Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

Complaints as Positive Strategies: What the Learner Needs to Know

Author(s): Diana Boxer
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Summer, 1993), pp. 277-299
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587147 .
Accessed: 23/06/2014 12:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TESOL QUARTERLYVol.27, No.2, Summer1993

Complaintsas PositiveStrategies:
WhattheLearnerNeedstoKnow
DIANA BOXER
ofFlorida
University

This studyis an analysisof thespeechact sequenceof indirectcom-

plaint/commiseration in conversationalinteractionsbetweenJapa-
nese learnersof Englishas a second language and theirEnglish-
speakingpeers.An indirectcomplaint(IC) is definedas theexpres-
about oneselfor someone/something
sion of dissatisfaction thatis
not present.It differsfroma directcomplaintin thattheaddressee
is neitherheld responsiblenor capable of remedyingthe perceived
offense.Data froma largerstudyon ICs amongnativespeakers(NSs)
showed thatICs are frequently employedas positivestrategiesfor
the purpose of establishingpointsof commonality. The focushere
viewof IC responsesby NSs and Japaneselearners.
is a contrastive
Consequences of nonsubstantive, noncommiserative responseson
the partof thelearnersare exploredin lightof missedopportunities
forsustainedinteraction thatcan lead to increasedopportunities
for
of
negotiation meaning in the L2.

of English need to be aware that there are ways of inter-

Learners
actingorallywithnativespeakersthatwillenhancetheirabilityto
to
get know and develop relationshipswithEnglish-speaking peers.
Such knowledgecan be importantnot only in decreasinglearners'
senseof alienationin a foreigncountrybutalso in providingthemwith
an opportunityto communicatemore in theirL2 in general,thereby
increasingcomprehensionof inputthroughnegotiatedinteraction.
The termnegotiated interaction
is used here in twosenses.First,from
theperspectiveof sociolinguists interestedin secondlanguageacquisi-
tion,it is viewedas a meanstowardtheconstruction of socialrelation-
ships. Second, from the perspective of L2 acquisitionresearchers,
negotiatedinteractionhas to do withexchangesbetweennativeand
nonnativespeakersin whichtheyworktowardmutualcomprehension
throughtheirjoint effortsat modifying theirinputand output(Pica,
Holliday, Lewis, & Morgenthaler,1989). It is positedthatthereis a
directlinkbetweentheabilitytocarryon a sustainedsequentialinterac-

277

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tion and increasedopportunitiesfor negotiatedinteractionin which
nonnativespeakers (NNSs) signal theirneed for and receive input
adjusted to theircurrent'level of L2 comprehension.This in turn
provideslearnerswith(a) opportunitiesto receivefeedbackon the
comprehensibility and appropriatenessof theirinterlanguageoutput;
(b) opportunities modifythephonological,morphosyntactic,
to lexical,
pragmatic,and discoursefeaturesof theirinterlanguagein response
to nativespeaker(NS) requestsforgreatercomprehensibility; and (c)
opportunities to further sequential interaction with NS peers through
more nativelikeand appropriatelanguage use. The importantpoint
here is the distinction betweensequentialand negotiatedinteraction:
Sequentialinteraction refers to the smooth,sustainedprogressionof
discoursein whicha successfulsocial exchangebetweenlearnersand
interlocutors is realized;negotiated interactionreferstotherestructuring
of discourseuntilmutualunderstandingis reached(T. Pica, personal
communication, 1989). Successfulsequencingcan createsolidarity with
otherspeakers which can for
open up opportunities negotiation, com-
prehensionof unfamiliarL2 input,and interlanguagemodification.
Similarly,experiencesinnegotiatedinteraction can lead toan increased
of
sense rapport between learners and NS interlocutors who are able
to help NNSs communicate in a more targetlike/appropriate manner
in theirL2.
This paper focuseson conversational interactions betweenJapanese
learnersof English and their U.S. counterparts. For all learnersof
Englishas a secondlanguage, and particularly for those whose L1 rules
of speakingdiffergreatly from those of the L2, the knowledgeof how
to employsolidarity-establishing speech behavior with NS peers is at
the rootof successfulsequential interactions.
In cross-cultural interactionsin Englishbetweenspeakersof U.S.
Englishand speakersofJapanese,a particulartypeof problemarises.
When the nativeEnglishspeakersworkto establishsolidarity through
rapport-inspiring speech behavior,theyfrequently do notreceivethe
typesof responsesthatallow for a sustainedsequentialinteraction.
This resultis, by and large,a consequenceof repeatedbackchannel
responses(e.g., uh huh)on the partof Japaneseinterlocutors thatdo
not ultimately lead to more substantiveresponses.
Recentstudieson backchannelingbehaviorhave looked at specific
cross-cultural interactionsto examine the differencesin functionsof
backchannelsbetweenthe twosocietiesand the repercussionsof such
differencesin conversationalsatisfaction. Maynard(1986) and White
(1989) studiedconversationsbetweenU.S. and Japanese speakersin
order to ascertainthe frequencyand functionsof backchanneling
behavior.Both foundbackchannelsto be muchmorefrequentamong
Japanese than U.S. interlocutors.Japanese interactants,Maynard

278 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
noted,"possessa strongindicationformutualmonitoring and coopera-
tion"(p. 1104).
Based on her ConversationalStaisfaction Inventorygivento NSs of
English, White (1989) concludes that "American speakersperceived
Japanese listenerswho gave more backchannelsthanotherJapanese
as showingmoreencouragement, concern,and interest."Whitestates,
"in conversation,the fear of deviatingfromthe speaker'sviewpoint
and the eagerness to anticipate,understand,and accommodatethe
other'sidea may,in part,be demonstrated bythefrequency withwhich
theJapanese listenerinterjectswitha backchannel"(p. 67).
Research specifically focusingon Japanese women'slanguage use
(e.g., Lebra, 1984; Lebra, Paulston,& Powers, 1976; Smith, 1992;
Wetzel,1988) points to theapparentfactthatempathyis rankedhigh
and thatfrequentbackchannelsbyJapanesewomenindicateempathy.
Smith(1992), in discussingLebra's as wellas herown observationsof
traditionalspeech stylesof Japanese women,notes that"modestyin
speech" entails"reticence,softnessof voice,a politeor femininestyle
of speech" (p. 62).
There are onlysporadichintsin theliterature thatbackchannelsare
insufficient responses under certain circumstances.Schegloff(1982)
noted thatperhaps the mostcommonuse of backchannelsis when a
listenerwishesto acknowledgethat"an extendedunitof talkis under-
waybyanother,and thatitis notyet,or maynotyetbe ... complete"
(p. 81). As such,backchanneling responsesshowa willingness todecline
to produce a fullerturnat talkat a specificjuncture.Schegloffnotes
thatfouror fiverepeatedbackchannelsin a rowmayhintat disinterest
on the part of an addressee. When backchannelingmoves are em-
ployed in abundance or in successionand withoutothersubstantive
responses,theyfrequently discouragea speakerfromcontinuedtalk.
This has also been notedby Westand Garcia (1988), who state:"talk
on some topic-in-progress mayalso be extinguishedthroughconversa-
tionalists'lack of verbal activity"(p. 556). West and Garcia (1988)
call these moves "acknowledgement tokens"and statethattheycan
"discourage the continuation of talk on a topicin progressand thus
provide a warrant fortopicchange" (p. 556).
It is part of the communicative competenceof NSs to know how
to employrapport-inspiring speech actsand appropriate,substantive
responses in an effort to achieve a furtherinteraction.Examples of
rapport-inspiring speech acts are compliments, expressionsof grati-
and
tude, invitations, apologies, to name a few. A considerablebody
of researchon these speech acts has alreadybeen carriedout by a
groupof scholarsinterestedin theconnectionbetweensociolinguistics
and TESOL (see, e.g., Beebe & Takahashi,1989; Beebe, Takahashi,&
Uliss-Weltz,1985; Blum-Kulka,1982; Blum-Kulka,Danet,& Gherson,

