A pragmatic analysis of students’ complaints and professors’ responses to complaints: A case study of an Egyptian private university

Abstract

The current study aimed to examine how university students complain and how professors respond to their complaints. Data were collected from 40 undergraduate students and 40 university professors at a private Egyptian university using role-plays. Students’ complaints were coded with the use of an adapted version of Trosborg’s (1995) coding scheme for complaint strategies while professors’ responses were coded based on an adapted version of Laforest’s (2002) model for complaint-response strategies. The results showed that half of the students’ complaints came in the form of requests for repair. This was followed by expressing disapproval, making accusations and casting blame. As for professors, they mostly partially accepted the students’ complaints through justifying themselves, suggesting alternatives and setting conditions for future acceptance. Interestingly, the social variables of gender and age did not generally have an influence on the realization of the speech acts of complaint and responding to complaints.

Keywords:

• speech act
• complaint
• complaint-response
• politeness
• Arabic

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

In our study, we examined the strategies university students use to complain about university related issues and how their professors respond to these complaints. We collected data from 40 students and 40 professors in a private Egyptian university using role-plays, and we coded the data based on relevant pragmatic models in the literature. We found that students’ complaints were dominated by requests for repair, followed by expressing disapproval, making accusations and casting blame. We also found that professors strongly tended to partially accept the students’ complaints through providing justifications, suggesting alternatives and setting conditions for future acceptance. These findings were noted in the data regardless of the age and gender of the students and professors.

1. Introduction

Complaining and responding to complaints are two speech acts that people frequently perform in different walks of life, including at home, school, restaurants, hospitals, businesses, etc. Voicing and responding to complaints effectively are crucial acts for success in our social and professional lives. Despite the frequent use and importance of these speech acts, there is a need for further research in this area (El-Dakhs & Ahmed, 2021b, Hopkinson, 2018). First, each speech act is often studied separately. While some researchers have focused on the study of complaining (e.g., Chen et al., 2011, El-Dakhs et al., 2019a, Meinl, 2010), others have examined the act of responding to complaints (e.g., Hopkinson, 2018, Migdadi et al., 2012, Tereszkiewicz, 2019). This is a rather unnatural approach since complaining and responding to complaints constitute a sequence of an initiative act related to a reactive act (Weigand, 2010). Second, there is a notable paucity of research on the speech act of responding to complaints (El-Dakhs & Ibrahim, 2022, Liu & Cai, 2020). Hence, there is a real need for further research on this speech act. Third, most of the few studies that examined the speech act of responding to complaints focused on the service industry (e.g., Hopkinson, 2018, Liu & Cai, 2020, Tereszkiewicz, 2019). Other important contexts in which the sequence of complaint/complaint-response is vital (e.g., doctor-patient interaction, teacher-student communication, parent-child conversations, etc.) have been largely neglected.

The current study aims to address this gap in the literature through examining the students’ complaints and the professors’ responses to complaints at a private university in Egypt. We will explore how students complain and how professors respond to these complaints in Arabic, the language used to express and respond to complaints in the study context. The present study is significant for four reasons. First, the study examines the speech acts of complaining and responding to complaints together within the same context. This is an approach that is rarely adopted in the literature. Second, the study contributes to the paucity of research on the speech act of responding to complaints. Third, the present study focuses on the university context, which is under-researched with respect to complaining and responding to complaints. This is an important context to explore for these speech acts because students often complain and expect responses to their complaints. Additionally, failing to provide adequate responses to students’ complaints negatively impacts the quality of education and students’ satisfaction. Finally, the participants in the current study speak in Arabic, which is a language that is relatively under-researched in the pragmatic literature. The findings of the current study will thus help us better understand the conventions of the Arabic language and culture.

To situate the current study, the next section will summarize the politeness theory. This will be followed by a brief survey of earlier studies on the speech acts of complaining and responding to complaints.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Politeness theory

Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) theory of politeness is centred on the concept of “face” which represents individuals’ negotiated public image in the society that develops upon their interaction with other members (Brown et al. 1987). According to the theory, individuals have a special preference to be liked and admired (named as “positive face”) and to avoid imposition (named as “negative face”). However, some speech acts are considered face-threatening acts (FTAs) because they run contrary to the addressee’s face wants. The speech act of complaint, which is the focus of the present study, is considered an FTA because it jeopardizes the addressee’s need to be liked and admired (positive face) through criticizing their actions. The speech act of complaint also undermines the addressee’s need for autonomy and respect (i.e., negative face) through requesting repair for the damage (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993).

According to Brown et al. (1987), interlocutors often choose among five strategies while performing FTAs. One alternative is to express the FTA directly, without mitigation. This alternative was referred to as the “bald-on-record” strategy. A second alternative was to maintain some level of ambiguity while expressing the FTA. A third alternative is to decide not to perform the FTA. The last two alternatives are related to the addressee’s face wants. These alternatives reflect the speaker’s preference not to harm the interlocutor’s face. Instead, the speaker tends to show respect to the face wants of the interlocutor, whether in terms of showing needed admiration or respect. The choice among these strategies is highly influenced by social variables, including the distance among the interlocutors, the differences in power among them and the speaker’s cultural background (Brown et al. 1987).

In terms of cultural background, two important models will prove relevant to the current study. First, Hofstede’s (2001) model distinguishes between collectivistic communities, such as Egypt and the Arab World, which highly value tightly-integrated relationships, group solidarity and differences in social dominance (hierarchical relationships) versus individualistic communities, such as the Western societies, which emphasize loose ties that often relate the individual only to his/her small family. Second, Hall (1976) postulated that different cultures communicate differently, either explicitly which are known as low-context cultures or implicitly which are called as high-context cultures.

Despite its common use in the literature, Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness has been criticized. The theory was critiqued for failing to accommodate the need for contextual factors and cultural specificities (Culpeper & Terkourafi, 2017), claiming the universality of face wants (Baron, 2002), disregarding the importance of social relations in the realization of politeness (Spencer-Oatey, 2000) and being unable to adequately explain the phenomenon of impoliteness (Eelen, 2001). However, we opted to use this model because it has proved to be flexible and easy to use in earlier studies on speech acts (e.g., Álvarez, 2014, Gotzner & Mazzarella, 2021, Karimkhanlooei & Vaezi, 2017). The model has indeed offered insightful descriptions of the linguistic strategies that realized speech acts (e.g., Locher, 2006, Pizziconi, 2003).

3. Literature review

The current section includes a survey of earlier studies on complaints and responses to complaints that focused on the use of the first language because of their relevance to the current study which examines the use of Arabic as a first language.

4. Studies on complaints

Previous research on the speech act of complaint using the first language comprises two types of studies, namely, monolingual and cross-cultural. Monolingual studies focused on the use of complaint strategies in only one language. For example, Hartley (1998) examined Americans’ preferred strategies to realize the speech act of complaint. Data were collected using several methods; namely, interviews, discourse completion tasks and rating tasks. The analysis showed that Americans’ complaints demonstrate a clear influence of social variables, including gender, distance and power. Additionally, Americans were particularly sensitive to face management, which led to their use of multiple strategies to mitigate the negative force of face-threatening acts, such as opting out, indirect strategies and mitigation devices.

Another example of monolingual studies is El-Dakhs and Ahmed (2021b) which compared the realization of the speech act of complaint in Alexandrian Arabic and Najdi Arabia, which are two dialects of the Arabic language spoken in Alexandria, Egypt, and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia respectively. Employing role-plays, the study showed that the two dialects preferred using directive acts followed by expressions of disapproval and blame in their complaints. However, the results also revealed intriguing differences between the two dialects. For instance, Najdis produced less direct complaints and showed a stronger influence for social variables on their complaint behaviour than Alexandrians did. The two dialects also reflected some variation in the manner they attempted to accommodate the complainee’s negative face.

More studies on the speech act of complaint were cross-cultural in nature. For example, Kozlova (2004) examined indirect complaints in Russian and American English. The results of this ethnographic study showed that Russian and American complaints are generally structurally similar. However, different styles were adopted by the two cultures while expressing indirect complaints. For instance, Americans preferred humorous complaints whereas Russians preferred the use of laments. Additionally, Americans favoured negative politeness while Russians preferred positive politeness in the realization of indirect complaints.

Another cross-cultural study was conducted by Chen et al. (2011) who compared American and Chinese complaints. The results of a discourse completion task revealed some similarities and differences. The American and Chinese participants used complaint strategies similarly in both overall and combined analyses. However, culturally based differences were noted in the use of linguistic forms and content. For example, the Chinese exhibited greater sensitivity to social power than the Americans, a finding that was interpreted in terms of cultural differences between collectivistic societies as represented by the Chinese and individualistic ones as represented by the Americans.

5. Studies on responses to complaints

There is much less research on the speech act of responding to complaints than on the speech act of complaint (e.g., El-Dakhs & Ibrahim, 2022, Liu & Cai, 2020) and most of the complaint-response research comes from the service industry. For example, Napolitani (2018) compared restaurants’ responses to online complaints in the UK (tripadvisor.co.uk) and Italy (tripadvisor.it). His analysis of 100 low score reviews revealed intriguing cross-cultural differences. While Italian restaurants generally responded in an improvised and direct manner, British owners showed a stronger tendency to produce impersonal and polite responses. Overall, the Italian responses were mainly dominated by emotions whereas the British responses were more professional. In the same vein, Tereszkiewicz (2019) compared how English and Polish mobile communication companies responded to customer complaints on Twitter. A notable similarity was a strong preference in the two corpora for offering help and requesting contact and/or information. Cross-cultural differences were also observed. For example, the British responses exhibited more instances of negative politeness and indirectness and fewer evasive strategies, such as explanations and denials, than the Polish ones.

In addition to the service industry, a few other studies examined the sequence of complaints and responses to complaints together in specific contexts. A good example is Laforest (2002) who examined the complaint/complaint-response sequence in a French corpus of family conversations. The data was dominated by argument-avoidance strategies by all interactants. Arguments broke out only when the value of the complainee’s response was questioned. The data analysis also revealed that the interactants’ complaint/response to complaint behavior was highly influenced by the intimacy of their relationship. For instance, complaints and complaint-responses were uttered without the special precautions generally associated with face-threatening acts. Likewise, Migdadi et al. (2012) examined the complaints and responses to complaints produced in a Jordanian live radio phone-in. The results showed a great preference for providing solidarity among the callers and the host. For example, the host encouraged the callers to speak freely and promised to speed up remedial action. The conversations were largely influenced by the public institutional setting it was part of.

The current study aims to contribute to the efforts made to explore the sequence of complaints and responses to complaints together in specific contexts. Our work examines Egyptian university students’ complaints and Egyptian professors’ responses to these complaints in Arabic, the first language of the participants. We also examine the influence of gender and age on the students’ and professors’ complaint behaviour. More specifically, our study addresses these research questions:

1. What strategies do Egyptian undergraduate students use to complain to their university professors?

2. What strategies do Egyptian university professors use to respond to their undergraduate students’ complaints?

3. How does gender influence the students’ complaints and the professors’ responses to complaints?

4. How does the professors’ age influence the students’ complaints and the professors’ responses to complaints?

6. Methodology

6.1. Participants

Two groups of participants took part in this study. The first group consisted of 40 undergraduate students who were equally divided into 20 male and 20 female students. The female students aged between 19 and 23 (mean: 20.2) while the male students aged between 18 and 24 (mean: 20). The second group consisted of 40 university professors who were all PhD holders. They were also equally divided into 20 male and 20 female professors. The professors’ ages ranged between 29 and 56 (mean: 41.35) for female professors and between 33 and 64 (mean: 45.85) for male professors. All the participants were Egyptians who were living in Alexandria, the largest port in Egypt that overlooks the Mediterranean Sea. The participants were native speakers of Arabic and they spoke the Alexandrian dialect. They were voluntarily recruited from the College of Business Administration, College of Engineering and College of Pharmacy at a private Egyptian university that is headquartered in Alexandria, and they all submitted their written consent forms prior to data collection. Although English is the medium of instruction in this university, it is common practice that students complain, and professors respond to their complaints, in Arabic since most students and professors in the university are Egyptians.

