1. No category

Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the
performance of reprimanding
CARMEN GARCÍA
Abstract
Using Spencer-Oatey’s rapport management framework (2005), this paper
looks at regional pragmatic variation in Spanish by examining Peruvian,
Venezuelan and Argentinean subjects when reprimanding. Results show
that although the three groups favored the satisfaction of their transactional
wants, there were di¤erences between the three groups in terms of their
behavioral expectations and respect/threat to their own and/or the interlocutor’s identity face. Peruvians and Venezuelans exhibited a rapportchallenging orientation, while Argentineans preferred a rapport maintenance orientation. In addition, although Peruvians preferred an independent
posture and were not interested in either protecting or threatening their own
identity face, Venezuelans and Argentineans revealed a preference for interdependent self-construals and an interest, albeit weak, in protecting their
identity face. Possible miscommunication in a hypothetical intra-lingual
interchange between members of these three di¤erent cultural groups is
noted.
1.
Introduction
Results from studies of speech act realization underline the importance of
studying intra-lingual regional pragmatic variation. As Gallois and
Callan point out (1991: 250), ‘‘[linguistic] choices are mediated by expectations and ideas that the speaker holds about appropriate and inappropriate behaviour’’ and these di¤erent expectations and ideas are reflected in
speakers’ di¤erent behavior.
Research in the area of pragmatic variation in Spanish has been successfully pursued in recent years, with scholars having compared the performance of speech acts in di¤erent varieties of Spanish,1 Findings from
these di¤erent empirical studies point towards intra-lingual pragmatic
Intercultural Pragmatics 6-4 (2009), 443–472
DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2009.024
1612-295X/09/0006–0443
6 Walter de Gruyter
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
444
Carmen Garcı́a
variation, specifically in terms of politeness orientation. In fact, Márquez
Reiter and Placencia (2005: 190) point out: ‘‘in some varieties of Spanish
[Argentinean, Peninsular, Uruguayan, Venezuelan] politeness appears to
have more of an orientation towards positive politeness or expressing
solidarity, interdependence, a‰liation towards the interlocutor and, in
others [Ecuadorian, Peruvian, Mexican] . . . both orientations appear to
have equal importance.’’
This paper builds on previous studies on the stylistic strategies used by
Peruvians, Venezuelans and Argentineans (Garcı́a 1996, 2004a, 2004b)
when reprimanding by comparing and contrasting their participation in
an asymmetrical situation (viz. boss—employee) where there is not only
a power di¤erential (þP), but where a conflict is also presented and dealt
with. In this sense, we see if participants exert power either by coercion or
by seeking cooperation (Fairclough 1989) and this allows us to expand
our understanding of the di¤erent/similar attitudes, beliefs and values of
these cultural groups. More specifically, it helps to identify their preferred
rapport management strategies in an attempt to uncover the underlying
perspectives that make up their culture within the context examined.
Previous studies have examined arguments in symmetrical relationships
among Spaniards (Briz 1998, 2002) or have contrasted two completely
di¤erent cultural-linguistic groups, such as Swedes and Spaniards (Gille
2001). The importance of the present study lies in comparing and contrasting three di¤erent Spanish-speaking cultural groups in Latin America
(cf. also Félix-Brasdefer, this issue).
For the purpose of this study, a reprimand is categorized as a communicative illocutionary act of the assertive type. Vanderveken (1990: 179)
states that ‘‘[t]o reprimand (. . .) is to accuse with the special mode of
achievement of adding personal displeasure as a punishment for the
wrongdoing. Generally this reprimand comes out of a position of authority (a feature of the mode of achievement), although this may be a presumed sense of moral authority’’.
In order to analyze Peruvian, Venezuelan and Argentinean reprimands,
the theoretical framework used will first be presented and the method of
data collection and analysis detailed. The data are then used to answer
the following research questions:
When reprimanding, do Peruvians, Argentineans and Venezuelans differ in their
1.
2.
3.
behavioral responsibilities as expressed in their respect of the interlocutor’s right to be treated fairly and to associate with others?
preference to satisfy their transactional vs. relational wants?
concerns for the interlocutor’s identity face?
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
2.
445
Theoretical framework
In classifying the strategies used by Peruvian, Venezuelan and Argentinean speakers when reprimanding, the analysis uses both Spencer-Oatey’s
(2005) rapport management approach and Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989)
model.
Spencer-Oatey’s (2000, 2005) rapport management approach goes beyond the study of linguistic strategies as responses to face threatening
acts to study how social relationships are constructed, maintained or
threatened through interaction (Spencer-Oatey 2000: 12). According to
Spencer-Oatey (2005), the success or lack of success in human interaction
depends on people’s behavioral expectations, face sensitivities, and interactional wants.
Behavioral expectations are based on what people judge to be socially
appropriate—i.e. what they believe is prescribed, permitted or proscribed
behavior (Spencer-Oatey 2005: 97)—and this assessment is based on
contextually-based conventions, norms and protocols which vary according to the communicative activity and setting and also the type of relationship subjects have (Spencer-Oatey 2005: 99). Conventions, however,
exist across a range of domains: the illocutionary domain which deals
with the performance of di¤erent speech acts; the discourse domain concerned with the ‘‘content and structure of an interchange, including topic
choice, and the organization and sequencing of information’’; the participation domain which considers ‘‘the procedural aspects of an interchange’’, such as turn-taking, overlaps, pauses and listener’s responses;
the stylistic domain which considers, for example, choice of tone, address
forms and honorifics; and the non-verbal domain which considers aspects,
such as gesture, eye contact, and proxemics (Spencer-Oatey 2005: 99).
Furthermore, according to Spencer-Oatey (2005), behavioral expectations also result from contextually-dependent interactional principles: the
equity principle, i.e. people’s right to be treated fairly and not imposed
upon and the association principle, i.e. people’s right to associate with
others. The equity principle supports people’s need for independence. It
has three components: cost-benefit considerations, fairness and reciprocity, and authority-control. The association principle, on the other hand,
supports people’s need for interdependence and also has three components: involvement, empathy and respect (Spencer-Oatey 2005: 100).
Spencer-Oatey (2005: 102) distinguishes then between respectability
face, i.e. ‘‘the prestige, honour or ‘good name’ that a person or social
group holds and claims within a broader community’’ and identity face,
based on Go¤man’s (1967: 5) concept of face, defined as being ‘‘based
on the positive social values that [people] associate with their various
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
446
Carmen Garcı́a
self-aspects’’. Spencer-Oatey also includes people’s ‘‘claims to social
group membership’’ as part of identity face. Furthermore, she asserts
that ‘‘it is identity face [and not respectability face] that is threatened or
enhanced in specific interactional encounters’’ (Spencer-Oatey 2005: 103).
Interactional wants, the third component in Spencer-Oatey’s rapport
management model, can be either transactional or relational. While
transactional goals are task oriented, relational goals aim at ‘‘e¤ective relationship management’’ (Spencer-Oatey 2005: 107). However, she argues
that the success of a transactional goal may depend on the management
of a relational goal, and thus both goals may be interconnected.
Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989) classification of illocutionary acts into head
acts and supportive moves is used in the analysis of the illocutionary domain. Head acts are defined as ‘‘the minimal unit[s] which can realize a
[given speech act]; [they are] the core of the [speech act] sequence . . .’’
