1887
Volume 24, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article examines the role of metapragmatic expressions (MPEs) in constructing common ground (CG) in the call taker’s responses to customer direct complaints in telephone interactions in the framework of the socio-cognitive approach proposed and developed by Kecskes (2008201020132017) and Kecskes and Zhang (20092013). Based on five extracts drawn from the data of about two hours of 15 recordings of telephone interactions that include successful complaint settlements made between customers and the customer service department of one Chinese airline, it reveals that the call taker mainly employs five types of MPEs as CG construction devices to explicitly manifest intentions of giving accounts and explanations, confirming and checking information, negotiating adequate compensations, establishing close interpersonal relationships, and aligning with the organization. This article enhances our understanding of the functioning process of metapragmatic indicators in complaint settlement in institutional telephone interactions.

This work is currently available as a sample.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.16009.liu
2018-01-19
2019-10-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akram, Azarmi & Biook Behnam
    2012 The pragmatic knowledge of Iranian EFL learners in using face keeping strategies in reaction to complaints at two different levels. English Language Teaching5(2). 78–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barr, Dale J.
    2004 Establishing conventional communication systems: Is common knowledge necessary?Cognitive Science28(6). 937–962. doi:  10.1207/s15516709cog2806_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2806_3 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barr, Dale J. & Boaz Keysar
    2005 Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. InHerbert L. Colston & Albert N. Katz (eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences, 21–43. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bippus, Amy M., Norah E. Dunbar & Shr-Jie Liu
    2012 Humorous responses to interpersonal complaints: Effects of humor style and nonverbal expression. The Journal of Psychology146(4). 437–453. doi:  10.1080/00223980.2011.652696
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2011.652696 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boxer, Diana
    1993 Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics19. 103–125. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90084‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90084-3 [Google Scholar]
  6. Caffi, Claudia
    1984 Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics8. 433–435. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90035‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90035-3 [Google Scholar]
  7. 1994 Metapragmatics. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2461–2466. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2007Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chan, Alvin M.
    2006 The Chinese concepts of Guanxi, Mianzi, Renqing and Bao: Their interrelationships and implications for international business. Presentation atAustralian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Brisbane, Queensland.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2009 Context and common ground. InJacob L. Mey (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 116–119. Oxford: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark, Herbert H. & Susan E. Brennan
    1991 Grounding in communication. InLauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine & Stephanie D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 127–149. Washington: APA Books. doi:  10.1037/10096‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006 [Google Scholar]
  13. Colston, Herbert L. & Albert N. Katz
    (eds.) 2005Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cruz, Manuel P.
    2015 Fostering EF/SL learners’ meta-pragmatic awareness of complaints and their interactive effects. Language Awareness24(2). 123–137. doi:  10.1080/09658416.2014.996159
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2014.996159 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dersley, Ian & Anthony J. Wootton
    2000 Complaint sequences within antagonistic arguments. Research on Language and Social Interaction33(4). 375–406. doi:  10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02 [Google Scholar]
  16. Drew, Paul
    1998 Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction31(3/4). 295–325. doi:  10.1080/08351813.1998.9683595
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.1998.9683595 [Google Scholar]
  17. Drew, Paul & Traci Walker 2009 Going too far: Complaining, escalating and disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics41. 2400–2414. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.046
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.046 [Google Scholar]
  18. Edwards, Derek
    2005 Moaning, whining and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies7(1). 5–29. doi:  10.1177/1461445605048765
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605048765 [Google Scholar]
  19. Einwiller, Sabine A. & Sarah Steilen
    2015 Handling complaints on social network sites: An analysis of complaints and complaint responses on Facebook and Twitter pages of large US companies. Public Relations Review41. 195–204. doi:  10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.012 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ekström, Mats & Fredrik Lundström
    2014 The termination of complaints in calls to an authority for student support. Journal of Pragmatics74. 132–149. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2014.09.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fan, Alei, Anna S. Mattilab & Xinyuan Zhao
    2015 How does social distance impact customers’ complaint intentions? A cross-cultural examination. International Journal of Hospitality Management47. 35–42. doi:  10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Filip, Alina
    2013 Complaint management: A customer satisfaction learning process. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences93. 271–275. doi:  10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.188
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.188 [Google Scholar]
  23. Garín-Muñoz, Teresa, Teodosio Pérez-Amaral, Covadonga Gijón & Rafael López
    2016 Consumer complaint behavior in telecommunications: The case of mobile phone users in Spain. Telecommunications Policy40. 804–820. doi:  10.1016/j.telpol.2015.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  24. Giannoni, Davide S.
