## ' Sorry does not pay my bills' The Handling of Complaints in Everyday Interaction/Cross-Cultural Business Interaction

## Abstract

This article is concerned with the teaching of pragmatic functions when training students for a future career in intercultural business communication. Having outlined six important constellations likely to result in success or failure, we focus on strategies for the successful handling of customer complaints seen in comparison with responses to complaints  in  everyday  interactions.  It  is  suggested  that  transfer  of  behaviour  considered suitable in everyday face-to-face interaction to business interaction may lead to unsuccessful processing of customer complaints.

## 1. Introduction

There is a widespread consensus among those involved with language learning and teaching that language teachers need to address issues of language use in their classrooms (see Rose 1997: 125 for references). Teachers need to move away from a focus on language forms alone to a focus on pragmatics, i.e. how language is used to do things in social contexts. This is of particular importance when training students for a future career in intercultural business communication.

Even though the teaching of pragmatics has long been considered an essential  component  of  language  teaching  programs,  we  still  lack  a coherent theory of language use and a comprehensive and reliable account of what constitutes pragmatic competence (Rose 1997: 125). An important distinction has been drawn between pragmalinguistic competence which we describe as knowledge of the linguistic inventory used to  perform  pragmatic  functions,  and  sociopragmatic  competence  as knowledge of when to use these forms in actual social situations (see also Canale 1983; Thomas 1983; Trosborg 1995). Parameters such as social status, social distance, age, etc. must be taken into account. A further aspect, which has received almost no attention in pragmatics research, is potential differences between everyday pragmatics and business pragmatics.

* Anna Trosborg and Philip Shaw The Aarhus School of Business Fuglesangs Allé 4 DK-8210  Aarhus V

Moreover, little research has been conducted on whether instruction in pragmatics is effective, or which type of instruction is most effective under which conditions. The few studies done so far indicate that learners do benefit from instruction, and that some form of metapragmatic information - that is, explicit information about pragmatics rather than exposure to appropriate language use alone - is necessary for learning (see Wildner-Bassett 1984; Billmyer 1990; Bouton 1994; House 1996; Tateyama et al 1997).

In this article we briefly discuss the need for teaching pragmatics. We then focus on what to teach, outlining strategies for responding to complaints in everyday pragmatics in comparison with behaviour recommended for the handling of customer complaints. We then report on a pilot study teaching these strategies to Danish students of business English at university level (1. semester) in a first attempt at developing a pedagogy of pragmatics.

## 1.1. Inappropriate pragmatics

Danish  students  of  English  at  university  level  typically  have  a  high level of fluency in the language but often perform rather poorly in terms of stylistic range and grasp of pragmatic requirements (see Faerch & Kasper 1989; Trosborg 1995). There are many possible reasons for this poor performance.

Learners may make decisions about sociopragmatic appropriateness on the basis of Ll experience that is then transferred or generalised to new contexts. However, this is only what learners may do. Trosborg (1995) has shown that in many everyday interactions Danish students' non-standard  performance  is  often  a  consequence  of  processing  difficulties rather than a genuinely cross-cultural problem (Figure 1) and this of course reflects the closeness of Scandinavian and Anglo cultural norms.

Lack of transfer may be due to a number of factors: 1. the learner is not aware of the structure in question in her/his Ll and therefore fails to transfer it to the FL; 2. the learner is aware of the structure but lacks the appropriate target language equivalent; 3. transfer of training may lead to faulty expectations about target language cultural patterns.

Alternatively, inappropriate pragmatics may be due to ignorance of the expectations of FL culture in the given situation. A common problem  in  interlanguage  pragmatics  is  that  learners  assume  universality (and transferability) when it is not present. The influence of the learner's  native  language  and  culture  results  in  incorrect  FL  speech  acts (Figure 2). A typical problem for Danish learners of English is that they are not polite enough towards authority figures. Power distance is relatively higher in Great Britain compared with Danish culture, which has a flatter hierarchy. This results in underuse of politeness markers compared with English norms in cases of transfer. Conversely, Danish students may be too polite as an effect of transfer of training (cf. teaching induced errors).

<!-- image -->

<!-- image -->

## 1.2. Business pragmatics and everyday pragmatics

Business language students have to learn to function in a foreign language in a particular professional diaculture (Pöchhacker 1995). There is some evidence that aspects of such diacultures are valid across national-culture boundaries, so that 'Golden Rules' could be given for appropriate behaviour (Figure 3). Indeed Pöchhacker (1995) argues that such a common diaculture provides a matrix for conference interpreting.  Okamura  &  Shaw  (1998)  found  that  professionals  from  a  wide variety of national cultures tended to adopt a single pragmatic strategy in a professional situation, and that non-professionals were unable to identify this strategy (Figure 4). A similar finding was obtained by Dow (1997) for negotiation strategies. In as far as the diacultural pragmatic patterns are not those of everyday life, even participants using L1 have to learn new behaviour, while for business language students there are at least two levels of difficulty (coping in a foreign language, coping in a business situation).

<!-- image -->

<!-- image -->

There may in fact well be three levels of difficulty, because it is widely claimed (Hofstede 1992; Trompenaars & Hamden-Turner 1997) that the  business  culture  of  one  country  is  different  from  that  of  another (Figure 5). In relation to pragmatics, it has been pointed out that business presentations in an American linear and explicit style actually go down quite badly in Italy, so that at least in this area one cannot speak of a single pragmatic strategy that is valid within the diaculture across national cultures. Thus in theory even a student familiar with a Danish business  culture  routine  might  be  ignorant  of  its  British  equivalent (Figure 6).

<!-- image -->

<!-- image -->

In sections 2 and 3, we offer analyses of complaints processing, contrasting  everyday  pragmatics  (as  obtained  by  Trosborg  (1995)  and others) with strategies recommended for the handling of customer complaints by Time Manager International (TMI 1993). Transfer of behaviour considered suitable in everyday face-to-face interaction to business interaction  may  result  in  unsuccessful  processing  of  customer  complaints.

## 1.3. Prescriptive and descriptive pragmatics

However, the situation is even more complicated. While research on everyday pragmatics is typically descriptive, work on business pragmatics is usually evaluative in that the aim is to find out which strategies or behaviours are associated with success. Thus investigations of the actual pragmatics of the business diaculture, like those of SpencerOatey (1998) and Xing (1998) relate observed behaviour to its success. There is also a large prescriptive literature on how various transactions should be carried out, teaching people how to perform functions like giving presentations, negotiating, and serving customers. These normally assume that there is one correct way of doing the function, usually the way that would work best in the US. So while the teaching of everyday  pragmatics  is  based  on  reasonably  accurate  description  of  how people in a given culture do behave, the teaching of diacultural patterns - mainly business - is based largely on how they should . There are good reasons for this, in that people in business do not want to do what everyone else does, but what is successful.

Still, in both everyday pragmatics and business pragmatics, Ll cultural disposition may play a role. Learners may feel inhibited in adopting strategies foreign to their own cultural behaviour patterns and refrain from performing according to patterns they are taught. This is the case for, for example, Chinese speakers communicating in English in certain  contexts  (Lin,  personal  communication)  and  for  Dutch  managers in business interaction (Wijnands, personal communication). The reasons are both psychological and social. Strategies for pragmatic behaviour are closely tied to self-identity and social identity. This has also been clearly shown by informant's comments (see e.g. Robinson 1992; Siegal 1994).

## 2. Responding to everyday complaints

## 2.1. The speech acts complaint and apology

Complaint and apology constitute an adjacency pair. A complaint is a first  part  act,  with  an  apology  as  a  'preferred'  second  part,  that  is,  a complaint can be immediately followed by an apology without further comments (cf. Levinson 1983:1983).

Complaints have been treated extensively in Olshtain & Weinbach (1987) and Trosborg (1995), presenting strategies ranging from a low to a high degree of offence. A complaint has been defined as an illocutionary act in which the speaker (the complainer) expresses her/his disapproval, negative feelings etc. towards the state of affairs described in the proposition (the complainable) and for which s/he holds the hearer (the complainee) responsible, either directly or indirectly. This explains why a complaint is a 'face-threatening act' (cf. Brown & Levinson 1978: 19). As formulated by Place (1986) 'the act of moral censure or blame is an act of social rejection - an act whereby the accuser breaks ties of affection,  mutual  support  and  cooperation'.  Edmondson  &  House (1981) point out that a complaint flouts the hearer-supportive maxim, but the complaint is justified in so far as the complainee has already flouted  this  maxim  in  committing  a  social  offence  which  constitutes grounds for the complaint (p. 144). In order to restore harmony and trust between a complainer and the complainee, remedial behaviour is required.  See  Trosborg  (1995:  311-334)  for  a  detailed  description  of complaint strategies.

Responses to complaints have been treated in a number of studies, mostly  under  the  topic  'apology  strategies'  (e.g.  Cohen  &  Olshtain 1981; Olshtain & Cohen 1983; Trosborg 1995). We present a short outline of these strategies in order to be able to compare the handling of complaints  in  everyday  situations  with  strategies  for  responding  to customer complaints. Apologies have the effect of paying off a debt thus compensating the victim for the harm done by the offence (Searle 1969; Katz 1977). The act of apologizing requires an action or an utterance which is intended to 'set things right'.

The  restoration  of  a  complainable  may  be  performed  directly  by means of an explicit apology utilizing one of the verbs directly signalling apology (apologize, be sorry, excuse, etc.), or it can be done indirectly by taking on responsibility or giving explanations. A complainee may find reasons to minimize the degree of the offence. If the offence in question is a grave one, a verbal apology may be insufficient to restore the damaged relationship and compensation is called for.

Thus  apologies  are  offered  to  express  regret  for  having  offended someone. As such, they imply cost to the speaker and support for the hearer. Apologies typically occur post-event to restore harmony when an offence has been committed, but there is also an element of facesaving involved: 1) a protective orientation towards saving the interlocutor's face, 2) a defensive orientation towards saving one's own face (cf.  Goffman 1972: 325). The culpable person must let the offended person  know that  s/he  is  sorry  for  what  s/he  has  done,  so  the  act  is highly  hearer-supportive  and  often  self-demeaning  (Edmondson  & House 1981: 45).

The apologizer's response has, therefore, a twofold aim: S/he must placate the complainer to restore social harmony and s/he must restore her/his own social status. Apologies have the social functions of admitting  responsibility  for  a  state  which  affected  someone  in  an  adverse way, asking to be forgiven, showing good manners, assuaging the addressee's  wrath,  getting  off  the  hook  (cf.  Norrick  1978:  280).  Thus apologies are made in the hope of being forgiven or in the hope that the addressee will dismiss the matter.

In the following, we describe the major response categories likely to occur in response to complaints. The outline is built on response categories  observed  in  situations  where,  subsequent  to  an  offence,  an apology is called for (Trosborg 1995). See also Owen (1983); Olshtain and Cohen (1983); and Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984). Apologies may be expressed directly or indirectly.

## 2.2. Apology strategies

In everyday conversation, when an infraction has been made, the apologizer may choose to express her/his apology explicitly. A direct apology involves a routine formula generally accepted to express apology. Various formulae can be distinguished with regard to level of formality and restrictions on occurrence. The following examples exemplify the semantic content of an expression of regret, an offer of apology, or a request for forgiveness:

Expression of regret: e.g. I'm sorry .

I'm sorry to keep you waiting.

Sorry about that.

I'm sorry to have been so long in getting in touch with you.

## Offer of apology: e.g. I apologize .

I (hereby) apologize for ...

Please accept my sincere apology (for ...)

My client would like to extend his apologies to you for the inconvenience involved.

Request for forgiveness: e.g. Excuse me; Please, forgive me; Pardon me.

Please, forgive me, I'm terribly sorry (about ...)

Excuse me, I'm sorry for interrupting you, but...

Pardon me, I didn't hear what you said.

## 2.2. Indirect apologies

A precondition for apologizing is that the infraction is acknowledged. A complainee who chooses to acknowledge responsibility ,  can do so implicitly  or  explicitly  and  with  varying  degrees  of  self-blame.  The sub-categories  outlined  below  are  all  hearer-supportive  and  self-demeaning, and they are ordered with respect to the degree of recognition with which the complainee accepts the blame (from low to high intensity):

Implicit acknowledgement: I can see your point; Perhaps I shouldn't have done it.

Explicit acknowledgement: I'll admit I forgot to do it .

Expression of lack of intent: I didn't mean to .

Expression of self-deficiency: I was confused; You know I am bad at...

Expression of embarrassment: I feel so bad about it .

Explicit acceptance of the blame: It was entirely my fault; You're right to blame me .

A complainee may try to mitigate her/his guilt by giving an explanation or account of the situation. Various kinds of mitigating circumstances serve as indirect apologies and may be put forward on their own or in addition to a direct expression of apology. A distinction is made between an implicit and an explicit explanation or account:

Implicit explanation: These things do happen, you know

.

Explicit explanation: Sorry I'm late, but my car broke down .

In an explanation or account, a complainee admits that what s/he has done was undesirable, but s/he tries to lessen the blame which can be attached to her/him by referring to mitigating circumstances that may excuse his behaviour. Thus an explanation or an account serves as an 'excuse' for a committed offence. An explanation can either occur on its own as an indirect apology or in combination with an explicit apology.

## 2.4. Remedial acts

So far remedial strategies have taken the form of verbal compensations (apologies, explanations, etc.). In more severe cases in which verbal remediation is insufficient, strategies attempting a remedy of the complainable may be required. An offer of repair is often required in cases in which a verbal apology is felt to be insufficient to restore social harmony. Repair may be offered in its literal sense or as an offer to pay for the damage or in situations in which actual repair is not possible (not wanted, etc.). The complainee may offer some kind of 'compensatory' action or 'tribute' to the complainer, e.g. I'll pay for the cleaning; You can borrow my dress instead (compensation). A promise of forbearance relates to future behaviour, and the strategy of expressing concern for hearer serves as an additional attempt to placate the complainer. Remedial  strategies  will  be  further  discussed  in  connection  with  business pragmatics, where they are of considerable importance.

## 2.5. Opting out

Although an apology is the act by means of which a complainee can restore her/his own social standing, the complainee may refrain from performing this act. If the complainee apologizes, s/he accepts the complainer's criticism to the effect that s/he is an irresponsible member of society,  which  is  implied  if  not  explicitly  stated  in  all  complaints. Therefore, the complainee may find her/himself in a position of 'inner conflict' (Edmondson & House 1981: 145). In receiving a complaint, s/he sees her/his social competence challenged and s/he may choose to deny responsibility.

A number of factors are likely to influence her/his behaviour: degree of sense of guilt, felt need to apologize, one's subjective view of one's reponsibility. Her/his own perception of the degree of the severity of the offence is often decisive, but s/he may also take into consideration the recipient's point of view, her/his perception of the degree of offence, the extent of the expected reprimand, etc. Other influential factors are the age, familiarity, and social status of the two participants.

A denial of responsibility can take on various forms, from blunt refusals  to  evasive  responses.  Trosborg  (1995)  observed  five  different strategies. The complainee may make an explicit denial of responsibility with arguments like I know nothing about it, I can assure you/You know  that  I  would  never  do  a  thing  like  that or  s/he  can  make  an implicit denial of responsibility , for example by ignoring a complaint, by talking about something else, etc. Furthermore, the complainee may provide a justification to the effect that no blame can be attached to her/him. Either the complainable has not occurred at all, or it can be fully justified. The complainee may also seek to evade responsibility by blaming someone else, and finally, if s/he lacks an adequate defence for her/his own behaviour, s/he may choose to use the strategy of attacking the complainer instead.

## 2.6. Evasive strategies

Evasive strategies are closely related to the strategies in which the complainee fails to take on responsibility. The difference lies in the fact that the  complainee  does  not  deny  responsibility.  Instead,  s/he  seeks  to minimize the degree of offence, either by arguing that the supposed offence is of minor importance, in fact is 'hardly worth mentioning', or by querying the preconditions on which the complaint is grounded. Finally,  the  complainee  may  be  only  partly  responsible.  The  following three sub-strategies apply:

Minimizing: Oh what does that matter, that's nothing; What about it, it' s not the end of the world.

Querying preconditions: Well, everybody does that

Blaming someone else:

. I didn't take the order. My colleague did.

The strategies outlined in the handling of complaints in everyday interaction are outlined in Figure 7. Even though an apology is a 'preferred' response when reacting to a complaint, a bare apology is hardly sufficient to restore harmony. Other strategies such as explanations and repair strategies may be needed as well.

Figure 7: Responding to everyday complaints

<!-- image -->

## 3. Responding to customer complaints

We now turn to business situations, and to the handling of customer complaints in particular. An organisation's quality assurance comprises at least five kinds of quality: Personal quality, departmental and team quality, product quality, service quality, and company quality. With regard to service quality, a customer's perception of a specific service is influenced by two kinds of quality: the technical or 'hard' quality and the human or 'soft' quality. Hard quality refers to the concrete aspects of service, e.g. menu and wine list, train timetables, seating comfort on an aeroplane, opening hours, parking facilities, insurance policy, etc. Soft quality refers to the emotional aspects of a service provided, e.g. commitment, attitude, friendliness, flexibility and attention, atmosphere, reliability (keeping arrangements), etc.

The soft side is very important. In principle, an organisation can increase its turnover in at least two ways: It can increase sales to existing customers or it can win new customers. According to TMI (1993: 7), it costs at least 5 times more to win a new customer than it does to keep an  existing  one.  Customer  satisfaction  is  crucial  to  increase  sales  to existing  customers.  Satisfied  customers  come  back,  they  are  usually prepared to buy new products or new services from the company and the positive image they spread helps the organisation to win more. It is often the case that potential customers are more inclined to listen to existing customers than to the organisation's marketing campaigns. In contrast, dissatisfied customers rarely come back and they are likely to share their dissatisfaction with other people. This may give the organisation a bad reputation, and make even the most powerful marketing campaigns ineffective.

When the service offered does not meet the customers' expectations, they are likely to change the service provider, often without complaining first (TMI 1993: 6). In cases where customers do complain, it is reported that more than half of all attempts to process customer complaints lead to even greater dissatisfaction (TMI 1993: 17). One reason for the dissatisfaction could be ineffective and inappropriate handling of  complaints.  Hence  the  way  an  organisation  processes  complaints from customers is crucial to the customer's perception of the organisation's quality. Processing complaints effectively may lead to increased customer satisfaction.

In order to achieve service recovery, it is important that the organisation and all its staff with customer contacts know how to handle complaints effectively. If an organisation is to have any chance of recovering its customers' confidence by processing complaints effectively, it needs to create a good 'complaints culture' and to have a clear policy for securing satisfied customers. Clear strategies, policies and procedures to ensure customer satisfaction are an important part of an organisation's  complaints  policy.  The  customers  must  feel  that  their  complaints are welcome. They must know who to complain to and how to complain.  Dissatisfied  customers  may  refrain  from  complaining  because they are afraid that their complaints will not be welcomed. They fear that they will be treated with suspicion and doubt and that nobody will be willing to take responsibility for their problems. Furthermore, it is time-consuming and a burden to the customer to complain.

Therefore, the way the organisation processes complaints and views service recovery is of great importance. Without insight into customer complaints,  the  organisation  cannot  react  in  time.  A  prerequisite  for handling complaints effectively is that the staff who receive customer complaints have the right attitude and behaviour. They should see that complaints form a basis of improvement within the organisation. TMI present the idea that a complaint is a 'gift', in that it gives the organisation a chance to correct mistakes and recover the customer's confidence. In addition to adopting this positive attitude, staff need to know how to process verbal complaints effectively. Below we discuss strategies  recommended  for  the  handling  of  customer  complaints  to  be compared with the strategies for everyday pragmatics outlined above.

## 3.1. Thanking for the complaint

In order to avoid the negative dialogue 1 likely to occur when infractions have been made, a hearer-supportive act of thanking must be issued to restore  harmony between speaker and hearer. The company's immediate reaction to a customer complaint determines whether it will succeed in creating a satisfied customer, or whether it is likely to create an even more dissatisfied one. It is therefore recommended that the first reaction to a complaint should always be an expression of thanks regardless  of  who  the  customer  is  or  what  the  complaint  is  about.  To thank somebody for a complaint runs contrary to expectations and has a powerful effect. By complaining, the customer is giving the company a chance to develop and improve its quality. There may be situations where it is even more important to listen to the customer and express understanding of the problem than it is to do something about the actual complaint.

1 Goffman  (1971)  distinguishes  between  positive  and  negative  ritual.  Positive,  or 'supportive' interchanges arise out of a need for mutual support, while negative dialogues occur when infractions have been made.

The second step is to elaborate on the appreciation. Saying 'thank you'  without  an  explanation  may  easily  sound  like  a  meaningless cliché. The prescription is therefore that that complainee should explain why the complaint is appreciated, using language like:

Thank you, I appreciate your pointing out this mistake - it gives me a chance to correct it.

Thank you for taking the trouble to complain - I realise it has taken both time and effort.

Thank you, we take your complaint as an opportunity to improve ourselves and to keep you as a satisfied customer. (TMI 1993: 30)

Service personnel are recommended to thank the customer, to apologise and to promise to do something about the complaint before asking the customer any questions. This paves the way for a conversation with the customer without too many negative feelings. Having achieved this, the complainee  can  ask  for  the  information  necessary  for  correcting  the mistake and finding the best solution. The aim at this stage should be to get all the right information, to prevent any further mistakes occurring when processing the complaint, while avoiding a 'cross-examination' or an interrogation.

## 3.2. Direct apologies

The prescription is that a direct apology is an essential response to a customer complaint. An unreserved apology must be issued, no matter whether the mistake was made by the person who receives the complaint, one of her/his colleagues, the manager, a member of the staff, a supplier, or someone outside the organisation. Even if the mistake is due to circumstances beyond individual control, such as power failure, weather conditions,  traffic  jams,  changes  in  legislation,  illness,  holidays, etc., an apology is advised. Similarly, an apology is a recommended tactic even if the complaint is not quite justified or is due to a misunderstanding, so that the customer is treated better than s/he can reasonably expect. In contrast, it is not necessary to explain who made the mistake, as it is not a question of finding out who is the guilty person.

## 3.3. Indirect apologies

In everyday pragmatics, an acknowledgement may count as an indirect apology. In business pragmatics, responsibility must always be taken, but acknowledgement need not be expressed; if a direct apology is expressed right away, acknowledgement is implicit. Acknowledgement, if expressed, should be done without self-blame and always be followed by a direct apology.

With regard to explanations we noted that in everyday pragmatics an explanation or an account could satisfy as an 'excuse' for a committed offence and often be enough to restore the complainer's face and to soften her/his feelings. In business situations, it is seldom necessary to offer lengthy explanations. It is crucial to explain why you appreciate the complaint, but not how the mistake occurred.

## 3.4. Remedial acts

In  business  pragmatics  pertaining  to  the  handling  of  customer  complaints, remedial acts play a much greater role than they are likely to do in everyday situations. When a customer complains, the gravity of the offence is a severe one (perceived or real), and a verbal expression of apology is hardly enough to placate the offended person. An obvious reason for complaining is the anticipation of some kind of compensation in remedy of the offence, and an offer of repair is expected. Furthermore,  additional  support  may  be  offered,  either  in  the  form  of verbal expression  of  concern ,  or  promises  with  regard  to  future  behaviour  (cf. promise  of  forbearance ).  While  in  everyday  situations, explanations  and  justifications  may  satisfy,  remedial  acts  are  most likely to be required in business situations.

## 3.4.1. Offer of repair

In the case of customer complaints, it is important that the customer feels that the complaint has been given proper attention and is settled promptly. Service personnel should assure the customer that something will  be  done  about  the  complaint  immediately.  They  should  explain what action can be taken and what the organisation is prepared to do to ensure customer satisfaction. If the matter cannot be satisfied immediately, rapid feedback can be promised, but it is crucial to avoid making promises that cannot be kept.

## 3.4.2. Checking customer satisfaction

In order to pacify a complainer, the complainee may express concern for  her/his  well-being,  her/his  condition,  etc.  However,  in  business pragmatics, it is not enough to placate the customer. It is also necessary to check the customer to make sure that s/he is satisfied and will stay a customer. A positive attitude towards customers and a genuine interest in correcting mistakes is a prerequisite for processing complaints effectively. The routines used must recognise that the customer who complains  has  a  right  to  complain.  And  more  important,  s/he  is  still  a customer  who  has  some  confidence  in  the  organisation  and  may  be made a 'goodwill' ambassador, if the organisation succeeds in correcting the mistake to her/his satisfaction. The company may even give the customer  verbal  or  non-verbal  acknowledgement  for  having  complained, for example in the form of a thank-you letter, a telephone call or a symbolic gift.

## 3.4.3. Prevention of future mistakes

When apologising the speaker takes responsibility by expressing regret, and  s/he  will  be  expected  to  behave  in  a  consistent  fashion  and  not immediately to repeat the act for which s/he has just apologised. This 'commissive' aspect can be made explicit in a promise of forbearance. With respect to future behaviour, a complainee can promise either never to perform the offence in question again, or to improve her/his behaviour in a number of ways , e.g. It won't happen again, I promise.

In an organisation, it is important to take steps to prevent future mistakes and reduce the risk of them occurring again. It has been recommended that all complaining customers should be interviewed about their satisfaction with the way the organisation processes complaints to find out why the customer was dissatisfied, what went wrong, what was the  reason(s)  for  the  mistake,  etc.,  to  cure  the  cause  of  the  mistake, rather than the symptom.

## 3.5. Rejections

Whereas  rejections  and  evasive  strategies  are  of  frequent  use  in  ordinary conversation, these strategies are almost condemned in business interaction.  In  business  situations,  the  customer  is  always  right  and opting out is per definition excluded. Still, rejection of the complaint is a  typical  reaction  to  a  customer  who  complains.  Very  often  the customer is rejected with remarks like: I'm afraid there is nothing we can  do  under  the  present  circumstances  -  it' s  company  policy;  You should have complained earlier; You must have handled it wrongly; etc.

In customer interaction, it is not unusual for the complainee to avoid personal responsibility: I don't make the rules here. I just work here; I didn't serve you. My colleague did; Anyone can make a mistake; It must have happened at the factory. Furthermore, questions which stem from doubt about the customer's motive, competence or right to complain should be avoided altogether such questions as: . How can I be sure that what you say is true? Are you sure you bought it here? Did you follow the instructions? Are you sure you didn't drop it? Anyone can make a claim like that. You just wouldn't believe the number of people who tell us all kinds of stories (TMI 1998: 25). Rejection of customer complaints affects customer satisfaction in a extremely negative way and should be avoided altogether. Neither should the customer be met with the 'It's not my department' attitude and referred to somebody else: It is not this department; Try phoning another number. I'm sure somebody will help you there; You should contact the retailer who sold you the product (not the manufacturer), etc

The customer should be given the impression that s/he has come to the right person because everybody in the organisation takes responsibility for ensuring customer satisfaction. The person who receives the complaint  thanks  the  customer  for  the  complaint,  explains  why  s/he appreciates the complaint and apologises for the mistake, before s/he puts the customer in touch with the right person.

Figure 8 summarizes the strategies outlined for handling complaints in customer interaction. When responding to customer complaints, the recommended  behaviour  is  somewhat  different  from  the  behaviour observed in everyday interactions. The two ritual acts of thanking and apologizing are recommended as obligatory and must be followed by serious attention to the complaint and correction of the mistake through remedial acts. Explanations occur in connection with thanking, rather than  as  indirect  apologies.  Finally,  great  importance  is  attached  to remedial acts. All 8 strategies must be taken into account, and the order is  more or less fixed, while in everyday interactions, a more limited combination of strategies are likely to suffice. It is notable that the prescriptions reject the strategies of opting out and evasion.

Figure 8: Responding to customer complaints

<!-- image -->

The strategies outlined in sections 2 and 3 can serve as the basis for the construction of teaching material. It is crucial to point out the differences between strategies employed in everyday conversation and those recommended for the handling of customer complaints. A further point worthy of attention is the question of directness vs. indirectness. While being indirect is generally considered a 'virtue' when requesting and complaining in that it diminishes the inhibition made on the addressee, indirectness works the other way round for apologies. A sincere apology must be expressed directly and at best intensified by an upgrader ( very/terribly  sorry ),  whereas  indirectness  hedges  the  illocutionary force and consequently does not set things right to the same extent as a direct apology. Learners are often criticized for being too direct. However, in apologizing they may be criticized for being indirect. The question for learners is then to figure out when indirectness is a virtue and when it is a vice.

## 4. The pilot study

Having  considered  what  material  to  present  to  students  of  business English, the question that arises for the teacher is then what approaches will be of use in teaching diacultural pragmatics, and what impact the prescriptive nature of the behaviours to be taught has on the learning process. It is possible, for example, that explicit information will be of more direct use in acquiring pragmatics than in language acquisition since development is not prevented by acquisition orders as is the case for grammatical development (see e.g. Clahsen 1984). Explicit instruction in syntax is often ineffective because of sequences of developmen- tal order or complexification hypotheses, but no such phenomena have been proposed for pragmatics (see Fahnestock 1993; Freedman 1993a; Freedman  1993b).  Neither  has  a  critical  or  a  sensitive  period  been claimed. On the contrary, we continue to expand our pragmatic competence throughout our lives.

It is likely that pragmatic information, like grammatical information, benefits from being taught via a consciousness-raising approach. This is in agreement with the findings of Schmidt (1993). He argued that for syntactic and pragmatic information to be noticed and thereby made available for further processing, it has to be attended to, or stored in short-term memory. Attention is required for converting available input into  intake,  and  some  level  of  awareness  or  understanding  is  also required.

The  importance  of  a  consciousness-raising  approach  in  language teaching  stems  from  the  work  on  grammatical  consciousness-raising (see e.g. Ellis 1991; Rutherford 1987; Rutherford & Sharwood-Smith 1985; Sharwood-Smith 1988; VanPattern 1990; VanPattern & Cadierno 1993).  Given  Schmidt's  (1990,  1993,  1994)  work  on  the  role  of consciousness in second language learning (including pragmatics), applying a consciousness-raising approach to the teaching of pragmatics is a logical extension of earlier work on the teaching of grammar. In fact, a number of researchers have argued for adopting a consciousnessraising approach to the teaching of pragmatics (see, e.g. Bardovi-Harlig et al., 1991; Rose 1993, 1994, 1997).

In order to make the recording situation plausible we focused on telephoned complaints. This meant that we were actually working on a key area of modern business training: the training of multilingual workers in 'calling centres', where European customer service has been concentrated.

## 4.1. Aims of the study

Our pilot therefore was a preparation for examining three quite basic questions which might help to establish a methodology for pragmatics teaching.

The first two arise out of the parallel between syntax learning and pragmatics learning:

- Is there a marked difference between the efficiency of learning pragmatic  behaviours  by  explicit  information  and  by  exposure?  (cf Freedman, etc).
- Is it important to direct learners' attention to what they are learning? (cf Ellis; Schmidt, etc)

The third arises from a comparison of Trosborg's data for 'everyday' complaints with the requirements of the 'new culture' of business:

- Is  it  demonstrably  easier  to  learn  behaviours  which  are  currently masked by processing difficulties, than those which are not being performed because they are not part of the cultural repertoire? In particular, are behaviours which are prescribed but 'unnatural' harder to learn than behaviours more rooted in everyday pragmatics?

This third question is to some extent in contrast with the second, since culturally 'new' features might be expected to be more prominent.

## 4.2. Method

The design involved a pretest followed by three short teaching sessions, followed by a post-test. Given the students' high level of fluency, it was possible that a minimal amount of attention to the relevant speech acts would result in learning. First we recorded two small groups of students carrying out role-plays involving complaints, drawn from our knowledge of the Danish business scene. We then used 10-15 minutes at the end  of  three  successive  weekly  classes  to  'teach'  these  students  the aspects of politeness identified in the'Golden Rules' described in section 3. The sessions took place in a language laboratory.

With one group we used a 'deductive' approach, as follows:

Session 1: students give feedback on their own recordings; written material on the Golden Rules distributed.

Session 2: Golden Rules presented; practice with a new role-play 'Super-Electric'.

Section 3: more discussion of Golden Rules: students listen to model role-play of 'Mad Toaster' and try to identify instances of the rules, then enact the role-play.

With the other we used an 'inductive' approach:

Session 1: students were asked to read a model dialogue based on 'Super-Electric', and then to re-enact it from memory.

Session  2:  Students  saw  a  British  TV  comedy  sketch  involving  a complaint about a defective toaster, and were asked to re-enact it 'correctly' .

Session  3:  Students  listened  to  model  (unscripted)  enactments  of 'Super-Electric' and 'Mad Toaster', and then repeated the sentences used by the receiver of the complaint.

After  the  three  very  short  teaching  sessions  we  interviewed  some students about the experience and then recorded them again, doing a new unseen role-play called 'Westwind'.

## 4.3. Results

## 4.3.1. Effects of method

We were able to analyse a total of fifteen speakers who took part in both recordings, including two repeated ('before' and 'after') dialogues with the same roles from the 'inductive' group and two from the 'deductive' group.  As  the  discussion  below  shows,  there  were  no  discernible differences between the progress the members of the two groups had made. Clearly explicit information may be more or less effective than implicit, but the difference is not very gross. This result is in conformity with the few method comparisons which already exist (Bouton 1994; House 1996: Tateyama et al 1997) ...

Table 1 compares the performances of those speakers who took the same role, generally with the same partner, in both the pre-test and the post-test.

The tables show that the post-test revealed a similar range of behaviours in both groups. Only one receiver in either group had learnt to thank for the complaint as prescribed by our source, but most in both had  started  to  apologise  for  the  problem  before  interrogating  the customer.

Tabel 1: Occurence of certain features in post-test transcripts. Receivin a complaint

| Receiving a complaint                    | Implicit   | Implicit   | Implicit   | Implicit   | Implicit   | Explicit   | Explicit   | Explicit   |
|------------------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|
|                                          | HK(f)      | T(f)       | V(f)       | A(f)       | L(f)       | G(f)       | Ja(m)      | A(m)       |
| Thanks + explanation                     | +          | -          | -          | -          | -          | -          | - (late)   | -          |
| Apology/regret                           | +          | +          | - (+ late) | -          | +          | +          | +          | +          |
| Promise...immediately                    | +(?)       | + (?)      | -          | -          | -          | +          | +          | +          |
| Avoid blaming victim                     | +          | -          | -          | +          | -          | +          | +          | +          |
| Information collected                    | +          | +          | +          | - (!)      | -          | +          | +          | +          |
| Early interrogation avoided              | +          | -          | -          | +!         | -          | +?         | +          | +          |
| Ownproblems concealed                    | +          | +          | +          | +          | -          | +          | +          | +          |
| Firm defence against unreasonable demand | +          | n/a        | +          | -/a        | +          | n/a        | -          | -          |
| Avoid Excuses                            | +          | +          | +          | -          | -          | +          | +          | -          |
| Complaining                              | Implicit:  | Implicit:  | Implicit:  | Implicit:  | Explicit   | Explicit   | Explicit   | Explicit   |
|                                          | La(m)      | Je(m)      | HR(f)      | S(f)       | M(f)       | MBL(f)     | GL(f)      |            |
| Complaint prepared                       | +          | +          | +          | +          | +          | +          | +          |            |
| Complaint apologised for                 | -          | -          | -          | -          | -          | -          | -          |            |
| Focus on complainable                    | +          | +          | +          | ?          | +          | ?          | +          |            |
| Complainteffective                       | +          | +          | +          | +          | ?          | +          | +          |            |
| Complaint supported                      | +          | +          | +          | ?          | ?          | +          | +          |            |
| Threat avoided                           | -          | +          | -          | -          | ?          | +          | +          |            |
| response anticipated                     | +          | ?          | +          | ?          | ?          | +          | +          |            |

insistence

+

-

+

?

?

## 4.3.2. Effects of focus on particular moves

The second issue was the effectiveness of focus. As the account of the experiments above shows, the teaching focus in both groups was on the way the complainee spoke, rather than on the complainer.

The results showed very few changes in the complainers ' behaviour in all four dialogues, with the incidence of threatening remarks, direct accusations, etc. much the same. This may reflect the location of teaching focus, because one of the moves we focused on for the complainees -apology -did show some development even over this short period. This is  illustrated  by  the  following  transcripts,  from  the  pre-test  and post-test respectively: J apologises immediately.

## Students GL & Ja Pre-test

This is GL. from Vision Express in London. I'm calling to er make a complaint about some of your products.

Em we've had two customers complaining about the poor sound quality in er the aids supplied

And er one of our assistants noticed that er a third was not up to standard before it was sold. What do you suggest we do about it?

```
Yes Yes Well, er could I get your name one more time please?
```

-

+

## Post-test

I'm calling you to make a complaint. .. A while ago we em we wanted to do something about the environment and we invested in an experimental wind turbine from you and it was promised to , they promised us to get it up in November and it was finished a month later. And now it's March and the generator has broken down and er

I'm sorry to hear that I'm very sorry to hear that...

In fact, as Table 1 shows, most of the subjects apologised in the posttest,  but  only  three  did  so  in  the  pre-test.  The  implication  is  that  the focus on apology in the teaching was effective.

## 4.3.3. Effects of natural/familiar moves vs. prescribed/ new ones

The third question relates to the 'culturally new' vs. 'culturally familiar' in what was to be learnt. The 'familiar' was the idea of apologising for  the  error  causing  the  complaint,  which  is  part  of  the  'everyday' routine and perhaps omitted largely because of processing difficulties. This was learnt very effectively, and the 'after' dialogues are characterised by extensive apologising, as shown above. The 'culturally new' was the idea of thanking for the complaint. This came from our business-training source (TMI 1993). Although it was conceivably not appropriate in the kinds of complaint we were practising, it provided a test case of a focused item that was culturally unexpected. The move proved more difficult to learn: only one subject (the most able, as end-of-year tests showed) thanked for the complaint, though another thanked for the call.

## 4.3.4. Student awareness

We let some students listen to themselves and asked them for comments on their performance. We received the following nine responses:

Table 2: student self-evaluation

| Number mentioning:         |
|----------------------------|
| politeness/aggression 3    |
| knowledge/understanding 3  |
| fluency/confidence 3       |
| appropriateness of moves 3 |
| Quality of arguments 1     |

While the respondents seemed to focus on appropriate areas, their judgements were not convincing. The following performance as a complainer seemed good to us, but was judged by its producer as 'hesitating, too nice, should be a little more rude'

```
Yeah well em I am working in a large chain of opticians in Britain, and recently we started to sell your high-quality hearing aids Oh lovely to hear Yes, and em they ARE in competition with the low quality aids because they are much more expensive (yeah) and therefore we would like to have a er really high quality and the first consignment we received from you was really fine and and the customers now wants to buy some more, (yeah) but the problem is that in the second consignment we got from you er there was a very bad sound and we got complaints from a lot of customers Oh
```

This  mismatch  of  performance  and  judgement  is  interesting,  and  it sounds as though the speaker was judging with Danish ears what she had intuitively said 'right' for a British interlocutor.

## 4.3.5. Processing problems

Finally,  we  noticed  that  there  was  a  danger  of  interpreting  linguistic weakness as cultural difference.  The  'rudeness'  in  the  following  example was associated with evidence of linguistic processing problems:

```
We bought a .um a wind turbine from you about a year ago and um we have some problems with it What sort of problems? Well, firstly, you promised that you'd um set up the um turbine in um ... what comes before November..October October And it didn't happen until November, so you were actually a month late, so that's a pretty bad beginning..
```

## 5. Discussion and conclusions

In so far as one can conclude from such a small-scale experiment, we can  say  that  pragmatic  features  can  be  learnt  by  implicit  or  explicit means, that features focused on are more likely to be learnt, and that culturally different features are incorporated in behaviour more slowly than culturally familiar ones. Our data suggest that transfer of strategies such as querying the preconditions on which a complaint is built and other evasive strategies typically used in everyday encounters account for some of the errors made by our learners, while other errors can be ascribed to the lack of familiarity with the strategies prescribed for the handling of customer complaints, such as thanking for the complaint.

The key interesting area here in our view is the learning of speech acts  prescribed  by  customer-service  gurus  which  are  not  necessarily natural  parts  of  either  everyday  social  behaviour  or  actual  business interaction. We would like to do further investigations of the relationships between guru recommendations and actual behaviour. We would like to know about the relevance of the recommendations to monocultural situations: would South Americans, for example, actually prefer the recommended pattern even though it is culturally alien? We would also like to know how multilingual telephone service centres deal with the culture associated with the language, and whether they indeed adopt a once-size-fits-all approach based on expert recommendations.

## Literature

- Bardovi-Harlig,  K.,  Hartford,  B.,  Mahan-Taylor,  R.,  Morgan,  M.  &  Reynolds,  D. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: closing the conversation. In ELT Journal 45: 4-15.
- Billmyer, K. (1990). 'I really like your lifestyle': ESL learners learning how to compliment. In Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 6: 31-48.
- Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies. A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP).In Applied Linguistics 5.3: 196-212.
- Bouton, L. (1994). Conversational implicature in the second language: learned slowly when not deliberately taught. In Journal of Pragmatics 22: 157-167.
- Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1978). Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56-289.
- Canale,  M.  (1983):  From  communicative  competence  to  communicative  language pedagogy. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman, 2-29.
- Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: a test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development. In R. Anderson (ed.), Second Languages: A crosslinguistic perspective . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
- Cohen, A. & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: the case of apology. In Language Learning 31.1: 113-134.

- Dow, E. (1997). Teaching business negotiation. Paper presented at conference on Analysing Professional Genres, The Aarhus School of Business, May 1997.
- Edmondson, W. & House. J. (1981). Let's talk and talk about it. München: Urban and Schwarzenberg.
- Ellis,  R.  (1991).  Grammar teaching - practice or consciousness raising? In R. Ellis, Second  language  acquisition  and  language  pedagogy .  Clevedon,  Avon:  Multilingual Matters, 223-241.
- Faerch, C. & Kasper G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds.), 221-248.
- Fahnestock, J. (1993). Genre and rhetorical craft. In Research in the teaching of English 27( 3): 265- 271.
- Freedman, A. (1993a). Show and tell? the role of explicit teaching in the learning of new genres. In Research in the teaching of English 27/3 222-251 .
- Freedman,  A.  (1993b).  Situating  genre:  a  rejoinder.  In Research  in  the  teaching  of English 27/3 .
- Goffman, E. 1971 Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order .  Harmondsworth: Penguin 1972.
- Goffman, E. (1972). On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In  J.  Laver  &  S.  Hytcheson  (  eds.), Communication  in  face-to-face-interaction . Harmondsworth: Penguin, 319-346.
- Hofstede, G. (1992). Cultures and organisations: software of the mind . London: Harper Collins.
- House,  J.  (1996).  Developing  pragmatic  fluency  in  English  as  a  foreign  language: routines and metapragmatic awareness. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 225-252.
- Katz, J.J. (1977). Propositional structure and illocutionary force . New York: Harvester Press.
- Kubota, M. (1995). Techability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. In IRLT Bulletin 9: 35-67. Tokyo: The Institute of Research in Language Teaching.
- Levinson,  S.C.  (1983). Pragmatics .  Cambridge  textbooks  in  linguistics:  Cambridge University Press.
- Norrick, N.R. (1978). Expressive illocutionary acts. In Journal of Pragmatics 2: 27791.
- Okamura, A., & Shaw, P. (1998). Culture and subculture in transactional letter writing. English for Specific Purposes .
- Olshtain, E. & Cohen, A. (1983). Apology: A speech-act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds.). Sociolinguistics and language acquisition . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
- Olshtain, E. & Weibach, L. 1987. Complaints: a study of speech act behaviour among native and non-native speakers of Hebrew. In M. B. Papi & J. Verschueren (eds.), The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference . Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.

- Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and remedial interchanges . Berlin: Mouton.
- Place, U. T. (1986). Ethics as a system of behaviour modification. In L. J. Parrott & P. N. Chase (eds.), Psychological aspects of language : The West Virginia Lectures.
- Pöchhacker,  F.  (1995).  Simultaneous  interpreting:  a  functionalist  perspective.  In Hermes Journal of Linguistics 14: 31-53.
- Robinson,  M.A.  (1992).  Introspective  methodology  in  interlanguage  pragmatics  research. In G. Kasper (ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as native and target language: Tech. Rep. No. 3: 27-82.
- Rose, K. (1993). Sociolinguistic consciousness-raising through video. In The Language Teacher 17: 7-9.
- Rose, K. (1994). Pragmatic consciousness-raising in an EFL context. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru  (eds.), Pragmatics  and  language  learning ,  Urbana-  Champaign,  IL: University of Illinois, vol 5: 52-63.
- Rose, K. (1997). Pragmatics in teacher education for nonnative-speaking teachers: a consciousness-raising approach. In Language Culture and Curriculum 10(2): 125157.
- Rutherford,  W.  (1987).  Consciousness-raising.  In  W.  Rutherford,  Second  language grammar: learning & teaching. London: Longman, 16-34.
- Rutherford,  W.  &  Sharwood  Smith,  M.  (1985).  Consciousness  raising  in  universal grammar. Applied Linguistics 6: 272-282.
- Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. In Applied Linguistics 11: 129-158.
- Schmidt,  R.  (1993).  Consciousness,  learning  and  interlanguage  pragmatics.  In  G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics : 21-41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. In AILA Review 11: 11-26.
- Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Sharwood-Smith, M. (1988). Consciousness raising in the second language learner. In W. Rutherford & M. Sharwood-Smith, Grammar and second language teaching. Boston: Heine and Heine, 51-60.
- Siegal,  M.  (1994).  Looking  East:  identity  construction  and  white  women  learning Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkley.
- Spencer-Oatey , H. (1998). Analysing rapport management in intercultural encounters: a linguistic framework. Paper given at the SIETAR Europa conference, Bath, April 1998.
- Tateyama, Y. Kasper, G., Mui, L., Tay, H. & Thananart, O. (1997). Explicit and implicit teaching  of  pragmatics  routines.  In  L.  Bouton  (ed.), Pragmatics  and  language learning, vol 8: 163-177. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois ar Urbana-Champaign.
- Thomas, J.A. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. In Applied Linguistics 4:  91112.

- Time Manager International (1993). A complaint is a gift . Hillerød: A TMI Tool.
- Trompenaars, F., & Hamden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture . London: Nicholas Brealey.
- Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: requests, complaints and apologies . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- VanPattern, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: an experiment in consciousness. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12: 287-301.
- VanPattern,  B.  &  Cadierno,  T.  (1993).  Explicit  instruction  in  input  processing.  In Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 225-243.
- Wildner-Bassett,  M.  (1984).  In Improving  pragmatics  aspects  of  learners'  interlanguage. Tübingen: Narr.
- Xing,  J.  (1998).  Rapport  management  in  Chinese-British  business  meetings.  Paper given at the SIETAR Europa conference, Bath, April 1998.