1887
Volume 12, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates to what extent Turkish formal complaint letters followed the ‘Problem-Solution Pattern’ (Hoey 1983), and on how the writers expressed their wishes when they explained their problem and asked the authorities to amend a mistake. The study is based on a corpus of 134 Turkish complaint letters. It draws upon Flowerdew’s (20082012) approach to the problem-solution pattern and the role of clause relations in this text pattern.

Results showed that age-old Turkish rhetorical norms led writers’ choice of lexico-grammatical patterns in reflecting politeness in order to maintain their own and the recipients’ faces. The speech acts (complaint and request) in the ‘Problem and Solution’ parts below were hedged and impersonalized. The Turkish traditional rhetorical formula that was used in the request does not explicitly ask the reader to do something; in this way, the writers attempt to protect both their own face and that of the reader.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.18051.kar
2021-07-05
2021-09-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akar, Didar
    2002 “The macro contextual factors shaping business discourse: The Turkish case.” International Research in Applied Linguistics40: 305–322. doi:  10.1515/iral.2002.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2002.015 [Google Scholar]
  2. Akbaş, Erdem
    2014 Commitment-detachment and authorial presence in postgraduate academic writing: A comparative study of Turkish native speakers. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of York, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Paul
    2006Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baratta, Alexander M.
    2009 “Revealing stance through passive voice.” Journal of Pragmatics41:10406–1421. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhatia, Vijay K., John Flowerdew, and Rodney H. Jones
    2008 “Approaches to discourse analysis.” InAdvances in Discourse Studies, ed. byVijay K. Bhatia, John Flowerdew, and Rodney H. Jones, 1–18. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203892299
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203892299 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas, Ulla Connor and Thomas Upton
    2007 “Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics.” InDiscourse on the Move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, Vol. 28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1989 “Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness.” InCross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, ed. byShoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliana House, and Gabriele Kasper, 37–70. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 1987 “Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?” Journal of Pragmatics11:131–146. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90192‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohen, Andrew D. and Elite Olshtain
    1993 “The production of speech acts by EFL learners.” TESOL Quarterly27(1):33–56. doi:  10.2307/3586950
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586950 [Google Scholar]
  11. Crompton, Peter
    1997 “Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems.” English for Specific Purposes16(4): 271–287. doi:  10.1016/S0889‑4906(97)00007‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00007-0 [Google Scholar]
  12. Doyuran, Zeynep
    2009 “Conciliation of knowledge through hedging in Turkish scientific articles.” Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters26(1): 85–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Duruk, Eda
    2017 “Analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic written discourse produced by Turkish researchers.” Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies13(1):1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Emeksiz, Zeynep E.
    2015 “Stance taking and passive voice in Turkish academic discourse.” Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies11(2), 13–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Flowerdew, Lynne
    2008Corpus-based Analyses of the Problem-solution pattern. London: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.29
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.29 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2012 “Exploiting a corpus of business letters from a phraseological, functional perspective.” ReCALL24:152–168. doi:  10.1017/S0958344012000043
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000043 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goffman, Erwin
    1959The Presentation of Self in Daily Life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1967 “On Face-Work” InInteraction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, ed. byErwin Goffman, 5–45. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Göksel, Aslı and Celia Kerslake
    2005Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gu, Yueguo
    1990 “Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics14: 237–257. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90082‑O
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O [Google Scholar]
  21. Hartford, Beverly and Ahmar Mahboob
    2004 “Models of Discourse in the letter of complaint.” World Englishes23(4): 585–600. doi:  10.1111/j.0083‑2919.2004.00378.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0083-2919.2004.00378.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Hinkel, Eli
    2005 “Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing.” Applied Language Learning15(1&2): 29–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Ho, Victor
    2011 “What functions do intertextuality and interdiscursivity serve in request email discourse?” Journal of Pragmatics43: 2534–2547. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hoey, Michael
    1983On the Surface of Discourse. London: Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hyland, Ken
    1996 “Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles.” Applied Linguistics17(4):433–454. doi:  10.1093/applin/17.4.433
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433 [Google Scholar]
  26. 1998 “Boosting hedging and the meaning of academic knowledge.” Text18(3):349–382. doi:  10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349 [Google Scholar]
  27. Karatepe, Çiğdem
    2016 “Indirectness in requests in complaint letters to the higher institution by Turkish EFL Students.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences232: 354–361. doi:  10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.050
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.050 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jenkins, Susan and John Hinds
    1987 “Business letter writing: English, French and Japanese.” TESOL Quarterly1(2): 327–349. doi:  10.2307/3586738
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586738 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kerslake, Celia
    1996 “The semantics of possibility of Turkish.” InCurrent Issues in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp.84–104). Ankara: Hitit Yayınları.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lakoff, George
    1975 “Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.” Chicago Linguistic Society Papers8: 183–228. doi:  10.1007/978‑94‑010‑1756‑5_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1756-5_9 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mackiewicz, Jo and Kathryn Riley
    2003 “The technical editor as diplomat: Linguistic strategies for balancing clarity and politeness.” Technical Communication50(1): 83–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Maier, Paula
    1992 “Politeness strategies in business letters by native and non-native English speakers.” English for Specific Purposes11:189–205. doi:  10.1016/S0889‑4906(05)80009‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80009-2 [Google Scholar]
  33. Molino, Alessandra
    2010 “Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes9: 86–101. doi:  10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  34. Murphy, Beth and Joyce Neu
    1996 “‘My grade is too low’: The speech act set of complaining.” InSpeech Acts Across Cultures, ed. bySusan Gass and Joyce Neu, 191–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Myers, Greg
    1989 “The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles.” Applied Linguistics10(1):1–35. doi:  10.1093/applin/10.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  36. Olshtain, Elite and Liora Weinbach
    1993 “Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining”. InInterlanguage Pragmatics, ed. byGabriele Kasper and Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 108–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Reilly, Judy, Anita Zamora, and Robert F. McGivern
    2005 “Acquiring perspective in English: The development of stance.” Journal of Pragmatics37(2): 185–208. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(04)00191‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(04)00191-2 [Google Scholar]
  38. Reiter, Rosina Marquez, Isobel Rainey and Glenn Fulcher
    2005 “A comparative study of certainty and conventional indirectness: Evidence from British English and Peninsular Spanish.” Applied Linguistics26(1):1–31. doi:  10.1093/applin/amh018
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amh018 [Google Scholar]
  39. Salager-Meyer, Françoise
    1997 “I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse.” InFunctional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom applications, ed. byTom Miller, 105–118. Washington, D.C.: United States Information Agency, English Language Programmes.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Searle, John R.
    1977 “Indirect speech acts.” InSyntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Varttala, Teppo
    1999 “Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and research articles on medicine.” English for Specific Purposes18(2):177–200. doi:  10.1016/S0889‑4906(98)00007‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00007-6 [Google Scholar]
  42. Vergaro, Carla
    2002 “‘Dear Sirs, what would you do if you were in our position?’ Discourse Strategies in Italian and English Money Chasing Letters.” Journal of Pragmatics24: 1211–1232. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00046‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00046-2 [Google Scholar]
  43. Wood, David
    2015Fundamentals of Formulaic Language: An introduction. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Yeung, Lorrita N. T.
    1997 “Polite requests in English and Chinese business correspondence in Hong Kong.” Journal of Pragmatics27(4): 505–522. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00050‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00050-X [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.18051.kar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.18051.kar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): complaints; face; formulaic language; hedging; problem-solution pattern; speech acts; Turkish
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