Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 24:1 (2017) ► pp.4–32

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Responding to direct complaints

The role of MPEs in common ground construction in institutional telephone interactions

 | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
 | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Published online: 19 January 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.16009.liu
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 (Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40(3). 385–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, . 2010. Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics 42(6). 2889–2897. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, . 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, Kecskes, Istvan. 2017. The interplay of recipient design and salience in shaping speaker’s utterance. In María de Ponte & Kepa Korta (eds.), Reference and representation in thought and language, 238–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and Kecskes and Zhang (Kecskes, Istvan & Fenhui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2). 331–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, Kecskes, Istvan & Fenhui Zhang. 2013. On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition. In Alessandro Capone, Francolo Piparo & Marco Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics, 375–395. Springer: New York. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). 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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review and research question
    • 2.1Complaints and complaint responses
    • 2.2Common ground
    • 2.3Research question
  • 3.Data collection and description
  • 4.Common ground construction of MPEs in direct complaint responses
    • 4.1The creation of CG of knowledge
      • 4.1.1MPEs as indicators of giving accounts and explanations
      • 4.1.2MPEs as indicators of confirming and checking information
      • 4.1.3MPEs as indicators of negotiating adequate compensation
    • 4.2The creation of CG of dis/affiliation and non/alignment
      • 4.2.1MPEs as indicators of establishing close interpersonal relationships or guanxi
      • 4.2.2MPEs as indicators of balancing dis/affiliation and non/aligning stance
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Note
  • References
References (62)
References
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 Teaching 5(2). 78–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J. 2004. Establishing conventional communication systems: Is common knowledge necessary? Cognitive Science 28(6). 937–962. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J. & Boaz Keysar. 2005. Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In Herbert L. Colston & Albert N. Katz (eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences, 21–43. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Psychology 146(4). 437–453. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boxer, Diana. 1993. Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics 191. 103–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 1984. Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 81. 433–435. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Metapragmatics. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2461–2466. Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chan, Alvin M. 2006. The Chinese concepts of Guanxi, Mianzi, Renqing and Bao: Their interrelationships and implications for international business. Presentation at Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Brisbane, Queensland.
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Context and common ground. In Jacob L. Mey (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 116–119. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Susan E. Brennan. 1991. Grounding in communication. In Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine & Stephanie D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 127–149. Washington: APA Books. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, Herbert L. & Albert N. Katz (eds.). 2005. Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruz, Manuel P. 2015. Fostering EF/SL learners’ meta-pragmatic awareness of complaints and their interactive effects. Language Awareness 24(2). 123–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dersley, Ian & Anthony J. Wootton. 2000. Complaint sequences within antagonistic arguments. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(4). 375–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1998. Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31(3/4). 295–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul & Traci Walker. 2009. Going too far: Complaining, escalating and disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics 411. 2400–2414. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 2005. Moaning, whining and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies 7(1). 5–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Review 411. 195–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekström, Mats & Fredrik Lundström. 2014. The termination of complaints in calls to an authority for student support. Journal of Pragmatics 741. 132–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fan, Alei, Anna S. Mattilab & Xinyuan Zhao. 2015. How does social distance impact customers’ complaint intentions? A cross-cultural examination. International Journal of Hospitality Management 471. 35–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filip, Alina. 2013. Complaint management: A customer satisfaction learning process. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 931. 271–275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Policy 401. 804–820. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giannoni, Davide S. 2014. A comparison of British and Italian customer-complaint forms. English for Specific Purposes 341. 48–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 2003. On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenberg, Jerald. 1990. Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. In Barry M. Staw & Larry L. Cummings (eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 121, 111–157. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine & Véronique Traverso. 2009. Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 411. 2381–2384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth. 2012. Using laugh responses to defuse complaints. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(4). 430–448. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel. 2011. Metapragmatics. In Wolfram Büblitz & Neal R. Norrick (eds.), Foundations of pragmatics, 107–136. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel & Wolfram Bublitz. 2007. Introducing metapragmatics in use. In Wolfram Büblitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 1–26. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies of conversation analysis, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40(3). 385–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics 42(6). 2889–2897. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan & Jacob L. Mey. 2008. Introduction. In Istvan Kecskes & Jacob L. Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 1–5. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan & Fenhui Zhang. 2013. On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition. In Alessandro Capone, Francolo Piparo & Marco Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics, 375–395. Springer: New York. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2017. The interplay of recipient design and salience in shaping speaker’s utterance. In María de Ponte & Kepa Korta (eds.), Reference and representation in thought and language, 238–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Management 571. 18–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Ping & Yongping Ran. 2016. Creating meso-contexts: The functions of metapragmatic expressions in argumentative TV talk shows. Intercultural Pragmatics 13(2). 283–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luo, Yadong. 1997. Guanxi: Principles, philosophies, and implications. Human Systems Management 16(1). 43–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Esther Usó-Juan. 2015. The role of instruction on EFL learners’ use of complaining apologizing semantic formulas. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 2121. 23–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics: An introduction, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. “Impeach or exorcise?” Or, what’s in the (common) ground? In Istvan Kecskes & Jacob Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 255–275. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Linguistics 33(3). 321–341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Monzoni, Chiara M. 2009. Direct complaints in (Italian) calls to the ambulance: The use of negatively framed questions. Journal of Pragmatics 411. 2465–2478. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Penz, Hermine. 2007. Building common ground through metapragmatic comments in international project work. In Wolfram Bublitz & Axel Hubler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 263–292. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1978. Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints. In Jim Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, 79–112. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rader, M. 1977. Complaint letters: When is conflicts with ought . Unpublished paper, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1988. Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In Paul Drew & Anthony J. Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, 89–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2012. Complaint stories and subsequent complaint stories with affect displays. Journal of Pragmatics 441. 387–415. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1993. Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In John A. Lucy (ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics, 33–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1). 31–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traverso, Véronique. 2009. The dilemmas of third-party complaints in conversation between friends. Journal of Pragmatics 411. 2385–2399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1987. Apology strategies in natives and non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics 111. 141–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, William J. 1985. Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36(1). 82–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wan, Lisa C. 2013. Culture’s impact on consumer complaining responses to embarrassing service failure. Journal of Business Research 66(3). 298–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Cengiz, Kaan Varnali & Berna T. Kasnakoglu. 2016. How do firms benefit from customer complaints? Journal of Business Research 691. 944–955. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Yi & Camilla Vásquez. 2014. Hotels’ responses to online reviews: Managing consumer dissatisfaction. Discourse, Context and Media 61. 54–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kecskes, Istvan, Olga Obdalova, Ludmila Minakova & Aleksandra Soboleva
2018. A study of the perception of situation-bound utterances as culture-specific pragmatic units by Russian learners of English. System 76 ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue