Cross culture communication

776 views
697 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
776
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cross culture communication

  1. 1. A CONTRASTIVE STUDY ON THE COMPLAINT BEHAVIORS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND CHINESE Yuan-Shan L. Chen A Critical Review By : Ari Listiani Postgraduate Program of Linguistics (Translations) Udayana University
  2. 2. <ul><li>OUTLINE : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>INTRODUCTION </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SUMMARY </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CRITICISM </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CONCLUSION </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>What is “Complaint”? </li></ul><ul><li>“ An illocutionary act in which the speaker express negative feelings towards the hearer because the speaker thinks that the hearer should be responsible for a past socially unacceptable event” </li></ul><ul><li>According to Brown & Lavinson : 1987, Complaining is a face-threatening act as it threat the hearer’s (+) face as the speaker does not care about the hearer’s desires of being admired/appreciated by holding him/her responsible for the offense. </li></ul>I. INTRODUCTION
  4. 4. 40 SUBJECTS Ages Range : 16 – 21 YO 20 NS –A Undergraduate Students of Colleges in Washington 20 NS –C Ling Tung University in Taiwan 1. RESEARCH METHOD II. SUMMARY
  5. 5. CON’T 2. INSTRUMENT DCT 8 SCENARIOS <ul><li>SOCIAL POWER : </li></ul><ul><li>High Status </li></ul><ul><li>Low Status </li></ul><ul><li>SOCIAL DISTANCE </li></ul><ul><li>- Distance </li></ul><ul><li>+ Distance </li></ul>
  6. 6. CON’T 3. DATA ANALYSIS <ul><li>Complaint Strategies : </li></ul><ul><li>Opting Out (OP) </li></ul><ul><li>No Explicit Reproach (NO) </li></ul><ul><li>Indirect Complaint (IC) </li></ul><ul><li>Indirect Accusation (IA) </li></ul><ul><li>Direct Complaint (DC) </li></ul><ul><li>Request for Repair (RR) </li></ul><ul><li>Threat (TH) </li></ul>QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE
  7. 7. CON’T <ul><li>Quantitative Analysis : </li></ul><ul><li>Strategies Distributions Used by NS-A and NS-C </li></ul>4. RESULT Subjects OP NO IC IA DC RR TH Total NS - A 2 0 141 15 24 119 10 311 NS - C 1 19 97 29 24 102 11 283
  8. 8. <ul><li>Significant Different Between Americans and Chinese : </li></ul><ul><li>No Explicit Reproach </li></ul><ul><li>Indirect Complaint </li></ul><ul><li>Indirect Accusation </li></ul><ul><li>Request for Repair </li></ul>CON’T 2. Quantitative Analysis :
  9. 9. CON’T a. NO EXPLICIT REPROACH AMERICAN CHINESE “ Oh, it’s OK, accidents happen” “ Meiguanxi “ (It’s OK) Let the hearer off the hook first, followed by statement of understanding Let the hearer off the hook without further elaboration
  10. 10. CON’T b. INDIRECT COMPLAINT AMERICAN CHINESE “ I took the established hours believing that is what I would be working” 1. “Wanshang zhemowan huijia tai weixian” (It’s too dangerous to go home so late and my family was worried) 2. “Meigeren douyao paidui chadui shi hen” (Everyone should wait in line and cutting in line is very immoral!) Express fact of annoyance regardless of the hearer’s relative power or distance The complaint expression differ based on the hearer’s level of status
  11. 11. CON’T c. INDIRECT ACCUSATION AMERICAN CHINESE “ Why did you open letter?” 1. “Ni bushi daying wo buzai kai wode xin ma” (Didn’t you promise mo not to open my letter again?) 2. “Ni you kai wode xin ma” (Did you open my letter?) Using “Wh” question ; Most direct, threaten the speaker’s negative face straightforwardly by holding the hearer’s responsible for the offence In #1, the speaker shows his/her disappointment at the hearer’s act of breaking the promise and disturbing privacy. In #2, the speaker has no prior assumption about the (+) & (-) response, so it is left open to the hearer to answer the question.
  12. 12. CON’T d. REQUEST FOR REPAIR AMERICAN CHINESE “ I would like to ask you to give me extra pay” 1. “Wo xiwang wo yihou keyi zhushi xiaban buyao” (I hope I can get off on time in the future, and do not postpone until 12:00 like before! 2. “Xiaci xiaoxin yidian” (Be carefull next time) Tend to use the modal verb “would” to modify the illocutionary verb “like” . Ask for compensation for the damage for the hearer has caused. Tend to use subjectiviser such as “I hope…”. Carried a moral overtone and advise the hearer that such an act should be prevented and care should be taken in the future
  13. 13. <ul><li>The hypothetical nature of situations given simplify the complexity of interaction in real conversations (limited in the authenticity of the situations) </li></ul><ul><li>Subjects : </li></ul><ul><li>The proportion of the gender is not stated. </li></ul><ul><li>The age range is limited from 16 – 21 YO from undergraduate students. </li></ul><ul><li>Why not randomized from adult, old people with varied background? </li></ul><ul><li>3. It was said that the DCT consists of 8 scenarios, but on the Appendix it was only 7 (Question #2 and #4 are the same) </li></ul>III. CRITICISM
  14. 16. <ul><li>The research contribute to widen the scope of cross-cultural pragmatics study. </li></ul><ul><li>Yet, there are some limitation in this article. </li></ul><ul><li>First, the findings is less valid due to the relatively limited background and age range of the respondents. Besides, the application of DCTs (Discourse Completion Tasks) as a method of the data collection in this pragmatic studies cause the authenticity of the situations is limited due to the absence of interactions between interlocutors . For the shake of authenticity, the data can be taken from natural talk activities such as in public services, working place etc. by using electronic recording. </li></ul>IV. CONCLUSION

×