Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
LET: Linguistics, Literature and English Teaching Journal
||Volume||14||Issue||2||Pages||270-290||2024||
|P-ISSN: 20869606; E-ISSN: 25492454|
Available online at: http://jurnal.uin-antasari.ac.id/index.php
Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Study of Complaint Strategies
in Banjarese and Javanese
Rifda Fakhira
rifda.fakhira-2023@fib.unair.ac.id
Ni Wayan Sartini
ni-wayan-s@fib.unair.ac.id
Airlangga University of Surabaya, Indonesia
Article History:
Received:
10 October 2024
Accepted:
7 December 2024
A cross-cultural pragmatics exploration,
particularly in multicultural and multilingual
settings like Indonesia, is important for
understanding language used within a cultural
framework. In the comparative study, Banjarese
and Javanese languages are particularly
underrepresented. Thus, the research
investigates and compares complaint strategies
that the Banjarese and Javanese use. The current
study used a qualitative approach and the
Discourse Completion Task (DCT), consisting
of eight scenarios, to gather the data. The study
consists of 50 participants, 25 Banjarese and 25
Javanese participants, ranging in age from 18 to
60 years old. The findings of the study found
that Banjarese and Javanese participants utilise
mostly the same strategy, namely
dissatisfaction (DS) and request for repair (RR),
and prefer to avoid conflict with the
interlocutors. However, Banjarese participants
typically prioritise immediate resolution,
whereas Javanese participants prioritise
expressing their dissatisfaction first. The
research highlights the significant influence that
cultural context has on complaint strategies and
communication.
Corresponding Author:
rifda.fakhira-
2023@fib.unair.ac.id
Keywords:
Banjarese, Complaint strategy,
Cross Culture, Javanese,
Pragmatics
Page | 271
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
INTRODUCTION
In a globalised world, it is crucial to comprehend the use of language that is
culturally embedded (House & Kádár, 2021). This is especially true in Indonesia,
where various languages are spoken depending on the region. This includes
Banjarese and Javanese. These two languages are among the most widely spoken
on their respective islands, Kalimantan and Java. Banjarese and Javanese people
engage in frequent interactions, which is partly due to the Banjarese people's
preference for migration (Salim, 1996). Despite the numerous interactions between
Banjarese and Javanese, there have been few comparative studies between these
two tribes, particularly in terms of language use. This emphasises the necessity of
conducting research on the manner in which these two communities employ their
languages to communicate.
Comparative language research can be viewed from the perspective of cross-
cultural pragmatics. It is crucial to analyse data from various language cultures in
various locations that are impacted by migration and related multilingualism in
cross-cultural pragmatics (House & Kádár, 2021). Speech acts are one of the studies
that can be conducted in cross-cultural research. In pragmatics, speech acts study
the meanings that speakers' utterances produce and how their speech partners
interpret them (Yule, 1996). The act of complaining is one of the speech acts. The
utterance of a complaint is a complex speech act to comprehend, as it is contingent
upon the context of the interlocutor's position and its significance in relation to the
subject of the complaint (Rodriguez, 2022). In examining the speech act of
complaining, it is also crucial to consider the cultural influence, which is why it is
crucial to compare the respective complaint speech acts of two cultures.
Edmondson & House (1981) define “complaint” as a form of verbal
communication in which the speaker conveys a negative perspective on the
listener's past actions. Additionally, complaint entails the act of challenging and
interrogating the listener's competence. Within the framework of politeness theory,
expressing a complaint is considered a face-threatening act (Brown & Levinson,
1987). Consequently, speakers are more likely to endanger the interlocutor's face
Page | 272
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
when they explicitly express their complaints, which could potentially result in
emotional distress and damage their relationship (Moon, 2002). Subsequently,
speakers implement strategies to mitigate the offence to the hearer. The various
strategies employed by speakers from various cultures when expressing complaints
can be analysed through cross-cultural pragmatics studies.
Complaining strategy research has been extensively conducted in a variety of
cultural and linguistic contexts. In the field of cross-cultural pragmatics, there are
numerous studies that identify similarities and differences (e.g. Al-Khawaldeh,
2016; Chen et al., 2011; El-Dakhs & Ahmed, 2021; Kaharuddin, 2020;
Prykarpatska, 2008; Yang, 2016). Chen et al. (2011) conducted a comparison of
American and Chinese complaining strategies and discovered that the strategies
employed were similar, but there were distinctions in semantic content and
linguistic form. Al-Khawaldeh (2016), in the same manner compared Jordanian and
English speakers. This investigation revealed that the linguistic expressions
employed by the two speakers varied. English speakers employed more direct
expressions, while Jordanian speakers employed more indirect expressions,
contingent upon the social status of the interlocutor.
This study will examine complaint strategies in both Banjarese and Javanese.
