, Spanish, and Thai) rarely produce compo- posefully offensive” (p. 227). In the same vein, Culpeper nents of excusing oneself when opening complaints and they (2005) affirmed that impoliteness comes about when speak- frequently use confrontational questions (Tanck, 2002). ers deliberately communicate face attack, and/or hearers Danish learners of English sound direct as they rarely use observe the behavior as intentionally face-attacking. complaint modifications (Trosborg, 1995). Javanese learners Literature suggests that impoliteness tends to occur in of English frequently use rhetorical questions without incor- situations in which collocutors have conflicts of interest porating hedges to mitigate them (Wijayanto, Prasetyarini, & (Bousfield, 2007a; Culpeper, 2005; Kienpointner, 2008; Hikmat, 2014). Similarly, Indonesian learners of English Kryk-Kastovsky, 2006) or they have very close relationships rarely mitigate their complaints, particularly when they use (Culpeper, 1996). In addition, impoliteness has a close con- rhetorical questions and imperative sentences to express nection with social power. Speakers can manipulate it to get accusations, blames, reproaches, and annoyance (Pratiwi, power over actions of other interlocutors (Locher, 2004; 2013). Japanese learners of English rarely employ softeners to mitigate their complaints (Rinnert & Iwai, 2002). The Locher & Watts, 2008). Although social power is highly other reason is that L2 learners have a low level of pragmatic dynamic and it is subject to negotiation (Locher & Bousfield, competence. For example, many Korean learners of English 2008), studies have indicated that those with more power, often produce aggressive complaints as they are incapable of particularly legitimate and/or expert power, tend to use selecting appropriate pragmalinguistic forms (Murphy & impoliteness (Culpeper, 1996; Kantara, 2010). Neu, 1996). Similarly, a number of Sudanese learners of The last two decades have witnessed a growing body of English produce confrontational and rude complaints as they literature dealing with impoliteness. Studies in this area are Wijayanto et al. 3 generally supported by theoretical frameworks built on clas- arguments. For instance, ad hominem argument techniques sical theories of politeness, such as “verbal aggressions” pro- combined with scorn or ridicule, and sarcastic mock polite- posed by Lachenicht (1980) and “face attacks” by Culpeper ness can attack others’ face. Ad misericordiam arguments, (1996). Both theoretical frameworks are modeled on the which appeal to pity, can turn into destructive emotional seminal work of Brown and Levinson’s (1978) politeness in arguments when speakers formulate them forcefully. In this which the concept of face is dominant. Brown and Levinson case, the appeals to pity block further discussion and they classify two types of face: Negative face—the need to be indirectly attack the negative face of the addressees. independent and free from the imposition of others—and Unlike previous studies, which highlight the importance positive face—the desires to be accepted, ratified, admired, of speakers’ intentionality and/or listeners’ reception, other and appreciated by others. Drawing on these concepts, literature tends to view impoliteness as negative assess- Lachenicht’s verbal aggressions refer to acts intentionally ments of behavior or conduct that does not comply with used to damage others’ positive face (positive aggravations) existing social norms. Locher (2006) affirmed that “what or negative face (negative aggravations). Similarly, is perceived to be (im)polite will thus ultimately rely on Culpeper’s (1996) face attacks refer to communicative strat- interactants’ assessments of social norms of appropriate- egies to attack both positive and negative face or more gener- ness that have been previously acquired in the speech ally to create social disharmony. Culpeper proposed a events in question” (p. 250-251). In the same vein, Locher classification of impoliteness as a reversal system of Brown and Watts (2008) underscored that it is through the judg- and Levinson’s politeness. The system comprises five super ments of other participants that speech acts can be consid- strategies. Bald on-record impoliteness: the use of language ered as polite or impolite and they are dynamically in a direct way in situations in which speakers do not intend negotiated by a variety of contextual factors. Hence, impo- to maintain others’ face. Positive impoliteness: the use of liteness is discursive. Haugh’s (2010) work provided a particular acts to attack others’ positive face. Negative impo- good example of discursive impoliteness in interpersonal liteness: the use of acts to attack others’ negative face. Mock communication. Haugh investigated impolite emails sent politeness: the use of insincere politeness. Withholding by a lecturer to a student at the University of Auckland and politeness, that is, the absence of politeness where it is he analyzed the interpretations of the emails by the lecturer expected. Culpeper’s taxonomy has been applied by research- and student as well as commentators in online discussion ers to study impoliteness in many domains. boards. Haugh revealed the variability in the perceptions Culpeper (1996) applied the taxonomy to analyze impo- underlying evaluations of the lecturer’s impolite emails. liteness in army recruit training discourse. Culpeper found a Through such an approach, however, it would be challeng- number of impolite acts deployed by noncommissioned ing to define impoliteness in communications as it can be officers toward a woman recruit. For example, they underes- relative and subjective. Culpeper (2010) criticized the timated the property of the recruit’s competence, personal approach: “it is difficult to see how communication could value, and mental stability, and they insulted the recruit’s process without some shared conventions of meaning. . . . social roles as an American citizen, a soldier, and a mother. (1) that meanings are very unstable, negotiable, and fuzzy, In general, the findings supported the taxonomy. In a fol- and (2) that communication is a very uncertain business” low-up study, Culpeper et al. (2003) revealed that both lin- (p. 3236). guistic and prosodic aspects (e.g., intonation and loudness) The work on impoliteness thus far has been devoted to can generate impolite behaviors. Culpeper (2005) found a theorizing and observing impoliteness in a number of number of wh-questions and yes–no questions that can con- domains such as in army recruit training (Culpeper, 1996), in vey impoliteness through implicatures. Based on the find- courtroom interactions (Kryk-Kastovsky, 2006), in disputes ings, Culpeper added off-record impoliteness to his previous between traffic wardens and owners of illegally parked cars taxonomy. (Bousfield, 2007a; Culpeper et al., 2003), in TV shows Other studies reported different conversation strategies (Culpeper, 2005), in political speech conflicts (Kienpointner, that can express impoliteness. A study by Bousfield (2007b) 2008), and in email exchanges (Haugh, 2010) among others. correlated organization and conductivity of conversations Nevertheless, despite the growing body of literature on with impoliteness. The study found a number of communica- impoliteness, little attention has been given to impoliteness tion strategies that can deliberately trap target persons into employed by L2 or foreign language learners. Even though impolite situations. For example, rhetorical challenges or studies have explored this area, they are confined to examine unpalatable questions can force listeners to listen to speak- the perception of impoliteness (e.g., Culpeper, 2010; ers’ vented emotions and put them in the position of getting Tajeddin, Alemi, & Razzaghi, 2014). The present study verbal attacks. In addition, response-seeking challenges can function as verbal traps by which speakers provoke further investigates the effects of different status levels and social impoliteness. distance between interlocutors on the applications of impo- A study by Kienpointner (2008) reported that impolite- liteness in EFL complaints by Indonesian learners of English ness can be achieved through destructive emotional in Central Java, Indonesia. 4 SAGE Open and the hearers (complainees) constituted vertical distance Method reflecting the power of one over the others. The familiarities Research Participants between them represented the degree of their social distance. The ODCTs had two levels of imposition (high or low). The The participants of the study were chosen randomly from study adapted four ODCT scenarios (i.e., Situation 2, 4, 5, Indonesian learners of English at the English education and 9) from Wijayanto et al. (2013). The scenarios were sum- department of a private university in Central Java, Indonesia. marized in Table 1 and their full version was presented in the The EFL learners comprised males (n = 25) and females (n = appendix. 25) who were at the third-year course of the degree of English The research participants received some explanations education. The ages of the learners ranged from 21to 24 about the scenarios, their roles in the scenarios, and the tech- years old, with the average age of 22.5 years. The English niques of answering the ODCTs. They read each ODCT sce- proficiency of the research participants was at the lower nario in detail, and they were encouraged to ask questions advanced level and they used English as a medium of com- when they had some problems of understanding the scenar- munication predominantly in the lecture rooms. Prior to par- ios. Upon answering the ODCTs, they had to imagine that ticipating in the study, they reported that they had not they were in the situations as described in the scenarios and previously made complaints in English in real-life they had to respond as spontaneously as they would do in situations. real-life situations. Although they were responding to the ODCTs orally, the researchers recorded them digitally. Then Research Instrument their complaints were transcribed. Written discourse completion tasks (WDCTs) are considered as effective instruments in ILP research as they allow Data Analysis researchers to elicit data with different social aspects of com- The present study discussed impoliteness included in com- munication (Kwon, 2004) and to get large data in very short plaints by Indonesian EFL learners. Considering the char- time (Doğançay-Aktuna & Kamışlı, 1997). Nevertheless, the acteristics of the data (elicited data), the study adopted validity of data obtained through WDCTs is generally ques- Culpeper’s (1996) taxonomy to analyze the impoliteness. tioned. For example, data elicited from WDCTs is deficient The strategies include bald on-record impoliteness, posi- in spontaneous face-to-face interactions and research partici- tive and negative impoliteness, mock politeness, and with- pants answer WDCT scenarios based on what they believe to holding politeness. Bald on-record impoliteness is the use be the appropriate responses. Although data taken from of language in a direct, clear, and concise way in circum- authentic conversations obviously represent real language stances where a speaker does not intend to maintain others’ use, they have some drawbacks too. For example, they pro- face. Expressing impolite beliefs or assertions is its com- vide unreliable speech samples of an identifiable group of monest strategy. Positive impoliteness refers to acts inten- speakers (Beebe & Cummings, 1996). The social attributes tionally deployed to attack others’ positive face. According of collocutors such as age, ethnic backgrounds, and social to Culpeper (1996), the following are the prevalent statuses are rather hard to control (Nurani, 2009). In fact, strategies. gathering natural data is time-consuming (Cohen, 1996; Gass & Houck, 1999). a. Ignore other interlocutors; fail to acknowledge the To enable the research participants to produce spontane- presence of others. ous oral responses, the present study developed oral DCTs b. Exclude others from activities. (ODCTs). Nevertheless, like written DCTs, the ODCTs did c. Disassociate from others, such as denying association not allow them to do face-to-face interactions. Considering or common ground with them. the drawback, the present study focused more on the options d. Disinterested, unconcerned, and unsympathetic to of impoliteness strategies rather than on their interactional others. features. e. Use inappropriate identity markers such as using The ODCTs of the present study consisted of nine sce- a title and surname when a close relationship per- narios of interpersonal communication in Indonesian con- tains, or a nickname when a distance relationship texts. The ODCT scenarios provided the research participants pertains. with specific social situations, settings, familiarities between f. Use an obscure or secretive language such as mystify- interlocutors, and their social status levels. Based on the sce- ing others with jargon or using a code known to mem- nario descriptions, they responded to each ODCT orally. The bers in the group, but not the target. speaker in each scenario represented one who had a particu- g. Make others feel uncomfortable. lar social status level constituting a difference either in h. Use taboo words, swear words, or abusive profane seniority or in occupation (lower, equal, higher) and social language. distance or familiarity (close, familiar, unfamiliar). The dif- i. Call the other names: Use derogatory nominations. ferences in status level between the speakers (complainers) Wijayanto et al. 5 Table 1. The Summary of the ODCT Scenarios. levels and familiarities, the study applied Pearson’s chi- square test with a .05 level of significance. The status of the speakers Results Situations Power Distance Imposition The study obtained 450 strategies of interlanguage com- Situation 1: A close friend broke Equal Close High plaints from the Indonesian EFL learners. Out of the total your laptop. number of the complaints, there were 211 (47%) strategies Situation 2: Your younger Higher Close Low that did not contain impoliteness as proposed by Culpeper brother returns your motorcycle late. (1996) and there were 239 (53%) complaints that included Situation 3: Your lecturer has Lower Close High impoliteness. The following sections discuss the use of the been lazy to give feedback to impoliteness in relation to social status levels and interper- your thesis draft. sonal closeness between interlocutors. Situation 4: Your next-door Equal Familiar Low neighbor turns on rock music too loud. Impoliteness in Complaints Across Status Levels Situation 5: Your employee has Higher Familiar High The following section analyzes impoliteness used by the not finished the report as you EFL learners (complainers) across three different status ordered. levels (equal, lower, and higher). The analysis focuses on Situation 6: Your lecturer gave Lower Familiar High you a bad mark. the influences of different status levels on the frequencies Situation 7: A stranger’s car hits Equal Unfamiliar High and types of impoliteness. The section begins with the your motorcycle from the back. analysis of impoliteness expressed by complainers who Situation 8: A recycler scatters Higher Unfamiliar Low are close to complainees. It is then followed by the analy- rubbish in front of your house. sis of impoliteness used by complainers who are familiar Situation 9: Administrative staffs Lower Unfamiliar Low to complainees. Finally, the section analyzes impoliteness ignore your presence. employed by complainers who are unfamiliar to com- Note. ODCT = oral discourse completion task. plainees. It should be noted that the grammar errors exist- ing in the data are not discussed and they are presented as they are. Negative impoliteness relates to acts which are intention- ally used to attack others’ negative face. The following are Impoliteness by close complainers (Situations 1, 2, and 3). The Culpeper’s (1996) output strategies. differences in the status levels induced the complainers to employ certain impoliteness strategies more often than other a. Frighten, instill a belief that an action detrimental to 2 strategies, χ (4, N = 166) = 38.033, p < .05 (Table 2). For others will occur. example, complainers with an equal status level employed b. Scorn, ridicule by emphasizing the speaker’s relative bald on-record and positive impoliteness considerably more power. often than negative impoliteness. By contrast, complainers c. Contemptuous, not treating others seriously. with a lower status level used positive impoliteness more d. Belittle others (e.g., using diminutives). often than negative impoliteness, and they used bald on- e. Invade others’ space—literally or metaphorically. record impoliteness the least often. Higher status complain- f. Explicitly associate others