ԱՐՑԱԽԻ ՊԵՏԱԿԱՆ ՀԱՄԱԼՍԱՐԱՆ

ԲԱՆԱՍԻՐԱԿԱՆ ՖԱԿՈՒԼՏԵՏ

Ռոմանագերմանական լեզուների ամբիոն

Անգլերեն Լեզու և Գրականություն

ԴԻՊԼՈՄԱՅԻՆ ԱՇԽԱՏԱՆՔ
ԹԵՄԱ՝ ԲՈՂՈՔԻ ԲՆՈՒԹԱԳԻՐԸ ԱՆԳԼԵՐԵՆ ՍՈՑԻԱԼ֊ՄՇԱԿՈՒՅԹԱՅԻՆ
ԽՈՍՈՒՅԹՈՒՄ

Կատարող՝ Աննա Մինասըան

Գիտական ղեկավար՝` ՝ ավագ դասախոս

Արեգա Հայրապետյան

Ստեփանակերտ-2023
 ARTSAKH STATE UNIVERSITY

PHILOLOGICAL FACULTY

Department of Romance and Germanic Languages

English Language and Literature

FINAL WORK

THEME: THE CONCEPT OF COMPLAINT IN ENGLISH SOCI-CULTURAL

DISCOURSE

Performer: Anna Minasian

Senior Lecturer: Hayrapetian Arega

Stepanakert-2023
Contents
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………...3
Chapter I. General Notes on the Concept Complaint in Sociocultural Discourse.
1.1. Overview of the Speech Act Theory..............................................................................4
1.2. The Speech Act of Complaint: Characterization and Classification............................8
Chapter II. Realization of Complaints in English Sociocultural Discourse.
2.1. The Analysis of the Functions and Strategies of Complaint...........................................13
2.2. Complaint Strategies Used by English Native Speakers and Armenian Speakers of
English.............................................................................................................................19
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................24
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................... 26

3
 Introduction
The actuality. Complaining is an integral part of social interaction, largely because it is
through complaints that we express and negotiate the moral character of an action. Complaints
involve characterizing someone’s conduct as transgression in some way, and hence convey
assessments of the inappropriateness, incorrectness or unsuitability of someone’s conduct.
Complaints are one of the speech acts of everyday living. We all experience complaints
either when we are angry with someone or about any issues which upset us, or when someone is
angry with us.
Complaint can naturally cause offence and highly threaten the social relationship between
the speaker and the hearer. Therefore, it is very important for people to be able to use appropriate
strategy to perform complaint in order to avoid or minimize personal conflicts in communication.
The object of the final work is the concept “complaint” in socio-cultural discourse.
The subject of the final work is the complaint speech acts and their strategies in English oral
socio-cultural discourse.
The aim of the final work is to compare the complaint speech acts with regard to the
strategies and structures used by English native speakers and non-native speakers of English.
The aim of the final work predetermines the following tasks:
• to study the characteristics and the types of complaint;
• to examine functions and strategies of complaint;
• to analyse the peculiarities of complaint strategies in English socio-cultural discourse.
To realize these tasks, we have used such methods as description, comparison as well as
socio-cultural analysis.
The theoretical background of the final work is based on the works of different authors
and linguists such as Searle, Trosborg, Boxer, Laforest, Brown, Levinson, Olshtain, Weinbach and
others.
The practical significance of the final work is in the possible use of the material and the
results of the work may be used at the lectures and seminars of Lexicology, Stylistics,
Linguoculturology and Pragmatics.
The structure of the final work includes introduction, two chapters, conclusion and
bibliography.
Chapter I entitled “General Notes on the Concept Complaint in Sociocultural Discourse “ is
devoted to the speech act theory as well as to the characterization and classification of the speech
act of complaint.

4
 As the theory of the speech act progresses, more and more linguists show great interest in
the study of various speech acts, such as compliments, refusals and apologies; since the 1980s, more
and more scientists have been researching the speech act of the request
We put under research the definitions of the concept “complaint” given by different linguists
and speech act theories developed by Austin, John, Searle and others who have also discussed
pragmatics and its relation to the concept complaint. The study of language usage in contexts and
that is referred to in the literature by different notions such as “contextual meaning” (how contexts
affect what is said and where, when and how utterances are produced), “speaker meaning” (how
speakers convey their intentions and how they are comprehended by hearers), “the expression of
relative distance” (how closeness, social and physical, influences speakers’ judgment of utterances),
and “inferences” (how more is conveyed than what is said). In short, the norms of politeness of a
language are a part of pragmatic competence of a person. Thus, it is necessary for learners of
language to know the pragmatic aspects of the target language with the aim of being able to
communicate successfully and therefore this can cause foreign language learners to use the
speaking values of their first language when using the foreign language.
Chapter II entitled “Realization of Complaints in English Sociocultural Discourse’’ presents
analyses of the functions and strategies of the concept of complaint through the similarities and
differences of complaints made by English native speakers and Armenian speakers of English.
The chapter deals with the theoretical considerations on functions and strategies of
complaint through cross cultural studies. In order to reveal the strategies of responding to customer
complaints, it is necessary to find out the characteristics and categories of complaints. Two
categories of complaint can be distinguished in terms of their patterns and functions: direct
complaints and indirect complaints. Direct complaints are face threatening acts through which
speakers make complaints about someone or something that is present in the speech act scene.
Indirect complaint (also known as griping) can be described as a non-face-threatening speech act in
which the responsible party or object of the complaint is not present during the interaction within
which the speech act is performed.
In order to identify the complaint strategies, a qualitative data analysis was made referring to
the notion of five major strategies of complaining, which were simplified into two categories:
implicit strategy and explicit strategy. We have compared the strategies of complaint presented by
English native speakers and Armenian speakers of English. The strategies of complaints are
presented and analyzed according to the expressions of complaints collected in the three offences
that cover the complaint from one friend to another, from intimate to intimate and from the stranger
to stranger.