(Blum-Kulka et al. 1989: 275). In addition, ‘‘[the speech act, in our case
reprimanding] can be multi-headed; i.e., we may find, at the same level
of explicitness, more than one minimal unit realizing the [reprimanding]
goal’’ (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989: 276). Supportive moves, by contrast, are
‘‘external to the [speech act] which modif[y] its impact by either aggravating (. . .) or mitigating (. . .) its force’’ (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989: 276).
3.
3.1.
Method
Subjects
Data were collected in Lima, Perú in 1988, in Caracas, Venezuela in 1993
and in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 2000 using subjects in a role play scenario. Participants in the three cultural groups were native speakers of
Spanish, but neither age nor social class was controlled for explicitly in
selecting them.
Peruvian participants included twenty adult Peruvians, 10 males and 10
females. The average age was 43 for males and 53 for females. The subjects interacted with a female Peruvian Spanish speaker who was 65 years
old—a high school graduate and known to the informants.
Venezuelan participants also included twenty adults, 10 males and 10
females. The average age was 41 for males and 35 for females. Subjects
interacted with a 30 year-old male Venezuelan Spanish speaker—a university graduate, not known to the subjects.
Argentinean participants included twenty adults, 10 males and 10 females, ranging in age from 18 to 45 years. Subjects interacted with a 60
year-old Argentinean female—a retired arts teacher, not known to any
of the subjects.2
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
3.2.
447
Data collection
Although under ideal circumstances, discourse would have been collected
in naturally occurring interactions, given that our interest was to study
one specific type of interaction in the same context, this would have been
di‰cult, if not almost impossible. Role play provided participants with
the opportunity to have maximum control over their conversational interchange (Scarcella 1979: 277), and at the same time provided what BlumKulka et al. call ‘stereotyped responses’, that is ‘‘the prototype of the
variants occurring in the individual’s actual speech’’ (Blum-Kulka et al.
1989: 13). Since our goal was to identify and analyze the stereotypical responses, role play suited our needs.
Before engaging in the role play interactions, both the subjects and the
interlocutor were told to engage in a regular conversation. Participants
were informed that the conversation would be video-taped. Instructions
were then given which described the following situation for both subjects
and the interlocutor:
Su empleado(a) ha estado llegando tarde al trabajo, saliendo temprano y no ha
estado cumpliendo con su labor. Esta mañana usted lo(a) llama a su oficina y le
habla. El/ella no está de acuerdo con Ud.
(‘Your employee has been coming late to work, leaving early and not doing his/
her work. This morning you call him/her and talk to him/her. He/she does not
agree with you.’)
Both the subjects playing the role of the boss and those persons playing
the employee (the high school graduate in Peru, the university graduate in
Venezuela and the retired arts teacher in Argentina) improvised the conversations. The purpose was to allow the two individuals to have maximum control over their conversational interchange to make it as complete
as possible.
3.3.
Data analysis
The sixty role play interactions were recorded on videotape and then
transcribed following the conventions designed by Je¤erson (1986: ix–
xvi; cf. Appendix). Following this, strategies used by the subjects were
classified and interactions were characterized in terms of the recurrent
types of strategies used.
To test the statistical significance in the use of di¤erent strategies within
a single cultural group, a proportion test was used. When comparing the
strategies used by the three di¤erent cultural groups, a di¤erence of proportion test was used. These tests establish two di¤erent levels of validity,
at 0.05 (95%) or at 0.01 (99%). According to Kachigan (1986: 185),
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
448
Carmen Garcı́a
‘‘[t]ypically, we set a ¼ 0:05 or a ¼ 0:01, so that if the hypothesis H0 is in
fact true, we will erroneously reject it only 1 time in 20, or 1 time in 100,
respectively (. . .) the value of z ¼ 1:96 [is] needed to discredit the null hypothesis at the a ¼ 0:05 level of significance (. . .). For a significance level
a ¼ 0:01, a value of z greater than 2.58 is needed (. . .)’’.
4.
Description and analysis
4.1. Head acts and supportive moves
As Table 1 shows, Peruvian, Venezuelan and Argentinean participants
used a variety of head acts and supportive moves when reprimanding.
However, as will be discussed below, the frequency of the di¤erent strategies was di¤erent for each cultural group and revealed their di¤erent behavioral expectations and interactional goals, as well as their preference
to respect or threaten their own and/or the interlocutor’s face.
When reprimanding, Peruvian, Venezuelan and Argentinean subjects
followed a pattern: they reprimanded, requested an explanation for the
employee’s behavior and responded to their justification. The following
descriptions and examples (in bold) highlight the types of strategies used
in the reprimands as head acts and as supportive moves. These are given
with the surrounding text to add some context to the use of the strategy.
Some strategies were used as head acts by some participants, but as supportive moves by others. Irrespective of this di¤erence, strategies are illustrated only once.
4.1.1. Head acts
Although there were similarities in the head acts used by Peruvians, Venezuelans and Argentineans, there were also di¤erences, especially in the
frequency of occurrence of particular strategies in the overall participation. Definitions and illustrations of head acts used by Peruvian (PF,
PM), Venezuelan (VF, VM) and Argentinean (AM, AF) bosses follow.
1. Claiming authority
Participants from the three cultural groups chose to claim authority by
issuing orders to the employee, dismissing/discharging him/her, ending
the conversation and/or stating their obligation/expected behavior.
(1)
VM:
Mira Omar le llamé porque usted ha estado llegando tarde y
ha estado saliendo temprano de la oficina y e: se supone que
usted debe cumplir un horario, de trabajo no?
‘Look Omar I called you because you have been coming late
and leaving early and uh: it is expected that you should keep a
work schedule, right?’
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
449
Table 1. Strategies used as head acts and supportive moves.
Head Acts
Peruvians
Venezuelans
Argentineans
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
Supportive Moves
Peruvians
Venezuelans
Argentineans
A. Mitigators
18. Preparator
19. Grounder
20. Compliment
21. Requesting confirmation
22. Accepting excuse/explanation
23. Claiming in-group membership
24. Claiming common ground
25. Self-compliment
26. Mitigating accusation/demands
27. Disclaiming responsibility
28. O¤ering cooperation
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
B. Aggravators
29. Requesting justification
30. Claiming authority
31. Presenting facts
32. Expressing dissatisfaction
33. Expressing concern
34. Warning/threatening
35. Moralizing
36. Claiming lack of interest
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
Claiming authority
Presenting facts
Warning/threatening
Recommending change of behavior
Rejecting accusation/explanation/request
Expressing dissatisfaction
Moralizing
Requesting cooperation
Requesting information
Disclaiming responsibility
O¤ering cooperation
Accepting excuse/explanation
Claiming common ground
Planning future meeting
Indefinite reply
Indicating reluctance to impinge
Expressing gratitude
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
450
Carmen Garcı́a
2. Presenting facts
To reprimand, participants frequently presented the interlocutor with factual information concerning their behavior at the workplace.
(2)
PM:
Te he mandado llamar porque he notado de que está incumpliendo reiteradamente el horario de trabajo, está llegando demasiado tarde por la mañana y está saliendo usted demasiado
temprano y por otro lado el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones.
en cuanto a labor que debe desempeñar, veo que está dejando
mucho que desear. Yo quisiera saber qué explicaciones da.