COMPLAINTS AND COMMISERATION 279

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1985; Cohen & Olshtain, 1981; Olshtain,1983; Olshtain& Cohen,
1983, 1987; Eisenstein& Bodman, 1986; Wolfson,1978, 1979, 1981;
Wolfson,D'Amico-Reisner,& Huber, 1983).
The presentstudylooks specifically at a speech act sequence thatis
oftenoverlookedas a potentialsolidarity-establishing/rapport-inspir-
ingspeechbehavior.The focushereis on a typeof negativeevaluation
termedtheindirect complaint(IC). A negativeevaluationis a speechact
thatevaluatessomepersonor situationthrougha statement thatcarries
a negativesemanticload. An IC is definedas theexpressionof dissatis-
factionto an addressee about oneselfor someone/something thatis
notpresent.It differsfroma directcomplaintin thatthe addresseeis
neitherheld responsiblenor capable of remedyingthe perceivedof-
fense(Boxer, 1991). The following are examplesof directand indirect
complaints.
Direct Complaint

1. A is a malecustomer in restaurant;
B is a malewaiter:
A: Excuseme,I didn'tordermyhamburger welldone.Thisisfarfrom
mediumrare.
B: Sorry.We'lltryagain,butitwilltakea fewminutes.
Whereasit maybe the cook here who is ultimately responsible,the
addressee, the is
waiter, the of
partycapable remedyingthe offense.
IndirectComplaint

2. Two malefriends:
A: I'll tellya,NewYorkis terrible!
B: It'sa zoo. Insane.
Whereas both directand indirectcomplaintshave the potentialof
leading to lengthyinteractionsbetweenspeaker and addressee, it is
generallyonlyin the indirectcomplaintthatone findsconversational
materialupon whichshared beliefsand attitudesmaybe expressed.
Directcomplaints,by virtueof the factthattheyconfrontthe party
thatis eitherresponsibleforor capable of remedyingthe perceived
offense,are typically
face-threatening acts(Brown& Levinson,1978).
Whereas some research has already been carriedout on complaints,
fewof themare published. These studies have,byand large,focused
on directcomplaining and on the complaintsthemselvesratherthan
on theresponses to them and theentire speechevent
troubles-sharing
a
of whichICs are part. Studies of directcomplaints a confronta-
as
tionalspeechacthave been carriedout bothon native-English-speaker
behavior(see D'Amico-Reisner,1985; Rader, 1977; Schaefer,1982)

280 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and otherlanguagesand/orcross-cultural
interactions
(see De Capua,
1987, on comparisons of U.S. and German complainingbehavior;
Giddens,1981,on complaintsin Spanish;Olshtain& Weinbach,1987,
on complaintsin Englishvs. Hebrew).
As for complaints addressed to a party not responsible for the per-
ceived offense,Katriel (1985) looked at Israeli "griping" rituals;Jeffer-
son (1984) and Jefferson and Lee (1981) studied "troubles-telling"
encounters from a conversation analysis point of view. These studies
make reference to the potential of establishingsolidaritythrough the
griping/troubles-tellingencounter. To date, however, there appears to
be no existing research on either type of complaining activityamong
speakersof Japanese.
Indirect complaint sequences do not always function as rapport-
inspiringspeech interactions.Boxer (1991) showed thatapproximately
25% of IC sequences served to distance the interlocutorsfrom each
other. Notwithstanding,fully75% of ICs were found to be rapport-
inspiringby a group of 10 native-English-speaking
raters.The study
found that speakers of English frequentlyemployed ICs in sequential
interaction in an attempt to establish solidarity.An example of how
this occurs can be seen in the following three sequences:

3. Three femaleinterlocutors. A and C are doctoralstudents.B is their

dissertationadvisor:
A: I'm depressedand also ratheranxious.You knowI just gotback to
work.
B: Oooh!
A: And I havebeen having,I thoughtI was havinga heartattack'cause
I was havingpains in the chest.
B: Oh myGod!
A: And whenI triedto exerciseitjust keptgettingworseand worse,I
couldn'tbreathe.
C: Is it anxietyyou think?
A: Well,finallyI said I thinkI should see a doctorand [her husband,
who is a doctor]said,"Well,where'sthepain?"and he said it'sstress
whichis causingesophageal irritation and take some antacids.
C: But you didn'tmanifestas a stomachdisorder,did you?
A: No, no. I didn't have any stomachproblems.It was rightin here
[pointsto her chest].
C: Heartburnlike.
A: No, pressure.And he said, you know,people who are havingheart
attacksgo like this[hand gestureon chest]when theyhave heart-
relatedpain. But people who go likethis[differenthand gestureon
chest].
C: That's interesting.
A: But it'sall partof,you know.

COMPLAINTS AND COMMISERATION 281

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 4. Followinga shortpause. The same interlocutors:
C: I came in yesterday.
B: Did you?
C: Yeah, I stayedhomewitha sickkiduntilnoon and [myhusband]got
home and toldme he was sick.I was goingto come hereand return
thesebooks.
Anyway,so I got the book, saw M [a classmate],talkedto her fora
fewminutes,ran to the library,took the booksout again and went
home. I was afraidof leaving.
A: Oh, sure.
C: A sickman witha childwithstrepthroat.
B: Sure.
A: God, that'sawful!
B: If he getsstrep,he's in bad shape.
A: Oh, that'sright.
C: Anyway,I felta littlestressedyesterday

5. Followinganothershortpause:
A: Days like thisare supposed to be sunnyand springyand warm.
B: That's right.And I spentyesterday in thehospitalgettingmyleg X-
rayed... and he says,"It's gonna be anothermonthbeforeyou're
walkingwithoutthe walker."
C: A month?
B: Yeah.
C: Hmn.
B: Because of howbad a breakitwas. He said,"Oh you'reso luckythat
you don't have a big lump here. Your bone could have .... "
C: That's supposed to make you feelbetter?
B: Yeah.
I'm tiredof the whole thing!I'm tiredof a brokenleg!
C: Boy, I can imaginehow thatmustfeel!