5
 Chapter I. General Notes on the Concept Complaint in Sociocultural Discourse.
1.1. Overview of the Speech Act Theory Sociocultural theory.
The concept of speech acts was developed by British philosopher Austin and was further
expanded upon by Searle and Grice. Austin points out that, in their ordinary use of language, people
do not only produce utterances to merely say things about the world; rather, people also produce
utterances in order to do things.
A speech act refers to the act of communicating through speech or writing, where the
speaker's words not only convey literal meaning but also perform an action or achieve a specific
effect. Speech acts go beyond simply conveying information and involve the speaker intending to
do something with their words, such as making a request, giving an order, making a promise,
expressing an opinion, or stating a fact.
Austin distinguished three fundamental dimensions of a speech act which correspond to
different acts that a speaker performs (or may perform) in saying something. These dimensions are
locution, illocution and perlocution.
The Locution dimension concerns, on the one hand, the physiological process of producing
speech sounds and, on the other hand, the grammatical structure and literal meaning of the actual
sentence uttered.
It is raining.
Uttering this sentence is not only producing some speech sounds, but also saying something
about the weather. When a speaker utters a sentence (that is, when a speaker says something), she
performs what Austin calls a locutionary act.
The illocution dimension concerns the speaker’s intention conveyed by the sentence uttered.
To put it differently, the illocutionary aspect of an utterance has to do with the force (or the value)
the speaker gives to that utterance, that is, the way the utterance is intended to be understood by the
hearer (Graham 1977:88).
When a speaker utters a sentence in order to do something like warning, ordering,
requesting, apologizing, she performs what Austin calls an illocutionary act (1962:98).
The perlocutionary dimension concerns the effects produced on the hearer by a speakers’
performance of an illocutionary act. For instance, by uttering the sentence mentioned above the
speaker may convince the hearer not to go outside, or to drive carefully.
According to the speech act theory proposed by Searle in 1969, speech acts are determined
solely by the speaker's intentions. Searle argued that the meaning of an utterance is not just the sum
of the meanings of the individual words, but it also includes the speaker's intended meaning and the

6
illocutionary force of the speech act. Searle's theory emphasizes the importance of the speaker's
intentions in understanding speech acts (Searle, 1979).
In contrast to Searle's view, Austin argued that context plays a significant role in interpreting
speech acts. Austin proposed the theory of speech acts in his seminal in 1962. He emphasized that
the context, including the social and situational factors, must be taken into account in understanding
the intended meaning and illocutionary force of speech acts.
The types of speech acts are representative speech acts, directive speech acts, expressive
speech acts, comissmive speech acts and declaration speech acts.
Representative speech acts, also known as assertive speech acts, involve making statements
or providing information about facts, beliefs, opinions, or experiences. They are used to convey
information, describe reality, express beliefs or opinions, and report on past events or situations.
The sky is blue.
60 seconds equals to 1 minute.
Directive speech acts, also known as directive illocutionary acts, involve giving instructions,
making requests, or giving orders to influence the behavior or actions of others. They are used to
elicit a response or action from the interlocutor.
Please pass the salt.
Could you please send me the report.
Expressive speech acts, also known as expressive illocutionary acts, involve expressing the
speaker's emotions, attitudes, opinions, or feelings. They are used to convey the speaker's subjective
states or reactions to a particular situation or event. Examples of this speech act are Apologies,
thanking, congratulating, complimenting, sympathizing.
I'm sorry for your loss.
You did an excellent job.
Commissive speech acts, also known as commissive illocutionary acts, involve the speaker
committing or pledging to perform a future action. They are used to express intentions, promises, or
commitments to undertake a particular course of action in the future. Examples of commissive
speech acts are promising, threatening, offering suggesting, inviting.
I promise to be there on time.
Why don't we meet for coffee next week?
Declaration speech acts, also known as declarative illocutionary acts, are used to make an
authoritative statement or declaration that brings about a change in the state of affairs, often based
on institutional or social conventions. Declarations are considered performative speech acts, as the

7
utterance itself brings about the intended effect. Examples of declaration speech acts are declaring,
pronouncing, bidding, consecrating, naming
I declare this building unsafe.
I now pronounce you husband and wife.
Speech acts can be categorized and named based on their communicative functions. The
most common speech acts are requests, commands, statements, questions, apologies, promisies,
expressions of gratitude, congratulatory remarks, offers, expressions of opinions.
Speech acts play a crucial role in various domains of communication, including everyday
conversations, interpersonal relationships, business interactions, and legal discourse. Speech acts
enable speakers to perform actions through language. Understanding speech acts is important in
communication as it helps to interpret the intended meaning behind a speaker's words and the
actions they wish to achieve. Speech acts can also vary depending on cultural norms, social context,
and individual interpretation, which adds complexity to the study of language and communication.

8
 1.2 The Speech Act of Complaint: Characterization and Classification
Linguistic interaction is necessarily a social interaction. We communicate factual
information, ideas as well as beliefs, emotions and attitudes or any other socially meaningful
content in our everyday interaction. We construct, establish and maintain social relationship within
various social contexts by performing speech activities and employing appropriate language means
to ensure harmonious interpersonal relations and cooperation. One important socio-cultural aspect
which speakers convey is that of complaining, which can be expressed using various linguistic as
well as non-linguistic strategies. Each culture has developed various linguistic means to mark the
complaining intentions of the speaker and has its own understanding of what constitutes
complaining and socially appropriate behavior determined by culture.
Discourse, its origin and different approaches to discourse, give the theoretical basis of
speech acts.
According to Searle’s, complaint belongs to the category of expressive speech acts,
expressing the speaker’s approval as well as disapproval of the behavior which the complainee has
already done or failed to do. Moreover, when a complaint is issued, a directive act may be implied
or added (Searle, 1976).
Trosborg believes that the speech act of complaint belongs to the expressive category and
contains moral judgments that express the complainer’s disapproval and approval of the behavior
concerned and almost always has to do with the act of moral criticism of the blame involved in the
act of complaining. In other words, Trosborg defines complaints as illocutionary acts wherein the
complainer expresses his or her negative feelings and disapproval towards the state of affairs in the
complainable and for that he or she holds the complainee responsible, indirectly or directly. As a
result, complaint by its nature can cause offence and highly threatens the relationship.
Trosborg suggests that this involves an attempt to make the complainee repair the damage
he/she caused, and/or an attempt to prevent a repetition of the deplorable act. So when the speaker
complains, rather than just expressing his/her moral censure or blame, he/she is tending to request
the hearer to perform a remedial act to compensate for the loss of the speaker. Therefore, the speech
act of complaint involves both expressive function and directive function (Trosborg, 1995).
DeCapua argues that a complaint is a result of the combination of expressive and directive
speech acts (DeCapua, 1989).
As the theory of the speech act progresses, more and more linguists show great interest in
the study of various speech acts, such as compliments, refusals and apologies; since the 1980s, more
and more scientists have been researching the speech act of the request. (Walter, 1981; Fraser &
Nelon, 1981; Blum-Kulka, 1982, 1983; Blum-Kulka & Levenstom, 1987), refusals (Beebe, Takashi