Currently, there is a lack of research that specifically focuses on the Banjarese
language and the strategies they use for complaining. Furthermore, a comparison
with Javanese is necessary to understand the cultural differences. The present study
focuses on Banjarese speakers in South Kalimantan and Javanese speakers in East
Java.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Speech Act of Complaint
Speech acts are actions that are performed verbally or with the use of words.
In real interaction, individuals not only express themselves but also take action
(Austin, 1975). Austin (1975) classifies speech acts into three distinct categories:
1) locutionary acts, 2) an illocutionary act, and 3) a perlocutionary act. In
Page | 273
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
pragmatics research, the term "speech act" generally refers to illocutionary acts
(Huang, 2014). A complaint is one type of speech act; specifically, it falls into the
category of expressive speech acts. According to Trosborg (2011), expressive
speech acts are employed to convey the speaker's psychological state in terms of
the preceding action. Moreover, the term "complain" denotes a negative reaction to
an individual's conduct, a previous error, or a circumstance that fails to meet the
speaker's expectations (Rodriguez, 2022). Additionally, the scope of this speech act
may encompass complaints submitted by third parties (House & Kádár, 2021). The
act of complaining may also be accompanied by a request for compensation,
improvement, or the prevention of the recurrence of the reprehensible action,
resulting in the presence of multiple illocutionary acts (Trosborg, 2011).
Olshtain & Weinbach (1993) established four conditions for the complaint
speech act to occur. Specifically, 1) The speaker anticipates that a positive event
will occur (appointment, debt payback, promise fulfilment, etc.) or that an
unfavourable event will not occur because it enables or fails to prevent the
occurrence of the damaging event. 2) The speaker holds the belief that certain
actions will negatively affect their situation. Therefore, the action is considered
offensive. 3) The speaker is of the opinion that the recipient is responsible for the
action. 4) The speaker elects to vocalise their dissatisfaction and discontent.
Consequently, Brown & Levinson (1987) posit that complaining is a behaviour that
is perceived as face-threatening. This is because it is intended to challenge the
interlocutor's social competence and characterise their behaviour as socially
unacceptable, thereby endangering the social relationship between the speaker and
recipient and inflicting emotional distress on the interlocutor.
As a result, speakers use a variety of strategies when complaining. The
classification of complaint strategies has been done in previous studies. Olshtain &
Weinbach (1993) categorise complaint strategies into five categories: below the
level of reproach, expression of annoyance or disapproval, explicit complaint,
accusation and warning, and immediate threat. Furthermore, Trosborg (2011)
categorised a variety of complaint strategies, such as no explicit
Page | 274
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
reproach, expression of annoyance or disapproval, accusation, and blame.
Following that, Chen et al. (2011) developed Trosborg's strategies by organising
them from direct to indirect levels determined by the presence or absence of
propositional content (the complained about), the person complaining, and the
person being accused (the complained about) (Trosborg, 2011). Chen et al. (2011)
strategies include opting out, dissatisfaction, interrogation, accusation, repair
request, and threat.
Cross-cultural Pragmatics
Cross-cultural pragmatics is a field of study that investigates the ways in
which communication norms and practices differ among different cultures. This
study contrasts the languages used by various cultures and analyses the distinctions.
Cross-cultural pragmatics investigates the patterns and variations that occur when
speakers of different languages and cultures utilise the languages they speak
(Kecskes, 2016). Wierzbicka (2003) stressed the importance of recognising and
respecting the diverse cultural conventions that shape human relationships,
questioning the idea of universal norms for etiquette and communication.
Furthermore, Wierzbicka (2003) summarised the key ideas in cross-cultural
pragmatics. These concepts include (1) the use of distinct languages by individuals,
societies, or communities, (2) the existence of profound and systematic disparities
in speech patterns, (3) the existence of distinct value hierarchies, and (4)
communication styles that can be ascribed to established cultural values.
Numerous studies have been conducted in the field of cross-cultural
pragmatics. The Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realisation Project (CCSARP) is
potentially the most influential research in the field of cross-cultural pragmatics
(Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). A large-scale initiative, CCSARP concentrates on two
speech acts, request and apology, which sourced the data from seven lingua-cultures
(Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). The speech acts request and apology were particularly
relevant for the development of a cross-cultural pragmatic framework because they
frequently adhered to customs that differed between linguistic cultures (House &
Kádár, 2021). This research also established a methodological design that is
Page | 275
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
currently in widespread use in cross-cultural pragmatics research, which is called
the Discourse Completion Task (DCT).
Since the founding of the CCSARP, cross-cultural pragmatics has been a rich
field of study, with many recent studies exploring various aspects through diverse
linguistic approaches. For example, Guillot (2019) focused on subtitles in a study
of linguistic and cultural representations in audiovisual translation (AVT) between
Romance and German languages. In their study of the translation of second-person
persona pronominal T-forms in IKEA catalogues across several languages, House
& Kádár (2020) pointed out the need to examine translation in global
communication for pragmatics research. Matsukawa (2024) examined invitations
between English and Japanese speakers, and the results showed that different
approaches were taken to deal with ambiguity in situations where invitations were
sent with an introduction. This study emphasises the importance of examining
speech acts in context-specific interactions. Overall, these studies highlight the
importance of understanding how cultural variations affect language use and
communication practices, as well as the wide range of subjects and approaches
within the field of cross-cultural pragmatics.
METHOD
Research design
A qualitative approach, specifically the descriptive method, was employed to
investigate the complaint strategies of the Banjarase and Javanese people. The
descriptive method is an analytical technique in qualitative research that involves
the researcher maintaining a close relationship with the data, organising the material
into themes, and employing constrained frameworks and interpretations to elucidate
the data (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). The rationale behind the implementation of
this method is that qualitative descriptive research aims to describe rather than
explain, making it a good fit for research topics that seek to shed light on relatively
unexplored research fields (Kim et al., 2017).
Page | 276
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
Participant
The participants in this study were selected using criteria that aligned with the
study's objectives. Therefore, the participants must be Javanese or Banjarese.
Javanese participants were taken from participants who lived in the East Java area
(e.g. Surabaya, Gresik, Sidoarjo, Malang and Mojokerto). Furthermore, Banjarese
participants were taken from participants who lived in the South Kalimantan area
(e.g. Banjarmasin, Banjarbaru, and Martapura). To ensure data diversity, the
participants ranged from 18 to 60 years old. The number of participants from each
tribe was 25 people, so the total number of participants in this study was 50 people.
This figure is consistent with Creswell & Creswell (2023) notion that descriptive
research should have at least 20 participants.
Data Collection
Data collection in this study was carried out by filling out a questionnaire.
According to Iwaniec (2020), one of the most appealing aspects of questionnaires
is their adaptability and ability to measure abstract constructs that are difficult to
test in other ways. The questionnaire in this study was in the form of a Discourse
Completion Task (DCT), which was distributed to participants. Discourse
Completion Task is one of the most widely used questionnaire types in pragmatic
research (Kasper, 2008). Discourse Completion Task is a suitable choice in research
that aims to represent the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic understanding of a
speech act owned by a speech community (Chen et al., 2011). Discourse
Completion Task has two parts, namely, a description of the situation and a short
conversation with an open slot for one person. The situation in the scenario is
intended to limit the open turn so that it leads to the desired communication act
(Kasper, 2008).
In this study, participants were asked to complete the Discourse Completion
Task, which was distributed via Google Forms. The Discourse Completion Task
used in this study consists of eight written scenarios. These scenarios followed the
framework proposed by Chen et al. (2011) and were adapted to the Indonesian
language. In order to prevent data writing errors, participants were provided with
Page | 277
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
examples of how to compose responses that were consistent with the language they
employed. Participants were requested to envision themselves in genuine scenarios
and write down their responses.
Data Analysis
The data obtained from completing the DCT will be organised in a
spreadsheet and stored before analysis. The data that has been organised in the
spreadsheet will then be reviewed and coded using the scheme created by Chen et
al. (2011). This coding scheme includes strategies such as opting out,
dissatisfaction, interrogation, accusation, request for repair, and threat. The
classifications are from least direct to most direct. Data that has been encoded will
be used to determine the prevalence of each strategy. Subsequently, the findings of
the complaint strategies from Banjarese and Javanese will be compared and
analysed to identify discrepancies and similarities. Lastly, the findings will be
discussed within the context of each language's social and cultural background.
Table 1. Chen et al. (2011) complaint strategies
Strategies
Explanation
Opting Out (OP)
Participant ignores the offence
Dissatisfaction
(DS)
Participant expresses their displeasure but refrain from
naming the complainee directly.
Interrogation (IN)
Participant questions the complainee about the offence,
assuming that the complainee is guilty of the act.
Accusation (AC)
The participant accuses the complainee of committing the
transgression.
Request for Repair
(RR)
Participant expects the complainee to compensate for the
offence and adjust their conduct to avoid it from
happening again.
Threat (TH)
Participant attempts to attack the complainee by
emphasising probable offense repercussions.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This section comprises three parts. Two parts comprised the result of
Banjarese complaint strategies and Javanese complaint strategies, as well as the
examples of these strategies. After that, the next section will comprise an analysis
Page | 278
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
of the comparison of Banjarese and Javanese complaint strategies. The following
table displays the situations from the DCT scenario and their social power variable:
Table 2. DCT Scenario
Situation
Topic
Social
Variable
1
Waitress spilling a drink on you
+D, +R
2
Complaining about working overtime to superior
-D, -R
3
Little brother being loud while you are on a phone
call
-D, +R
4
You get cut in line when queuing by an old man
+D, -R
5
Returning a shirt you have bought because there is
a hole in it
+D, +R
6
The child you are tutoring is ignoring you
-D, +R
7
Waiting over an hour for your superiors
+D, -R
8
Your mom went through your phone when you
were not around
-D, -R
Banjarese Complaint Strategies
The data that was gathered in the discourse completion task from Banjarese
participants were calculated together to achieve the overall strategies that were
used. Table 3 displays the frequencies and percentage of complaint strategies that
were used by Banjarese participants. From Table 1, it is seen that there is a
significant variation in the use of complaint strategies in accordance with the
situation that the participant faces.