Each interlocutortook turns consecutively,withthe others offering

commiserations. The firstIC by speaker A in Sequence 3 was the
opener to health-related issues. The two addressees at this point took
her cue to relate a similarlynegative tale of physicalailments. Through
thisgive and take of ICs and commiserations,a rapport was established
that possibly brought the interlocutorscloser to each other by opening
up a more personal side to their relationship. This type of negotiation
of relationships was found in the NS study to be a heavily female
phenomenon.
For learners of English, particularlythose whose sociocultural norms
differ greatly in the use/nonuse of troubles-tellingspeech behavior,
attaining an awareness of how to achieve such a sense of solidaritycan
lead to increased opportunities for negotiated interaction. It is now
widely believed that communicative competence should be the goal of

282 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
languagelearningand teaching(Canale, 1983; Paulston,1974; Rivers,
1973; Savignon,1972; Wolfson,1989). Learningto performspeech
actsand to appropriately respondin theflowof discourseis an impor-
tantpartof achievingcommunicative competence.Beforewe can know
how best to apply findingsfromNS studieson speech acts,we need
data on whatspecificgroupsof learnersare doing regardingspeech
act realization.
Sociolinguisticstudies over the past severalyears have begun to
providesuchinformation (see,e.g.,specificstudieson pragmatictrans-
ferbetweenJapanese and English:Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Taka-
hashi& Beebe, 1987). These studieshave begunto showtheproblems
thatJapanesespeakersof Englishhave in conversation withNS peers.
Regarding ICs, however,aside from impressionisticobservationsthat
NS teachersmayhave providedtheirstudents,thereis an absenceof
systematic information on how theyare used,whattheresponseslook
like,and the social strategiesentailed.

METHOD

Data fortwostudieson ICs are describedhere: (a) Brieflydiscussed

willbe findingson IC exchangesby NSs in conversationwithother
NSs. (b) Data on NSs fromthesamespeechcommunity in conversation
withJapaneselearnerswillbe describedin detail.For thissecond part,
the centralresearchquestionis the following:What are the waysin
whichJapaneseNNSs, as opposed to U.S. NSs, responded to ICs in the
flowof discoursein English,and whatare theconsequencesof their
responsesforsustainedinteraction?
Conversationaldata used forthe NS/NSportionof the studywere
takenfromspontaneousspeechthatwaseitheraudiotapedor recorded
in theformof fieldnotes.The NS/NSdata consistsof 533 IC exchanges
within426 longer sequences recorded in and around a university
community.These conversations were transcribedand analyzedwith
to
respect types of IC of
themes,types responses, social distribution,
and social functions.Two hundredand ninety-five interlocutors were
recorded in spontaneousconversation,195 women and 100 men. A
wide varietyof speechsituationswas sampled.Approximately 95% of
the data was audiorecorded,mostof it in homes,in restaurants, and
in studentloungesor classroomsat theuniversity.
Sequences recorded
in the formof fieldnotes were,by and large,overheardby the re-
searcheras an eavesdropperratherthan as a participant.
In additionto the recordingof spontaneousspeech in variousset-
tingsin the community, judgmentsfromnative-English-speaking in-

COMPLAINTS AND COMMISERATION 283

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
formantswho were not recordedin conversationwere used to aid in
categorizations forthosepartsof thestudyspecifically focusingon the
social functionsof ICs. Thus, categorizations were not solelycarried
out by the researcherbut were cross-codedby a group of 10 native
speakersfromthecommunity in ordertoachievemaximumreliability.
A second group of 10 native-speakinginformantstook part in an
ethnographicinterview.The specificpurpose of this interviewwas
to examine the norms of the community.As such, native-speaker
knowledgewasuncoveredin ordertocorroboratesomeof thefindings
emergingfromthe analysisof taped sequencesof conversation.
The findingsof the studyindicatedthatfemaleinterlocutors who
were status-equalfriends,acquaintances,or strangers(i.e., noninti-
mates)were the mostlikelyto employIC sequencesin whichsupport
was manifested.A partof the communicative competenceof native-
speaking women in the community studied was the abilityto use the
troubles-telling speech event to negotiate a sense of commonality with
theirinterlocutors.
For thepurposeof ascertainingtheuse of ICs in NS/NNSconversa-
tion,thelearnersstudiedwereparticipants in an ongoingconversation
at a
partnersprogram university Englishlanguageprogram.Ten Japa-
nese female studentsenrolled in the programwere audiotaped in
conversationalinteraction withtheirU.S. counterparts. All werein the
intermediateor advanced levelsof Englishplacement.
In the NS/NS portionof the earlierstudy,the threeindependent
variableswere genderof interlocutors, theirrelativesocialstatus,and
their social distance relationship. Relativesocialstatusis viewedhere in
a verticalsense; that of
is, higher or lower status.Socialdistance had to
of
do withthedegree friendship/intimacy between interlocutors along
a horizontalscale of social distance.Recall thatthe most important
findingof theNS studywas thatICs wereemployedas rapport-inspir-
ing speech acts mostoftenamong femalefriends,acquaintances,and
strangers,as the above sequences (3, 4, 5) and followingexample
illustrate:
6. A is a femalegraduatestudent;B is a library also a female
assistant,
graduatestudent.Theyknoweachotherbyfacebutnotbyname:
A: Theyneverhavewhatyouneedinhere!You'dthinkthey'datleast
havetheimportant booksand articles.
B: Theydidn'thavewhatyouwerelookingfor?
A: No.
B: That'stypical!

Throughsuchexclamationresponses,addresseessuchas theone in the

and commiseration
aboveexampleare able tosignaltheiridentification
witha speaker'scomplaint.