9
and Uliss- Weltz), apologies (Borkin & Reinhart, 1978; Zimin, 1981; Olshtain & Cohen, 1983;
Cohen & Olshtain, 1987; Trosborg, 1986) and thanks (Eisentein & Bodman, 1986). From all these
speech acts, it seems that the study of the speech act of complaint becomes an important part that
attracts the attention of some scientists. They have viewed it from different points of views.
In the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, complaint can be explained as a kind
of annoying, dissatisfying about something and someone. Therefore, it can be viewed as an
emphasis which the speaker has ignored the hearer’s face and feelings.
In her semantic dictionary of English speech acts verbs, Wierzbicka describes the action of
complaining as involving a situation in which the speaker (the complainer) expresses the idea that
something bad is happening to her and that she wants the addressee (the complainee, when there is
one) to intervene and to do something in order to improve her situation.
Among the primary researchers to define complaining are Edmondson and House (1981)
who define a complaint as a verbal communication that involves the expression of negative views
by the speaker of the past acts done by the hearer and also involves the act of challenging and
denying the competency of the hearer.
Abe views a complaint as identification of problems that involves the act of seeking for
solutions from responsible person or a third party who has the ability to manoeuvre the situation
(Abe, 1982).
However, Olshtain and Weinbach believe that complaint is the result of the violation of the
speaker’s expectations and the hearer is often being charged with the failure of preventing
unfavorable situations.
The scholars House & Kasper have mentioned that the complaint is the kind of directness
and modality markers (House & Kasper, 1981).
Searle classifies complaint as an expressive speech act in which complainers express their
feelings and attitudes and potentially dispute, challenge, or directly deny the social competence of
the hearers. (Searle, 1969)
Similarly, Brown and Levinson (1987) categorized complaints as one of the face threatening
acts which include the enormous potential for shutting down the relationship.
While complaints can engender social relationship breakdown a complainer can use
politeness when he or she aims to have a good relationship with complainee to mitigate the severity
of his or her complaint and face threat (Wijayanto, 2013).
Laforest accounts for complaint by referring it to a problematic situation in which an
individual A expresses dissatisfaction to an individual B, because A feels unsatisfied with B‟s
behavior. The unsatisfactory behavior makes A address complaints to B as the cause of the problem

10
in their interaction. Laforest also claims that unsatisfactory behavior constitutes a behavior that
violates social norms and fails to meet the expectation of the complainant.
Olsthain & Weinbech introduce four preconditions that are necessary for the speech act of
complaints to take place. These factors present the speech act events that indicate what make the
participants talk, what they are talking about, and what the purpose of complaining is. The
following preconditions need fulfilling:
a. the speaker expected a favorable event to occur (an appointment, the return of a debt, the
fulfillment of a promise.) or an unfavorable event to be prevented from violation of
speaker’s expectation by either having enabled or failed to prevent the offensive event;
b. the speaker views an action as having unfavorable consequences for the speaker. The action
is therefore an offensive act;
c. the speaker views the hearer is responsible for the action;
d. the speaker chooses to express his/her frustration and disappointment verbally (Olsthain &
Weinbech,1987).
Complaint expressions exist in any languages and are introduced in different terms such as
trouble-telling (Jeferson, 1980), troubles-talk, disapproval, griping or grumbling (Boxer, 1993),
face-threatening acts (Brown & Levinson, 1987), displeasure or annoyance, attack on the negative
face (Frescura, 2006), negative evaluation, negative world of mouth (Einwiller & Steilen, 2015),
and negative feelings. The various terms share one common feature i.e. indicating a complainer’s
dissatisfaction because of an unfavorable event or an unsatisfactory behavior.
According to Gumperz, cultures are very different in interactional styles and this lead to
very dissimilar performances of speech acts in languages. Moreover, many studies on speech acts
have revealed that using the same speech act might be understood very differently across dissimilar
culture. (Gumperz, 1978).
Wolfson notes that speech acts differ among cultures in both the way they are realized and in
their distribution, functions and, frequency of occurrence (Wolfson, 1986).
The complaint, for some people, is often considered a negative act done to attack a person
who is responsible for wrong behavior. If the use of complaint expressions is inappropriate, the
complaint will potentially be a confrontational activity between the interlocutors. Moon argues that
speakers who do not use pragmatically appropriate language run the risk of appearing
uncooperative at the last moment, or more seriously, rude or insulting. In order not to be
uncooperative, rude or insulting, the expressions of non-native speakers must comply with the
convenience of a user of the target language. Moon believes that the adequacy of the use of