6.2. Data collection

Data were collected at two stages. At the first stage, the students took part in eight role-plays that were based on situations that students often face and complain about in real university life (see Appendix A). The situations were written in Arabic and every student was asked to complain about each situation using Arabic. Half the male students were told to complain to male professors while the other half imagined talking to female professors. The same pattern was applied to the female students who also responded to male/female professors in equal numbers. We specified the university professor’s level of education (i.e., doctorate level) because the professor’s academic rank proved to be an important social variable in the university context in Egypt (e.g., El-Dakhs & Ahmed, 2021a). As for the professor’s gender, we purposefully had equal numbers of same-sex and different-sex interactions to simulate the Egyptian university context where professors could be men or women. The students’ responses were audio-recorded and later transcribed for the purpose of data coding.

At the second stage of data collection, every professor had to read and respond to the complaints of one of the students. The male/female professors, who were PhD holders, responded in equal numbers to male/female students’ complaints. We again maintained the gender balance to simulate the real context of the study. We also made use of the students’ complaints that were collected in the first stage to increase the authenticity of our data collection. The professors responded to the students’ complaints in Arabic since the students expressed their complaints in Arabic as well. The professors’ responses were again audio-recorded and transcribed for data coding.

We preferred to collect data using role-plays because they allow for the control of important micro-social factors (e.g., age, gender & region) and can be easily adapted to trigger the production of a specific speech act within a given context (Demeter, 2007, Félix-Brasdefer, 2018, Hosseinpur et al., 2019). Additionally, role-plays facilitate making comparisons across different samples within the same study or across different studies. The use of role-plays in the current study allowed us to control for the participants’ age, gender, dialect, educational background and nationality. However, it must be noted that the use of role-plays has been criticized for potentially providing artificial or simulated data since the participants enact situations that they may not face in real life. However, we attempted to decrease the potential artificial nature of the data through designing situations that are common in the participants’ university life, encouraging the participants to respond naturally and having the professors respond to actual complaints produced by students.

6.3. Data coding

The students’ complaints were coded based on an adapted version of Trosborg’s (1995) coding scheme for complaint strategies (see Appendix B) which was widely used in the literature (El-Dakhs & Ahmed, 2021b; El-Dakhs et al, 2019a, 2019c). According to Trosborg (1995), the complaint strategies are classified into four categories that vary in directness. The least direct are giving hints while the most direct are casting blame, whether in a modified manner or explicitly. In between come the category of expressing disapproval through expressing annoyance or sharing ill consequences and the category of accusing, whether indirectly or directly. In addition to these four categories, the first author added two categories to the model, namely, opting out (having the right not to respond) and directives which include making requests or threats.

The professors’ responses to complaints were coded based on an adapted version of Laforest’s (2002) model for complaint-response strategies (see Appendix C). The first author used the adapted version in an earlier study on the complaint-response strategies (El-Dakhs & Ibrahim, 2022) and the model proved effective. Laforest’s (2002) model classified responses to complaints into four categories, namely, (1) acceptance of the complaint, (2) partial acceptance of the complaint, (3) rejection of the complaint and (4) disregarding the complaint. Each of these categories was represented by one or more complaint-response strategies. In our adapted version, the main categories were maintained, but we had to introduce a few more sub-strategies to cater for the data. For example, Laforest’s (2002) included two strategies under the acceptance of complaints, namely, admitting responsibility (e.g., I was going to submit it soon.) or excusing oneself (e.g., I’m daydreaming, sorry!). The adapted model added a further strategy, which is agreeing to change behaviour (e.g., Okay, no problem. I’ll do as you request.). For a detailed description of our adapted model, see Appendix C.

While complaining or responding to complaints, the participants employed several initiators and modifiers. The initiators (see Appendix D) included using terms of endearment (e.g., dear), address terms (e.g., Dr.), terms of respect (i.e., the Egyptian hadretek), greetings (e.g., Good morning) and expressions to draw attention (e.g., Look!). Regarding the modifiers, the participants made use of several external and internal modifiers. The external modifiers (see Appendix E) included justification (e.g., I had to leave early to catch the bus), apologizing (e.g., I’m sorry), thanking (e.g., Thank you!), expressing empathy (e.g., I understand how you’re feeling), seeking solutions (e.g., Perhaps, we could meet at another time.), requesting (e.g., Can I use another book?), consenting to a request (e.g., I agree), declining a request (e.g., I don’t agree) and calming the interlocutor down (e.g., Don’t worry! All will be fine). The internal modifiers (see Appendix F) included downgraders which were represented by polite markers (e.g., please), hedges (e.g., kind of), downtoners (e.g., might) and subjectivizers (e.g., I think), and upgraders which included overstaters (e.g., absolutely), intensifiers (e.g., very), plus commitors (e.g., of course) and swearing by God’s name (e.g., I swear that this is true).

The following are illustrative examples from Arabic data, along with their coding and English translations:

Female student to male teacher

الطالبة: دكتور، إحنا متضايقين جدا من الموضوعات الجديدة اللي اتضافت للمنهج. فهل ممكن نأجل الموضوع ده أو نلغيه؟

.المدرس: لأ مش ممكن. إحنا حنشتغل الموضوع ده لأنه مهم جدا لحياتكم العملية

Student: Dr. [initiator- address term], we’re so [modifier—intensifier] upset about the new topics that were added to the syllabus [disapproval—annoyance]. Can you postpone or cancel them? [directives—request]

Teacher: No, this is not possible [modifier—declining a request]. We will study these topics because they are very [modifier—intensifier] important for your career [partial acceptance—justifying oneself].

Female student to female teacher

.الطالبة: أنا بطالب بإعادة تصحيح الورقة لأن أنا متأكدة إن أنا حليت صح وفيه حاجات أكيد اتحسبت غلط

.المدرسة: ما فيش مشكلة. إحنا حنفتح الورقة مع بعض ونبص على الغلطات

Student: I request the re-marking of the paper [directives—request] because I am certain that I answered the questions correctly [modifier—justification] and surely [modifiers—overstater] some parts were not marked correctly [accusation—indirect].

Teacher: No problem [modifier—consenting to request]. We will review the paper together and check the mistakes [acceptance—agreeing to change behaviour].