284 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The findingon the importanceof genderas a variablein IC use in
the NS studysuggestedthatit mightbe mostusefulto look at female
learnersinconversation withfemalenativespeakersfora cross-cultural
studyon IC use. As forsocialstatus,theparticipants werestatusequals
sincetheywereall of approximately equal age, educationallevel,and
socialclass.Regardingthesocialdistancerelationship, theparticipants
wereat firststrangers,eventually becomingacquaintancesand possibly
friends.
Thirty-ninehoursof NS/NNSconversation between10 setsof part-
ners were recordedand IC sequencestranscribedforthisportionof
the study,yielding223 IC exchanges.' Coding was cross-checkedby
the same 10 native-English-speaking informants as above (forthe NS/
NS data). Conversationswere recordedduringan average of 8 half-
hour meetingsover a period of 1 semester.Thus, the interlocutors
were virtualstrangersduringthefirstrecording,graduallybuildinga
relationshipat subsequentmeetings.
There are severalimportantpointsto be made about the designof
thisstudy.First,as is alwaysthe case withrecordedinteractions, it is
impossibleto accountfortheeffectsof therecordingon thequalityof
the interactions.
Second, one of the artifacts of analyzingthe talkof
conversationpartnersis thatthisis a speech eventdistinctfromthat
of everydayconversation. Finally,as inall casesof NS/NNSinteraction,
there is a confoundingof the social statusvariable,givinghigher
statusto the nativespeakerof the language used as the mediumof
conversation.Thus, despitethe apparentequalityof statusof the NS
and NNS interlocutors, thereis a statusdifferentialfavoringthenative
English speaker. In addition,althoughparticipationwas voluntary,
the subjectsmightnot have chosen to maintainalmost4 hours of
conversationwitheach otherunderordinarycircumstances. However,
one advantageof thissituationwas that,beingforcedto converse,the
speakershad to findthingsto talkaboutand weretherefore compelled
to get to knoweach other.This pointis importantgiventhe factthat
Japanese speakershave been foundto differgreatlyfromtheirU.S.
counterpartsin the amountof personalinformation disclosedduring
spontaneousconversation(Barnlund,1975).Giventheseobservations,
therewere anticipateddifferences in IC use and responses.

Althoughonly 10 setsof NS/NNS conversationpartnerswere studied,the totalnumberof

hours of conversationrecorded forthe partnerswas approximatelydouble the totalhours
in the NS/NS study.Nonetheless,the NS/NS studyyieldedmore than twicethe numberof
IC exchanges.

COMPLAINTS AND COMMISERATION 285

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FINDINGS
NS/NS responses

The mannerin whichthe addressee respondsto an IC can signifi-

cantlypromotefurtherinteraction.That is to say,dependingon the
typeof responseelicited,thecomplaintsequencecan affirmor reaffirm
solidarityamong the or
interlocutors alienatethem fromeach other.
The implicationfor learnersis thatif one wishesto accomplishthe
former-that is, establishsome commonalitywiththe speaker--the
addresseewillneed to knowhowto respondto ICs whentheyare used
as conversationalopeners and supporters.
Six typesof IC responsesemergedas major categoriesof waysin
which NSs in this universitycommunity responded to indirect com-
plaints.Table 1 provides three typesof information:(a) The first
column indicates overall percentages of each response type in the
corpus. (b) The second column indicates the percentages of female
responses to female ICs for each response type. (c) The third column
indicates the percentages of male responses to male ICs for each re-
sponse type. Examples follow.
TABLE 1
Percentages of NS IC Responses

NS/NS IC NS/NS NS/NS

Response type responses Female responses Male responses

Joking/teasing 6.47 4.38 6.73

Nonsubstantivereply 6.67 6.77 2.88
Question 12.16 10.36 24.04
Advice/lecture 14.12 10.36 16.35
Contradiction 15.29 11.16 17.31
Commiseration 45.29 56.97 32.69

Joking/Teasing
7. A is a femalegraduatestudent;B is a femaleofficeworker:
A: How are ya doin B?
B: Oh, not so great. I can't findS. Maybe she told me she was doing
somethingthismorningand I don't remember.
A: You're gettingold!

NonsubstantiveReply

8. Overheard in a dentist'soffice.A is a femaleemployee;B is a male

patient:

286 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A: They keep tearingdownthosehistoricalbuildings.If one supermar-
ket went up in that location,who's to say ... maybe if it were
somethingelse altogether,but when theyreplace it withthe same
thing...
B: Hmn (nods head repeatedly).
A: So you have the summeroff?

Question
9. Two femalegraduatestudents:
A: I was up all nightwithC [A's daughter].
B: What'swrong?
A: She's had thishackingcough,and it's gottenworse.So I'm gonna
take her to the doctor.
B: You know,M [B's daughter]is home sicktodaytoo.
A: Why?
B: I'm not sure,she's stillsleeping.She's eitherexhaustedor caughta
chillor both.

Advice/Lecture

10. A is a male officeemployee;B is a femaleofficemanager:

A: This vacuum doesn'tpick up the littlepieces.
B: You probablyhave to put more pressureon it.
A: It stilldoesn'twork.

Contradiction

11. A is a male graduatestudent;B is a male lecturer:

A: This doesn'tfollowyourbasic economic,uh, theories.
B: It has to. I would have a fitif you said that.

Commiseration

12. Two femaleacquaintances:

A: Myhusbandis in Greecethisweek,so I'm packingmyself.Mostof
it is books and manuscripts.
B: Oh, that'sthe worst!
A: I told him thatafterthismove I'm nevermovingagain.
B: That's whatI said afterour lastone. It's tiring.
The six categories of responses to ICs in thisstudy demonstrate the
extreme variation in the possibilities for responding. Joking/Teasing
responses serve to make light of a situation. Nonsubstantive
responses
include null response, nonverbal backchannels, and verbal backchan-
nels in repeated succession without an ultimate response of another

COMPLAINTS AND COMMISERATION 287

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
category.This responsetypeusuallyindicatestheunwillingness of the
addressee to expressmutualconcern,at leastwithrespectto the topic
in question.When a nonsubstantive replyoccursas an IC response,it
typicallyresultsin a failureto engage in an elaboratedsequence in
whichsupportis manifested.The question categoryincludesquestions
thatrequestelaborationof the IC as wellas questionsthatchallengea
speakerto defendhis or her IC. The former,thosethatdrawout the
complaint,werebyfarthemostfrequenttypeof questionand typically
served as interimresponsesthateventuallyled to one of the other
typesof responses.Advice/Lecture incorporatesresponsesthatmoralize
as wellas givesimpleadviceon howto solvetheproblem.Contradictions
include disagreementsand oftenserve to defend the object of the
complaint.It should be notedhere thattheselasttwocategorieswere
heavilymale responses.
It is in theresponsetypetermedcommiseration thatwe clearlysee the
sortof responsesthatmaylead to discussionsof sharedconcernand
thatmaythereforebe consideredamongthosestrategies thatestablish
or reaffirm and in turnpromotesuccessfulsequencing.Com-
solidarity
miserativeresponsesshow agreementor reassurance,tell a speaker
thatthe addressee knowsthe feelingthrougha mutualcomplaint,or
sometimesmerelycommiseratethrougha shortexclamationsuch as
oh, no!