11
language can be identified by recognizing the social identity of the listener in terms of relative
social status and the degree of knowledge among the participants (Moon, 2001).
According to Boxer, two categories of complaint can be distinguished in terms of their
patterns and functions: direct complaints and indirect complaints. In the first category, direct
complaints, the addressee is held responsible for the perceived offence and is expected to
acknowledge or change the undesirable state of affairs (Boxer, 1993).
Direct complaints display the situations that hearers express their displeasure or annoyance
immediately and face to face when they are perceived by the speaker as affecting him unfavorably.
A direct complaint involves an explicit or implicit accusation and at least one explicit or implicit
directive (Clyne, 1994).
By stating or implying that the addressee is responsible for a perceived offence, direct
complaints threaten the addressee’s positive face, the need to be approved of and liked. Moreover,
by stating or implying that the addressee should undertake some action to change the undesirable
state of affairs, the complaint impinges on the addressee’s negative face or their need to be
unimpeded and autonomous (Daly, Holmes, Newton & Stubbe, 2003).
The characteristics of direct complaint are use of pronoun we, use of questioning,
depersonalization of the problem, use of mitigators ("downgrades"), use of "upgraders’’.
The pronoun we is used to indicate that both parties share the blame, as a way of negotiating
the problem. The questioning is used to ask for advice, for permission to explain oneself and to get
the listener to recondsider or discuss the problem. Depersonalization of the problem is used to
transfer blame from the interlocutor to the problem. Mitigators are used to soften the complaint
(kind of, perhaps, possibly, a little bit, a second, somehow, I suppose, I’m afraid, you know, I mean,
right, don’t you think?). Upgraders are used to to increase the impact of the complaint (such, quite,
terrible, really, frightfully, absolutely, I’m sure, I’m positive, it’s obvious).
I know we have a different point of view on this subject.
I hope we could sit down and discuss the paper…
Do you have a minute so that we could go over the paper together?
I feel this grade may reflect a difference of opinion.
I think uh it’s just in my opinion maybe the grade was a little low.
I’m a bit annoyed that...
Are you somehow involved in this affair?
What a frightful mess you’ve made, I’m absolutely shocked.
I’m certain that this dent wasn’t there when I last drove my car.

12
 An indirect complaint is defined as a long or repeated expression of discontent not
necessarily intended to change or improve the unsatisfactory situation (Clyne, 1994).
It differs from a direct complaint in that the addressee is neither held responsible nor capable
of remedying the perceived offense. Data from a large study on indirect complaint among native
speakers showed that indirect complaints are frequently employed as positive strategies for the
purpose of establishing points of commonality. They function to provide emotional release, or to
off-load negative effect, rather than provoke actions to redress the offense. In other words, indirect
complaints are not prototypical FTAs; rather, they are typical ways of establishing rapport with
others. In business communication, customers are likely to complain directly in order to express
their dissatisfaction and redress the offense. Therefore, the present study focuses on direct
complaint (Boxer, 1993).
Indirect complaints usually begin with an introductory expression like one of the following:
There’s no way... I can’t take it.
I’m sick and tired... How dare...
The problem is... It’s a shame...
It’s not fair... This is not my day!
I’m up to here... It drives me crazy!
I can’t stand... Unfortunately...
Indirect complaints tend to center on self, others, situations.
Oh, I’m so stupid.
John is the worst manager.
I feel, in a way, boxed in, you know?
Why did they have to raise tuition?
In addition, Olshtain and Weinbech describe that a direct complaint is stated when a speaker
feels displeasure or annoyance as a reaction to a past or ongoing action, the consequence of which
effect the speaker unfavorably. Whereas, indirect complaints are given to addressees who are not
responsible for the perceived offense.
To sum up all this information we can come to the conclusion that a speech act in the study
of linguistics is considered as an utterance which has performative function in communications and
languages. Complaint is an expression of a psychological state of being dissatisfied, aggrieved or
unhappy about something.

13
 Chapter II. Realization of Complaints in English Sociocultural Discourse.
2.1. The Analysis of the Functions and Strategies of Complaint.
When it comes to making complaints, speakers typically go through two levels of decision-
making before making complaint. The first level of decision making is to consider the various costs
and benefits associated with stating a complaint that may constitute a face threatening act in which a
person who has experienced an offensive event may choose to opt out of verbal expression of the
grievance (avoid); utter the complaint on record (explicitly mention the addressee) or off record
(hint); or state the complaint with or without redress (allow or not allow the hearer to rectify the
situation). The second level of decision-making is concerned with a specific strategy of complaint
based on a decision at the first level to state that complaint.
Several findings of previous complaint studies convey information about strategies of
complaint. Chen identifies six major types of combined strategies: dissatisfaction + request for
repair:
 accusation + request for repair;
 dissatisfaction + dissatisfaction;
 interrogation + dissatisfaction;
 request for repair + threat;
 interrogation + interrogation.
Trosborg delineates strategy of complain in four category i.e. no explicit reproach, expression of
disapproval, accusation, and blame.
DeCapua classifies the strategy of complaint into five categories statement of problem, request
for repair, demand for repair, justification, and criticism.
Although the strategies used to express a complaint may vary with the situation and among
languages, complaints are generally realized by means of strategies proposed by Olshtain &
Weinbach:
 below level of reproach;
 expression of annoyance or disapproval;
 explicit complaint;
 accusation and warning;
 immediate threat.
Below the level of reproch is avoiding mentioning the offensive event or person.
There was nothing with my car yesterday.
By expression of annoyance or disapproval the speaker expresses annoyance about the
offensive event and person without direct reference to the offense.

14
 You were making yourself something to eat in the kitchen.
The speaker expresses his complaint by using explicit reference to the offensive event and
person by using explicit complaint.
You should not postpone this type of operation.
Accusation and warning are used to accuse directly the complainee of the offense and hints
there may be a consequence for the offender.
You borrowed my car last night didn’t you?
The speaker immediately threatens the complainee by attacking him/her.
Now, give me back what you have stolen, or I will call the police. (Olshtain and Weinbach,
1993).
The five major strategies proposed by Olshstain & Weinbach are then classified by Moon into
implicit complaint strategy and explicit complaint strategy.
Choosing the implicit strategy, the speaker completely avoids explicit mention of the offensive
event or person (reproach), the speaker expresses annoyance about the offensive event and person
without direct reference to the offense.
Choosing the explicit strategy, the speaker uses explicit reference to the offensive event and
person by involving you, the speaker accuses and threatens the offender.
There are eight categories of parameters to measure complaint strategies and these are set based
on directness scale of complaint. The first one (hints) is the least direct in expressing complaints
while the last one (blaming the person explicitly) is the most direct one. The data on complaint
speech acts/expressions were grouped according to the classification codes and then scrutinized to
find the differences and similarities in terms of trend and frequency in using complaint strategies:
 no explicit approach: hints;
 expression of disapproval: annoyance;
 expression of disapproval: ill consequences;
 accusation: indirect.
The complainer ask the hearer question about the situation or assert that he/she was in somehow
connected with the offence and thereby try to establish the hearer as a potential agent of the
complainable.
 Accusation: Direct.
The complainer explicitly accused the complainee guilty.
 Blame Modified.
The complainer expresses modified disapproval of an action for which the accused is
responsible, or he/she states preference for an alternative approach not taken by the accused.