Male student to male teacher

.الطالب: الامتحان كان طويل قوي يا دكتور. فياريت حضرتك تعيد الامتحان

.المدرس: بص يا ابني. إنت الوحيد اللي اشتكيت الشكوى دي. يبقى إنت اللي مش عارف تنظم وقتك كويس

Student: The exam was too long [accusation—indirect], Dr. [initiator—address term]. Please [modifier—polite marker], hadretak [initiator—term of respect], repeat the exam [directives—request].

Teacher: Look [initiator—drawing attention], my son [initiator—term of endearment]. You are the only one who complained. So, it’s you who cannot manage your time well [rejecting- counterattacking].

Male student to female teacher

الطالب: يا دكتور حضرتك المفروض تخلي الآسئلة على قد الوقت في الامتحان لكن حضرتك حطيتي امتحان طويل قوي.وأنا ما قدرتش أخلص

.المدرسة: ما تقلقش، لو الطلبة كلهم عندهم نفس المشكلة حنعيد الامتحان

Student: Dr. [initiator—address term], hadretak [initiator—term of respect] should set the questions according to the exam time, but hadretak [initiator—term of respect] set a long exam [accusation—direct] and I couldn’t complete it [disapproval—ill consequences].

Teacher: Don’t worry [modifier—calming down]. If all students have faced the same problem, I’ll repeat the exam [partial acceptance—setting a condition for future acceptance].

7. Data analysis

To answer the first two research questions in relation to types of strategies students used to complain and professors used to respond to these complaints, we used descriptive statistics including figures and percentages. As for the third question about the influence of gender on the realization of these strategies, we used the Chi-square test. Regarding the fourth and last question about the influence of age on the realization of these strategies, we used Pearson correlation test.

8. Results

The results section is divided into four sub-sections as per the research questions.

8.1. What strategies do Egyptian undergraduate students use to complain to their university professors?

In response to the first research question, we calculated the students’ complaint strategies as well as their use of initiators and modifiers. In terms of complaint strategies, the students’ requests for repair accounted for half of their complaint strategies (50%). This was followed by expressing disapproval (23%), making accusations (14%) and casting blame (11%). The students hinted at their complaints only rarely (2%). Notably, the students expressed disapproval equally through annoyance and ill consequences. However, they produced more direct (12%) than indirect (2%) accusations, and more modified (8%) than explicit (3%) blame. Table 1 summarizes the students’ use of complaint strategies.

Table 1. Students’ complaint strategies

Strategy	Number	Percentage
Opting out	0	0%
No explicit reproach (hint)	7	2%
Expressing disapproval	114	23%
Expressing annoyance	56	11%
Expressing ill consequences	58	12%
Accusation	74	14%
Indirect accusation	9	2%
Direct accusation	65	12%
Blame	58	11%
Modified blame	44	8%
Explicit blame (behaviour)	6	1%
Explicit blame (person)	8	2%
Directive acts	251	50%
Request for repair	251	50%
Threat	0	0%

In terms of initiators and modifiers, the initiators represented 51% of the total of both categories. The students’ initiators were mainly dominated by terms of address (e.g., Dr.) and respect (i.e., hadretek). The students also used almost equal numbers of external and internal modifiers. The most frequent external modifier was justification since students often tended to justify their complaints. As for internal modifiers, the students employed more downgraders, especially in the form of polite markers, hedges and downtoners, than upgraders. A summary of these results is found in Table 2.

Table 2. Initiators and Modifiers in Students’ Complaints

Initiator/Modifier	Number	Percentage
Initiators	430	51%
Term of respect	152	18%
Greeting	4	1%
Address term	274	32%
External modifiers	231	28%
Justification	196	23%
Apology	7	1%
Thanking	3	1%
Empathy	13	1.5%
Seeking solutions	12	1.5%
Internal modifiers	174	21%
Downgraders	113	14%
Polite markers	38	4%
Hedges	40	4%
Downtoners	24	4.5%
Subjectivizers	11	1.5%
Upgraders	61	7%
Overstaters	10	1%
Intensifiers	36	4%
Swear by God	15	2%

8.2. What strategies do Egyptian university professors use to respond to their undergraduate students’ complaints?

In response to the second research question, we calculated the complaint-response strategies employed by the professors along with the accompanying initiators and modifiers. In terms of complaint-response strategies, professors often partially accepted the students’ complaints (76%). The partial-acceptance strategies most frequently used were justifying oneself (33%), suggesting alternatives (29%) and setting conditions for future acceptance (14%). To a much lesser extent, the professors rejected some complaints (17%) or accepted others (7%) through agreeing to change behaviour. Table 3 summarizes these results.

Table 3. Professors’ complaint-response strategies

Strategy	Number	Percentage
Acceptance	32	7%
Agreeing to change behaviour	32	7%
Partial acceptance	332	76%
Justifying oneself	143	33%
Suggesting alternatives	127	29%
Setting conditions for future acceptance	62	14%
Rejecting the complaint	72	17%
Counterattacking	26	6%
Not acknowledging the complaint	20	5%
Acknowledging the act	26	6%
Disregarding the complaint	0	0%

In terms of initiators and modifiers, the professors’ responses were mainly dominated by the use of external (42%) and internal (45%) modifiers. The most frequently used modifiers were consenting to requests (17%) in terms of external modifiers, and hedges (15%), plus commitors (13%) and intensifiers (10%) in terms of internal modifiers. As for initiators, which represented 13% of the total markers, they mainly included expressions to draw attention (7%) and terms of endearment (4%). Table 4 summarizes these results.

Table 4. Initiators and Modifiers in professors’ responses to complaints

Initiator/Modifier	Number	Percentage
Initiators	61	13%
Term of endearment	19	4%
Term of respect	10	2%
Drawing attention	32	7%
External modifiers	193	42%
Requests	23	5%
Empathy	24	5%
Apology	23	5%
Calming down	16	3%
Consenting to request	77	17%
Declining request	30	7%
Internal modifiers	204	45%
Downgraders	82	18%
Hedges	68	15%
Downtoners	6	1%
Subjectivizers	8	2%
Upgraders	122	27%
Overstaters	9	2%
Intensifiers	44	10%
Plus commitors	59	13%
Swear by God	10	2%

8.3. How does gender influence the students’ complaints and the professors’ responses?

In response to the third research question, we conducted a Chi square test to examine the influence of gender on the complaints and responses to complaints. The results, which are shown in Tables 5 and 6, showed two instances of significant differences. While male students produced significantly more hints than female students, female students made significantly more direct accusations against professors than male students. As for the professors’ responses, no influence for gender emerged.