with a negative aspect. ers used negative impoliteness more frequently than positive g. Put others’ indebtedness on record. impoliteness, and they used bald on-record impoliteness the least. Mock politeness is insincere politeness. To achieve impo- The following are some examples of impoliteness strate- liteness through this strategy, speakers use sarcasm or iro- gies used in the responses to Situation 1 (a close friend broke nies. Finally, withholding politeness, that is, the absence of your laptop), Situation 2 (your younger brother returns your politeness where it is expected. motorcycle late), and Situation 3 (your lecturer has been lazy The frequencies of occurrence of impoliteness strategies to give feedback to your thesis draft). Each example may were counted as follows. When more than one of the strate- contain more than one strategy, but we only boldfaced the gies (e.g., bald on-record, negative, and positive impolite- one in focus. The type of impoliteness in the following cases ness) were employed in the same episode, all of them were is bald on-record in which the complainers assert impolite counted. It was also true when there was more than one beliefs straightforwardly. The complainer in (1) or (2) asserts occurrence of the same strategy (e.g., negative impoliteness), that the complainee is intellectually deficit. In (3), the com- all of them were counted. To assess the differences in the plainer asserts that the complainee is an inconsiderate frequency of impoliteness across collocutors’ social status person. 6 SAGE Open Table 2. The Frequencies of Impoliteness by Close Complainers. (11) Ah you are fucking brother you know that I have a test at 2 o’clock if I fail in this test I’ll kill you Complainer’s status okay! And I will kill (.) kill (.) you! (Situation 2) levels Variables Equal Lower Higher Total n df χ p Impoliteness by familiar complainers (Situations 4, 5, and 6). The differences in the status levels tended to influence the com- Bald on- 23 9 4 36 4 38.033 .00001 plainers to use certain impoliteness strategies more often record than other strategies, χ (4, N = 151) = 46.668, p < .05 (Table impoliteness Positive 25 35 10 70 3). For example, complainers with a lower or equal status impoliteness level used negative impoliteness significantly more fre- Negative 9 22 29 60 quently than positive impoliteness, and they used bald on- impoliteness record impoliteness the least often. By contrast, higher status complainers applied bald on-record impoliteness notably more regularly than positive or negative impoliteness. The following are some examples of impoliteness strate- (1) Err (.) you are stupid! Why you broke my laptop? gies in the responses to Situation 4 (your next-door neighbor (Situation 1) turns on rock music too loud), Situation 5 (your employee (2) Oh idiot! I am late. (Situation 2) has not finished the report as you ordered), and Situation 6 (3) . . . this is three weeks ago I submit my thesis, but (your lecturer gave you a bad mark). Each example may con- you never know about my thesis. You don’t care tain more than one strategy; the one in focus was boldfaced. about it! Oh my lecturer. (Situation 3) The examples below indicated that complainers employed bald on-record impoliteness through two strategies. First, Some other examples indicated that the complainers they asserted their impolite beliefs explicitly, for instance, employed positive impoliteness strategies such as calling the other names and using taboo words. To perform the former, (12) I hate buddy, so damn. You are very annoying you they used derogatory address terms such as “a greedy bas- did not know that I have an exam for tomorrow tard” (4), and “a devil of the house” and “a fucking shit” (5). morning. (Situation 4) (13) Come on! You are moron, you are stupid. (4) Ah, you are a greedy bastard, why you broke my (Situation 5) laptop? You have to fix it right now! (Situation 1) (5) You are late! I can’t go to the campus! Fuck you! Second, they criticized complainees implicitly, for example, You are err (.) a devil of (.) in home! and you are a fucking shit! I know. (Situation 2) (14) Why are you stupid bro? Err (.) do you know that I was studying for a test tomorrow. (Situation 4) To perform the latter, they predominantly used swear words (15) Can you be professional? I need the document such as “fuck” (6), “shit” (7), and “fuck you” (8). today, but you don’t make it. (Situation 5) (16) Are you really a good lecturer? Why I still get a (6) Fuck! What did you do with my laptop? (Situation 1) bad score? It is your false I have a bad score you (7) Ah, shit! Are you blind? I almost late go to the cam- know! (Situation 6) pus. (Situation 2) (8) Fuck you brother, why did you come late to go In (12), the complainer asserts that the complainee is an home because I need my motorcycle to go to cam- annoying person, whereas in (13) the complainer states that pus and what should I do? (Situation 2) the complainee has a low intellectual capacity. The com- plainer in (14) asserts a similar proposition to the one in (13) Raising unpalatable questions and frightening were the most but with a different strategy. The unpalatable question in (15) prevalent negative impoliteness strategies. Unpalatable ques- implies that the complainee is not professional, and the ques- tions were not literally employed to elicit information but tion in (16) suggests that the complainee is not a good rather to attack the complainees (e.g., 9 and 10). They used lecturer. verbal threats to perform the strategy of frightening (e.g., 11). Using taboo words and calling the other names were the most prevalent strategies of positive impoliteness. As for the (9) Oh, what did you do with my laptop, why the screen is broken? Now my important file is in there. You former, they recurrently used swear words, for example, should carefully use it. (Situation 1) (10) What the hell, what are you doing my brother, why (17) What the fuck are you doing man? What time is it? you come so late? I must go to my campus now! It is too late . . . (Situation 4) (Situation 2) (18) Fuck you! You can work or not? (Situation 5) Wijayanto et al. 7 Table 3. The Frequencies of Impoliteness by Familiar Complainers. Complainer’s status levels Variables Equal Lower Higher Total n df χ p Bald on-record impoliteness 8 2 16 26 4 46.668 .00001 Positive impoliteness 17 24 5 46 Negative impoliteness 30 44 5 79 Table 4. The Frequencies of Impoliteness by Unfamiliar Complainers. Complainer’s status levels Variables Equal Lower Higher Total n df χ p Bald on-record impoliteness 2 24 5 31 4 48.750 .00001 Positive impoliteness 20 23 18 61 Negative impoliteness 30 6 35 71 They also used the swear words as intensifiers. For example, Impoliteness by unfamiliar complainers (Situations 7, 8, and 9). The differences in the status levels tended to induce the the complainer in (19) employs a taboo intensifier “the fuck” complainers to use certain impoliteness strategies more often when making a direct request. than other strategies, χ (4, N = 163) = 48.750, p < .05 (Table 4). For example, lower status complainers used bald on- (19) Hey man! Shut the fuck . . . shut the fuck of your record and positive impoliteness significantly more often music! I have to study for my exam tomorrow. than negative impoliteness. By contrast higher and equal sta- (Situation 4) tus complainers employed negative impoliteness more often than positive impoliteness, and they used bald on-record When the complainers used the strategy of calling the other impoliteness the least often. names, they used derogatory address terms, for instance “a The following are some examples of impoliteness strate- fucking asshole” (20). gies in the responses to Situation 7 (a car hits your motorcy- cle from the back), Situation 8 (a recycler scatters rubbish in (20) Hey you are a fucking asshole, can you turn off this front of your house), and Situation 9 (administrative staffs music? It’s so annoying to me. You know I have ignore your presence). Each example may contain more than many tests. And if you don’t turn off your music or I one strategy, but we only boldfaced the one in focus. will kick your eyes. (Situation 4) Asserting impolite beliefs about the complainees was the most common strategy of bald on-record impoliteness, for Regarding negative impoliteness strategies, raising unpal- example, atable questions and frightening were used the most often. Unpalatable questions basically