15
  Blame: Explicit-Behaviour.
The complainer explicitly states that an action for which the accused is held responsible (in
direct terms) is bad.
 Blame: Explicit-Person.
The complainer explicitly states what is implicit at all other levels, namely, that he/she finds the
accused a non-responsible social member.
According to Murphy and Neu modified taxonomy of complaints are as follows: complaint,
justification, criticism, explanation of purpose and candidates’ solution: demand, request. Three
other strategies were added to this taxonomy i.e. sarcasm, threat and apology.
Complaint was identified on the basis of complaint characteristics proposed by Murphy and Neu
containing one of the following elements; use of pronoun “we” use of questioning,
depersonalization of the problem, use of mitigators.
Criticism was identified on the basis of characteristics proposed by Murphy and Neu asserting
that criticism may contain the following characteristics;
use of second person + modal ‘should’ that indicates that the speaker is in a position to dictate the
behavior of the listener. You should not have given this low grade.
Personalization of the problem, placing the blame on the hearer. I worked very hard but you
gave me a low mark.
Refusal to accept responsibility for the problem. I don’t deserve this low mark.
When a speaker uses criticism strategy, he/she tries to directly tell a person he/she is wrong and
perhaps expands on the problem or gives reason for it. It usually involves accusing words (e.g. you
should…, you never…) and the speaker’s words are scornful and direct. It might attack personal
character of the hearer.
Speaker uses justification to give a good reason for an action that leaves the speaker in a
positive position. I really need to get up early in the morning.
The speaker offers a candidate solution to resolve the problem and therefore asks on the
grounds of authority usually demand or lack of authority usually request. Murphy and Neu
expressed the linguistic feature of demand. They mentioned the use of first person singular + the
locutionary verbs want and demand, the use of second person + the modals should and must.
I want you to read it again’, I demand you to come on time.
You should send the letter soon.
They states the linguistic features of the speech act of request as the use of the modals would
and could, which indicates politeness, use of modal can in their question to request a solution,
which indicates politeness.

16
 Would you please send it again?
Can you be a little bit quiet?
Speaker explains the purpose of initiating the conversation. I just wanted to make sure whether
you sent the recommendation letter to the company.
Sarcasm is biting comment, false humor or over/under statement designed to hurt and nudge
the hearer into positive action. Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor. How kind of you to attend the
class. I think your watch has stopped.
Threat is used to express the negative consequence of the hearer’s unfavorable behavior
resulting in offence or dissatisfaction of the hearer, therefore the speaker threatens the hearer. If you
are late again, this is going to have an effect on your grade.
The speaker uses apology strategy to reduce the negative effect of the complaint on the hearer.
It is usually used when complaining to a person of higher social status and considered as a
politeness marker. I’m really sorry to bother you, professor.
Therefore, to perform complaint speech act, the speaker might use a combination ofmdifferent
strategies.
I’m sorry to bother you professor. I just wanted to know what happened to my letter of
recommendation. The interview committee has not received the letter yet. Would you please send it
again?
In the above example, the speech act set involves apology, explanation of purpose, complaint
and candidate’s solution: request (Murphy and Neu, 1996)
The functions of complaints can be;
1. to express displeasure, disapproval, annoyance, blame, censure, threats, or reprimand as a
reaction to a perceived offense/violation of social rules (Olshtain & Weinbach 1993).
2. To hold the hearer accountable for the offensive action and possibly suggest/request a
repair (Olshtain & Weinbach 1993).
3. To confront a problem with an intention to improve the situation (Brown & Levinson
1987).
4. To share a specific negative evaluation, obtain agreement, and establish a common bond
between the speaker and addressee (“trouble sharing”) (Boxer 1993a).
5. To allow ourselves to vent/let off steam (Boxer 1993a).
6. To open and sustain conversations (Boxer 1993a).
On the purpose of the study, we have studied the ilocturic functions of complaint in the
Armenian Internet conversation, emphasizing the linguistic means by which the addressee
implements his intentions. A large number of complaints on the Internet are largely due to the fact

17
that it is an integral part of everyone’s daily life. As part of the study, the post-complaints and
comments, including features inherent in the speech act of complaint available on Facebook were
selected.
All publications were classified according to the following functions:
 explicit reproach;
 annoyance or disapproval;
 irony;
 humor.
One of the functions of complaining may be explicit reproach. Post-complaints or comment
may not have a purpose to reproach. Recently, during the online purchase of Eurovision tickets, a
technical problem caused a huge number of complaints. When filing complaints, the addressees
used a number of linguistic means, one of which is given as an example.
Էս ինչ ֆոկուզ էր, մինչև բացվեց տոմս չկար:
In the above example, the addressee directly expresses his negative opinion containing
dissatisfaction and outrage about the given situation. This is a very example of an explicit
complaint, since the subject of the protest is clearly indicated. The complaint itself is considered as
a semantic component. As for the linguistic means, the addressee ironically used a word trick
(ֆոկուզ) to emphasize his dissatisfaction and outrage about the given situation. At the same time,
the addressee seems to have deliberately used the wrong spelling of the word in order to attract the
addressee's attention and re-emphasize his irritation. In the second part of the comment, the
addressee, through a negative sentence, explains the details of the situation.
Another function of complaint is to express annoyance or disapproval. A notable example is
given. This was caused by the broadcast of the World Cup. The addressee expresses his negative
opinion about the addressee's behavior and accuses him of what he has done. The comment includes
a rhetorical question to reproach the addressee and express his annoyance.
Ձեր կայքը չի աշխատում: Դա պարզագույն քայլ է, իմանալով, որ
այցելուների քանակը շատ է լինելու, ինչի կայքը չեք
պատրաստել:Հեռախոսին ոչ մեկ չի պատասխանում. Ձեզ է վստահված
կարևորագույն միջոցառումներից մեկի տոմսերի վաճառքը ու դուք մի հատ
կայք չեք կարող պատրաստել: Լավ, մենք Հայաստանում ոչինչ, բայց այլ
երկրներից մարդիկ ուղում են տոմս առնել ու չեն կարողանում, որի
պատճառով ստիպված են լինում վերադարձնել իրենց թռիչքի տոմսերը ու
այլ ամրագրումները, ուղղակի կարդացեք, թե մարդիկ ինչ են գնում ու ավելի
արագ արձագանքեք: Շնորհակալություն:

18
 From the comments available on the Internet, we also highlighted an example in which the
addressee expresses a negative opinion of the current situation only through questions.
Մեր դրոշի գույները կարմիր, բաց կապու՞ յտ ու դեղի՞ ն: Ու մ է աչքի բժիշկ
պետք:.
The next function is irony. Another complaint related to the online purchase of Eurovision
tickets has been found. The subject of the complaint is not directly expressed, which suggests that
an implicit strategy is chosen here. With the help of reviews, the author tried to apply the function
below the level of reproach. The main purpose of the mentioned comment is irony.
Շուտ արեք ժողովուրդ ջան մնաց 15 հատ:
Another example of an ironic complaint-comment is given, where the addressee again expresses
his anger through rhetorical questions.
Ասենք երկու օրը մի քիչ շուտ չի՞, չէ լուրջ չեք մտածում, ուսանողներ
աշխատանքի գնացողներ: Ասենք մետրոյում պիտի նկարեինք:
The last function is humor. An example worthy for attention is also mentioned. In this example
a complaint was filed with humor. The addressee, clearly indicating the subject of the complaint,
expresses his implicit reproach in connection with the situation.
They Go to bed late and they are being late structures create the image of a linguistic trick.
Ֆուսբոլի պատճառով բոլորը ուշ են քնում ու դասախոս, ուսանող,
աշակերտ, աշխատող, տնօրեն բոլորը ուշանում են առավոտ:
The main functions of the complaint in the Armenian Internet conversation are explicit
reproach, annoyance or disapproval, irony and humor. The addressee uses different linguistic
means to perform each function. The most used linguistic means are rhetorical questions and
imperative mood, which allow us to conclude that the addressee, having not received the
addressee's answer, is trying to have an indirect influence on him. They are tools for implementing
the addressee's intention.

19
 2.2. Complaint Strategies Used by English Native Speakers and Armenian Speakers of
English.
Speech act can be viewed as a verbal expression of socio cultural information since it stores
social knowledge in the form of constrains on action and on possible interpretation. As a speaker
performs a speech act, the speech act contains messages to communicate a particular purpose or
specific functions. However, the intended purposes and functions are not easy to be revealed by
recipients because of differences in background, knowledge of languages and cultures
The classification of complaint strategies proposed by Moon is the theoretical basis for the
analysis of complaint strategies in English and Armenian.
In this study, complaint strategy is the focus of discussion analyzed from 34 complaint
utterances for the ENSs and 30 for the ASEs.
The strategies of complaints of the ENSs are presented and analyzed according to the
expressions of complaints collected in the three offenses that cover the complaint from one friend to
another, from intimate to intimate and from the stranger to the stranger. The result of the data
analysis can be seen in the following table:
Situation Complaint categories Total
s Implicit strategy Explicit strategy
Reproach Annoyance Exp. Accusation Threat
complaint
F % F % F % F % F % F %
1 4 30.77 6 46.15 3 23.07 - - - - 13 100
10(76.93%) 3(23.07%)
2 1 10 4 40 5 50 - - - - 10 100
5 (50%) 5 (50%)
3 - - 4 36.6 - - 5 45.4 2 18.1 11 100
5 8
4(36.6%) 7(63.63%)
Total 5 14.7 14 41.18 8 23.5 5 14.7 2 5.88 34 100
1 2 1
19(55.88%) 15(44.12%)
Source: Arafah, B. & Kaharuddin

As shown at table 1, for situation 1: a friend who messed up the kitchen, thirteen ENSs
participated and majority used implicit strategy (76.93 %). Six out of thirteen subjects (46.15%)
20
used annoyance category by mentioning the offender you. Without direct reference to the offense
„the big mess.
Wow, it looks like you have been busy in the kitchen.
The example is an expression of a certain degree of annoyance and dissatisfaction, but it is
implicit since the offensive situation is not referred to in this complaint.
For situation 2: a son bumps into his parent, ten ENSs participated and tended to use
implicit and explicit strategy in the same number of percentage 50%. Explicit complaint category
was mostly selected (5 out of 10 or 50%). Explicit complaint is categorized as an explicit strategy
since the speakers explicitly address their complaints with direct reference by involving you and the
offense in affirmative sentences.
Oh no, where you are going, now help me pick up these groceries.
The given example illustrates how the speaker directly refers his annoyance to the hearer by
involving you in the statement as well as the spilled groceries on the floor.
For situation 3: a driver backs into one’s car, eleven subjects participated and mostly used
explicit strategy for complaining in this situation (63.63%). More than forty five percent (5 out of
11) selected accusation category. An accusation belongs to explicit strategy in which the speaker
directly accuses the complainee of the offense and hints that there may be consequences for the
offender.
Hey! What are you doing, I hope you have insurance; you need to pay for this damage.
From the examples, it can be observed that complaining to a stranger tend to be more
explicit and direct then complaining to friends or intimates for ENSs. This is in consistent with
Zhang’s assertion that social distance, social power and the severity of wrong in the situations have
influenced the subjects' use of strategy in stating complaints. ENSs tended to be more direct in
complaining to strangers due to a large social distance. Moon also states that there are three main
factors involved in selecting a complaint strategy i.e. power (social discrepancy in the relationship
between participant, distance (the degree of intimacy between participants), and the weight of
imposition.
The three aspects seem to be very influential for the ENSs in expressing direct and explicit
complaints to stranger for three reasons. The first, the speakers and the hearer’s relationship in
verbal exchange may not last for a long period of time (lack of intimacy), even it may occur only
once and will not continue into the future. The second, the social status between the interlocutors
are equal and have the same power in speaking since they don’t know each other that make the
speakers can say anything without worrying about maintaining their relationships. The third, the
severity of the offense (the speakers feel harmed because of the offense) has made them use more

21
explicit way of complaining. The overall findings of ENSs complaint strategies indicate that the
choice of the complaint strategies among the three offensive situations is majority implicit strategy
(55.88 %). ENSs seemed to prefer strategies with a medium degree of severity, avoiding both the
less and more severe ones.
Situa Complaint categories Total
tions Implicit strategy Explicit strategy
Reproach Annoyance Exp.complaint Accusation Threat
F % F % F % F % F % F %
1 10 33.3 2 6.6% 18 60% - - - - 3 100
% 0
39.9% 60 %
2 10 33.3 1 3.3% 16 53.3% 3 10% - - 3 100
% 0
36.9% 63.3%
3 5 16.6 15 50% 6 20% 3 10% 1 3.3 3 100
% % 0
56.6% 33.3%
Total 46% 54% 9 100
0

For the purpose of comparison, the result of analysis regarding the linguistic behavior of
ASEs when presenting complaints about the three offenses is presented in table 2.
The results presented above show that for situation 1: a friend who messed up the kitchen,
most of AES (60%) stated complaint in more explicit way, which is to refer directly to the person
and make a complaint. Two out of thirty subjects (33.3%) used annoyance category. In this
category, the speaker makes complaint to the offender without mentioning the offense. 60% of
ASEs selected explicit strategy by using explicit complaint that is to complaint by mentioning the
offender you and the offense the big mess).
Ճիշտ չէ, որ դու անընդհատ թափում են, առի միասին հավաքենք: (It is
not good to mess up, let's tidy up the room.
Some of AESs reported mentioning the offender and the offense was the most effective way
of making the offender aware their mistake.

22
 For situation 2, complaining to an intimate, it was found that ASEs preferred to use the
explicit strategy (53.3%), more than fifty percent (16 out of 30) of the subjects selected explicit
complain category.
Ամոթ է, որ ձայնդ բարձրացնում ես մեկի վրա, ով քեզ սովորեցրել է
խոսել: (It is rude to bump to someone who has tought you to speak.)
In this regard, the Armenian speakers of English express their complaints to intimate
directly and explicitly due to the power in which the speaker’s power is higher than the hearers in
the verbal exchanges. In the culture of Armenia, those who possess higher social status tend to be
more explicit and direct in saying something to those of lower status as illustrated in situation 2.
For situation 3, complaining to a stranger, more than fifty percent (14 out of 30) of the
subjects made complaint by annoyance. The situation 3 was the only situation when Armenians
used threat. This makes most Armenians viewed situation 3 (the dented car) as a very serious
problem. There was a tendency on some AES subjects to keep on threatening the complainee unless
she/he immediately fixes the offense as the complaint made by AES. Many Armenians felt that
there was no much point in trying to negotiate the offense by asking for explanation since it was
clearly the offender’s fault that he dented the car. They know that the offender’s action of running
his car into the side of another car and dents it was against the law and consequently had to be
responsible for the damage. This knowledge made them express complaint (in some cases) using
immediate threat.
Զգույշ եղեք, երբ մեքենա եք վարում: (Be attentive when you are driving).
The analysis of this part has enriched the understanding of ASEs’ choice of the complaint
strategies in reaction to the three offenses in which the majority of the ASEs chose an explicit
strategy. This choice was specifically given to situation (60%) and situation 2(53.3%).
There were two main purposes of using this strategy i.e. to show displeasure as a reaction to
perceived offenses by explicitly mentioning the offender and the offense, and to hold the offender
accountable for the offensive behavior. In short, ENSs tend to use complaint strategies with more
severe ones in comparison to those employed by ASEs which tend to avoid the less and the more
severe strategies.
In situation 1, most ENSs (76.93%) made complaints using implicit strategy.
In situation 2, the participants made complaints about an intimate’s unpleasant behavior.
There were only ten ENSs participated in this situation. They tended to use explicit and implicit
strategies in the same number of percentage 50%. The explicit strategy was used because the ENSs
explicitly address their complaints with direct reference to the offender and the offense in
affirmative sentences.

23
 In addition, some ENSs used implicit strategy by mentioning the offender you without direct
reference to the offense.
In situation 3, most ENSs complained about explicit strategy (63.63%) in the form of
accusation and threat in which the complainer directly accuses the complainee of the offense and
hints that there may be consequences for the offender.
The result of analysis from the three offensive situations identified four complaint moves
which may be recognized as the components of complaining strategies used by ENS namely
initiating, questioning, criticizing, and requesting for repairs. The result of analysis from the three
offenses comes up with five complaint moves used by ENSs in presenting complaints about a
friend’s unpleasant behavior namely, Initiating, Recalling the event, criticizing, questioning, and
requesting for repair. Besides, four complaint moves used by ASEs in presenting complaints to an
intimate or a stranger namely initiating, criticizing, questioning, requesting for repair.
The research shows us that the strategies of complaints of ENSs indicate that the choice of
the strategies of complaints between the three offensive situations is a majority implicit strategy
(55.88%). The ENSs seemed to prefer strategies with a medium degree of severity, avoiding both
the less serious and the more serious (Decapua, 1988).
Armenian speakers of English are very polite and patient, they remain calm and quiet even
when they are in irritable situations. This can be proved by the fact the only time the threat strategy
was used is the situation 3 and the accusation strategy was used 6 times out of 9.