Table 3. Banjarese Complaint Strategies
Strategies
Situation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
OP
F
0
2
0
3
0
0
1
2
P
0%
8%
0%
12%
0%
0%
4%
8%
DS
F
20
1
4
6
1
6
16
1
P
80%
4%
16%
24%
4%
24%
64%
4%
IN
F
0
5
0
3
0
4
6
10
P
0%
20%
0%
12%
0%
16%
24%
40%
AC
F
0
6
0
8
0
9
1
8
P
0%
24%
0%
32%
0%
36%
4%
32%
RR
F
5
10
20
5
24
4
1
4
P
20%
40%
80%
20%
96%
16%
4%
16%
TH
F
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
P
0%
4%
4%
0%
0%
8%
0%
0%
Page | 279
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
Situation 1
In situation 1, dissatisfaction (DS) was the most used strategy (80%), with
participant expressing their complaint without blaming the waitress explicitly.
Request for repair (RR) was used in 20% of the data, with expressing for
compensation or solution from the waitress or the restaurant. There is no opting out
(OP), interrogation (IR), accusation (AC), or threat (TH) strategy used by the
Banjarese participant in this situation.
“inggih kadapapa, kena-kena hati-hati lagi pian lah”. [it’s okay, next time
be more careful.] (DS)
“Ay... kenapa mas? Kyp ne baju ulun jadi basah nah?” [Hey...what’s wrong
with you? What to do? My clothes are now wet.] (RR)
Situation 2
Request for repair (RR) strategy was used the most in this situation (40%),
with participant wanting a reduction in their working hour. Accusation (AC) was
used in 24% of the data, with blaming the boss for their working situation.
Interrogation (IR) and opting out (OP), respectively, were used in 20% and 8% of
the data, while dissatisfaction (DS) was used in 4% of the data. Lastly, threat (TH)
was also rarely used (4%).
“Jadi kaya ini pa ai, Kawakah jam kerja tepat haja buliknya? Lapah jua mun
bulik jam 1 tarus.” [So how it’s going to be sir? Can I go home on time? It’s
exhausting to always go home at 1 am.] (RR)
“Ulun kada kawa sampai jam 1 pa.” [Sir, I can’t work till 1 am.] (AC)
Situation 3
In this situation, a request for repair (RR) was the most common (80%)
strategy found, suggesting a wish to end the disturbance. Dissatisfaction (DS) was
utilised in 16% of cases. Threat was used one time (4%), whereas accusation (AC)
and interrogation (IR) were not employed at all. Opting Out (OP) was also not
observed in this situation.
“Kawa kah jangan ribut, ini lagi betelponan nah.” [Can you not be so loud,
I’m on the phone right now] (RR)
Page | 280
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
“Oyyyy, Badiam pang ikm jngn kuriak-kuriak aku nih brtelponan nah lwan
kwan ku kd kadangaran lagi suaranya aur mandangar ikm ha kuriak-kuriak
Kada jelas kd supan lah di dangar ka subalah rumah.” [hey, can you shut
up? Don’t be so loud, I’m on the phone right now, and I can’t hear anything
but your shouting nonsense. Are you not embarrassed being heard by the
neighbour.] (RR)
Situation 4
Accusation (AC) strategy was used the most (32%), demonstrating a
preference to explicitly accuse the offender. Dissatisfaction (DS) was utilised in
24% of cases, followed by request for repair (RR) in 20%. Meanwhile, interrogation
(IR) and opting out (OP) were both used in 12% of the cases. Threat (TH) was not
utilised at all in this situation.
“Antri Paman ae, yang lain lawas jua dah mehadang, kada pian haja.” [You
have to queue, Sir; others have been waiting for a long time too, not just
you.] (AC)
“Kayanya pian harus baantri dahulu di belakang.” [it seems like you have
to queue from the back.] (DS)
Situation 5
Request for repair (RR) strategy was highly prevalent in this situation,
accounting for 96% of all data, and it indicated a strong desire to either repair or
replace objects that were damaged. In this particular circumstance, there is no
evidence of the use of interrogation (IR), accusation (AC), or opting out (OP)
strategy. In 4% of cases, dissatisfaction (DS) is used, but threat (TH) is not seen
under any circumstances.