Table 5. Chi square test results for the influence of students’ gender on their complaints

Strategy	Female Students		Male Students		χ^2	P
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Opting out	0	0	0	0	-	-
Hints	0	0	7	4.4	7.157	0.007
Expressing disapproval	59	21.5	55	20.4	0.111	0.739
Expressing annoyance	33	20.6	23	14.4	2.165	0.141
Expressing ill consequences	26	16.3	32	20.0	0.758	0.384
Accusations	43	15.7	31	11.5	2.053	0.152
Indirect accusations	3	1.9	6	3.8	1.029	0.502
Direct accusations	40	25.0	25	15.6	4.344	0.037
Blame	36	13.1	22	8.1	3.556	0.059
Modified blame	24	15.0	20	12.5	0.422	0.516
Explicit blame (behaviour)	5	3.1	1	0.6	2.718	0.214
Explicit blame (person)	7	4.4	1	0.6	4.615	0.067
Directives	120	43.8	131	48.5	1.221	0.269
Requests for repair	120	75.0	131	81.9	2.236	0.135

Table 6. Chi square test results for the influence of professors’ gender on their responses to complaints

Strategy	Female Students		Male Students		χ^2	P
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Acceptance of the complaint	19	8.4	15	7.0	0.272	0.602
Admitting responsibility	1	0.6	1	0.6	0.000	1.000
Excusing oneself	0	0.0	0	0.0	–	–
Agreeing to change behavior	18	11.3	14	8.8	0.556	0.456
Partial Acceptance of the complaint	169	74.4	163	76.5	0.256	0.613
Justifying oneself	72	45.0	71	44.4	0.013	0.910
Not taking complaint seriously	0	0.0	0	0.0	–	–
Suggesting alternatives	70	43.8	57	35.6	2.206	0.137
Setting conditions for future acceptance	27	16.9	35	21.9	1.280	0.258
Rejecting the Complaint	39	17.2	35	16.4	0.044	0.834
Denying the complaint	0	0.0	2	1.3	2.013	0.498
Counterattacking	10	6.3	16	10.0	1.507	0.220
Not acknowledging the complaint	12	7.5	8	5.0	0.853	0.356
Rejecting arguments	0	0.0	0	0.0	–	–
Acknowledging the act	17	10.6	9	5.6	2.679	0.102
Disregarding the complaint	0	0.0	0	0.0	–	–

8.4. How does the professors’ age influence the students’ complaints and the professors’ responses?

In response to the fourth research question, we examined the influence of the professors’ age on the students’ complaints and the professors’ responses to complaints using Pearson correlations. We did not consider the influence of the students’ age because the students’ ages ranged only over 6 years (i.e., 18–24), which made it highly unlikely that an effect will emerge. Surprisingly, the professors’ age, which varied over 35 years (i.e., 29–64), did not have any influence on the students’ complaints or the professors’ responses. The results of Pearson correlation are summarized in Tables 7 and 8.

Table 7. Pearson correlation results for the influence of professors’ age on the students’ complaints

Strategy	R	P
Opting out	-	-
Hints	-	-
Expressions of disapproval	0.018	0.854
Expressing annoyance	0.165	0.225
Expressing ill consequences	−0.171	0.200
Accusations	−0.099	0.406
Indirect accusations	-	-
Direct accusations	−0.120	0.341
Blame	−0.072	0.554
Modified blame	0.005	0.974
Explicit blame (behaviour)	-	-
Explicit blame (person)	-	-
Directives	−0.080	0.206
Requests	−0.080	0.206
Threats	-	-

Table 8. Pearson correlation results for the influence of professors’ age on the teachers’ responses to complaints

Strategy	R	P
Acceptance of the complaint	−0.006	0.976
Admitting responsibility	-	-
Excusing oneself	-	-
Agreeing to change behaviour	-	-
Partial acceptance of the complaint	−0.063	0.320
Justifying oneself	−0.005	0.952
Not taking complaint seriously	-	-
Suggesting alternatives	−0.087	0.331
Setting conditions for future acceptance	0.033	0.798
Rejecting the Complaint	0.006	0.959
Denying the complaint	-	-
Counterattacking	0.215	0.292
Not acknowledging the complaint	-	-
Rejecting arguments	-	-
Acknowledging the act	-	-
Disregarding the complaint	-	-

9. Discussion

The current study aimed to examine the speech acts of complaints and responding to complaints in the context of student-professor interaction at a private Egyptian university. In terms of the students’ complaints, several findings are worthy of discussion. First, 50% of the students’ complaint strategies came in the form of requests for repair. This reflects a pragmatic approach to complaints as students required repair for the harm they experienced. This approach was also observed among Alexandrians while handling complaints in El-Dakhs & Ahmed’s (2021a) study. So, it could be a cultural characteristic. Second, the students’ messages were rarely implicit. In fact, “hints” accounted only for 2% of the students’ complaint strategies. Preferring direct messages does not match with Hall’s (1976) classification of the Arab World as a high-context culture that prefers internalized and implicit messages. This mismatch could reflect the effect of the context of the study. Several of the scenarios that were used for data collection involved complaints about situations that could affect students’ academic achievement/success. Since Egypt is known to be a grade-oriented culture with respect to education (e.g., Ewiss, 2021, Gebril & Brown, 2014), students could have preferred to use direct messages to ensure that the situations leading to their complaints would not impact their academic performance.

Another interesting finding about the students’ complaints is that “accusations” constituted 14% of the complaints, and that students preferred “direct” (12%) over “indirect” (2%) accusations. This finding comes in stark contrast with several studies about complaints in the Arab World (e.g., Al-Shorman, 2016, El-Dakhs & Ahmed, 2021b, El-Dakhs et al., 2019a) which showed that Arabs, including Egyptians, rarely use the “accusation” strategy, particularly the direct form, in their complaints and prefer to use the “blame” strategy instead. This tendency was interpreted in light of Arabs’ perception of blame as a form of phatic communication that helps establish and sustain social relationships and the fact that accusations are highly restrained in the Islamic religion. Again, the students in the current study behaved against the expected norm, which highlights the great influence of the study context (i.e., institutionalized academic setting). The threat of losing grades urged the students to directly accuse their professors although this strategy is not generally preferred in the culture. Additionally, Arabs often use “blame” as a form of phatic communication in close social relations, such as among family relatives and friends. This tendency may not fit with the relationship between university students and professors, which is more governed by university norms and values.