24
 Conclusion
To sum up all the information mentioned we understand that speech acts refer to the act of
communicating through speech or writing, where the speaker's words not only convey literal
meaning but also perform an action or achieve a specific effect. They enable speakers to perform
actions through language and understanding speech acts helps interpret the intended meaning and
actions behind a speaker's words.
They can be categorized into different types based on their communicative functions:
representative speech acts (assertive speech acts); directive speech acts (giving instructions);
expressive speech acts (expressing emotions or attitudes); commissive speech acts (expressing
intentions or commitments); declaration speech acts (making authoritative statements).
Complaining is a complex speech act that serves multiple functions, is influenced by cultural
norms, and can have social consequences. It involves expressing negative views, disapproval, and
challenges towards others' behavior, and may also include requests for remedial actions.
Researchers have studied complaining from different perspectives, and it is considered an important
aspect of linguistic interaction within social contexts.
As for the types of complaint they distinguish between direct and indirect complaints based on
their patterns and functions, and direct complaints involve holding the addressee responsible for the
offense and expecting them to take action, while indirect complaints serve different functions and
do not hold the addressee responsible. Complaints are considered as speech acts expressing
dissatisfaction, and understanding the characteristics and functions of direct and indirect complaints
can provide insights into how complaints are used in communication.
Although the strategies used to express a complaint may vary with the situation and among
languages, complaints are generally realized by means of strategies:
 below level of reproach;
 expression of annoyance or disapproval;
 explicit complaint;
 accusation and warning;
 immediate threat.
On the purpose of the study, we have studied the ilocturic functions of complaint in the
Armenian Internet conversation. The most used linguistic means are rhetorical questions and
imperative mood.
To sum up the results of our conducted research, it can be concluded that the main functions of
the complaint in the Armenian Internet conversation are:
 explicit reproach;

25
  annoyance or disapproval;
 irony;
 humor.
The classification of complaint strategies proposed by Moon serves as the theoretical basis for
the analysis of complaint strategies in English native speakers and Armenian speakers of English.
We can understand from this work that differences in background, language, and culture of
recipients have an impact on choosing complaint strategies;
Based on the data analysis and findings presented in the study, the following points can be
inferred:
 ENSs tend to use more implicit strategies in complaining to friends or intimates, while being
more explicit when complaining to strangers;
 ASEs tend to use more explicit strategies in complaining, regardless of the relationship with
the offender.
 ASEs prefer to directly refer to the person and make a complaint, mentioning the offender
and the offense;
 Armenian speakers of English are very polite and patient, they remain calm and quiet even
when they are in irritable situations. This can be proved by the fact the only time the threat
strategy was used is the situation 3 and the accusation strategy was used 6 times out of 9.

26
 Bibliography
1. Abe J. An Analysis of the Discourse and Syntax of Oral Complaints in Spanish. Los
Angeles: ProQuest Digital Dissertation, 1982.
2. Austin J. L. How to Do Things with Words. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962.
3. Banks J. A. Cultural Diversity and Education: Foundations, Curriculum and Teaching.
New York: Routledge, 2015.
4. Blommaert J. & Bulcaen C. Critical Discourse Analysis. California: Annual Review of
Anthropology, 2000.
5. Beebe L. & Cumming M .C. Natural Speech Act Data Versus Written Questionnaire Data:
How Data Collection Method Affects Speech Act performance. New York: Mouton de
Gruyter,1996.
6. Boxer D. Discourse Issues in Cross-cultural Pragmatics. Annual review of applied
linguistics, 2002.
7. Brown, P, & Levinson, S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language. London. Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1987.
8. Bucholtz M., & Hall, K. Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach.
Discourse Studies, 2005.
9. Chen, H.J. Cross-cultural Comparison of English and Chinese Metapragmatics in Refusal:
Indiana University, 1996.
10. Clyne M. Intercultural Communication at Work: Cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994.
11. Daly N., Holmes J., Newton, J. & Stubbe, M. Expletives as Solidarity Signals in FTAs on
the Factory Floor. Elsevier: Journal of Pragmatics, 2004.
12. Decapua A. Complaints: A Comparison between German and English. Chicago: Tesol
Convention, 1988.
13. Fishman J. A. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of
Assistance to Threatened Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 1991.
14. Gee J. P. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. New York:
Routledge, 2005.
15. Graham K. & J.L. Austin: A Critique of Ordinary Language Philosophy. Sussex: The
Harvester Press, 1977.
16. Grice H. P. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics: Elsevier. Academic Press,
1975.

27
17. Gudykunst, W. B. Bridging Differences: Effective Intergroup Communication. Los Angeles:
Sage Publications, 2003.
18. Gumperz, J. J. Discourse Strategies. London: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
19. House J. & Kasper G. Politeness Markers in English and German. Mouton: Coulmas,
Conversational, 1981.
20. Laforest M. Scenes of Family Life: Complaining in Everyday Conversation. Elsevier:
Journal of Pragmatics, 2002.
21. Moon K. Speech Act Study: Differences between Native and Nonnative Speaker Complaint
Strategies. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2001>
22. Murphy B. & Neu J. My Grade's Too low: The Speech Act Set of Complaining. Speech
Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter, 1996.
23. Olshtain E. & Weinbach L. Complaints: A Study of Speech Act Behavior among Native and
Nonnative Speakers of Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company, 1987.
24. Phinney J. S. Ethnic Identity and Acculturation: Advances in Research and Theory. London:
Psychology Press, 2003.
25. Searle J. R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Beijing: Foreign
Language Teaching and Research Press, 1969.
26. Searle J. R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1979.
27. Trosborg A. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter, 1995.
28. Wolfson N. Compliments in Cross‐Cultural Perspective. Tesol Quarterly online library
1981.
29. Wierzbicka, A. Different Cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech Acts: Polish vs.
English. Elsevier: Journal of Pragmatics, 1985.

28