‘I have asked for you because I have noticed that you’re failing to observe the work schedule, you’re arriving too late in the
morning and are leaving too early. And besides, you are failing
to fulfill your responsibilities. as far as the job you should do is
concerned, I see that it is it leaves a lot to be desired. I would
like to know how you can explain this’
3. Warning/threatening
Peruvians, Venezuelans and Argentineans warned or threatened the employees stating the punishments they would receive as a consequence of
unacceptable workplace behavior. The following is an example:
(3)
Employee:
AM:
Employee:
AM:
Employee:
AM:
problemas pero yo
‘problems but
[ pienso que
[I think that’
[bueno, si QUIEre permanecer procure llegar a horario.
[‘well, if you WANT to stay try to
arrive on time’
sı́, sı́ lo voy a hacer.
‘yes, yes, I’ll do it.’
y si no se va más tarde ( )
‘and if not, leave later ( )’
aunque no estoy de acuerdo en que haya llegado tan
tarde
‘although I don’t agree that I have arrived so late’
Preocupesé porque eh personal sobra ası́ que trate de llegar a horario, de lo contrario no
‘You should worry because uh we have personnel to spare
so try to arrive on time, if not you won’t’
4. Recommending change of behavior
Peruvian and Venezuelan participants requested their interlocutors to
change their behavior regarding the workplace.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
(4)
VF:
451
¼ en la próxima junta podemos hablar eso. Pero yo lo que no
quiero es que pase lo que está pasando ahorita que llegues tarde,
que: no me cumplas bien no me cumplas bien con el trabajo,
porque qué va a pasar?, me van a reclamar a mı́ las otras personas. este, me van a decir yo también puedo llegar tarde, yo
también puedo faltar al trabajo porque él está fal faltando.
¼ ‘we can talk about that in the next meeting. But what I don’t
want to happen is what’s happening right now that you come in
late, tha:t you don’t do your job well, you don’t do you job well
because what’s going to happen?, the others are going to complain to me. they’re going to tell me uh I can also come in late,
I can also miss work because he’s miss missing work’.
5. Rejecting accusation/explanation/request
Venezuelan and Argentinean bosses vehemently rejected the personal accusations, explanations or requests the employees made after they were
reprimanded.
(5)
Employee:
AF:
a::h serán comentarios, pero yo he procurado llegar
siempre en hora.
‘a::h that must be gossip, but I have tried to arrive always on time.’
pero ha procurado, pero no quiere decir que lo haga
‘but you’ve tried, but that doesn’t mean you do it’
6. Expressing dissatisfaction
Venezuelans chose to express their dissatisfaction towards the employee’s
performance in the workplace.
(6)
VF:
Employee:
VF:
Por favor señor Ochoa podrı́a pasar por aquı́ un
momento.
‘Mr Ochoa, please could you stop by my o‰ce for a
minute.’
Buenas tardes, dı́game.
‘Good afternoon. what can I do for you?’
Ya va:: bueno, voy a ir al grano. No estoy muy satisfecha con su trabajo, y eso no- no exactamente con su trabajo pero usted ha estado llegando tarde muy a - quisiera
saber la razón de esta situación
‘Just a:: well, I’ll get straight to the point. I’m not very
satisfied with your work, and that is not – not exactly
with your work but you’ve been arriving late very – I’d
like to know the reason for this’
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
452
Carmen Garcı́a
7. Moralizing
To strengthen the reprimand, Peruvians and Argentineans sometimes invoked ‘‘general moral maxims’’ (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989: 288) and stated
the negative consequences of not complying.
(7)
AM:
Employee:
AM:
nosotros no podemos darnos el lujo de apoyarnos del
metrovı́a de darnos una excusa de por qué no se cumple
el horario.
‘we cannot have the luxury of trusting the metro of giving us an excuse for not obeying the schedule.’
[no no bueno –
[‘no no well’ ¼[tenemos que cumplir con nuestro trabajo. es algo estrictamente especı́fico que tenemos que hacer.
¼[‘we have to do our job. it is something strictly specific
that we have to do.’
8. Requesting cooperation
After hearing the employee’s explanation of the situation, Venezuelan
and Argentinean participants requested the employee’s cooperation to
solve the situation.
(8)
VM:
Employee:
VM:
Entonces cómo
‘Then how
[( ).
[( ).’
[Yo llego a la hora del trabajo.
[‘I get here on time.’
Cómo cree usted que podemos so solucionar esto?
‘How do you think we can solve this’?
9. Requesting information
Argentinean participants requested information from the employee about
his/her schedule and/or problems that they might have.
(9)
Employee:
AF:
Employee:
AF:
no:: siempre. habrá sido alguna ve::z pero no:: siempre
no::
‘no::t always. it must’ve been one ti::me but no::t always no::t’
siempre no?
‘not always?’
No como para que eh se ¼
‘Not for you to uh’¼
cuál es?
‘what is?’
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
Employee:
AF:
453
¼que se preocupe no:: No se preocupe.
¼‘to worry no:: don’t worry.’
hubo algún inconveniente que -?
‘was there any problem that-?’
10. Disclaiming responsibility
The employee’s response to the reprimand sometimes included accusations and requests. These were responded to by the Venezuelan bosses
disclaiming responsibility.
(10)
Employee:
VM:
Entonces no sé si a lo mejor el señor Rodrı́guez está pasándose un poco al al informarle a usted. Inclusive yo
creo que él debe haberme informado primero.
‘Then I don’t know if Mr. Rodrı́guez is going beyond
a little bit by informing you. I even think he should
have informed me first.’
Ah yo pensaba que ya te habı́a informado, de todas
maneras eso es lo él que me está reportándome a mı́::
‘ah I thought he’d already informed you, anyway that is
what he is reporting me::’
11. O¤ering cooperation
After hearing the employee’s reasons/excuses/explanations, Venezuelan
and Argentinean bosses o¤ered cooperation.
(11)
Employee:
VF:
Employee:
VF:
¼que entremos más ta:rde, o incluso saliendo un poquito má:s tarde, o trabajar los sábados las horas que
faltan pero yo no creo que sea
¼‘that we start la:ter, or even leaving la:ter, or work
on Saturdays the rest of the hours but I do not think
it is’
Faltarı́a revisar eso porque fı́jate
‘We would need to review that because you see’
¼[Cla:ro
¼[‘O:f course’
[tú que el ı́ndice de personas que están en la situación
tuya, es minimo, es menor comparado con el resto de
las personas que asisten.
Entonces serı́a cuestión de revisar si el problema es de
ustedes o el problema, el problema [es de la empresa.
[‘the number of people in your situation is minimal, is
less compared to the rest of the people that attend.
‘Then it would be a matter to check if the problem is
yours or the problem, the problem [is the company’s’
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
454
Carmen Garcı́a
12. Accepting excuse/explanation
Venezuelan and Argentinean participants were prompt to accept the employee’s excuses and explanations.
(12)
AM:
bueno, bueno nos entendemos
‘well, well, we understand each other’
Employee: ¼que me disculpe
¼‘that you excuse me’
AM:
sı́, sı́, cómo no, cómo no, simplemente que tome ¼
‘yes, yes, of course, of course, it is only that you take’¼
13. Claiming common ground
Both Venezuelans and Argentineans claimed common ground with the
employee by either expressing solidarity with him/her and/or by requesting inside information.
(13)
¼claro, la entiendo, la entiendo, a todos nos pasa
¼‘yes, I understand you, I understand you, it happens
to all of us’
Employee: sı́ ( )
‘yes ( )’
AF:
un dı́a que llegamos al subte
‘we get to the subway one day’
Employee: claro
‘of course’
AF:
que llegamos tarde o resulta que hay paro que siempre
pasa
‘that we get late or it happens that there is a strike
which happens all the time’
AF:
14. Planning future meeting
When the discussion with the employee did not lead anywhere, Venezuelans suggested a future meeting with either someone higher up in the hierarchy or with those who had made the original complaint. In the following sample, VM suggests a meeting with the supervisor.
(14)
VM:
Ya no sé. Esta situación vamos (a hablarla) con tu
supervisor.
‘I don’t know anymore. We’re going to (talk about it)
with your supervisor’
Employee: [me gustarı́a. sı́.
[‘I’d like that. yes.’
VM:
[(
) y todo lo demás.
[(‘
) and everything else.’
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
455
15. Indefinite reply
In responding to the employee’s reaction, Venezuelans sometimes just
gave an indefinite reply without o¤ering any solution that would satisfy
the employee’s complaint.
(15)
VF:
Ah este bueno. Tendrı́amos que:: hacer una reunión, hablar
con los demás compañeros para aclarar un poco la situación
porque todos están ( ).
>Entonces bueno eso serı́a la solución< habrá que hacer una
reunión, conversar con todos y bueno ver qué se puede hacer.
‘Oh uh ok. We’d have to:: have a meeting, talk to the other
colleagues to clarify the situation a little bit because everybody is ( ).
>then well that would be the solution< we’ll have to have a
meeting talk to everybody and we’ll see what can be done.’
16. Indicating reluctance to impinge
Venezuelan and Argentinean participants expressed the discomfort that
making the complaint has caused them.
(16)
VM:
Employee:
VM:
Employee:
Bueno yo creo que vamos a dejarlo hasta ahora. vamos
a dejarlo aquı́ por el proyecto –
‘Well I think we are going to leave it at that. Let’s
leave it here because of the project’cualquier cosa mire yo estoy a la orden y tengo todo el
material, y le puedo enseñar todos los reportes para que
vea que que no es ası́ como como le han dicho.
‘in any event I am ready and I have all the material,
and I can show you all the reports so that you can
see it is not what they have told you.’
Tú sabes que a mı́ no me agrada esto.
‘You know I don’t like this.’
No, no para mı́ menos.
‘No, no. I like it less.’
17. Expressing gratitude
Venezuelan and Argentinean participants expressed their gratitude to the
employee for listening to their complaint.
(17)
AF:
bueh, muchas gracias por por escucharme y
‘we:h, thank you for for listening to me and’
4.1.2. Supportive moves
Peruvian, Venezuelan and Argentinean participants used supportive
moves which mitigated or aggravated the reprimand. Samples of those
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
456
Carmen Garcı́a
supportive moves that did not also occur as head acts and were illustrated
above are defined and illustrated below.
4.1.2.1.
Mitigators
18. Preparator
Peruvians, Venezuelans and Argentineans prefaced the reprimand by an
announcement that he/she would make a reprimand.
(18)
AM:
sı́, solicité llamarla a Ud. porque mire tengo que hablarle personalmente porque Ud. no me está cumpliendo bien con los
horarios de llegada
‘yes, I asked to talk to you because I have to talk to you
in person because you are not following the arrival time
schedule’
19. Grounder
Grounders are reasons, explanations and/or justifications which were
used by Peruvian, Venezuelan and Argentinean bosses to mitigate the effects of the reprimand.
(19)
PM:
y cuando esté enfermo que haya constancia porque aquı́ lo que
a nosotros nos basa son- es la documentación de las máquinas
en donde se marcan las tarjetas
‘and when you are sick there has to be a record because what
is important to us here are – is the record of the machines
where the cards are punched’
20. Compliment
Peruvian and Venezuelan participants accompanied the reprimand with a
positive evaluation of the employee.
(20)
VM:
Caramba, a mı́ me gusta tu trabajo, tú rindes tú eres tú
eres tú normalmente deberı́as rendir
‘Darn, I like your job, you produce, you are you are
you normally should perform’
Employee: Bueno claro, pero la situación.
‘Well yes, but the situation.’
VM:
¼Tú tienes muy buen estilo, Rivera.
¼‘you have a very good style, Rivera.’
21. Requesting confirmation
Argentinean participants minimized the e¤ects of the reprimand by requesting confirmation of the facts they were presenting.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
(21)
22.
AF:
457
nosotros estamos notando de que Ud. está llegando un poquito
más tarde de la hora convenida, es ası́?
‘we are observing that you are coming a little later than the
scheduled time, is that right?’
Accepting excuse/explanation (cf. Head Acts)
23. Claiming in-group membership
Some Venezuelan participants recognized their special relationship with
the employee.
(22)
VF:
Employee:
VF:
Employee:
VF:
24.
¼ no eres tú el único. hay varias personas, no eres el
[ primero en esa cuestión.
¼ ‘you are not the only one. There are many people,
you are not the
[first one in this matter.’
[claro
[‘of course’
y te llamo porque tú eres mi amigo muy personal
[ y claro y yo conozco a tu esposa,¼
‘and I call you because you are my very personal friend
[and of course and I know your wife,’¼
[ por supuesto
[‘of course’
¼conozco a tu hija
¼‘I know your daughter’
Claiming common ground (cf. Head Acts)
25. Self-compliment
One Venezuelan participant mitigated her response to the employee’s accusations by making a positive evaluation of the workplace.
(23)
Employee:
VF:
¼claro, entiendo.
¼‘of course, I understand.’
¼y yo también - esta compañı́a somos muy comprensivos.
Lo que pasa es que usted tiene que: participar el problema que tiene y darle la solución.
¼‘and me too- this company we are very understanding.’
‘The thing is that you have to: let us know the problem you have and solve it.’
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
458
Carmen Garcı́a
26. Mitigating accusation/demands
After presenting their reprimand, Venezuelan and Argentinean participants mitigated it by denying complete or personal knowledge of the
facts.
(24)
AF:
también recibı́ informes de ciertas personas de - no han recibido ciertas cosas que le piden o que las hace que o las entrega
más tarde de lo de lo necesario e::h, o sea, yo tengo ta también, yo no lo comprobé con mis propios ojos, pero yo tengo
informes de ciertas personas de jefes suyos, y del jefe del jefe
de personal me está diciendo que tiene ese problema. No sé.
‘I also received reports from certain people from - that have
not received certain things they ask from you or that you do
them or hand them in later than than expected u:h, that is I
al also have, I didn’t see it with my own eyes, but I have reports from certain people from your bosses, and the head the
head of personnel is telling me you have that problem. I
don’t know.’
27. Disclaiming responsibility
Venezuelan and Argentinean bosses reacted to the employee’s accusations
and denials by denying their own responsibility in the reprimand and attributing it to a higher boss or to the company at large.
(25)
28.
AM:
a mı́ me dieron la or [
‘I was given the or’ [
Employee:
¼[de que Ud. me ponga que yo fiche
tarjeta
¼[‘that you make me check in’
AM:
pero a mı́ me han dado la orden de superiores, de hacer
cumplir el horario y yo tengo que hacerlo respetar
‘but I have been given the order by those higher ups, to
make sure the schedule is followed and I have to have it
respected’
O¤ering cooperation (cf. Head Acts)
4.1.2.2.
Aggravators
29. Requesting justification
Peruvian, Venezuelan and Argentinean participants repeatedly requested
that their interlocutors provide a reason, explanation and/or justification
for their behaviour.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
(26)
AF:
459
cuál es el problema con el cual Ud. a veces llega tarde o se se
supone que Ud. se retira temprano?
‘what is the problem that causes you to arrive late or it is it is
said that you leave early?’
30.
Claiming authority (cf. Head Acts)
31.
Presenting facts (cf. Head Acts)
32. Expressing concern
Venezuelan and Argentinean participants expressed their concern about
the employee’s performance, and this created a sense of urgency.
(27)
VM:
Estas fichas muestran que has llegado tarde durante el último
mes. Y y eres el primero que sale a las que- a las cinco de la
tarde, no sé qué me puedes decir sobre esto. e:: me preocupa.
‘These cards show you’ve been coming late this last month.
And and you’re the first one to leave at – at five in the afternoon, I don’t know what you can tell me about this. u::hm it
worries me.’
33.
Warning/threatening (cf. Head Acts)
34.
Moralizing (cf. Head Acts)
35. Claiming lack of interest
Venezuelan and Argentinean participants strengthened their response to
the employee by expressing their indi¤erence to their dilemma.
(28)
Employee:
VM:
Employee:
Con la miseria del seguro social. discúlpeme, ahı́ no sé.
yo no puedo llevar- qué quiere usted?, que yo lleve una
hija mı́a a un hospital:
‘With the awful social health system. excuse me, that I
don’t know. I cannot take – what do you want?, that I
take a daughter of mine to a hospital’
¼ Yo no sé, eso es problema suyo.
¼ ‘I don’t know, that’s your problem’
¼ hospital: público y se me termine muriendo?
¼ ‘public hospital: and she ends up dying on me?’
Table 2 classifies the head acts and supportive moves used by Peruvian,
Venezuelan and Argentinean participants by preferred strategies.
Comparing the strategies used by the Peruvian, Venezuelan and Argentinean participants shown in Table 2, it is easily observed that Venezuelans were the most verbose using a total of 375 strategies, compared to
331 used by Argentineans and 175 used by Peruvians. The Venezuelans
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
460
Carmen Garcı́a
Table 2. Head acts and supportive moves.
Head Acts
Peruvians
n
1.
2.
3.
4.
Claiming authority
Presenting facts
Warning/threatening
Recommending change of
behavior
5. Rejecting accusation/
explanation/request
6. Expressing dissatisfaction
7. Moralizing
8. Requesting cooperation
9. Requesting information
10. Disclaiming responsibility
11. O¤ering cooperation
12. Accepting excuse/
explanation
13. Claiming common ground
14. Planning future meeting
15. Indefinite reply
16. Indicating reluctance to
impinge
17. Expressing gratitude
Total # of Head Acts
%
n
%
Argentineans
n
%
25
36
21
15
23
33
19
14
41
41
25
13
21
21
12
7
52
41
34
0
20
16
13
0
0
0
37
19
20
8
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
4
0
2
16
2
1
2
2
0
1
8
1
0
9
20
3
0
21
45
0
4
8
1
0
8
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
3
1
2
2
2
0.5
5
0
0
3
2
0
0
1
0
108
0
1
200
0.5
2
255
1
Supportive Moves
Peruvians
n
A. Mitigators
18. Preparator
19. Grounder
20. Compliment
21. Requesting confirmation
22. Accepting excuse/
explanation
23. Claiming in-group
membership
24. Claiming common ground
25. Self-compliment
26. Mitigating accusation/
demands
27. Disclaiming responsibility
28. O¤ering cooperation
Total # of Mitigators
Venezuelans
Venezuelans
%
n
%
Argentineans
n
%
4
22
4
0
0
6
33
6
0
0
15
39
3
0
2
9
22
2
0
1
8
15
0
6
0
11
20
0
8
0
0
0
9
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
1
10
10
0.6
6
0
0
6
0
0
8
0
0
30
0
0
45
5
1
103
3
0.6
58
3
0
38
4
0
51
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
461
Table 2 (Continued )
Supportive Moves
Peruvians
n
%
Venezuelans
n
%
Argentineans
n
%
B. Aggravators
29. Requesting justification
30. Claiming authority
31. Presenting facts
32. Expressing dissatisfaction
33. Expressing concern
34. Warning/threatening
35. Moralizing
36. Claiming lack of interest
24
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
36
12
7
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
13
0
11
7
10
2
17
0
7
0
6
4
6
1
11
0
13
4
2
0
0
8
14
0
17
5
3
0
0
11
Total # of Aggravators
Total # of Supportive Moves
Total # of Strategies
37
67
175
55
38
72
175
375
41
47
38
76
331
50
23
also used a richer variety of strategies, both in their head acts and supportive moves (16 and 16, respectively) than Argentineans (12 and 10)
and Peruvians (5 and 6). Although the small number of strategies used
by Peruvians might lead one to believe that their reprimands were not
strong, the opposite is true. Peruvians left less room for negotiation than
Argentineans’ and Venezuelans’ multi-headed reprimands as will be seen
below.
Looking at the supportive moves, an interesting observation can be
made. While Peruvian participants intensified their reprimand slightly
more often than mitigated it (37, or 55% aggravators vs. 30, or 45% mitigators), Venezuelans did just the opposite (72, or 41% aggravators vs.
103, or 59% mitigators). Argentineans, on the other hand, balanced their
aggravators and mitigators (50% and 51% respectively). A simple proportions test, however, does not reject the null hypothesis of no preference
between mitigators and aggravators for Peruvians, Venezuelans and Argentineans. That is, even when the balance between mitigators and aggravators was di¤erent, the di¤erence was not statistically significant to support the assertion that one cultural group presented a stronger or more
demanding stance than the other.
4.2.
Behavioral expectations
To examine participants’ behavioral expectations and see if they chose to
exert power either by coercion or by seeking cooperation (Fairclough
1989), head acts and supportive moves were divided into coercive
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
462
Carmen Garcı́a
strategies violating the interlocutor’s rights to be treated fairly and not
imposed upon, and cooperative strategies respecting the interlocutor’s
right to be treated fairly and not imposed upon. Table 3, presented below,
presents the strategies used classified as coercive and cooperative.
As Table 3 shows, Peruvians managed rapport di¤erently than Venezuelans and Argentineans. The Peruvians used a higher number of coercive than cooperative strategies, strongly emphasizing the power
di¤erential between boss and employee (145, or 83% vs. 30, or 17%).
Venezuelans, on the other hand, used 236, or 63% coercive strategies vs.
137, or 37% cooperative strategies, and Argentineans used 194, or 59%
coercive strategies vs. 137, or 41% cooperative ones. That is, Argentineans and Venezuelans were the most cooperative; Peruvians, on the
other hand, were the most coercive. The di¤erence between coercive and
cooperative strategies for Peruvians, Venezuelans and Argentineans was
highly significant (z ¼ 8:91 > 2:58; z ¼ 5:2 > 2:58; and, z ¼ 3:33 > 2:58,
respectively). Now, comparing Peruvian and Venezuelan coercive strategies shows a highly significant di¤erence (z ¼ 5:40 > 2:58), but comparing Venezuelans’ and Argentineans’ coercive strategies does not show a
significant di¤erence (z ¼ 1:11 < 1:96).
These results reflect the di¤erent behavioral expectations among these
three cultural groups. It could be said that Peruvians, more than Venezuelans and Argentineans, held a rapport-challenging orientation, which
might be permitted behavior within the context of this situation, exhibiting a power di¤erential between participants and a serious fault incurred
by the –P interlocutor. It can be argued that the Peruvian bosses made
what they considered a fair work-related demand, as they might have perceived that they had been taken advantage of by the employee and thus
saw fit to claim their authority-control (claiming authority, presenting
facts, warning/threatening, moralizing, requesting justification). In addition, they saw it right and proper to request the employee’s fair contribution to the job (recommending change of behavior). Both their claim to
authority-control and their request for fairness-reciprocity point to the
fact that this was a ‘‘conflictual interpersonal relationship’’ (SpencerOatey 2005: 95) where they could not uphold the equity principle. The
strength of this rapport-challenging orientation becomes more evident observing that they did not invest much energy in upholding the association
principle. They only expressed respect to their interlocutor by using preparators, grounders, and o¤ering a compliment. These only amounted to
17% of the total strategies employed as opposed to 83% of them violating
the equity principle. It can be asserted then that in this context Peruvian
bosses preferred to uphold an independent rather than an interdependent
posture (Markus and Kitayama 1991).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
463
Table 3. Coercive and cooperative strategies.
Peruvians
n
Coercive strategies
1. Claiming authority
2. Presenting facts
3. Warning/threatening
4. Recommending change of
behavior
5. Rejecting accusation/
explanation/request
6. Moralizing
7. Requesting justification
8. Expressing concern
9. Self-compliment
10. Claiming lack of interest
11. Expressing dissatisfaction
Total # of coercive strategies
Cooperative strategies
1. Preparator
2. Grounder
3. Compliment
4. Requesting confirmation
5. Requesting cooperation
6. Requesting information
7. Disclaiming responsibility
8. O¤ering cooperation
9. Accepting excuse/
explanation
10. Claiming common ground
11. Planning future meeting
12. Indefinite reply
13. Indicating reluctance to
impinge
14. Claiming in-group
membership
15. Mitigating accusation/
demands
16. Expressing gratitude
Total # of cooperative
strategies
Total # of strategies
Venezuelans
%
n
%
Argentineans
n
%
33
41
21
15
19
23
12
9
41
54
32
13
11
14
9
3
52
54
34
0
16
16
10
0
0
0
37
10
20
6
11
24
0
0
0
0
145
6
14
0
0
0
0
83
14
29
11
1
2
2
236
9
11
2
0
8
4
194
3
3
1
0
2
1
59
4
22
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
13
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
39
3
0
4
0
7
17
4
8
15
0
6
20
3
3
21
45
2
5
0
2
6
1
1
6
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
4
3
1
6
1
1
0.3
5
0
0
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
9
2
0
0
0
0
10
3
6
2
0
0
1
0.3
2
1
30
17
139
137
41
175
375
4
8
3
0.3
0.5
0.5
63
4
10
1
0
1
0
2
5
1
37
331
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
464
Carmen Garcı́a
The situation is di¤erent in the case of Venezuelan and Argentinean
bosses. Venezuelan bosses also maintained a rapport-challenging orientation, not upholding the equity principle by asserting their authoritycontrol (claiming authority, presenting facts, warning/threatening, rejecting accusation/explanation/request, moralizing, requesting justification,
self-compliment, claiming lack of interest, expressing dissatisfaction and
indefinite reply), and demanding fairness-reciprocity from their employee
(recommending change of behavior, disclaiming responsibility, mitigating
accusation demand). These amounted to 64% of their strategies. But, different from Peruvian bosses, they invested some e¤ort in upholding the
association principle. They expressed their desire for involvement (claiming common ground, claiming in-group membership, o¤ering cooperation, requesting cooperation, planning future meeting), expressed empathy (accepting excuse/explanation, expressing concern)—and finally,
showed respect (preparator, grounder, compliment, indicating reluctance
to impinge, expressing gratitude). Strategies upholding the association
principle amounted to 36% of their strategies which illustrates how despite a rapport-challenging orientation, Venezuelan bosses expressed, to
some extent, a desire for interdependence.
Argentinean bosses, similarly to Venezuelan bosses, sustained a
rapport-challenging orientation. Although they did not uphold the equity
principle when they claimed authority-control (claiming authority, presenting facts, warning/threatening, rejecting accusation/explanation/
request, moralizing, requesting justification, expressing dissatisfaction, requesting confirmation, requesting information and disclaiming responsibility) and made fair work-related demands on an employee that had not
abided by the company’s regulations and done his/her job as expected
(64% of all their strategies), they did not neglect to respect the association
principle. They expressed their desire for involvement (requesting cooperation, o¤ering cooperation, claiming common ground) expressed empathy (accepting excuse/explanation), and showed respect (preparators,
grounder, indicating reluctance to impinge, and expressing gratitude).
Strategies respecting the association principle amounted to 36% of their
strategies.
The information presented above allows us to clearly see the similarities between Venezuelans and Argentineans and the di¤erence between
these two cultural groups and Peruvians. While the latter violated the
equity principle, specifically the authority-control and the fairnessreciprocity components to a large extent (87% of their strategies), Venezuelans and Argentineans did so less strongly (64% of their strategies for
both groups). Moreover, Peruvians respected, albeit weakly, the association principle, namely the respect components (17% of their strategies);
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
465
while Venezuelans and Argentineans not only expressed empathy and respect, but emphasized the involvement component, thus respecting the association principle more strongly with 36% of their strategies.
Given these findings, it is safe to state that these three groups’ interactional wants were mostly transactional rather than relational. They concentrated their e¤orts on solving the task at hand, i.e., on the employee’s
unsatisfactory performance at the workplace, as opposed to establishing a
positive rapport with him/her. Nevertheless, from the data presented
above, it can be asserted that Argentineans and Venezuelans balanced
their transactional and interactional goals more than Peruvians.
4.3.
Face sensitivities
After having seen the di¤erent behavioral expectations of these three cultural groups, we now turn to see how the di¤erent head acts and supportive moves used by Peruvian, Venezuelan, and Argentinean participants
reflect their respect and/or threat to their own and/or the interlocutor’s
identity face. Since Spencer-Oatey asserts that ‘‘it is identity face [and
not respectability face] that is threatened or enhanced in specific interactional encounters’’ (Spencer-Oatey 2005: 103), we will concentrate on
identity face here.
For this purpose, we have classified self-compliment and disclaiming
responsibility as strategies used by speakers to protect their own identity
face; and compliment (indicating reluctance to impinge) and gratitude as
strategies expressing respect for the interlocutor’s identity face. Although
strategies threatening the speakers’ identity face were not found, a wide
range of strategies threatening the interlocutor’s identity face were identified. These were warning/threatening, recommending change of behavior,
expressing dissatisfaction, expressing concern, indefinite reply, presenting
facts, claiming lack of interest, and moralizing. Table 4 presents quantitative information.
Table 4 shows that Peruvian participants are not interested in either
protecting or threatening their own identity face. Venezuelans and
Argentineans, on the other hand, protected it, albeit weakly (6% of
Venezuelan strategies and only 4% of Argentinean strategies). All three
groups concentrated their e¤orts on threatening the interlocutor’s identity face, the di¤erence between Peruvian, Venezuelans and Argentineans
being scant (96%, 91% and 93%, respectively) and not statistically significant. These results, rather than surprising, are in line with the participants’ behavioral expectations and interactional wants as pointed out
above.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
466
Carmen Garcı́a
Table 4.
Face sensitivities: Strategies respecting and threatening the interlocutor’s and
speaker’s identity face.
Peruvians
n
A. Strategies respecting the
speaker’s identity face
1. Self-compliment
2. Disclaiming responsibility
Total
B. Strategies threatening the
speaker’s identity face
—
Total
Total # of strategies addressing
the speaker’s identity face
C. Strategies respecting the
interlocutor’s identity face
3. Compliment
4. Indicating reluctance to
impinge
5. Expressing gratitude
Total
D. Strategies threatening the
interlocutor’s identity face
6. Warning/threatening
7. Recommending change of
behavior
8. Expressing dissatisfaction
9. Expressing concern
10. Indefinite reply
11. Presenting facts
12. Claiming lack of interest
13. Moralizing
Total
Total # of strategies addressing
the Interlocutor’s identity face
Total # of strategies addressing
identity face
%
Venezuelans
Argentineans
n
n
%
%
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
8
1
5
6
0
3
3
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
6
0
0
3
0
0
4
4
0
4
0
3
1
2
1
0
3
0
3
0
4
0
4
1
5
1
4
2
5
2
4
21
15
23
16
32
13
22
9
34
0
29
0
0
0
0
41
0
11
88
92
0
0
0
45
0
12
96
100
2
11
3
54
2
14
131
136
1
8
2
38
1
10
91
94
4
2
0
54
8
9
111
116
3
2
0
45
7
8
93
97
92
144
119
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
5.
467
Conclusions
When comparing Peruvian, Venezuelan and Argentinean participation in
terms of their behavioral expectations, interactional wants, and face sensitivities, important di¤erences became evident.
First, although the three groups favored their transactional over their
interactional wants, there were di¤erences in the strength in which they
were attained. Peruvians adopted a rapport-challenging orientation, coerced the interlocutor, and emphasized the power di¤erential between
boss and employee. It has been argued here that this might be permitted
behavior within the context described here, one of a high power di¤erential between participants, with serious irresponsibility committed by the
–P interlocutor. The boss then might have seen fit to assert both his/her
authority-control and request the employee’s fair contribution to the job,
a scenario which would explain why he/she did not uphold the equity
principle. The strength of this rapport-challenging orientation became
more apparent when the energy invested in upholding the association
principle focused, albeit mildly, on the expression of respect, at the expense of the creation of involvement or the expression of empathy. This
stresses the fact that in this context, Peruvian bosses preferred to uphold
an independent rather than an interdependent posture.
Venezuelans, similar to their Peruvian counterparts, exhibited a
rapport-challenging orientation, not upholding the equity principle by asserting their authority-control and demanding fairness-reciprocity from
their employee, but di¤erently from Peruvian bosses, they hinted at an interest in the establishment of interdependence, upholding the association
principle to a small degree; they expressed desire for involvement, empathy and respect.
Argentineans, similar to Venezuelans, despite not upholding the equity
principle, showed evidence of a rapport-maintenance orientation. They
did this by not neglecting to respect the association principle; thus, they
expressed their desire for involvement, expressed empathy, and showed
respect.
The only similarity among the three groups was that they all concentrated on threatening their interlocutor’s identity face. Although Venezuelans and Argentineans addressed their own identity face, they devoted
most of their energy to threaten the employee’s.
These results exhibiting di¤erent behavioral expectations wants lead us
to hypothesize intralingual miscommunication. Nonetheless, although interesting, the results presented here cannot be generalized to all Peruvians, Venezuelans, and Argentineans. An analysis of natural conversations would help to verify/reject these findings. Also, age and social class
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
468
Carmen Garcı́a
variables, as well as the level of familiarity with the interlocutor, should
be controlled in further studies. Moreover, research using alternative approaches in the area of Conversation Analysis and Ethnopragmatics
(Goddard and Wierzbicka 2004) or di¤erent politeness models (Brown
and Levinson 1987; Locher and Watts 2005) would greatly enrich these
results and provide further insight into Peruvian, Venezuelan and Argentinean cultural perspectives.
Although these results cannot be generalized, it is worth noting the possible miscommunication that might occur in a hypothetical interchange
between members of these three di¤erent cultural groups. Considering
Krauss’ (1987: 96) argument that
the addressee is a full participant in the formulation of the message (. . .) and, indeed, may be regarded in a very real sense as the cause of the message. [And] that
without that addressee that particular message would not exist. But the message in
the concrete and particular form it takes, is as much attributable to the existence
of the addressee as it is to the existence of the speaker.
Then, if similar patterns of interaction to those recorded in the present
study were observed among Peruvian, Venezuelan, and Argentinean participants, a hypothetical encounter between a Peruvian boss and a Venezuelan or Argentinean employee would possibly result in Venezuelan and
Argentinean employees being taken aback by the Peruvian boss’s authoritative, concise, and abrupt tone, which leaves little room for negotiation
or cooperation and/or for the creation of involvement. A Venezuelan
boss, on the other hand, due to his/her cooperativeness and verbosity,
might be perceived by Peruvian and Argentinean employees as approachable and leaving the doors open for negotiation. This cooperativeness and
approachability, however, might be accepted by an Argentinean employee but not by a Peruvian who might perceive it as a flaw in his/her
authority, or suspicious behavior. Finally, an Argentinean boss might be
perceived by a Peruvian employee as willing to cooperate, which again
might be perceived as a flaw in his/her authority or suspicious behavior.
A Venezuelan employee, however, might perceive him/her as cooperative
as expected. Further research will help confirm or reject these hypotheses.
Notes
1. Some of these studies include Placencia’s comparison of openings in telephone calls in
Peninsular and Ecuadorian Spanish (1994), and the pragmatic variation observed in
two varieties of Ecuadorian Spanish (2008); Delgado’s (1994) study on directives in Colombian and Peninsular Spanish; Fant’s (1996) comparison of Mexican and PeninsularSpanish speakers’ negotiating strategies; Puga Larraı́n’s (1997) analysis of mitigation in
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
469
Chilean and Peninsular Spanish; Achugar’s (2001, 2002) work on compliments in
Spanish-speaking countries; Márquez Reiter’s (2002) study of Peninsular Spanish
speakers’ and Uruguayan Spanish speakers’ requesting strategies; Márquez Reiter and
Placencia’s (2004) comparison of Ecuadorian and Uruguayan service encounter interactions and Garcı́a’s (2003, 2004a) comparison of Venezuelans’ and Peruvians’ strategies
in reprimanding and responding to a reprimand.
2. As observed, participants and the persons who played the role of employee in the three
groups di¤ered in age, gender, and degree of acquaintance with the interlocutor. This
may suggest a limitation to the results of this study.
3. Percentages in this and all tables above the 0.5 mark have been rounded up (e.g. 94.7%
has become 95%).
References
Achugar, Mariana (2001). Piropos as metaphors for gender roles in Spanish speaking cultures. Pragmatics 11(2): 127–137.
Achugar, Mariana (2002). Piropos: Cambios en la valoración del grado de cortesı́a de una
práctica discursiva [Piropos: Changes in their courtesy value in discursive practice]. In Actos de habla y cortesı́a en español [Speech acts and politeness in Spanish] (LINCOM
Studies in Pragmatics 5), Marı́a Elena Placencia and Diana Bravo (eds.), 175–192. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper (eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural
pragmatics: Requests and apologies (Advances in Discourse Processes 31). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Briz, Antonio (1998). Hacia un análisis argumentativo de un texto coloquial. La incidencia
de los conectores pragmáticos [Toward an argumentative analysis of a colloquial text. The
occurrence of pragmatic connectors]. Verba 21: 369–388.
Briz, Antonio (2002). La atenuación en una conversación polémica [Mitigation in an argumentative conversation]. In Estudios sobre Lengua y Sociedad [Studies on Language and
Society] (Estudis filològics 9), José Luis Blas, Margarita Porcar Millares, Santiago Fortuño Llorens, and Manuela Casanova (eds.), 87–103. Valencia: Universidad Jaime I de
Castellón.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language
usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Delgado, Vilma (1994). Politeness in language: Directive speech acts in Colombian and Castilian Spanish, and U.S. English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stony Brook, NY:
State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Fant, Lars (1996). Regulación conversacional en la negociación. Una comparación entre
pautas mexicanas y peninsulares [Conversational rules in negotiation. A comparison between Mexican and Peninsular Spanish]. In El Español hablado y la cultura oral en España
e Hispanoamérica [The Spanish language in the oral tradition in Spain and Latin America]
(Biblioteca Ibero-Americana 59), Thomas Kotschi, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Klaus Zimmermann (eds.), 147–183. Madrid: Iberoamericana.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. César (2009). Pragmatic variation across Spanish(es): Requests in Mexican, Costa Rican and Dominican Spanish. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(4).
Fairclough, Norman (1989). Language and power (Language in Social Life Series). London
and New York: Longman.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
470
Carmen Garcı́a
Gallois, Cynthia and Victor J. Callan (1991). Interethnic accommodation: The role of
norms. In Contexts of accommodation. Developments in applied sociolinguistics (Studies in
Emotion and Social Interaction), Howard Giles, Justine Coupland, and Nikolas Coupland (eds.), 245–269. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garcı́a, Carmen (1996). Reprimanding and responding to a reprimand: A case study of Peruvian Spanish speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 26(5): 663–697.
Garcı́a, Carmen (2003). Estudio comparativo del discurso oral de peruanos y venezolanos.
Reprendiendo y respondiendo a una reprimenda: Poder y solidaridad. [Comparative study
of Peruvian and Venezuelan oral discourse. Reprimanding and responding to a reprimand: Power and solidarity]. In ACTAS del Primer Coloquio del Programa EDICE [Proceedings of the First Coloquium of the EDICE Program], Diana Bravo (ed.), 257–297.
Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Garcı́a, Carmen (2004a). Coercion and cooperation: A case study of Argentinean reprimands and responses to reprimands. In Current trends in the pragmatics of Spanish (Pragmatics and Beyond 123), Rosina Márquez Reiter and Marı́a Elena Placencia (eds.),
231–264. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Garcı́a, Carmen (2004b). Reprendiendo y respondiendo a una reprimenda: Similitudes y diferencias entre peruanos y venezolanos [Reprimanding and responding to a reprimand:
Similarities and di¤erences among Peruvians and Venezuelans]. Spanish in Context 1(1):
113–147.
Gille, Johan (2001). Pautas argumentativas en el diálogo espontáneo: Un estudio de conversaciones intra e interculturales [Argumentative norms in spontaneous dialogue: A study of
intra and intercultural conversations]. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Goddard, Cli¤ and Anna Wierzbicka (2004). Cultural scripts: What are they and what are
they good for? Intercultural Pragmatics 1(2): 153–166.
Go¤man, Erving (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior. New York:
Doubleday Anchor Books.
Je¤erson, Gail (1986). Transcript notation. Structures of Social Interaction. In Structures of
social action. Studies in conversation analysis (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction),
Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), ix–xvi. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kachigan, Sam Kash (1986). Statistical analysis. An interdisciplinary introduction to univariate and multivariate methods. New York: Radius Press.
Krauss, Robert M. (1987). The role of the listener: Addressees’ influences on message formulation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 6(2): 81–97.
Locher, Miriam and Richard Watts (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of
Politeness Research 1(1): 9–33.
Markus, Hazel and Shinobu Kitayama (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98(2): 224–253.
Márquez Reiter, Rosina (2002). A contrastive study of indirectness in Spanish: Evidence
from Uruguayan and Peninsular Spanish. Pragmatics 12(2): 135–151.
Márquez Reiter, Rosina and Marı́a Elena Placencia (2004). Displaying closeness and respectful distance in Montevidean and Quiteño service encounters. In Current trends in the
pragmatics of Spanish (Pragmatics and Beyond 123), Rosina Márquez Reiter and Marı́a
Elena Placencia (eds.), 121–155. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Márquez Reiter, Rosina and Marı́a Elena Placencia (eds.) (2005). Spanish pragmatics. New
York, NY: Palgrave, Macmillan.
Placencia, Marı́a Elena (1994). Pragmatics across varieties of Spanish. Donaire 2: 65–78.
Placencia, Marı́a Elena (1998). Pragmatic variation: Ecuadorian Spanish vs. Peninsular
Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics 2(1): 71–103.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding
471
Placencia, Marı́a Elena (2005). Pragmatic variation in corner store interactions in Quito and
Madrid. Hispania 88(3): 583–598.
Placencia, Marı́a Elena (2008). Requests in corner shop transactions in Ecuadorian Andean
and Coastal Spanish. In Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 178), Klaus P. Schneider and Anne
Barron (eds.), 307–332. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Puga Larraı́n, Juana (1997). La atenuación en el castellano de Chile: Un enfoque pragmalingüı́stico [Attenuation in Chilean Spanish: A pragmalinguistic approach]. (Estudios iberoamericanos. Universitat de València.) Valencia, Spain: Tirant Lo Blanch Libros.
Scarcella, Robin (1979). On speaking politely in a second language. In On TESOL ’79, Carlos A. Yorio, Kyle Perkins, and Jacquelyn Schachter (eds.), 275–287. Washington, D.C.:
Tesol.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (Open Linguistics Series),
Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 11–46. London: Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen (2005). (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging
their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119.
Vanderveken, Daniel (1990). Meaning and speech acts. Volume 1: Principles of language use.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Appendix
The transcription marks used were:
A. Simultaneous utterances:
[[ are used to link together utterances that start simultaneously.
B. Contiguous utterances:
¼ is placed between utterances with no time gap uttered by di¤erent
speakers, or to link di¤erent parts of a speaker’s utterance that has
been carried over to another line because of an interruption.
C. Intervals:
(0.0) is placed to measure pause lengths (measured in tenths of a second).
is placed at the point of interruption. An utterance was considered
to be interrupted when the speaker started making an utterance
and changed its content and/or form.
D. Characteristics of speech delivery:
.
marks fall in tone.
,
marks continuing intonation.
?
marks rising intonation.
?,
marks weaker rising intonation.
!
marks an animated tone.
"#
marks rising and falling shifts in intonation.
><
marks that the enclosed utterance is delivered at a faster
pace.
:::
marks lengthened syllable; each : marking one ‘‘beat’’.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM
472
Carmen Garcı́a
(LF)
(( ))
marks laughter.
encloses description of gestures or other non-verbal
information.
Underlining marks emphasis.
CAPITAL
mark increased volume in the production of a given word
LETTERS or words of the utterance.
E. Transcriber doubt
( ) is used to mark unintelligible utterances.
[email protected]
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 5/3/16 9:50 AM