NS/NNS Responses

For the NS/NNS portionof the study,thisresearchattemptedto

ascertainwhetherthe NSs and theJapanese learnersdifferedin the
distributionof theirIC responses.A chi-squareanalysiswas carried
out usingfiveof the sixcategoriesof responses,excludingtheJoking/
Teasing category,wherethensweretoo smalltobe included.The chi-
square probability indicateda significant
statistic differencein typesof
responsesbetweenthelearnersand thenativespeakers: 02(4,n = 222)
= 72.282, p < .00001.
A comparisonof frequenciesof commiserativeresponsesin the
NS/NS data and the NS/NNS data yielded a statistically significant
difference.A 2 x 2 chi-squarewas run withrowsbeingcommiserate/
noncommiserate and twocolumnsbeingNS/NSIC responseand NS/
NNS IC response. Recall that in the NS/NS corpus, the incidence
of commiserationsamong those who had responses(n = 499) was
approximately45% overall.Similarly,in the NS/NNScorpus,clearly
the overwhelmingly highestfrequencyresponsefor nativespeakers
respondingto NNS ICs (n = 85) was in thecategoryof commiseration:
61.18% of all NS responses.NSs gavecommiserating responsesto NNS
morethanto NS ICs: X2(1,n = 584) = 5.17 p = .023.
ICs significantly

288 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TABLE 2
IC Responses of NSs and NNSs'

NNS/ NS/
Response type NS NNS Totals

Observed Frequencies
Nonsubstantive 2 73 75
Question 18 26 44
Contradiction 3 8 11
Joking/teasing 1 () 1
Advice/lecture 9 3 12
Commiseration 52 28 80
Totals 85 138 223

Percentagesof Column Totals

Nonsubstantive 2.35 52.9 33.63
Question 21.18 18.84 19.73
Contradiction 3.53 5.8 4.93
Joking/teasing 1.18 0 .45
Advice/lecture 10.59 2.17 5.38
Commiseration 61.18 20.29 35.87
Totals 100 100 100

= =
" NNS/NS nonnativespeaker uttersIC, nativespeaker responds; NS/NNS nativespeaker
uttersIC, nonnativespeaker responds.

FIGURE 1
IC Responses of NSs and NNSs

65
60- ofresponse
Type
55- Nonsubstantive
~ I
50 Question

45- 4 Contradiction
22Joke/teasing
40 1] Advice/lecture
35- Commiseration
30
25
20
15-
10-
5

toNNSICs
NSresponses NNSresponses
toNSICs

COMPLAINTS AND COMMISERATION 289

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
However,in computinga 2 x 2 chi-squareforfemaleNS/NSresponses
and NS/NNSresponses,thedifferences x2(1,n =
werenotsignificant:
=
335) .08p = .77. Thus, althoughNS women commiseratedsomewhat
morefrequently withNNS womenthanNS women,thedifference was
not significant.The salientcontrasthere is the frequencyof NNS
responsesto NS ICs: 52.9% of the NNS responsesto NS ICs were
nonsubstantive.This wasdue to thepreponderanceof repeatedverbal
and nonverbalbackchannelresponsesbythe NNSs. Though commis-
erationswerethesecondhighestfrequencyresponseforlearners,they
totaledonly20.29% of all NNS responses.

NonsubstantiveReplies

Whereasnonsubstantive repliesaccountedforonly2.35% of theNS

responses to NNS ICs, it accounted formorethanhalfthe totalNNS
responses to NS ICs (this difference p < .0001 using
is significant,
Fisher'sexact test).The Japanese learnerswere frequentlyunaware
thata substantiveresponseto the IC was called for.Thus, theyoften
responded withno more than a backchannelingmove. The majority
of thesewereinsufficient responsesbecause theyalmostinvariablyled
to a topic switch.Topic switchand acceptanceof topic switchhave
been foundto be typicalof thestrategiesand tacticsemployedbyboth
interlocutors in NS/NNS conversation(Long, 1983). This appears to
be trueparticularly forNNSs withlowproficiency, decreasingas profi-
ciency increases.Recall,however, thatin thisstudy,the learnerswere
intermediateand upper level learners.Given this fact,it would be
expectedthattherewouldbe muchlessabandonmentof thetopicand
more sustainedsequentialinteractionbetweenthe interlocutors.
A majorityof thesequencesin theNS/NNSdata containedexamples
of nonsubstantive responseson the part of the learnersthatcaused
theNS toeventuallyabandon thetopicunderdiscussion.TheJapanese
learnerswere oftenunable or unwillingto sustaintheirpart of the
conversation.Giventhe information knownaboutJapanesediscourse
style,it mayverywellbe due to lack of awarenesson the partof the
to
NNSs thattheyare expected substantively replyto ICs. The follow-
ing sequence illustratesa typical nonsubstantive response:
13. NS: I founditveryhardinFrance,whenI wastheretotakea regular
Frenchuniversitycoursebecauseitwasstructureddifferently.
NNS: Yeah.
NS: And I foundit reallyhard to understandthe structureand to
be able to understandwhathe wantedus to read and whatkind
of thingsto do. SometimesI didn'tstudythe rightthing.
NNS: 0 response.

290 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Giventhelearner'slackof response,therewas no wayforthe NS to
continueinan elaborationof herIC or forbothparticipants tocontinue
a sequence of talkbased on somecommonality. Whereasitis probable
thatthe learnerhad neverstudiedin France,thiswould have been a
good openingforherto discusssome of thedifficulties she was having
in adjustingto livingand studyingin theU.S. Thus, the NS's IC could
havebeen used as an openerfortheNNS toask questionsor talkabout
some of the problemsshe was encountering, and likelythe NS would
havecommiseratedand offeredsuggestions based on hermembership
in the native-speakercommunity.The learner'snonsubstantivere-
sponse mayhave resultedin a missedopportunity.
In 1 of the 10 dyads,theNS was a Japanese-American studentfrom
Hawaii. She receivedmanymoreelaboratedresponsesthanall of the
other U.S. participants.Despite the factthatall of the NS partners
wereable to speak someJapanese(theywereall studying Japaneseat
the University), apparently the U.S. in
participant thisparticulardyad
was more fluentin Japanese than mostof the otherNSs, as she was
rearedin a Japanese-speaking home. In thiscase a situationof shared
ethnicity might have been thereason forthelearnersincreasedpropen-
to
sity respond (Erickson& Shultz, 1982; Gumperz,1982) as is evident
in the followingexample :
14. NS: MymotherplaysKoto[musicalinstrument]. It's verydifficult
to takecareof becauseHawaiiis so humid.The wood...
NNS: Hawaii is humid?
NS: Humid.
NNS: ButJapan is same,Japan is also humid.
NS: Yeah, butwe livein an especiallyrainyarea of theOahu Moun-
tains.So it rainsalmosteveryday ... everything in the house
can get mold,mildew.
NNS: Mildew?
NS: That green[translatesintoJapanese].The insideof thehouse,
you have to be carefulof leavingwater.
NNS: Oh?
NS: It's not thatbad, but it'sprettymoist.
NNS: Moist?
NS: [explainsin Japanese].
There is a strikingdifferencein the apparent willingnessof the
learnerto talkto herconversation
partner.Also,theamountof negoti-
ated interactionthattookplace was fargreaterthanwhatwas seen in
themajorityof IC sequencesbetweentheotherpartners.This finding
suggeststhatthereis a relationshipbetweena sense of solidarityand
a feelingof freedomon the learnerspart to seek clarification, use
confirmation checks,and check her own comprehension.However,
shared ethnicityis but one possible factorleading to the creation of a

