Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 12:3 (2021) ► pp.488–504

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

Hedged Turkish complaints and requests in the Problem-Solution text pattern

 | Bursa Uludağ University
Published online: 5 July 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18051.kar
Abstract
This study investigates to what extent Turkish formal complaint letters followed the ‘Problem-Solution Pattern’ (Hoey, Michael. 1983. On the Surface of Discourse. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), 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 (Flowerdew, Lynne. 2008. Corpus-based Analyses of the Problem-solution pattern. London: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, . 2012. “Exploiting a corpus of business letters from a phraseological, functional perspective.” ReCALL 241:152–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) 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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A request and a complaint forming a speech act set
    • 2.1Hedges
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Data analysis
    • 3.2Results of the analysis
      • 3.2.1The situation part is where writers typically introduce themselves
      • 3.2.2The use of passive and impersonalized forms in the Problem part
      • 3.2.3Request in the Solution part
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (44)
References
Akar, Didar. 2002. “The macro contextual factors shaping business discourse: The Turkish case.” International Research in Applied Linguistics 401: 305–322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Paul. 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baratta, Alexander M. 2009. “Revealing stance through passive voice.” Journal of Pragmatics 411:10406–1421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K., John Flowerdew, and Rodney H. Jones. 2008. “Approaches to discourse analysis.” In Advances in Discourse Studies, ed. by Vijay K. Bhatia, John Flowerdew, and Rodney H. Jones, 1–18. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Ulla Connor and Thomas Upton. 2007. “Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics.” In Discourse on the Move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, Vol. 28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1989. “Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness.” In Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, ed. by Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliana House, and Gabriele Kasper, 37–70. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1987. “Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?” Journal of Pragmatics 111:131–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Andrew D. and Elite Olshtain. 1993. “The production of speech acts by EFL learners.” TESOL Quarterly 27(1):33–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crompton, Peter. 1997. “Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems.” English for Specific Purposes 16(4): 271–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doyuran, Zeynep. 2009. “Conciliation of knowledge through hedging in Turkish scientific articles.” Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters 26(1): 85–99.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duruk, Eda. 2017. “Analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic written discourse produced by Turkish researchers.” Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 13(1):1–19.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emeksiz, Zeynep E. 2015. “Stance taking and passive voice in Turkish academic discourse.” Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 11(2), 13–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Exploiting a corpus of business letters from a phraseological, functional perspective.” ReCALL 241:152–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erwin. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Daily Life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1967. “On Face-Work” In Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, ed. by Erwin Goffman, 5–45. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı and Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. “Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 141: 237–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartford, Beverly and Ahmar Mahboob. 2004. “Models of Discourse in the letter of complaint.” World Englishes 23(4): 585–600. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinkel, Eli. 2005. “Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing.” Applied Language Learning 15(1&2): 29–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ho, Victor. 2011. “What functions do intertextuality and interdiscursivity serve in request email discourse?” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 2534–2547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 1983. On the Surface of Discourse. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1996. “Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles.” Applied Linguistics 17(4):433–454. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. “Boosting hedging and the meaning of academic knowledge.” Text 18(3):349–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karatepe, Çiğdem. 2016. “Indirectness in requests in complaint letters to the higher institution by Turkish EFL Students.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 2321: 354–361. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jenkins, Susan and John Hinds. 1987. “Business letter writing: English, French and Japanese.” TESOL Quarterly 1(2): 327–349. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerslake, Celia. 1996. “The semantics of possibility of Turkish.” In Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 84–104). Ankara: Hitit Yayınları.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1975. “Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.” Chicago Linguistic Society Papers 81: 183–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackiewicz, Jo and Kathryn Riley. 2003. “The technical editor as diplomat: Linguistic strategies for balancing clarity and politeness.” Technical Communication 50(1): 83–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maier, Paula. 1992. “Politeness strategies in business letters by native and non-native English speakers.” English for Specific Purposes 111:189–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Molino, Alessandra. 2010. “Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 91: 86–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, Beth and Joyce Neu. 1996. “‘My grade is too low’: The speech act set of complaining.” In Speech Acts Across Cultures, ed. by Susan Gass and Joyce Neu, 191–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myers, Greg. 1989. “The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles.” Applied Linguistics 10(1):1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olshtain, Elite and Liora Weinbach. 1993. “Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining”. In Interlanguage Pragmatics, ed. by Gabriele Kasper and Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 108–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reilly, Judy, Anita Zamora, and Robert F. McGivern. 2005. “Acquiring perspective in English: The development of stance.” Journal of Pragmatics 37(2): 185–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Linguistics 26(1):1–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1997. “I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse.” In Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom applications, ed. by Tom Miller, 105–118. Washington, D.C.: United States Information Agency, English Language Programmes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1977. “Indirect speech acts.” In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varttala, Teppo. 1999. “Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and research articles on medicine.” English for Specific Purposes 18(2):177–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Pragmatics 241: 1211–1232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, David. 2015. Fundamentals of Formulaic Language: An introduction. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yeung, Lorrita N. T. 1997. “Polite requests in English and Chinese business correspondence in Hong Kong.” Journal of Pragmatics 27(4): 505–522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Yang, Kun & Siyu Shen
2025. Translanguaging in online requests: communicative strategies of Chinese international students in the UK. International Journal of Multilingualism ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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