    2014 A comparison of British and Italian customer-complaint forms. English for Specific Purposes34. 48–57. doi:  10.1016/j.esp.2013.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  25. Giora, Rachel
    2003On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Greenberg, Jerald
    1990 Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. InBarry M. Staw & Larry L. Cummings (eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol.12, 111–157. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Heinemann, Trine & Véronique Traverso
    2009 Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics41. 2381–2384. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Holt, Elizabeth
    2012 Using laugh responses to defuse complaints. Research on Language and Social Interaction45(4). 430–448. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2012.726886
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.726886 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hübler, Axel
    2011 Metapragmatics. InWolfram Büblitz & Neal R. Norrick (eds.), Foundations of pragmatics, 107–136. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9783110214260.107
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214260.107 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hübler, Axel & Wolfram Bublitz
    2007 Introducing metapragmatics in use. InWolfram Büblitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 1–26. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/pbns.165.02hub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.02hub [Google Scholar]
  31. Jefferson, Gail
    1984 On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. InJ. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies of conversation analysis, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kecskes, Istvan
    2008 Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics40(3). 385–406. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2010 Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics42(6). 2889–2897. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2013Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kecskes, Istvan & Jacob L. Mey
    2008 Introduction. InIstvan Kecskes & Jacob L. Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 1–5. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110211474.0.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211474.0.1 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kecskes, Istvan & Fenhui Zhang
    2009 Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition17(2). 331–355. doi:  10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec [Google Scholar]
  37. Kecskes, Istvan & Fenhui Zhang 2013 On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition. InAlessandro Capone, Francolo Piparo & Marco Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics, 375–395. Springer: New York. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑319‑01014‑4_15
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_15 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kecskes, Istvan
    2017 The interplay of recipient design and salience in shaping speaker’s utterance. InMaría de Ponte & Kepa Korta (eds.), Reference and representation in thought and language, 238–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kleinke, Sonja & Birte Bös
    2015 Intergroup rudeness and the metapragmatics of its negotiation in online discussion fora. Pragmatics25(1). 47–71. doi:  10.1075/prag.25.1.03kle
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.25.1.03kle [Google Scholar]
  40. Li, Mimi, Shangzhi (Charles) Qiu & Zhaoping Liu
    2016 The Chinese way of response to hospitality service failure: The effects of face and guanxi. International Journal of Hospitality Management57. 18–29. doi:  10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  41. Liu, Ping & Yongping Ran
    2016 Creating meso-contexts: The functions of metapragmatic expressions in argumentative TV talk shows. Intercultural Pragmatics13(2). 283–307. doi:  10.1515/ip‑2016‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0011 [Google Scholar]
  42. Luo, Yadong
    1997 Guanxi: Principles, philosophies, and implications. Human Systems Management16(1). 43–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Esther Usó-Juan
    2015 The role of instruction on EFL learners’ use of complaining apologizing semantic formulas. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences212. 23–28. doi:  10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.293
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.293 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mey, Jacob L.
    2001Pragmatics: An introduction, 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2008 “Impeach or exorcise?” Or, what’s in the (common) ground?InIstvan Kecskes & Jacob Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 255–275. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Migdadi, Fathi, Muhammad A. Badarneh & Kawakib Radwan Al-Momani
    2012 Public complaints and complaint responses in calls to a Jordanian radio phone-in program. Applied Linguistics33(3). 321–341. doi:  10.1093/applin/ams011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams011 [Google Scholar]
  47. Monzoni, Chiara M.
    2009 Direct complaints in (Italian) calls to the ambulance: The use of negatively framed questions. Journal of Pragmatics41. 2465–2478. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.042
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.042 [Google Scholar]
  48. Penz, Hermine
    2007 Building common ground through metapragmatic comments in international project work. InWolfram Bublitz & Axel Hubler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 263–292. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/pbns.165.17pen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.17pen [Google Scholar]
  49. Pomerantz, Anita
    1978 Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints. InJim Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, 79–112. New York: Academic Press. doi:  10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50010‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50010-0 [Google Scholar]
  50. Rader, M.
    1977 Complaint letters: When is conflicts with ought. Unpublished paper, University of California, Berkeley.
  51. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1988 Goffman and the analysis of conversation. InPaul Drew & Anthony J. Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, 89–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Selting, Margret
    2012 Complaint stories and subsequent complaint stories with affect displays. Journal of Pragmatics44. 387–415. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  53. Silverstein, Michael
    1993 Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. InJohn A. Lucy (ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics, 33–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004 [Google Scholar]
  54. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction41(1). 31–37. doi:  10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  55. Traverso, Véronique 2009 The dilemmas of third-party complaints in conversation between friends. Journal of Pragmatics41. 2385–2399. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.047
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.047 [Google Scholar]
  56. Trosborg, Anna
    1987 Apology strategies in natives and non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics11. 141–167. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90193‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90193-7 [Google Scholar]
  57. Vande Kopple, William J.
    1985 Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication36(1). 82–93. doi:  10.2307/357609
    https://doi.org/10.2307/357609 [Google Scholar]
  58. Verschueren, Jef
    1999Understanding pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 2000 Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics10(4). 439–456. doi:  10.1075/prag.10.4.02ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.4.02ver [Google Scholar]
  60. Wan, Lisa C.
    2013 Culture’s impact on consumer complaining responses to embarrassing service failure. Journal of Business Research66(3). 298–305. doi:  10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.08.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  61. Yilmaz, Cengiz, Kaan Varnali & Berna T. Kasnakoglu
    2016 How do firms benefit from customer complaints?Journal of Business Research69. 944–955. doi:  10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.08.038
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.08.038 [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhang, Yi & Camilla Vásquez
    2014 Hotels’ responses to online reviews: Managing consumer dissatisfaction. Discourse, Context and Media6. 54–64. doi:  10.1016/j.dcm.2014.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2014.08.004 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.16009.liu
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.16009.liu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error