COMPLAINTS AND COMMISERATION 291

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
senseof rapportbetweenparticipants in an interaction.
The establish-
mentof solidarity betweenparticipantsin an IC sequencethroughthe
employmentof commiserative responsesalso has the potentialto set
thestagefora conversationin whichnegotiatedinteraction is possible.
A sustainedsequentialinteractionin whichrapportis manifestedcan
thusbe importantin openingup opportunitiesforincreasedcompre-
hensibleinputand output.
Byaskingforclarificationand checkingon herowncomprehension,
the learnerin the above sequence was doing somethingto participate
activelyin the conversation.But such negotiationwas so uncommon
in thisdata and nonsubstantive responsesso prevalentthatone NS
even wentso faras to complainto theNNS thatshe feltshe was doing
all the work:
15. NS: Myplanetrip[toJapan]waspretty I meanit wasn't
difficult,
directfromNew Yorkto Tokyoor anything. I had to go to
Toronto...
NNS: Mm hmn.
NS: I had to go to Torontoand thenI had to spenda nightin a hotel
in Toronto,and thenI had to getto the airportagain the next
day,and go to Vancouverand switchplanes,and I mean,that's
a lot of traveling,and I was reallytired.
NNS: Yeah?
NS: And thenwhenI gotto TokyoafterI had been travelingfor20
hours I had to catch a cab into Tokyo station...
NNS: Uh huh...
NS: Then getanothercab and findmyway,youknow,and I had to
explainto thetaxidriverwheremyhotelwas because he didn't
knowwhereit was.
NNS: Right,uh huh ... Where did you stay?
(a fewexchangeslaterabout hotel)
NS: It's so funny,I sithere goingon and on and youjust say,"uh
huh," it's like I'm in an interviewor something.(bothlaugh)
Apparently this NS, and no doubt other NS partners,found the NNSs'
backchannel responses to be inadequate and frustrating.The NS
quoted above was the only one who ventured to say something explicit
about how this made her feel.
Hence, whereas it may indeed be true that backchannels in some
contexts have the potential of functioning as encouragement to a
speaker, findings from the present research indicate that this is true
only up to a certain point in an interaction.That is, when backchannel-
ing responses surpass a certain criticalmass, when they are overused
and/or do not eventually lead to or co-occur with a more substantive
response,theycan and indeed frequentlydo lead to theextinguishing
of the topic under discussionand frequentlythe abandonmentof a
conversation.

292 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Thus, contraryto the prevailingviewof backchanneling as encour-
agement to the speaker,thisstudyappears to indicatethatan overuse
of such responsesdiscouragesratherthanencouragesfurthertalkon
a specifictopic.WithICs, successfulsustainedinteractiondepends on
responsesthatdo morethanmerelyindicatethatthelisteneris paying
attention.It requires a more activeresponse,one in whichthe ad-
dresseeindicatesa moredefinitive reply,whetherit be in the formof
questioning,agreement disagreement,or commiseration.
or

Commiseration

Recall thatin the NS/NS data of the largerstudy,45.29% of the

responsesoveralland 56.97% of the femaleresponsesto femaleICs
were commiserations. In the NS/NNSdata, thispercentagewas even
higher forNSs who were respondingto NNSs ICs (61.18%). Commis-
erationsby the NNSs when in the role of addresseewere much less
different
frequent(20.29%, significantly from16.18%,X2(1,n = 223)
= 38.224, p < .00001), and thiswas primarilydue to the preponderance
of nonsubstantive responses(52.9%). Whenwe thinkof howcommis-
eration functionstowardthe establishment of solidarity,leading to
smoothsequentialinteraction thatopens thedoor to opportunitiesfor
negotiatedinteraction,we see thatthereare missedopportunities when
learnersfailto respondor respondonlyminimally witha backchannel
whentheycould have been agreeingor commiserating. The following
example demonstrates a rare learner-to-native-speakercommiser-
ation:
16. NNS: Someonereadsyourdiaryin yourhouse?
NS: Mybrother did.
NNS: Oh, no!
NS: It was terrible.He just picked it up. 'Cause I writenovels in
notebooksand he saw the notebookand thought,"oh, a story"
so he pickedit up to read it.
NNS: Oh my!
NS: And thenhe sawlineslike"I reallyhatedlying"[bothlaugh].So
now I've made sure no one reads mydiary.
NNS: So you mustkeep a key.
NS: Key?
NNS: For yourdiary.
NS: No, it'sjust an ordinarynotebook,but it's in four different
languagesnow so thatanyonewhojust knowsEnglishwon'tbe
able to figureanythingout!
Two simple and shortexclamations served to express commiseration.
Because exclamationsas commiserations
are simpleto learn and use
forNNSs, thesemightbe formulaicdevicesthatlearnerscan incorpo-

COMPLAINTS AND COMMISERATION 293

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
rate into theirconversationswithNSs. Such exclamationsare as easy
to use as backchannels;however,theyshow the speakerthatthe ad-
dresseeis doing morethanjust listeningbutshowingempathyas well.
It was the rare learnerwho knew how to commiseratein much the
same way that NSs do. The majoritymaintainedtheirpart of the
conversationas minimallyas possible,respondingonly with short,
nonsubstantive responsesthatdid littleto make the NS wantto con-
tinuetalking.
Nonsubstantivewas one of only two typesof responsesthat the
NNSs gave more than NSs (the second beingcontradictions). Both of
thesetypesof responsesworkagainstthe establishment of solidarity.
The NNSs in thisstudywereunawarethata moredefinitive response
is expectedwhenreplyingto an IC. By merelychangingan umhmnto
an oh,no!,learnerscan changetheirresponsefroman insufficient one
to a commiserative one and thusredirectthecourseof theinteraction.
It does indeedbegintoappear thatresponsesintheformof agreement,
reassurance,and commiserationwork to establisha strongerbond
betweenNS and NNS interlocutors thatcan lead toincreasedopportu-
nitiesforNNSs to augmenttheirlinguisticabilitiesin the L2.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The data for this studyindicatesalientdifferencesbetweenNNS

and NS use of ICs and responsesto ICs. An attemptwas made to track
the presence of IC sequences in the data by recordingthe meeting
during which each sequence took place. The suspicionwas that a
gradualbuildingof rapportwouldresultin an increasedfrequencyof
ICs/commiseration sequencesduringlatermeetings.This turnedout
not to be the case. The few NNSs who did initiateICs withtheir
conversationpartnersappeared tobe exhibiting idiosyncraticbehavior
and used ICs as much if not more in the earliermeetingsas the later
meetings.
The differencesin frequencyof nonsubstantive responsesand com-
miserativeresponsesbetweenthe twogroups mayreflectdifferences
in thewaytalkin generalis valuedin theirtwosocieties.Yamada (1989)
pointsout that"Americanshave a positiveorientationtowardstalk,
where talk is seen as a way of comingto a betterunderstandingof
one another,and resolvingproblemsand difficulties; Japanesehave a
negative orientation towards talk,where talk is seen as of kind of
problem-maker itself" (p. 12). Hence, it may well be thatJapanese
verbaland nonverbalbackchanneling behaviorattemptsto avoid what
is perceivedas the possibilityof face-threatening behavior.