attacked the complainees (25) Hey you are so damn! What did you do with my rather than asked them for information (e.g., 21 and 22). The motorcycle? You are not responsible people! strategy of frightening was usually used with the forms of (Situation 7) verbal threats (e.g., 23 and 24). (26) You are very selfish. Look my Kartu Hasil Studi (KHS). (Situation 9) (21) What the hell are you doing? You broke my concen- tration I must study hard tonight. (Situation 4) Using taboo words and calling the other names were the (22) What? What are you working? This report has to most prevalent positive impoliteness strategies. Swear words send to Jakarta. Where is your responsible? were recurrently used to express the former, for example, (Situation 5) (23) Y ou don’t finish your job? Do it now or you would (.) (27) Fuck! Clean again you know! (Situation 8) I (.) you will out from my company! (Situation 5) (28) Oh . . .what the fuck you labor! You must give me (24) If you don’t submit your job on time err (.) you will attention. You must check my score now! Because it err (.) I will cut your salary. (Situation 5) most important for me. Fuck you! (Situation 9) 8 SAGE Open Table 5. The Frequencies of Impoliteness by Equal Status Complainers. Complainer’s closeness Variables Close Familiar Unfamiliar Total n df χ p Bald on-record impoliteness 23 8 2 33 4 34.946 .00001 Positive impoliteness 25 17 20 62 Negative impoliteness 9 30 30 69 Meanwhile, derogatory address terms were frequently used often than other strategies, χ (4, N = 164) = 34.946, p < .05 to express the latter, such as “asshole” and “prick” (29), “a (Table 5). For example, when they had a close relationship fucking useless man” (30), and “a half man” (a man with a with the complainees they used bald on-record and positive feminine or womanly behavior) (31). impoliteness more often than negative impoliteness. By con- trast, when they were familiar or unfamiliar to the complain- (29) Hey asshole, look! I got injury, what have you ees, they used negative impoliteness more often than positive done? You haven’t responsibility, hey prick, not be impoliteness, and they used bald on-record impoliteness change is not happen, look I got injure, take me to notably the least often. the hospital, fucking asshole! (Situation 7) Asserting impolite beliefs was the most prevalent strategy (30) Hey you, fucking useless man, you know it is very, of bald on-record impoliteness (e.g., 35). Unpalatable ques- very smelly here because of your garbage that in tions (e.g., 36) and swear words (e.g., 37) were the most front of my house, you know how to put it well . . . common strategies of negative and positive impoliteness (Situation 8) consecutively. (31) Damn! You are a half man. You see sinetron? I’m waiting for a long time but you don’t respond! You (35) Oh damn! What did you do with my motorcycle? are a half man and you are shit! . . . (Situation 9) You are so bad people! (Situation 7). (36) Oh friend, what the hell are you doing? You are As for negative impoliteness, they employed two strate- crazy! You make me angry! Bastard! (Situation 1) gies: asking rhetorical questions (e.g., 32 and 33) and fright- (37) What the fuck you are! (Situation 4). ening (e.g., 34). Impoliteness by lower status complainers (Situations 3, 6, and (32) Are you fucking driver? What do you want to fight 9). The differences in the familiarity between interlocutors to me? Why you hit my motorcycle? (Situation 7) induced the complainers to use certain impoliteness strate- (33) What the fuck are you doing? You have to do your gies more often than other strategies, χ (4, N = 189) = job. Doing the shit like that! (Situation 9) 55.007, p < .05 (Table 6). For example, when they were (34) Hey bro, damn you! Let’s change for it or I will hit close to the complainees, they used positive impoliteness your fucking head! (Situation 7) more often than negative impoliteness, and they employed bald on-record impoliteness the least often. By contrast, when they were familiar to the complainees, they used nega- Impoliteness in Complaints Across Different tive impoliteness more frequently than positive impolite- Social Distance ness, and they used bald on-record impoliteness very rarely. The following section analyzes the effects of interpersonal When they were unfamiliar to the complainees they used closeness or familiarity (close, familiar, and unfamiliar) positive and bald on-record impoliteness more often than between complainers and complainees on the frequencies negative impoliteness. and types of impoliteness. The section begins with the analy- The complainers generally used the same strategies of sis of impoliteness conveyed by equal status complainers bald on-record impoliteness (i.e., asserting impolite beliefs) with three levels of familiarity to complainees. It is then fol- and negative impoliteness (i.e., using unpalatable questions) lowed by the analysis of impoliteness used by lower status across the three levels of familiarity. However, unlike the complainers with three levels of familiarity to complainees. other two groups, the complainers who were unfamiliar to Finally, it discusses impoliteness phrased by higher status the complainees used the strategy of frightening. For complainers with three levels of familiarity to complainees. instance, in (38), the complainer will report the complainee to the dean of the school. In addition, they used the strategy Impoliteness by equal status complainers (Situations 1, 4, and 7). The of ridiculing. For example, in (39) the complainer ridicules differences in the familiarity between interlocutors induced the complainee by stating that he is only interested in giving the complainers to use certain impoliteness strategies more academic services to female students. Wijayanto et al. 9 Table 6. The Frequencies of Impoliteness by Lower Status Complainers. Complainer’s closeness Variables Close Familiar Unfamiliar Total n df χ P Bald on-record impoliteness 9 2 24 35 4 55.007 .00001 Positive impoliteness 35 24 23 82 Negative impoliteness 22 44 6 72 Table 7. The Frequencies of Impoliteness by Higher Status Complainers. Complainer’s closeness Variables Close Familiar Unfamiliar Total n df χ P Bald on-record impoliteness 4 16 5 25 4 37.889 .00001 Positive impoliteness 10 5 18 33 Negative impoliteness 29 5 35 69 awareness of different status levels and social distance (38) So please man, I know that you are busy, but I know induce different applications of impoliteness. The data of the that this is not time to take a rest but this is time to research were elicited through ODCTs from Indonesian serve, so please! If you don’t, I will make a call for (Javanese) EFL learners. The study adopted Culpeper’s Mr. Sofyan Anif, like that? (Situation 9) (1996) taxonomy to analyze the impoliteness. Pearson’s chi- (39) Oh maybe you are not interesting with the man square test was applied to determine the differences in the students like that? Should I . . . must change to be frequency of impoliteness across social distance and status woman? So you will interest of our waiting? You levels. will attentions with me. (Situation 9) The results of the chi-square test showed trends that social distance and status levels prompted different complaining Regarding positive impoliteness, the three groups of com- behaviors of the EFL learners (the complainers) in the pres- plainers used swear words frequently. ent study. Indonesian cultural dimension may play a part in bringing about the results. Indonesians particularly Javanese Impoliteness by higher status complainers (Situations 2, 5, and people are generally status conscious (Koentjaraningrat, 8). The differences in the familiarity between interlocutors 1985; Magnis-Suseno, 1997); thus, this cultural dimension induced the complainers to use certain impoliteness strate- might have informed the EFL learners’ complaining behav- gies more often than other strategies, χ (4, N = 127) = 37.889, ior across the different status levels. In addition, there is evi- p < .05 (Table 7). For example, when they were close and dence from ILP research that both social variables exert a strong influence on the use of speech acts by Indonesians unfamiliar to the complainees, they used negative impolite- (Hartuti, 2014; Purnomo, 2015; Wijayanto, 2012). Regarding ness more often than positive impoliteness, and they the effects of social distance on the use of impoliteness, the employed bald on-record impoliteness the least often. By EFL learners tended to show similarities in the use of impo- contrast when they were familiar to the complainees, they liteness toward close and unfamiliar complainees. The find- used bald on-record impoliteness notably more frequently ing seems to support Wolfson’s (1986) Bulge theory: People than either positive or negative impoliteness. at the extreme ends of social spectrum tend to have similar In general, the three groups of complainers employed speech behaviors as they understand exactly their social similar strategies of bald on-record (e.g., asserting impolite position and the expectation of one another. beliefs), negative impoliteness (e.g., raising unpalatable The present finding agrees with that of the earlier studies questions, ridiculing, and frightening), and positive impolite- (e.g., Pratiwi, 2013; Wijayanto et al., 2013). However, in ness (e.g., deploying swear words). Pratiwi’s (2013) and Wijayanto et al.’s (2013) research, both social variables prompt EFL learners to use different polite- Discussion ness strategies, whereas in the present study, they induced the research participants to use different impoliteness strate- The objectives of the present study were to examine impo- gies. This slight discrepancy is obviously due to the different liteness employed by EFL learners and to observe if their 10 SAGE Open objectives of the studies; the earlier studies observe polite- It is interesting to note that the differences in the status levels between interlocutors influenced the applications of ness, whereas the current study examines impoliteness. swear words. For example, when responding to Situations 3 Despite the differences, it can nevertheless be argued that and 6 that involved higher status complainees (lecturers), both social variables generate different complaining behav- they hardly employed swear words. The possible explanation iors. Other previous studies (e.g., Culpeper, 1996; Kantara, for the finding maybe that in Indonesian social contexts par- 2010) have found that imbalance social power induces inter- ticularly, and in other cultures, swearing students are gener- locutors to use impoliteness. They reported that interlocutors ally judged as shocking and very impolite. It is intolerable with more social power tend to exercise impoliteness. The for students to swear to their teachers or lecturers. The EFL present finding confirms and extends the earlier finding learners understood this knowledge very well. By contrast, (Culpeper, 1996; Kantara, 2010). It shows that in addition to they used swear words very frequently when they com- social power, social distance can induce different strategies plained to equal status complainees (ODCTs 1, 4, and 7). of impoliteness. This confirms Culpeper’s (1996) claim that impolite behav- The review of the literature indicated that L2 learners tend ior in equal relationships tends to escalate as such relation- to use direct complaints (e.g., Murphy & Neu, 1996; Tanck, ships lack a default mechanism by which interlocutors 2002; Trenchs, 1995; Trosborg, 1995; Umar, 2006). The achieve their dominance. Interestingly, they did similarly present finding is consistent with the studies. Nevertheless, when they responded to Situations 2, 5, and 8 that involved unlike the second language (SL) or EFL learners in those lower status complainees. This supports Locher and studies, the EFL learners in the present study recurrently Bousfield’s (2008) claim that impoliteness can be used to employed swear words, derogatory address terms, harsh crit- influence others. In this case, collocutors with more social icisms, and verbal threats that could convey impoliteness, at power would often do impolite acts. least according to Culpeper’s (1996) model. The following Furthermore, the results indicated that different social dis- sections discuss the EFL learners’ use of impoliteness in rela- tance prompted different use of swear words. A number of tion to social distance and status levels of interlocutors. excerpts showed that complainers addressed swear words to complainees across the three degrees of social distance, The Use of Swear Words except for those in Situations 3 and 6. Nevertheless, when they were close and unfamiliar to complainees they used the Culpeper (1996) claimed that swear words or profanity can swear words more frequently. This confirms Culpeper’s attack others’ positive face. This could be because they are (1996) claim that people in a close relationship tend to speak developed on the basis of taboo categories, which are sanc- their mind more directly and so impoliteness usually occurs tioned and restricted on both institutional and individual lev- in such a relationship. In the situations in which they com- els (Andersson & Trudgill, 2007). When spoken, they insult, plained to the unfamiliar complainees, they might not have threaten the face, and injure the persons being the target (Jay, felt the necessity to maintain the complainees’ face as they 2000). did not know them well personally. A number of examples indicated that many EFL learners recurrently applied swear words that express propositional The Use of Insults swearing. This confirms Jay and Janschewitz’s (2008) claim that such swearing is consciously planned. In other words, Supporting Culpeper’s (2010) work, the present study found the speakers control the contents and meanings of the swear- a number of insults expressed through personalized negative ing. For example, the word bastard, shit, and fuck are seman- vocatives and personalized negative assertions. When using tically neutral. However, when they were used in the the former, the EFL learners (the complainers) identified the complaints above, they became very offensive as they inten- complainees as having defective characteristics or qualities. tionally expressed the complainers’ negatively charged atti- By contrast, when using the latter, they asserted or declared tudes toward the complainees. that the complainees had defective or negative performance, Previous studies (e.g., Baba, 2010; Trenchs, 1995) abilities, behaviors or traits with the intentions of disrespect- reported that L2 learners do not usually use swear words ing or humiliating them. For example, they used the strategy when making complaints. The L2 learners in Baba’s study of calling the other names such as in (4), (5), (20), (29), (30), stated that they did not feel comfortable using curse words, and (31). Congruent with the finding of Culpeper’s (1996) study, insults with personalized negative vocatives used by whereas the learners in Trenchs’s study stated that they had the EFL learners expressed bald on-record impoliteness. never learned them in class. Surprisingly, in contrast to the Regarding the influence of the social variables (social dis- earlier finding (Trenchs, 1995), the EFL learners in the pres- tance and status levels) on the use of insults, a number of ent study frequently employed various swear words even examples indicated that equal and higher status complainers though they had never learned them in class. They might tended to use insults to attack complainees. In other words, have learned the bad words from other resources such as those with less power did not usually employ insults. The films, novels, books, and online media. Wijayanto et al. 11 EFL learners’ hierarchy conscious, as discussed earlier, psychologically. The finding lends support to Culpeper’s might have informed the use of the insults based on differ- (1996) claim that threats can generate bald on-record ences in status levels. impoliteness. The complainers addressed verbal threats to equal and lower status complainees commonly, regardless of their The Use of Criticisms social distance. Two different purposes of using the threats A number of examples showed that the EFL learners used were found: (a) to frighten equal status complainers and (b) direct criticisms. They directed the criticisms to complainees to force lower status complainees what to do. The second across the three status levels and familiarities very frequently. purpose lends support to Culpeper’s (1996) study. It shows The finding confirms the earlier studies (e.g., Deveci, 2010; that complainers can use threats to control others. Murphy & Neu, 1996) that reported that criticisms are com- There were 32 (out of 50) EFL learners in the present mon complaint strategies used by L2 learners. study included impoliteness in their interlanguage com- It is interesting to note that some EFL learners might plaints. Several possibilities may explain the finding, have experienced strong tension between, on one hand, although they still require further investigation. They might expressing clear or explicit complaints, and, on the other lack pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge of hand, avoiding attacking the complainees’ face. Thus, they expressing direct but polite complaints. Koike (1989) sug- chose indirect criticisms as a compromise. For example, gested that high knowledge of both pragmatic aspects is cru- they expressed the criticisms through rhetorical questions. cial for performing L2 politeness. Another factor such as However, they might not have realized that the questions having limited models of the target language complaints could induce impoliteness. For example, the rhetorical could well be responsible for the finding. Even though question in (16) Are you really a good lecturer? implies English has been included as one of the subjects in the that the complainee does not have any good quality of a Indonesian national curriculum since 1950, it is not spoken lecturer. Likewise, the question in (15) Can you be profes- on a daily basis. Consequently, Indonesian EFL learners in sional? implies that the complainee is not qualified or general have limited access to authentic use of English. ignorant. The finding is consistent with that of the earlier Finally, Indonesians generally believe that the communica- studies (e.g., Bousfield, 2007b; Wijayanto et al., 2013) tion style of native English speakers is direct or outspoken which have revealed that rhetorical or unpalatable ques- (Hassal, 2004; Wijayanto et al., 2013). Unfortunately, the tions can compel listeners to get verbal attacks. Regarding EFL learners in the present study might have misconstrued the use of indirectness, the finding seems to contest Brown the directness of native English speakers. and Levinson’s (1987) claim on the close connection In summary, this article has shown that the EFL learners between conventional indirectness and politeness. Indeed, in the present study recurrently used impoliteness in their the finding confirms Nguyen and Ho’s (2013) claim that complaints. The finding implicates a need for pragmatic indirectness does not always perform politeness. teaching to the EFL learners or L2 learners in general. Teaching politeness strategies of the target language may help them to use direct but polite complaints. In addition, The Use of Threats providing examples of mitigation or hedging strategies A number of examples indicated that complainers used ver- through teaching materials could be very useful for L2 learn- bal threats with the intention of imposing injury on others. ers, who usually get limited exposure to target language use. Some “if-then” threats such as (23), (24), and (34) above The learners also need to be taught how to recognize inap- obviously reveal the complainers’ intention while they con- propriate or impolite complaints so that they can make better vey the possible punishment to impose on the complainees. pragmatic choices. Importantly, pragmatic instruction should The threat in (23) sounds much stronger as it employs a assist them to learn pragmalinguistic forms of the speech act directive utterance in the “If you do/don’t do X” clause. The in question and their use in various social contexts, and it finding is consistent with that of the earlier studies (e.g., should make the learners aware of their previous knowledge Limberg, 2009; Thanh-Hà Do, 2013; Trenchs, 1995). It of a similar speech act in their L1. shows that verbal threats can attack others’ face as they force people what to do. It is interesting to compare the strategies Conclusion used by the EFL learners in Trenchs’s study and the ones used by the EFL learners in the present study. The EFL learn- Impolite complaints made by Indonesian EFL learners have ers in Trenchs’s study involve an authority, for example, call- been investigated. Complaints can become impolite when ing the police. Such an action is considered to be too they contain outrageous address terms, swears words, direct intimidating that it can damage the social relationships criticisms, insults, and threats. Impoliteness can be commu- between the interlocutors. By contrast, the EFL learners in nicated not only with offensive expressions but also with the the present study mostly expressed statements containing ways of conveying them. The findings indicate that the learn- information to harm complainees psychically and ers’ awareness of different degrees of social distance and 12 SAGE Open status levels prompts different frequencies and strategies of 1. Your close friend borrows your laptop to type his or impoliteness. The frequent use of impolite complaints was her assignment. When it is returned, you find that its instigated by a number of factors such as the intensity of screen is broken. You have your assignment in the social situations in the ODCTs, the learners’ understanding laptop. You do not copy it into your flash disk and about the speech act in question, their perceptions on the you have to submit your assignment this week. You social distance and status levels of interlocutors, their prag- complain your friend about it. matic competence, and the nature of the research instrument. Taken together, the findings suggest that without obtaining You say: . . . pragmatic instruction, the EFL learners tend to adopt impo- lite complaints. 2. Your brother borrows your motorcycle to visit his A number of limitations need to be considered. One limi- friend. You say that you are going to ride your motor- tation of the present study lies in the research instruments cycle to go to your campus at 2 o’clock. Your brother (ODCTs). Although the ODCTs were able to elicit complaint promises that he will return it as soon as possible. strategies, the complaints only reflect what the EFL learners Now you are about leaving for your campus but your believed to be the right responses and, therefore, they may brother has not come up yet. Finally, your brother represent different communicative strategies as compared comes home very late. He said that he is forgotten with data taken from authentic conversations. In addition, as that you are going to go to campus. You make a com- the learners communicated only with imaginary interlocutors plaint to your brother. in the ODCTs, they were inclined to express their complaints explicitly. This might have induced many impolite com- You say: . . . plaints. Furthermore, most of the scenarios in the ODCTs 3. You are writing your thesis and you have to finish contain Indonesian contextual features. Thus, the data elic- your study this semester. You do not have money to ited might be a mere transference from Indonesian language pay tuition fee if you have to extend your study next to English language. The findings should therefore be treated semester. Your thesis supervisor is the one whom you with considerable caution. Next, the number of research par- know very well. Unfortunately, he or she has been ticipants was limited; the findings therefore might not be the lazy recently and he or she is difficult to meet. The representative of EFL learners at large. Finally, impoliteness draft of your thesis has been on the table of your revealed by the present study was the result of interpretation supervisor for 3 weeks and you have not received any on the linguistic data produced by the learners. In real inter- feedback from him or her yet. Today you meet him or personal communication, impoliteness could be discursive. her and you make a complaint to him or her. Despite the downsides, we believe that our findings could serve as a base for future studies of impoliteness in other L2 You say: . . . learning contexts. Paralinguistic aspects such as intonation and stress could 4. You are living in a dormitory. It is 22:30 now and you inflict impoliteness; research should be done to examine this are still studying for the exam of tomorrow morning. area. The present study did not conduct a systematic analysis You hear that the next-door neighbor is playing rock of the strategy use based on gender differences and levels of music. The music is getting louder and louder and it imposition; investigation on the topics is therefore recom- disturbs your concentration. You go to your neighbor mended. In addition, the EFL learners in the present study to complain about it. were at the same level of language proficiency; studies should be undertaken to investigate whether different levels You say: . . . of language proficiency will induce different impoliteness strategies. Finally, future studies need to innovate their meth- 5. You are working at an electronic company as a sales ods of data collection to elicit natural data of impoliteness. supervisor. You asked one of your staffs to make a sales report last week. As it was promised, the report Appendix will be ready this morning. Now you need the report and you will send it to Jakarta. You ask the staff for it, Discourse Completion Task (DCT) Scenarios but he said that it is not completed. You make a com- Direction: plaint to him. Read the scenarios before you answer them. Please imagine that you are in the situation as described by You say: . . . each DCT scenario. Respond each DCT scenario orally and please do it as spon- 6. You are reading the results of the final exam on the taneously as you will do in face-to-face interaction. announcement board at your department. You find Wijayanto et al. 13 out that the score of your Teaching English as a Notes Foreign Language II subject (TEFL), which you have 1. KHS = student record. predicted you would get A, is E. You are not happy 2. Indonesian soap opera. with the score. You meet the lecturer and make a complaint. References Al-Eryani, A. (2007). Refusal strategies by Yemeni EFL learners. You say: . . . The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 19-31. Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refus- 7. You are queuing at the gas station for about 10 min. als: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Suddenly a car hits your motorcycle from the back Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 385-406. and it makes your motorcycle broken badly. Andersson, L. G., & Trudgill, P. (2007). Swearing. In L. Monaghan, Nevertheless, the driver of the car is pretending as if J. E. Goodman, & J. M. Robinson (Eds.), A cultural approach he or she did not know the accident and he or she to interpersonal communication (pp. 195-199). Oxford, UK: looks so indifferent. The driver is about your age. Blackwell. You approach the driver and make a complaint. Archer, D. E. (2008). Verbal aggression and impoliteness: Related or synonymous? In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power You say: . . . in theory and practice (pp. 181-210). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. 8. You dispose of rubbish to the dustbin in the front yard Baba, J. (2010). Interlanguage pragmatics study of indirect com- garden of your house. An hour later a recycler picks plaint among Japanese ESL learners. Sino-US English through the dustbin to collect recycling rubbish. You Teaching, 7(12), 23-32. see that he or she scatters the rubbish and leaves it Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2006). Apology strategies of everywhere. You run to the recycler and make a com- Jordanian EFL university students. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, plaint to her or him. 1901-1927. Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data You say: . . . versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), 9. You are at the administrative office to ask some Speech acts across cultures (pp. 65-86). Berlin, Germany: information about your examination scores which Mouton de Gruyter. you have not obtained. You have been queuing at Biyon, A. S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: the office for about 30 min. Now it is your turn. Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1673-1704. Bousfield, D. (2007a). Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of You try to explain your problem, but the office the dynamics of impolite exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, staffs are talking with other staffs about the film 39, 2185-2216. they watched on TV. You are ignored and you are Bousfield, D. (2007b). Impoliteness, preference organization and not happy with it, so you make a complaint to the conductivity. Multilingua, 26(1-2), 1-33. staffs. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in the struggle for power. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: You say: . . . Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 127-154). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Acknowledgments Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language We would like to thank Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian pada usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions Masyarakat (LPPM) Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta for the and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). administrative supports, Fitri and Yafi for assistances with the data Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. transcription, and the research participants for providing us with the Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universal research data. usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chen, Y. S., Chen, C. Y. D., & Chang, M. S. (2011). American Declaration of Conflicting Interests and Chinese complaints: Strategy use from a cross-cultural per- spective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 253-275. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech acts. In S. L. Mackay & N. H. to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 383-420). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Funding Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support of Pragmatics, 25, 349-367. for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the tele- work was supported by the Directorate General of Higher Education vision quiz show: The weakest link. Journal of Politeness of Indonesia (Grant Number 194.43/A.3-III/LPPM/V/2014). Research, 1, 35-72. 14 SAGE Open Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalized impoliteness formulae. Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3232-3245. English. Multilingua, 23, 339-364. Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness Lachenicht, L. G. (1980). Aggravating language: A study of abusive revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic and insulting language. Papers in Linguistics, 13, 607-687. aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545-1579. Laforest, M. (2002). Scenes of family life: Complaining in every- DeCapua, A. (1989). An analysis of pragmatic transfer in the speech day conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1595-1620. act of complaints as produced by native speakers of German Limberg, H. (2009). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of in English complaints in German and English (Doctoral dis- Pragmatics, 41, 1376-1394. sertation, Columbia University). Retrieved from http://pocket- Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements knowledge.tc.columbia.edu/home.php/viewfile/15507 in oral communication. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Deveci, T. (2010). The use of complaints in the interlanguage of Locher, M. A. (2006). Polite behaviour within relational work: The Turkish EFL learners. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua, 25(3), 249-267. 12(2), 25-42. Locher, M. A., & Bousfield, D. (2008). Introduction: Impoliteness Doğançay-Aktuna, S., & Kamışlı, S. (1997). Pragmatic transfer and power in language. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), in interlanguage development: A case study of advanced EFL Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power learners. ITL—International Journal of Applied Linguistics, in theory and practice (pp. 1-13). Berlin, Germany: Mouton 117, 151-173. de Gruyter. Edwards, D. (2005). Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjec- Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. (2008). Rational work and impolite- tive side of complaints. Discourse Studies, 7, 5-29. ness. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. practice (pp. 77-100). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 253-286. Magnis-Suseno, F. (1997). Javanese ethics and world-view: The Gass, S. M., & Houck, N. (1999). Interlanguage refusals: A cross- Javanese idea of good life. Jakarta, Indonesia: Gramedia. cultural study of JapaneseEnglish. Berlin, Germany: Mouton Monzoni, C. M. (2008). Direct complaints in (Italian) calls to the de Gruyter. ambulance: The use of negatively framed questions. Journal of Hartuti, M. (2014). A study of politeness strategy in refusal used Pragmatics, 41, 2465-2478. by English teachers in Madiun regency (Master’s thesis). Moon, K. (2001). Speech act study: Differences between native and Retrieved from http://eprints.ums.ac.id/32467/ non-native speakers’ complaint strategies (TESOL Working Hassal, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. papers (AU-CAS-TESOL) Series 1). Washington, DC: Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1903-1928. TESOL, College of Arts and Sciences, American University. Hassal, T. (2004). Through a glass, darkly: When learner pragmat- Mulamba, K. (2009). Social beliefs for the realization of the speech ics is misconstrued. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 997-1002. acts of apology and complaint as defined in Ciluba, French, and Haugh, M. (2010). When is an email really offensive? English. Pragmatics, 19, 543-564. Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Murphy, B., & Neu, J. (1996). My grade’s too low: The speech Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 7-31. act set of complaining. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech Henry, A., & Ho, D. G. E. (2010). The act of complaining in acts across cultures (pp. 191-216). Berlin, Germany: Mouton Brunei—Then and now. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 840-855. de Gruyter. Jay, T. (2000). Why we curse: A neuro-psycho-social theory of Nguyen, T. T. M. (2008). Modifying L2 criticisms: How learners speech. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. do it? Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 768-791. Jay, T., & Janschewitz, K. (2008). The pragmatics of swearing. Nguyen, T. T. M., & Ho, G. A. L. (2013). Requests and politeness Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 267-288. in Vietnamese as a native language. Pragmatics, 23, 685-714. Kantara, A. (2010). Impoliteness strategies in “House M. D.” Lodz North, S. (2000). Cultures of complaint in Japan and the United Papers in Pragmatics, 6, 305-339. States (Working paper No. 17). Berkeley: Center for Working Kienpointner, M. (2008). Impoliteness and emotional arguments. Families, University of California, Berkeley. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 243-265. Nurani, L. M. (2009). Methodological issue in pragmatic research: Kim, H. (2008). The semantic and pragmatic analysis of South Is discourse completion test a reliable data collection instru- Korean and Australian English apologetic speech acts. Journal ment? Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 17, 667-678. of Pragmatics, 40, 257-278. Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features on Koentjaraningrat, R. M. (1985). Javanese culture. Singapore: the speech act of complaining. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka Oxford University Press. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 108-122). Oxford, UK: Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acqui- Oxford University Press. sition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modem Language Pratiwi, E. H. (2013). Politeness strategies used in complaint by Journal, 73, 279-289. Indonesian EFL learners in Muhammadiyah University of Kraft, B., & Geluykens, R. (2002). Complaining in French L1 and Surakarta (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://eprints.ums. L2: A cross-linguistic investigation. EUROSLA Yearbook, 2, ac.id/23376/ 227-242. Purnomo, A. P. (2015). Compliments and compliment responses Kryk-Kastovsky, B. (2006). Impoliteness in early modern English used by English teacher association of senior high school in courtroom discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 7, Pacitan (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://eprints.ums. 213-243. ac.id/33663/ Wijayanto et al. 15 Rinnert, C., & Iwai, C. (2002). Variation in compliment strate- Wannaruk, A. (2008). Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. gies in three regions. Proceedings of JALT, 2002, 372-378. RELC Journal, 39, 318-337. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceed- Warga, M., & Scholmberger, U. (2007). The acquisition of French ings/2002/372.pdf apologetic behavior in a study abroad context. Intercultural Schauer, G. A. (2004). May you speak louder maybe? Interlanguage Pragmatics, 4, 221-251. pragmatic development in requests. EUROSLA Yearbook, 4, Wijayanto, A. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatics of refusal strat- 253-272. egies by Javanese EFL learners (Doctoral dissertation, Sharifian, F. (2008). Cultural schemas in L1 and L2 compliment University of Aberdeen). Retrieved from http://ethos.bl.uk/ responses: A study of Persian speaking learners of English. OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.553852 Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 55-80. Wijayanto, A., Laila, M., Prasetyarini, A., & Susiati, S. (2013). Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M., & Razzaghi, S. (2014). Cross-cultural Politeness in interlanguage pragmatics of complaint by perception of impoliteness by native English speakers and Indonesian learners of English. English Language Teaching, EFL learners: The case of apology speech act. Journal of 6(10), 188-201. Intercultural Communication Research, 43, 304-326. Wijayanto, A., Prasetyarini, A., & Hikmat, M. H. (2014). Tanck, S. (2002). Speech act sets of refusal and complaint: A Ketidaksantunan (impoliteness) dalam tindak tutur keluhan comparison of native and non-native English speakers’ pro- oleh pembelajar bahasa Inggris berlatarbelakang budaya duction (TESOL Working papers (AU-CAS-TESOL) Series Jawa: kajian pragmatik interlingual [‘Impoliteness in com- 2). Washington, DC: TESOL, College of Arts and Sciences, plaints by Javanese learners of English: Interlanguage prag- American University. matic study’] (UMS research report 5612). Retrieved from Tatsuki, D. H. (2000). If my complaints could passions move: An https://publikasiilmiah.ums.ac.id/handle/11617/5612 interlanguage study of aggression. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, Wolfson, N. (1986). The Bulge: A theory of speech behavior and 1003-1017. social distance. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, Thanh-Hà Do, H. T. (2013). Complaints in Vietnamese by native 2(1), 55-83. and non-native speakers. In C. Roever & H. Nguyen (Eds.), Zhoumin, Y. (2011). A contrastive study of American and Chinese Pragmatics of Vietnamese as native and target language (pp. university students’ complaining strategies. Chinese Journal of 111-135). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 111-129. Center, University of Hawaii. Tracy, K., & Tracy, S. J. (1998). Rudeness at 911: Reconceptualizing Author Biographies face and face attack. Human Communication Research, 25, Agus Wijayanto is a lecturer at the faculty of Teacher Training and 225-251. Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia. His Traverso, V. (2009). The dilemmas of third-party complaints in research interests involve pragmatics, interlanguage pragmatics, conversation friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2385-2399. and second language acquisition. Trenchs, M. (1995). Complaining in Catalan, complaining in English: A comparative study of native and EFL speak- Aryati Prasetyarini is a lecturer at the faculty of Teacher Training ers. Revista española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), 10, and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia. 271-288. Her research interests are primarily in the areas of teaching English Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, com- to young learners, interlanguage, and second language acquisition. plaints, and apologies. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Mauly Halwat Hikmat is a lecturer at the faculty of Teacher Umar, A. M. A. T. (2006). The speech act of complaint as real- Training and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, ized by advanced Sudanese learners of English. Umm Al-Qura Indonesia. Her research interests primarily focus on foreign lan- University Journal of Educational, Social Sciences and guage teaching methodologies and second language acquisition. Humanities, 18(2), 9-40.

Journal

SAGE Open – SAGE

Published: Oct 4, 2017

Keywords: impoliteness; face attack; complaints; interlanguage pragmatics

There are no references for this article.