“Mas kawakah behurup, soalnya bajunya nih balubang. ulun masih ada pang
nah struk nya”. [Sir, can I trade this shirt, there is a hole in it, I still have the
receipt] (RR)
“Semalam bajunya kada taitihi ternyata ada luwang dikainnya. Kaya apa
baiknya?”. [yesterday I didn’t check the shirt and turns out there is a hole in
it. What should be done?] (RR)
Situation 6
The most common strategy used (36%) was accusation (AC), suggesting a
propensity to place the responsibility on the child. Interrogation (IR) was employed
Page | 281
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
in 16% of cases, and dissatisfaction (DS) was employed in 24% of cases. Opting
out (OP) was not observed in any situations; Request for repair (RR) and threat
(TH) were utilised in 16% and 8% of cases, respectively.
“Nah loooo, makanya am mun diajari tu liati, nih asik sorang, lagi ja.”
[See…this is why when you are being taught you have to concentrate, now
you are just having fun by yourself] (AC)
“Ayo perhatiakan, kena dapat nol dimamai kuitan ikam pulang hakun lah?”
[hey focus…you are going to get zero on your test and get yelled at by your
mom, do you want that?] (TH)
Situation 7
Dissatisfaction (DS) strategy was used most frequently (64%), indicating
dissatisfaction without direct blame. Interrogation (IR) and Accusation (AC) were
used in 24% and 4% of cases, respectively, while Request for repair (RR) and opting
out (OP) were used in 4%. Threat (TH) was not used.
“maaf sebelumnya pa lah, ulun sudah ada janji betamuan lawan pian
mungkin pian kada ingat”. [I’m sorry sir, I have an appointment with you
maybe you don’t remember] (DS)
“Karena ulun ada jadwal lain dan sudah cukup lama menunggu pian, kita
jadwalkan lain kali aja kak ya, besok atau lusa”. [because I have another
appointment and waited for you long enough, can we reschedule tomorrow
or the day after tomorrow] (RR)
Situation 8
Interrogation (IR) was used most frequently (40%), indicating a desire to know the
reason behind the offence. Accusation (AC) and request for repair (RR) were used
in 32% and 16% of cases, respectively, while dissatisfaction (DS) was used in 4%
of cases. Opting out (OP) was also used in 8% of cases, and threat (TH) was not
seen.
“Ma maka sudah ulun padahi semalam hp ulun jangan pian buka-buka, anak
ni ganal dah ulun beisi privasi jua kada mau lalu pian nih mendangarakan
apa jar ulun”. [Mom, I already told you don’t open my phone, I’m already
an adult, I have privacy and you don’t listen what I am saying to you] (AC)
“Mama nih napa membuka hp ulun, urang bila handak membuka bepadah
ja kadapapa ai, jangan asal buka ja ulun gin bisi privasi”. [Mom, what are
Page | 282
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
you doing with my phone? If you want to see it you can just asked me, don’t
just open it…I also have privacy] (IR)
Overall, the complaint strategies that the Banjarese participants utilised the
most were request for repair (RR) and dissatisfaction (DS). This indicates the
preference of the speakers for finding a solution or stating their dissatisfaction
without directly blaming or threatening the other person. Accusation (AC) and
interrogation (IR) were also used frequently, especially in situations where it was
more confrontative. In contrast, opting out (OP) and threat (TH) were rarely used,
which shows that Banjarese participants tend to avoid strategies that are too passive
or aggressive.
Javanese Complaint Strategies
The result from the Discourse Completion Task of the Javanese participants
yielded multiple strategies that were utilised. Table 4 shows the result in terms of
the frequency and percentage of strategies used in every situation. After that, the
result from every situation was elaborated.
Table 4. Javanese Complaint Strategies
Strategies
Situation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
OP
F
1
2
0
0
3
0
1
1
P
4%
8%
0%
0%
12%
0%
4%
4%
DS
F
15
8
1
7
1
5
15
1
P
60%
32%
4%
28%
4%
20%
60%
4%
IN
F
4
2
1
2
1
3
8
13
P
16%
8%
4%
8%
4%
12%
32%
52%
AC
F
1
5
0
8
3
7
1
7
P
4%
20%
0%
32%
12%
28%
4%
28%
RR
F
3
8
22
8
17
4
0
3
P
12%
32%
88%
32%
68%
16%
0%
12%
TH
F
1
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
P
4%
0%
4%
0%
0%
24%
0%
0%
Situation 1
In the first situation, it was identified that 25 participants from Javanese
speakers utilise more diverse strategies. With 15 participants (60%) used
dissatisfaction (DS) strategy, meanwhile the rest were scattered with 4 participants
Page | 283
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
(16%) using interrogation (IN), 3 participants (12%) using request for repair (RR),
and 1 participant (4%) each used opting out (OP), accusation (AC), and threat (TH).