294 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The different orientationto talk,then,maybe one importantreason
forthesignificant difference in responsesto ICs betweentheJapanese
and U.S. interlocutors in thisdata. Repeatedbackchannelssuchas yeah,
uh huh,and hmn,almostalwaysresultedin topic abandonment.The
high incidenceof topic switchsubsequentto backchannelsindicates
that the NSs found such moves on the part of theirconversation
partnersto be discouragingratherthanencouraging(see Example 15
above).
One of theproblemswithsuchinterlocutor of course,
dissatisfaction,
is themissedopportunities forlearnerstoengageinconversations with
theirNS peersin whichtheyfeelcomfortable participatingin what can
be viewedas negotiatedinteraction, one in whichboth interlocutors
are able to ask questions,contradict, joke, and giveadvice.By missing
theseopportunities, learnersmaybe deprivingthemselvesof the op-
portunityto stretchtheirlinguisticabilitiesin theirsecond language.
Even if learnermotivations are moreinstrumental thanintegrative
in orientation,and theyare not interestedin establishingcloser ties
withNSs, theymaybe missingopportunities toaugmenttheirlinguistic
skillsbynotknowinghowtosustaininteraction leadingtoa heightened
level of input/output. I am not suggestingthatlearners,particularly
adult learners,give up theirculturallybased conversationalstylesto
conformcompletelyto L2 conversationalnormsand give up partof
theirculturebydoing so. Whatis suggestedhere is thata recognition
of what NSs do in theirdiscourse providescues as to what types
of responsesby the NNSs may lead to increasedopportunitiesfor
interaction. Thus, whetheror notlearnersplan to stayin theU.S., they
need to acquirea certainlevelof communicative competenceeven for
a successfulinstrumental orientation.
The NS/NS part of this researchhas begun to demonstratethat
negativeevaluationssuch as ICs frequently have a solidarity-building
function.In at least some U.S. speech communities,theyhave the
potentialto open and supportconversations, interactions,and even
If
relationships. Japanesespeakers transfer their rulesof speakingto
Englishand initiallyrespond to ICs withnoncommiserative replies,
theymay well be missingopportunitieswhichwould lead to further
interaction. Because of thesebasicdifferences in speechbehavior,the
of
building rapport and thesubsequent establishment of fertileground
for interactionappear, fromthis research,to be verydifficultfor
Japanese learnersof English.
What,then,are the implicationsforlanguagepedagogy?Although
the controversy continuesover whethersociolinguistic rules can or
shouldbe taught(Kachru,1988; Widdowson,1988),itis clearthatfor
a largesegmentof learnersincontextswhereEnglishis nota nonnative

COMPLAINTS AND COMMISERATION 295

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 variety,the abilityto communicatewithnativespeak-
institutionalized
ers appropriatelyas wellas correctly is crucial.For theever-increasing
populationof adult learnersstudyingESL in the U.S., the acquisition
of sociolinguistic
competenceis a necessarycomponentof successful
language learning.As TESOL professionalswe have long recognized
the need for acquiring sociolinguistic competencewiththe aim of
avoidingmiscommunication. Whatis positedheregoes a stepfurther:
Sociolinguisticcompetenceis necessarynot only foravoidingerrors
that are typicallyinterpretedas breaches of etiquettebut also for
establishingfertileground for increasedinteractionbetweenNNSs
and theirNS interlocutors.
There is now at leastpreliminary evidencethatsociolinguistic rules
can indeed be taughtwithsome success.Billmyer(1990) carriedout a
studythatsoughtto ascertainthe effectsof teachingcomplimenting
behaviorin adult ESL classes.Her resultsindicateda significant effect
of overtteachingabout complimenting on the subsequentabilityof
her studentsto appropriatelyuse compliments and theirresponsesin
conversationswithNS peers.
As forIC use, preliminary lessonshave nowbeen carriedout bythis
researcherand hercolleagueson a heterogeneousgroupof adult ESL
studentsin severalclassesof an intensiveuniversity ESL program.The
studentshaveoverwhelmingly indicatedthattheyfindthelessonstobe
usefulin pointingout differential use of IC/commiseration sequences
between their societyand the L2 speech community.One Korean
woman'scommentsare illustrative. Afterperforming videotapedrole
plays on IC exchanges, she stated:
wasuncomfortable
Thisactivity to me.BecauseI didn'twanttocomplain
aboutthingto anybody. wasuseful.Beforethis,I didn't
But thisactivity
realizethecomplaining wouldbe possibletoopenor starta conversation.
AndI knewthiskindof skillswasneededfordailylife.I learnsomeskills
and I wantto use thatI learnin English.

Clearlytheawarenessof thesocialstrategiesunderlyingICs is impor-

tantforNNSs in learningone wayof gettingto knowand developing
withNSs. To thisend theyshouldbe made awareof what
relationships
some NSs are tryingto accomplishthroughtheiruse of ICs. Equally
important,NNSs shouldlearnthepossibilitiesof respondingappropri-
atelywhen an IC is addressedto them.As we have seen,an IC requires
a responsein order to be effective.
Through informationon how ICs
work,language learnerscan learn one wayto initiatetalkwiththeir
NS peers that may lead to increased opportunitiesfor interaction.
The negotiationof meaningresultingfromsuchincreasedinteraction
should have a two-prongedand circulareffect:enhanced social life
and enhanced linguisticability.

296 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank several colleagues fromthe Universityof Pennsylvania'sEnglish

Language Program for theirhelp in carryingout this project: KristineBillmyer
forsharingher data; Jamie Reinsteinfortryingout IC lessons on his classes; and
Ruth Boyd Kletzander for workingintensivelywith her ESL students on ICs,
videotaping role plays of IC sequences, and providingextensive feedback that
aided in strengtheningthis research.

THE AUTHOR

Diana Boxer is AssistantProfessorof Linguisticsand Academic Coordinator of

the English Language Instituteat the Universityof Florida,where she is involved
in ESL/EFL teacher training.This article derives from her forthcomingbook,
Complainingand Commiserating: A SpeechAct Viewof Solidarityin SpokenAmerican
English(Peter Lang).