Similar to students’ complaints, professors’ responses to complaints revealed some interesting results. A notable result is that professors mostly preferred to partially accept students’ complaints. The professors’ preference may be motivated by two factors. First, professors often show great care to establish good rapport with their students. They attempted to maintain good interpersonal relationships with the students while accommodating the relevant informational and pedagogic aspects. As Hyland and Hyland (2001) put it, “teachers often have to weigh their choice of comment to accomplish a range of informational, pedagogic and interpersonal goals simultaneously” (p. 187). Second, the fact that the university in which the current study was conducted was private could have influenced the professors’ behaviour. Students’ complaints in private universities are often taken more seriously by the university management than in public universities and could influence the professors’ evaluation.

Two other findings about professors’ responses to complaints are worthy of discussion. First, professors often referred to university policies in their responses to complaints, particularly when rejecting complaints or providing responses that would not be preferred by students. This practice again reflects the professors’ keenness to maintain good relationships with their students as students’ disapproval would then be directed to the policies, not to the professors. Second, the professors used more upgraders than downgraders in their use of internal modifiers. On the surface, this could mean that professors did not mind potential escalation of conflict with students. However, examining the professors’ choice of upgraders, we noticed that they were mainly in the form of intensifiers (i.e., very) and plus commitors (i.e., of course). These modifiers were often used to emphasize positive messages, not to ensue confrontation. Sample statements include “This is a very important point you’re raising,” “This is a very important topic that we need to study,” “Of course, I will be there to help,” and “Of course, we can check your exam paper.”

In addition to the strategies preferred by students and professors, we examined the influence of age and gender on the students’ and professors’ behaviour. Surprisingly, age had no significant influence on the students’ and professors’ responses. As for gender, the influence was minimal—only two instances—and were confined to students’ complaints. This finding runs contrary to earlier studies that highlighted the influence of these social variables on the realization of complaints (e.g., El-Dakhs et al., 2019a, Hartley, 1998). Three factors could have contributed to this finding. First, all professors in the current study were PhD holders. Since hierarchy greatly influences the complaint behaviour in collectivistic cultures (e.g., Chen et al., 2011), students may have treated all PhD holders equally regardless of their age. In fact, El-Dakhs and Ahmed (2021a) found a great influence for hierarchy, in terms of PhD-holders versus non-PhD holders, in Egyptian universities. Second, professors’ professional programs provide regular training to professors on how to handle complaints as part of classroom-management strategies. This training often recommends specific strategies for professors to employ, which explains why the professors’ responses to complaints did not reveal much variation due to age or gender. Third, as Laforest (2002) and Migdadi et al. (2012) highlighted, the setting has a great influence on the complaint behaviour. Interlocutors in institutionalized academic discourse often tend to appropriate their actions to the conventions preferred by the discourse community (Araújo et al., 2012) and this typifies their preferred actions in interactions and minimizes the influence of social variables. Similar to the current study, little influence was found for social variables in student-professor interaction in earlier studies on other speech acts, including refusing and criticizing (e.g., El-Dakhs, 2020, El-Dakhs, et al., 2019b).

In terms of politeness, students and professors seemed to accommodate the addressee’s negative face through different strategies. As for students, although they preferred being direct and pragmatic, they attempted to mitigate the force of their complaints through their frequent use of terms of respect, justifications for their requests and downgraders, especially in the form of polite markers, hedges and downtoners. Likewise, professors attempted to minimize imposition on students through their frequent use of partial-acceptance strategies. They mainly tried to justify their actions, suggest alternatives to their earlier decisions and set conditions for future acceptance of the students’ requests. Additionally, they sometimes softened their responses through consenting to some requests, expressing empathy, apologizing and using hedges. This care to accommodate the addressee’s face could reflect the educational context of the study which often highlights the value of respecting others. It could simultaneously reflect the students’ effort to avoid provoking their professors and the professors’ effort to maintain a good interpersonal relationship with students.

It is worth noting that the results of the current study must be considered with some caution due to three limitations. First, the number of participants, whether students or professors, is relatively small. A larger number of participants will allow a better generalization of the results. Second, we used role-plays for data collection although role-plays may not reflect how language is used in authentic situations. The use of more ethnographic methods of research will lead to more reliable data. Finally, our analysis mainly relied on quantitative measures. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the participants’ behaviour.

10. Conclusion

The current study examined the speech acts of complaint and responding to complaints among Egyptian university students and professors. The findings revealed that half of the students’ complaints came in the form of requests for repair. This was followed by disapprovals, accusations and finally blame. As for professors, they mostly employed partial-acceptance strategies, particularly justifying oneself, suggesting alternatives and setting conditions for future acceptance. The results also showed minimal influence for gender and no influence for age on the students’ and professors’ behaviour. Additionally, it was noted that students and professors attempted to accommodate their addressee’s negative face through different strategies.

Based on these findings, we can suggest two implications. First, it is necessary to consider the setting in which language is used and the relevant discourse community while examining the realization of speech acts. In the present study, the influence of the institutionalized academic discourse greatly influenced the participants to the extent that their preferences did not match with the predictions of cultural models and the findings of earlier studies. A real need to examine speech acts in specialized discourse is emphasized. Second, it is suggested to employ ethnographic means of data collection whenever possible in order to enhance the authenticity of the data. It may also be useful to supplement quantitative analysis with follow-up interviews/focus groups with the participants to help understand their preferences. In the present study, we collected data using role-plays and mainly relied on a quantitative analysis of the data, which constitutes a limitation.

Finally, we recommend two directions for future research. An important direction is to examine the realization of speech acts in specialized discourse (e.g., teacher-student interaction, doctor-patient conversations, employer-employee exchange of emails, etc.). Some studies have already adopted this direction, but much further research is needed in order to better understand how being part of a specific discourse community influences interlocutors’ behaviour. Another important direction for future research is to examine initiative and reactive acts (e.g., complaints and responding to complaints) together instead of studying each act in isolation. This approach will help better understand the working of sequences of speech acts. In both directions for future research, we recommend increasing the number of participants to allow more generalizations than the relatively small number of participants in the current study.

Acknowledgments

The researcher thanks Prince Sultan University for funding this research project through the Applied Linguistics Research Lab (RL-CH-2019/9/1).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Prince Sultan University [CHS/ALLAB/1/9/2019].

Notes on contributors

Dina Abdel Salam El-Dakhs

Prof. Dina Abdel Salam El-Dakhs is the Chair of the Linguistics and Translation Department and the Director of the Applied Linguistics Research Lab at the College of Humanities and Sciences at Prince Sultan University. She has extensive experience in teaching and coordinating TESOL and Applied Linguistics Programs. Her research interests include Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis, Psycholinguistics and Second Language Acquisition. She has several publications in flagship journals.

Mervat M. Ahmed

Dr. Mervat M. Ahmed is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics & Vice-Dean for Training and Community Service at the College of Language & Communication (CLC) at the Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport.

 

Appendices

Appendix A

- Complaint role-plays

Participation in these role-plays is voluntary, so please feel free to refuse participation if you do not wish to take part in the study.

The aim of this study is to examine the realization of complaint strategies. The data are collected through role-plays that will be recorded and later transcribed. The participants’ identities will be kept strictly confidential. No special reward is offered for participation in the study. Your participation will, however, be highly appreciated by the researchers to help advance scientific research.

Procedure

You will read 6 scenarios which should make you complain in natural spoken Alexandrian Arabic as you would do in real life. In case you feel that you would not say anything in real life, please say so and explain your reason(s).

Example

We will first practice with an example before recording. Please, read the following situation and respond in natural Alexandrian Arabic.

Situation

The lecturer has been teaching large parts of the syllabus in fewer classes than in the syllabus because some classes had been cancelled. You can no longer follow the classes or understand the content. You go to the lecturer to complain and say:

Now, we will follow the same way while recording the actual situations.

Situation (1)

The lecturer has decided to add new topics to the syllabus although the academic semester will finish within a few weeks. The new topics constitute a real burden for you. You go to the lecturer to complain and say:

Situation (2)

You have been assigned to do a research paper along with two of your classmates. The paper will represent 50% of your total course grade. Your classmates are not doing their assigned tasks as agreed, which can undermine your efforts and lower your grade. You prefer to work individually, but the lecturer declines. You go to the lecturer and say:

Situation (3)

You took the final exam and felt that you did well. However, you were later shocked to learn that you got an unsatisfactory grade. You think the grade you received is unfair. You go to the lecturer and say:

Situation (4)

Part of your grades for coursework was deducted because you had arrived late to class several times. You feel that this is unfair because you arrive to campus using the university bus, which is often late. You go to the lecturer to complain and say:

Situation (5)

The lecturer requires that you make use of a new book as a reference for your graduation project. However, the book is unclear and difficult to follow. You want to use another reference that is easier to follow, but the lecturer declines. You go to the lecturer to complain and say:

Situation (6)

You found it difficult to answer all the questions on the exam because you think that the exam time was too short considering the number and difficulty of the questions. You feel upset. You go to the lecturer to complain and say:

Situation (7)

The lecturer changed the class time to be held on the only day in which you have no classes. You always study on that day at home, so you are upset because changing the class time will impact your study and make you exhausted. You go to the lecturer to complain and say:

Situation (8)

The lecturer suddenly decided to receive an assignment three days earlier than the specified date for assignment submission. You are not ready at all to submit by the new date. You go to the lecturer to complain and say:

Appendix B

– Adapted model of complaint strategies

Table

Type		Characteristic	Example
	Complaint
1.	Opting out	Saying nothing
2.	Hint	No explicit reproach	“Don’t see much of you these days, do I?” “.يعني ما بشوفكش كتير اليومين دول”
3.	Expression of disapproval	Expressions of negative judgment
	a. Annoyance	Phrases expressing the speaker’s annoyance	“I am angry with you.” “.أنا زعلان منك”
	b. Ill consequence	Phrases expressing the negative consequences of an action on the speaker	“This will cost me 100$ over what I have already spent.” “.أنا كدة حدفع 100 دولار زيادة”
4.	Accusation
	a. Indirect	Making an indirect accusation	“You are not cleaning this room, right?” “.إنت مش منضف اللأوضة دي، مش كدة؟”
	b. Direct	Making a direct accusation	“You are taking things from my room without my permission.” “.إنت بتاخد حاجات من أوضتي من غير إذني”
5.	Blame
	a. Modified blame	Expressing blame implicitly	“We were supposed to have dinner together today, Dad!” “.كان المفروض نتعشى مع بعض النهاردة يا بابا”
	b. Explicit blame (behavior	Expressing blame against a behavior explicitly	“The room must have been cleaned much earlier, not now.” كان المفروض الأوضة تتنضف قبل كدة، مش”“.دلوقتي
	c. Explicit blame (person)	Expressing blame against a person explicitly	“I have told you ten times to do your part of the project, but can’t see any progress.” أنا قولتلك عشر مرات إنك تعمل الجزء بتاعك”“.في المشروع، لكم مش لاقي أي تقدم
6.	Directive acts
	a. Request	Making a request	“Can you do your part of this project?” “ممكن تعمل الجزء اللي عليك في المشروع ده؟”
	b. Threat	Making a threat	“I will talk to your supervisor.” “.أنا حتكلم مع المشرف بتاعك”

Appendix C

– Adapted model for complaint-response strategies

Table

Strategy	Definition	Example
I. Acceptance of the complaint (responses to complaints must be equivalent to the remark “It’s true, I set this rule/took this decision that made you upset and I was mistaken.)
(a) Admitting responsibility for the act/behavior complained about	The complainee assumes responsibility for the complaint and acknowledges the fault.	A: You won’t allow me to spend the night at my friend’s house. This is not fair! B: You’re right. I should have allowed you to go.
(b) Excusing oneself	The complainee presents an excuse for committing the act causing the complaint.	A: You won’t allow me to spend the night at my friend’s house. This is not fair! B: Oh, I wasn’t talking to you. I was discussing another matter with a colleague on the phone.
(c) Agreeing to change behaviour	The complainee acknowledges the act causing the complaint but agrees to change it.	A: You won’t allow me to spend the night at my friend’s house. This is not fair! B: Okay, no problem. You can go.
II. Partial acceptance of the complaint (To belong to this category, complaint responses must be equivalent to the remark “it’s true, I set this rule/made this decision that made you upset, but X”.)
(a) Justifying oneself	The complainee argues that s/he had good reasons for behaving as s/he did.	A: You won’t allow me to spend the night at my friend’s house. This is not fair! B: Sorry, dear, but you’re too young to spend the night out. I’ll be too worried about you.
(b) Not taking the complaint seriously	The complainee reacts by laughing or joking.	A: You won’t allow me to spend the night at my friend’s house. This is not fair! B: (laughs) Why don’t you report me to the police?
(c) Suggesting alternatives	The complainee proposes alternative ways for the act causing the complaint.	A: You won’t allow me to spend the night at my friend’s house. This is not fair! B: Well, dear, what about if you invite your friend to spend the night at our home? I’ll agree to that.
(d) Setting conditions for future acceptance	The complainee sets a condition to behave differently in the future.	A: You won’t allow me to spend the night at my friend’s house. This is not fair! B: You’re too young, dear. I promise to re-consider when you grow older.
III. Rejection of the complaint (To belong to this category, responses to complaints must be equivalent to the remark “No, I will not change the rule I set/decision I made”)
(a) Denying the complaint	The complainee denies the act causing the complaint.	A: You won’t allow me to spend the night at my friend’s house. This is not fair! B: What are you talking about? I never said no to that.
(b) Counterattacking	The complainee criticizes or accuses the complainant.	A: You won’t allow me to spend the night at my friend’s house. This is not fair! B: You’re too careless and irresponsible to spend the night out.
(c) Not acknowledging the act/behavior complained about as a problem/challenging the speaker’s assertion	The complainee refuses to consider the act causing the complaint as blameworthy.	A: You won’t allow me to spend the night at my friend’s house. This is not fair! B: And what’s wrong with that?!
(d) Rejecting having an argument	The complainee won’t allow the other party to present arguments or discuss the topic further.	A: You won’t allow me to spend the night at my friend’s house. This is not fair! B: You won’t go! That’s it. Full stop.
(e) Acknowledging the act causing the complaint	The complainee acknowledges the act causing the complaint.	A: You won’t allow me to spend the night at my friend’s house. This is not fair! B: Yes, I don’t agree that you spend the night at your friend’s house.
IV. Disregarding the complaint (To belong to this category, the complaint must be manifestly ignored: the complainee remains silent, continues with an intervention unrelated to the complaint or, if the complaint is very indirect, takes it literally and thus ignores the illocutionary function of complaining.)
(a) disregarding the complaint	Same as above	A: You won’t allow me to spend the night at my friend’s house. This is not fair! B: Silence

Appendix D

– Initiators

Table

Type		Characteristic	Example
1.	Initiator
1.1.	Term of endearment	a word or phrase used to address person for which the speaker feels love or affection	“Sweetheart … .love” حبيبتي
1.2.	Address Term	a word, phrase, name, or title (or some combination of these) used in addressing someone	“Professor Johnson.” “بروفيسور حونسون”
1.3.	Term of respect	A word or phrase expressing respect	hadretek حضرتك
1.4.	Greeting	Friendly or polite statements to welcome someone	“How are you doing?” “كيف الحال؟”
1.5.	Drawing attention	A word or phrase to grab the hearer’s attention	“Look … .Listen” “بص… اسمع”

Appendix

Table

Type		Characteristic	Example
1.	Justification	Showing something to be right or reasonable	“The bus comes late because of the congested traffic.” “الباص بيجي متأخر علشان الشوارع زحمة”
2.	Apology	Expression of apology	“I’m sorry.” “أناآسف.”
3.	Thanking	Expression of thanking	“Thank you.” “شكرا.”
4.	Empathy	Expressing empathy with the hearer	“I appreciate your situation.” “أنامقدرموقفك.”
5.	Seeking solutions	Attempt at finding out solutions to the problem with the hearer	“I can collect data and you write up the paper, or we can collect data together and I write the paper. What do you think?”
6.	Request	Act of asking politely or formally for something	Can you come to class on time? ممكن تيجي المحاضرة في ميعادها؟
7.	Consenting to request	Giving permission for something to happen	Yes, I agree. .أيوة،أناموافق
8.	Declining a request	Refusing to give permission for something to happen	No, I don’t agree. ﻷ،ﺃﻧامش موافقة
9.	Calming down	Making someone feel more relaxed or less emotional	Don’t worry! .ماتقلقش

Appendix F

– Coding scheme for internal modifiers

Table

Type	Characteristic	Example
1. Downgraders
(1.1) Polite markers	Words of phrases that express politeness	“Please.” “.لو سمحت”
(1.2) Hedges	Mitigating word or construction used to lessen the impact of an utterance.	“You are making kind of a statement with the pants though.” إنت يعني بتقول حاجة بالبنطلون ده
(1.3) Downtoners	Words or phrases which reduce the force of another word or phrase.	“Yes, I mean it might be but it still seems to me at the moment that perhaps it’s not a good idea.” أيوة، أنا قصدي إنه ممكن لكن لسة”باينلي دلوقتي إنها يمكن تكون مش فكرة“.كويسة
(1.4) Subjectivizers	Expressions of subjective opinion that lower the assertive force of an act.	“I think” “I feel” “أعتقد” “حاسس”
2. Upgraders
2.1. Overstaters	Words or phrases that describe or explain something in a way that makes it seem more important or serious than it really is	“absolutely”, “terribly” “إطلاقا” “بشكل رهيب”
2.2. Intensifiers	A word, especially an adverb or adjective, that has little meaning itself but is used to add force to another adjective, verb, or adverb:	“very”, “so really” “جدا” “جدابجد”
2.3. Plus commitors	A word or phrase that reflects the speaker’s strong commitment to the utterance	of course, certainly, I am sure طبعا، أكيد، انا متأكد
2.4. Swear by God	Swearing by God for assertion	I swear by God