“YaAllah mbak/mas pie seh, ati-ati to, teles kan iki aku dadi e”. [Oh my
God, what are you doing, be careful, now I’m drenched] (DS)
“Hee mbok njalok tolong matamu loh gaween, ojok mbok delek dengkul.
Ngene Iki terus yaopo, teles kebles, lengket kabeh, sapa seng tanggung
jawab” [Please use your eyes, don't put them on your knees. If it's like this,
it's soaked, it's all sticky, who's responsible.] (AC)
Situation 2
Dissatisfaction (DS) and request for repair (RR) strategies were both used
in 32% of the cases for the Javanese participants in situation 2, showing a desire to
express discontent and seek a solution. Meanwhile, accusation (AC) strategy was
used in 20% of the cases, interrogation (IN) and opting out (OP) each were used
two times (8%). Threat (TH) was not utilised at all in this situation.
“Ngapunten pak, mulai mbenjing kulo nedhi wangsul jam 10 dalu nggih
sesuai kesepakatan” [I apologize sir, starting tomorrow I want to go home
at 10 pm as agreed.] (DS)
“Iki o Pak, masalah jam mulehku. Awakdhewe kan sak iyo ne ki muleh jam
10 mbengi. Nanging mbendino agek iso muleh ki jam siji pak. Pripun
menurut Panjenengan solusi ne pak?” [This, you know, Sir, is the problem
with my home time. We're supposed to go home at 10 pm. But every day
we can only go home at 1 o'clock, Sir. What do you think is the solution,
Sir?] (RR)
Situation 3
In this situation, the request for repair (RR) strategy was predominately used
(88%), indicating a strong desire to end the distraction. Dissatisfaction (DS) and
interrogation (IN) were used in 4% of the cases. Threat (TH) was also found in 4%
of the cases. There was no application of opting out (OP) or accusation (AC)
strategy in this situation.
Dek ra sero sero le omongan rasah bengok bengok alon alon wae”.
[Brother/sister, don't speak loudly, don't shout, take it easy.] (RR)
Page | 284
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
“Heee mulutmu isa diem nggak, bengak-bengok ae koyok gak tonggone gak
onok kupinge ae”. [Hey, can you keep your mouth shut keep shouting like
the neighbour has no ears.] (TH)
Situation 4
Accusation (AC) and request for repair (RR) were both used most
frequently, with eight times (32%) indicating a tendency to directly accuse the
offence and for them to fix the offence. Dissatisfaction (DS) was used in 28% of
the cases. Interrogation (IN) was used in 8% of cases, while Opting Out (OP) and
Threat (TH) were not seen.
“Pak, ngapunten, kula wis antri mriki dhisik. Bapak tulung antri nggih,
merga kulo dhisik an.” [Sir, I’m sorry, but I’ve queued first. Sir, please
queue up because I went first.] (RR)
“loh pak, ngantri pak. yeknopo njenengan niki nyalip2”. [hey sir, queue sir.
why are you barging around.] (IN)
Situation 5
Request for Repair (RR) was highly dominant in this situation (68%),
indicating a strong desire to return or replace the damaged item. Accusation (AC)
and opting out (OP) were used in 12% of cases each. Dissatisfaction (DS) and
interrogation (IN) were in 4% of cases each, and threat (TH) was not seen.
“Mbak/mas, wingi aku tuku klambi tapi kok bolong mburine, iso diijolke
ora mbak/mas?” [ma’am/sir, yesterday I bought clothes but how come there
is a hole in the back, can you exchange them?] (RR)
“Mbak/mas iki wingi aku tuku klambi nak kene, pas sampe omah tak delok
lah kok onok bolongan e ngene” [Ma’am/sir yesterday I bought clothes here
when I got home, I saw there was a hole like this.] (AC)
Situation 6
Accusation (AC) was used most frequently (28%), suggesting a tendency to
blame the child. Dissatisfaction (DS) and request for repair (RR) were used in 20%
and 16% of cases, respectively. Interrogation (IN) was used in 12% of cases while
opting out (OP) was not seen. Threat (TH) was used in 24% of cases, which is quite
significant compared to other situations.
Page | 285
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
“Dek nek sinau ki sing fokus ora disambi garap liyane ben cepet isoh gek
ben rampung ben pinter juga” [Dek, if you study, focus on it, don't do other
things while doing it so that you can finish quickly and get smarter too.]
(AC)
“Mesti arek Iki rek mbuencekno, terusno kelakuanmu, suwe-suwe aku
ngajari maneh, jarno cek mamamu ngomel, urusono dewekan” [This
child…keep acting up, it’s useless to keep teaching you, if your mom yelled
at you, that’s your problem.] (TH)
Situation 7
Dissatisfaction (DS) was predominantly utilised in situation 6 (60%),
denoting dissatisfaction without direct blame. Interrogation (IN) was used in 32%
of cases while opting out (OP) and accusation (AC) in 4% of cases each. There was
no use of request for repair (RR) or Threat (TH) strategy.
“sepurane pak sampean neng dalan macet opo mampir sek kok suwe men
wes tak tunggu sak jam an ee hahaha”. [I’s sorry sir, is there a traffic or do
you stop by first, it’s taking so long, I’ve been waiting for an hour hahaha.]
(AC)
“Mas/Mbak, aku wingi sudah menghubungi sampean. Ora iling ta
mas/mbak? aku ngenteni ndek kene wis 1 jam gawe ketemu karo sampean”
[Sir/ma’am, I contacted you yesterday. Don't you remember? I've been
waiting here for an hour to meet you.] (IN)
Situation 8
Interrogation (IN) was used most frequently (52%), which demonstrates the
desire to know the reason behind the violation. Accusation (AC) and request for
repair (RR) were used in 28% and 12% of cases, respectively. Dissatisfaction (DS)
and opting out (OP) were used in 4% of cases each. There was no application of
threat (TH) in this situation.
“Bu, kulo iki wes gedhe. Kulo yo ora gelem yen Ibu buka buka hp ku. Aku
wis ngomong karo ibu kan lek aku iki ora seneng. Ojo maneh yo Bu”
[BMom, I'm an adult. I don't want you to go through my cell phone. I already
told you that I don't like it. Don't do it again mom.] (AC)
“Nyapo buk? Kui kan hp ku, privasi. Ojo dibuka” [Why mom? It's my
phone, it's private. Don't open it.] (IN)
Page | 286
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
The result from the DCT by Javanese speakers suggests that, for the most
part, Javanese speakers employed request for repair (RR) and dissatisfaction (DS)
strategy in conveying their complaint. Accusation (AC) and interrogation (IN) were
also regularly used; while opting out (OP) and threat (TH) were seldom utilised.
Similarities and Differences between Banjarese and Javanese Complaint
Strategies
Figure 1. Overall Distribution of Complaint Strategies
The overall result revealed both similarities and differences in how
Banjarese and Javanese participants use the complaint strategy. Each group shows
the same tendency toward frequently used strategies, with requests for repair (RR)
and dissatisfaction (DS) dominating. These strategies were utilised by Banjarese
participants, who used RR in 36% of cases and DS in 27%, while Javanese
participants used RR in 32.5% of cases and DS in 26.5% of cases. This
demonstrates that both groups have a tendency to find solutions or state their
dissatisfaction without directly blaming the offender, which shows an approach that
is more diplomatic and solution-driven.
In contrast, the threat (TH) strategy was implemented in only 2% and 4%
of cases among Banjarese and Javanese participants, respectively. This is due to the
fact that both cultures prioritise harmony and prefer to prevent direct conflicts.
While opting out (OP), strategy was employed in 4% of the cases. This result is in
a similar line to previous research where there is substantial utilisation reduction at
4%
27.50%
14%
16%
36.50%
2%
4%
26.50%
17%
16%
32.50%
4%
OP DS IN AC RR TH
Banjarese Javanese
Page | 287
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
both extremes of the scale and a noticeable curve in the middle, which were found
in similar results of the most and least strategy that was employed from other
cultures and languages (Chen et al., 2011; Olshtain & Weinbach, 1987).
The accusation (AC) strategy was employed by both groups in
approximately equal quantities (16%), which was indicative of their similarity. This
suggests that the Banjarese and Javanese participants will only attribute direct
blame to the other party when it is deemed necessary. The following are illustrated:
situation 4, where an individual cuts in line; situation 6, where the efforts of
participants are disregarded; and situation 8, where their privacy is violated. All of
these situations are direct slights to the participant, prompting them to explicitly
complain.
Nevertheless, Banjarese possesses their own distinctive complaint strategies
that are indicative of their cultural heritage and social status, in contrast to Javanese.
This is evident in situation 3, in which the participant is disturbed by the little sister
during a phone call. The Banjarese employ the RR strategy at a percentage of 88%,
while the Javanese employ the DS strategy at a percentage of 60%. As a result, it is
evident that Banjarese typically requests immediate action, in contrast to Javanese,
who initially convey their dissatisfaction.
In essence, despite the fact that Banjarese and Javanese participants
employed complaint strategies in similar manners, there are significant differences
in certain situations. While Javanese participants usually voice their displeasure or
ask for explanations first, Banjarese participants are usually more forthright in their
questions. Therefore, it highlights the unique social and cultural norms that guide
the way that each group settles conflicts and grievances.
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
The results of this research indicate that Banjarese and Javanese individuals
typically employ the same complaint strategies, namely dissatisfaction (DS) and
request for repair (RR). The extensive utilisation of this strategy demonstrates the
inclination to identify solutions and grievances that will not provoke the individual
Page | 288
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
with whom one is conversing, a behaviour that is indicative of the diplomatic and
polite societal norms of the Banjarese and Javanese. In particular, Banjarese
participants utilised 36% RR and 27% DS, while Javanese participants utilised
32.5% RR and 26.5% DS. Both groups exhibit a low utilisation of threat (TH)
strategy, with Banjarese employing 2% and Javanese employing 4%. This also
suggests a desire to preserve harmony. Furthermore, accusation (AC) was applied
only in cases whereby the complainee clearly offended the participant. The research
highlighted differences among Javanese and Banjarese participants. When slighted,
the Banjarese participant would typically seek rapid reparations or recompense,
while the Javanese participant would prefer to express their annoyance first. The
results of the research demonstrate how profoundly cultural context shapes
communication and complaint strategies.
REFERENCES
Al-Khawaldeh, N. (2016). A Pragmatic Cross-Cultural Study of Complaints
Expressions in Jordan and England. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics and English Literature, 5(5).
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.5p.197
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words: The William James Lectures
delivered at Harvard University in 1955 (2. ed). Clarendon Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics:
Requests and apologies. Ablex Publ.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, Y., Chen, C. D., & Chang, M.-H. (2011). American and Chinese complaints:
Strategy use from a cross-cultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics,
8(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.012
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Sixth edition, international
student edition). Sage.
Edmondson, W. J., & House, J. (1981). Let’s talk, and talk about it: A pedagogic
interactional grammar of English. Urban u. Schwarzenberg.
El-Dakhs, D. A. S., & Ahmed, M. M. (2021). A variational pragmatic analysis of
the speech act of complaint focusing on Alexandrian and Najdi Arabic.
Journal of Pragmatics, 181, 120–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.023
Page | 289
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
Guillot, M.-N. (2019). Subtitling’s cross-cultural expressivity put to the test: A
cross-sectional study of linguistic and cultural representation across
Romance and Germanic languages. Multilingua, 38(5), 505–528.
https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2018-0116
House, J., & Kádár, D. Z. (2020). T/V pronouns in global communication practices:
The case of IKEA catalogues across linguacultures. Journal of
Pragmatics, 161, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.03.001
House, J., & Kádár, D. Z. (2021). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics (1st ed.). Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954587
Huang, Y. (2014). Pragmatics (Second edition). Oxford University Press.
Iwaniec, J. (2020). Questionnaires: Implications for effective implementation. In J.
McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods
in applied linguistics (pp. 324–335). Routledge.
Kaharuddin, A. (2020). The Speech Act of Complaint: Socio-Cultural Competence
Used by Native Speakers of English and Indonesian (SSRN Scholarly
Paper 3631504). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3631504
Kasper, G. (2008). Data Collection in Pragmatics Research. In H. Spencer-Oatey
(Ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory
(2. ed). Continuum.
Kecskes, I. (2016). Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Pragmatics (Y. Huang, Ed.;
Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.29
Kim, H., Sefcik, J. S., & Bradway, C. (2017). Characteristics of Qualitative
Descriptive Studies: A Systematic Review. Research in Nursing & Health,
40(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21768
Matsukawa, C. (2024). A Contrastive Pragmatics Study of Invitations in British
English and Japanese. https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10113
Moon, K. (2002). Speech act study: Differences between native and nonnative
speaker complaint strategies [Report]. TESOL, College of Arts and
Sciences, American University. https://doi.org/10.17606/M6SW91
Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1987). A study of speech act behavior among native
and non-native speakers of Hebrew: 10. Complaints. In J. Verschueren &
M. Bertuccelli Papi (Eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected papers
from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference (p. 195). John
Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.5.15ols
Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage Features of the Speech Act of
Complaining. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage
pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Page | 290
Rifda Fakhira
LET: Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching Journal Vol. 14 No. 2 2024
Prykarpatska, I. (2008). Why are you late?: Cross-cultural pragmatic study of
complaints in American English and Ukrainian. Revista Alicantina de
Estudios Ingleses, 21, 87. https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2008.21.05
Rodriguez, A. (2022). Complaining. In F. Brisard, S. D’hondt, P. Gras, & M.
Vandenbroucke (Eds.), 25th annual installment. John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Salim, H. (1996). Islam Banjar, Relasi Antar Etnik, dan Pembangunan. Dalam Tim
Redaksi DIAN, Kisah Dari Kampung Halaman: Masyarakat Suku, Agama
Resmi Dan Pembangunan, Yogyakarta: DIAN/INTERFIDEI.
Trosborg, A. (2011). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and
Apologies. Walter de Gruyter.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human
interaction (2. ed). Mouton de Gruyter.
Yang, H. (2016). A Cross-cultural Study of Complaint Strategies by Chinese and
British University Students. Proceedings of the 2016 International
Conference on Education, E-Learning and Management Technology.
2016 International Conference on Education, E-learning and Management
Technology, Xi’an, China. https://doi.org/10.2991/iceemt-16.2016.41
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. OUP Oxford.