REFERENCES

Barnlund, C. C. (1975). Publicand privateselfinJapan and theU.S. Tokyo: Simul

Press.
Beebe, L., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguisticvariationin face-threatening
speech acts. In M. Eisenstein(Ed.), Thedynamic Empiricalstudiesin
interlanguage:
secondlanguagevariation(pp. 199-216). New York: Plenum Press.
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz,R. (1990). Pragmatictransferin ESL
refusals.In R. Scarcella,E. Andersen,& S. Krashen (Eds.), On thedevelopment of
communicative competenceina secondlanguage(pp. 55-74). Rowley,MA: Newbury
House.
Billmyer,K. (1990). The development of sociolinguistic
competence:The case of the
compliment. Unpublished doctoraldissertation,Universityof Pennsylvania,Phil-
adelphia.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A
study of the speech act performanceof learners of Hebrew as a second lan-
guage. AppliedLinguistics, 3(1), 29-59.
Blum-Kulka,S., Danet, B., & Gherson, R. (1985). The language of requestingin
Israeli society.In F. Forgas (Ed.), Language and socialsituation(pp. 113-136).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Boxer, D. (1991). A descriptiveanalysisofindirect
complaintsequences
amongspeakers of
American English.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicativecompetenceto communicativelanguage
pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. Schmidt(Eds.), Language and communication
(pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
Cohen, A., & Olshtain,E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociolinguisticcompe-
tence: The case of apology. LanguageLearning,31(1), 113-134.
D'Amico-Reisner,L. (1985). An ethnolinguistic studyofdisapprovalexchanges.Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation,Universityof Pennsylvania,Philadephia.

COMPLAINTS AND COMMISERATION 297

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
De Capua, A. (1989). Complaintsin Germanand English.Unpublished doctoral
dissertation,Columbia University,New York.
Eisenstein,M., & Bodman, J. (1986). I veryappreciate: Expressionsof gratitude
by nativeand nonnativespeakers of AmericanEnglish.AppliedLinguistics, 7(2),
167-185.
Erickson,F., & Shultz,J. (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper.New York: Academic
Press.
Giddens, D. (1981). An analysisofthesyntax and discourse oforalcomplaintsin Spanish.
Unpublished master'sthesis,Universityof California,Los Angeles.
Gumperz,J. (1982). Languageand socialidentity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwisetransitionfromtalkabout a troubleto inappropri-
atelynext-positionedmatters.In J. Atkinson& J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of
socialaction:Studiesinconversation analysis(pp. 191-222). Cambridge: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Jefferson,G., & Lee, J. R. E. (1981). The rejection of advice: Managing the
problematicconvergenceof a "troubles-telling" and a "serviceencounter."Jour-
nal of Pragmatics, 5(5), 399-422.
Kachru, B. (1988). Teaching world Englishes.ERICICLL Bulletin,12(1), 1-4.
Katriel,T. (1985). Gripingas a verbalritualin some Israeli discourse. In M. Dascal
(Ed.), Dialogue in interdisciplinaryapproaches(pp. 367-382). Amsterdam:John
Benjamins.
Lebra, T. (1984). Japanesewomen:Constraint andfulfillment. Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press.
Lebra, T., Paulson,J.,& Powers,E. (1976). Womenin changingJapan. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Long, M. (1983). Linguisticand conversationaladjustmentsto non-nativespeakers.
Studiesin SecondLanguage Acquisition, 5, 177-193.
Maynard S. (1986). On backchannel behavior in Japanese and English casual
conversation.Linguistics, 24, 1079-1108.
Olshtain,E. (1983). Socioculturalcompetenceand language transfer:The case of
apology. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in languagelearning
(pp. 232-249). Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson& E.
Judd (Eds), Sociolinguistics and languageacquisition(pp. 18-35). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1987). The learningof complex speech act behavior.
In L. Beebe & N. Wolfson (Chairs), TESOL and sociolinguistics. Colloquium
presented at the 21st Annual TESOL Convention,Miami, Florida
Olshtain,E., & Weinbach, L. (1987). Complaint: A studyofspeechactbehavioramong
nativeand non-native speakersofHebrew.Unpublished manuscript,Tel Aviv Uni-
versity.
Paulston,C. (1974). Linguisticand communicativecompetence. TESOL Quarterly,
8(4), 347-367.
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morganthaler,L. (1989). Comprehensible
output as an outcome of linguisticdemands on the learner. Studiesin Second
Language Acquisition, 11(1), 63-90.
Rader, M. (1977). Complaint Whenisconflicts
letters: withought.Unpublished master's
thesis,Universityof California,Los Angeles.
Rivers,W. (1973). From linguisticto communicativecompetence.TESOL Quarterly,
7(1), 25-34.

298 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Savignon,S. (1972). Communicative Theory
competence: andclassroompractice.Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schaefer,E. J. (1982). An analysisof the discourse and syntaxof oral complaints
in English. Unpublished master'sthesis,Universityof California,Los Angeles.
Schegloff,E. (1982). Discourse as an interactionalachievement. In D. Tannen
(Ed.), Georgetown UniversityRoundTableonLanguagesandLinguistics 1982: Analyz-
ingdiscourse:Textand talk(pp. 71-93). Washington,DC: GeorgetownUniversity
Press.
Smith,J. (1992). Women in charge: Politeness and directivesin the speech of
Japanese women. Language in Society, 21(1), 59-82.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. (1987). The developmentof pragmaticcompetenceby
Japanese learners of English.JALTJournal,8, 131-155.
West,C., & Garcia, A. (1988). Conversationalshiftwork:A studyof topicaltransi-
tions between women and men. Social Problems, 35(5), 551-575.
Wetzel, P. (1988). Are powerless communicationstrategiesthe Japanese norm?
Language in Society,17(4), 555-564.
White,S. (1989). Backchannels across cultures:A studyof Americansand Japa-
nese. Language in Society,18(1), 59-76.
Widdowson, H. (1988). Language, contextand culture in the classroom. ERIC/
CLL NewsBulletin,12(1), 6-7.
Wolfson,N. (1978, March). Techniques patterns:The
fortheanalysisof sociolinguistic
studyof compliments. Paper presentedat the 12th Annual TESOL Convention,
Mexico City.
Wolfson,N. (1979, March). Let'shavelunchtogether sometime:Perceptionsofinsecurity.
Paper presented at the 13th Annual TESOL Convention,Boston.
Wolfson,N. (1981). Complimentsin cross-culturalperspective.TESOL Quarterly,
15(2), 117-124.
Wolfson,N. (1989). Perspectives: and TESOL. Rowley,MA.: Newbury
Sociolinguistics
House.
Wolfson,N., D'Amico-Reisner,L., & Huber, L. (1983). How to arrange forsocial
commitmentsin English: The invitation.In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.),
and languageacquisition(pp. 116-128). Rowley,MA.: Newbury
Sociolinguistics
House.
Yamada, H. (1989). Americanand Japanesetopicmanagement in business
strategies
meetings.Unpublished doctoral dissertation,GeorgetownUniversity,Washing-
ton, DC.

COMPLAINTS AND COMMISERATION 299

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:08:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions