Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding

Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in theperformance of reprimanding

CARMEN GARCIA

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 inter-

locutor’s identity face. Peruvians and Venezuelans exhibited a rapport-

challenging orientation, while Argentineans preferred a rapport mainte-

nance 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 inter-

dependent 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 expect-

ations and ideas that the speaker holds about appropriate and inappropri-

ate 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 suc-cessfully pursued in recent years, with scholars having compared the per-

formance 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

Brought to you by | University of Illinois Urbana ChampaignAuthenticated | 130.126.32.13

Download Date | 2/28/13 9:40 PM

variation, specifically in terms of politeness orientation. In fact, Marquez

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 (Garcıa 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 ofthese 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 con-

trasting three di¤erent Spanish-speaking cultural groups in Latin America(cf. also Felix-Brasdefer, this issue).

For the purpose of this study, a reprimand is categorized as a commu-

nicative 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 author-

ity (a feature of the mode of achievement), although this may be a pre-

sumed 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 dif-

fer in their

1. behavioral responsibilities as expressed in their respect of the interloc-utor’s right to be treated fairly and to associate with others?

2. preference to satisfy their transactional vs. relational wants?

3. concerns for the interlocutor’s identity face?

444 Carmen Garcıa



2. Theoretical framework

In classifying the strategies used by Peruvian, Venezuelan and Argenti-

nean 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 be-yond 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 inter-

actional wants.

Behavioral expectations are based on what people judge to be socially

appropriate—i.e. what they believe is prescribed, permitted or proscribedbehavior (Spencer-Oatey 2005: 97)—and this assessment is based on

contextually-based conventions, norms and protocols which vary accord-

ing to the communicative activity and setting and also the type of rela-

tionship 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 con-

cerned with the ‘‘content and structure of an interchange, including topic

choice, and the organization and sequencing of information’’; the par-ticipation domain which considers ‘‘the procedural aspects of an inter-

change’’, 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 expecta-

tions also result from contextually-dependent interactional principles: the

equity principle, i.e. people’s right to be treated fairly and not imposedupon 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 reciproc-

ity, and authority-control. The association principle, on the other hand,

supports people’s need for interdependence and also has three compo-

nents: 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 socialgroup 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

Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding 445



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 re-lationship 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 do-

main. 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 casereprimanding] 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 aggravat-

ing (. . .) or mitigating (. . .) its force’’ (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989: 276).

3. Method

3.1. Subjects

Data were collected in Lima, Peru in 1988, in Caracas, Venezuela in 1993

and in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 2000 using subjects in a role play sce-

nario. 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 10females. The average age was 43 for males and 53 for females. The sub-

jects 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 uni-

versity graduate, not known to the subjects.

Argentinean participants included twenty adults, 10 males and 10 fe-males, 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

446 Carmen Garcıa



3.2. 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 inter-change (Scarcella 1979: 277), and at the same time provided what Blum-

Kulka 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 re-

sponses, 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. Instructionswere 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 manana usted lo(a) llama a su oficina y le

habla. El/ella no esta 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 con-

versations. The purpose was to allow the two individuals to have maxi-mum 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 thestrategies used by the three di¤erent cultural groups, a di¤erence of pro-

portion 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),




‘‘[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 hy-

pothesis 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 strat-

egies was di¤erent for each cultural group and revealed their di¤erent be-

havioral 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 subjectsfollowed 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 sup-

portive moves by others. Irrespective of this di¤erence, strategies are illus-

trated only once.

4.1.1. Head acts

Although there were similarities in the head acts used by Peruvians, Ven-

ezuelans and Argentineans, there were also di¤erences, especially in the

frequency of occurrence of particular strategies in the overall participa-

tion. Definitions and illustrations of head acts used by Peruvian (PF,

PM), Venezuelan (VF, VM) and Argentinean (AM, AF) bosses follow.

1. Claiming authorityParticipants 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 llame porque usted ha estado llegando tarde y

ha estado saliendo temprano de la oficina y e: se supone queusted 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?’

448 Carmen Garcıa



Table 1. Strategies used as head acts and supportive moves.

Head Acts Peruvians Venezuelans Argentineans

1. Claiming authority þ þ þ2. Presenting facts þ þ þ3. Warning/threatening þ þ þ4. Recommending change of behavior þ þ �5. Rejecting accusation/explanation/request � þ þ6. Expressing dissatisfaction � þ �7. Moralizing þ � þ8. Requesting cooperation � þ þ9. Requesting information � � þ

10. Disclaiming responsibility � þ �11. O¤ering cooperation � þ þ12. Accepting excuse/explanation � þ þ13. Claiming common ground � þ þ14. Planning future meeting � þ �15. Indefinite reply � þ �16. Indicating reluctance to impinge � þ þ17. Expressing gratitude � þ þ

Supportive Moves Peruvians Venezuelans Argentineans

A. Mitigators

18. Preparator þ þ þ19. Grounder þ þ þ20. Compliment þ þ �21. Requesting confirmation � � þ22. Accepting excuse/explanation � þ �23. Claiming in-group membership � þ �24. Claiming common ground � þ �25. Self-compliment � þ �26. Mitigating accusation/demands � þ þ27. Disclaiming responsibility � þ þ28. O¤ering cooperation � þ �

B. Aggravators

29. Requesting justification þ þ þ30. Claiming authority þ þ þ31. Presenting facts þ þ þ32. Expressing dissatisfaction � � þ33. Expressing concern � þ þ34. Warning/threatening � þ �35. Moralizing � þ �36. Claiming lack of interest � þ þ




2. Presenting facts

To reprimand, participants frequently presented the interlocutor with fac-

tual information concerning their behavior at the workplace.

(2) PM: Te he mandado llamar porque he notado de que esta incum-pliendo reiteradamente el horario de trabajo, esta llegando de-masiado tarde por la manana y esta saliendo usted demasiadotemprano y por otro lado el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones.en cuanto a labor que debe desempenar, veo que esta dejandomucho que desear. Yo quisiera saber que explicaciones da.

‘I have asked for you because I have noticed that you’re fail-

ing 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 em-ployees stating the punishments they would receive as a consequence of

unacceptable workplace behavior. The following is an example:

(3) Employee: problemas pero yo [ pienso que

‘problems but [I think that’

AM: [bueno, si QUIEre permanecer pro-cure llegar a horario.[‘well, if you WANT to stay try to

arrive on time’

Employee: sı, sı lo voy a hacer.

‘yes, yes, I’ll do it.’AM: y si no se va mas tarde ( )

‘and if not, leave later ( )’

Employee: aunque no estoy de acuerdo en que haya llegado tan

tarde

‘although I don’t agree that I have arrived so late’

AM: Preocupese porque eh personal sobra ası que trate de lle-gar a horario, de lo contrario no‘You should worry because uh we have personnel to spareso 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.

450 Carmen Garcıa



(4) VF: ¼ en la proxima junta podemos hablar eso. Pero yo lo que noquiero es que pase lo que esta pasando ahorita que llegues tarde,que: no me cumplas bien no me cumplas bien con el trabajo,porque que va a pasar?, me van a reclamar a mı las otras per-

sonas. este, me van a decir yo tambien puedo llegar tarde, yo

tambien puedo faltar al trabajo porque el esta fal faltando.

¼ ‘we can talk about that in the next meeting. But what I don’twant 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 com-

plain 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 ac-

cusations, explanations or requests the employees made after they were

reprimanded.

(5) Employee: a::h seran comentarios, pero yo he procurado llegar

siempre en hora.

‘a::h that must be gossip, but I have tried to arrive al-

ways on time.’

AF: 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: Por favor senor Ochoa podrıa pasar por aquı un

momento.

‘Mr Ochoa, please could you stop by my o‰ce for aminute.’

Employee: Buenas tardes, dıgame.

‘Good afternoon. what can I do for you?’

VF: Ya va:: bueno, voy a ir al grano. No estoy muy satisfe-cha con su trabajo, y eso no- no exactamente con su tra-

bajo pero usted ha estado llegando tarde muy a - quisiera

saber la razon de esta situacion

‘Just a:: well, I’ll get straight to the point. I’m not verysatisfied 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’




7. Moralizing

To strengthen the reprimand, Peruvians and Argentineans sometimes in-

voked ‘‘general moral maxims’’ (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989: 288) and stated

the negative consequences of not complying.

(7) AM: nosotros no podemos darnos el lujo de apoyarnos delmetrovıa de darnos una excusa de por que no se cumpleel horario.‘we cannot have the luxury of trusting the metro of giv-

ing us an excuse for not obeying the schedule.’

Employee: [no no bueno –

[‘no no well’ -

AM: ¼[tenemos que cumplir con nuestro trabajo. es algo es-trictamente especıfico 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 tosolve the situation.

(8) VM: Entonces como [( ).

‘Then how [( ).’

Employee: [Yo llego a la hora del trabajo.

[‘I get here on time.’

VM: Como 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: no:: siempre. habra sido alguna ve::z pero no:: siempre

no::

‘no::t always. it must’ve been one ti::me but no::t al-

ways no::t’

AF: siempre no?‘not always?’

Employee: No como para que eh se ¼‘Not for you to uh’¼

AF: cual es?‘what is?’

452 Carmen Garcıa



Employee: ¼que se preocupe no:: No se preocupe.

¼‘to worry no:: don’t worry.’

AF: hubo algun inconveniente que -?‘was there any problem that-?’

10. Disclaiming responsibility

The employee’s response to the reprimand sometimes included accusa-

tions and requests. These were responded to by the Venezuelan bosses

disclaiming responsibility.

(10) Employee: Entonces no se si a lo mejor el senor Rodrıguez esta pa-

sandose un poco al al informarle a usted. Inclusive yo

creo que el debe haberme informado primero.

‘Then I don’t know if Mr. Rodrıguez is going beyond

a little bit by informing you. I even think he should

have informed me first.’VM: Ah yo pensaba que ya te habıa informado, de todas

maneras eso es lo el que me esta reportandome a mı::‘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: ¼que entremos mas ta:rde, o incluso saliendo un po-

quito ma:s tarde, o trabajar los sabados 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’

VF: Faltarıa revisar eso porque fıjate‘We would need to review that because you see’

Employee: ¼[Cla:ro

¼[‘O:f course’

VF: [tu que el ındice de personas que estan en la situacion

tuya, es minimo, es menor comparado con el resto de

las personas que asisten.

Entonces serıa cuestion de revisar si el problema es deustedes o el problema, el problema [es de la empresa.[‘the number of people in your situation is minimal, isless 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’




12. Accepting excuse/explanation

Venezuelan and Argentinean participants were prompt to accept the em-

ployee’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: sı, sı, como no, como 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 request-

ing inside information.

(13) AF: ¼claro, la entiendo, la entiendo, a todos nos pasa¼‘yes, I understand you, I understand you, it happens

to all of us’

Employee: sı ( )

‘yes ( )’

AF: un dıa 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 siemprepasa‘that we get late or it happens that there is a strike

which happens all the time’

14. Planning future meeting

When the discussion with the employee did not lead anywhere, Venezue-

lans suggested a future meeting with either someone higher up in the hier-

archy or with those who had made the original complaint. In the follow-

ing sample, VM suggests a meeting with the supervisor.

(14) VM: Ya no se. Esta situacion vamos (a hablarla) con tusupervisor.‘I don’t know anymore. We’re going to (talk about it)

with your supervisor’

Employee: [me gustarıa. sı.

[‘I’d like that. yes.’

VM: [( ) y todo lo demas.

[(‘ ) and everything else.’

454 Carmen Garcıa



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. Tendrıamos que:: hacer una reunion, hablar

con los demas companeros para aclarar un poco la situacion

porque todos estan ( ).

>Entonces bueno eso serıa la solucion< habra que hacer una

reunion, conversar con todos y bueno ver que 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 every-

body 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: Bueno yo creo que vamos a dejarlo hasta ahora. vamos

a dejarlo aquı por el proyecto –

‘Well I think we are going to leave it at that. Let’sleave it here because of the project’-

Employee: cualquier cosa mire yo estoy a la orden y tengo todo el

material, y le puedo ensenar todos los reportes para que

vea que que no es ası 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.’

VM: Tu sabes que a mı no me agrada esto.‘You know I don’t like this.’

Employee: No, no para mı 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




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. PreparatorPeruvians, Venezuelans and Argentineans prefaced the reprimand by an

announcement that he/she would make a reprimand.

(18) AM: sı, solicite llamarla a Ud. porque mire tengo que hablarle per-sonalmente porque Ud. no me esta 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 ef-

fects of the reprimand.

(19) PM: y cuando este enfermo que haya constancia porque aquı lo quea nosotros nos basa son- es la documentacion de las maquinasen 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 machineswhere the cards are punched’

20. Compliment

Peruvian and Venezuelan participants accompanied the reprimand with apositive evaluation of the employee.

(20) VM: Caramba, a mı me gusta tu trabajo, tu rindes tu eres tueres tu normalmente deberıas rendir

‘Darn, I like your job, you produce, you are you are

you normally should perform’

Employee: Bueno claro, pero la situacion.

‘Well yes, but the situation.’

VM: ¼Tu 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 re-

questing confirmation of the facts they were presenting.

456 Carmen Garcıa



(21) AF: nosotros estamos notando de que Ud. esta llegando un poquito

mas tarde de la hora convenida, es ası?‘we are observing that you are coming a little later than the

scheduled time, is that right?’

22. Accepting excuse/explanation (cf. Head Acts)

23. Claiming in-group membership

Some Venezuelan participants recognized their special relationship with

the employee.

(22) VF: ¼ no eres tu el unico. hay varias personas, no eres el

[ primero en esa cuestion.

¼ ‘you are not the only one. There are many people,

you are not the

[first one in this matter.’

Employee: [claro

[‘of course’

VF: y te llamo porque tu 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,’¼Employee: [ por supuesto

[‘of course’

VF: ¼conozco a tu hija¼‘I know your daughter’

24. Claiming common ground (cf. Head Acts)

25. Self-compliment

One Venezuelan participant mitigated her response to the employee’s ac-

cusations by making a positive evaluation of the workplace.

(23) Employee: ¼claro, entiendo.

¼‘of course, I understand.’

VF: ¼y yo tambien - esta companıa somos muy compren-sivos.Lo que pasa es que usted tiene que: participar el pro-

blema que tiene y darle la solucion.

¼‘and me too- this company we are very under-standing.’

‘The thing is that you have to: let us know the prob-

lem you have and solve it.’




26. Mitigating accusation/demands

After presenting their reprimand, Venezuelan and Argentinean partici-

pants mitigated it by denying complete or personal knowledge of the

facts.

(24) AF: tambien recibı informes de ciertas personas de - no han reci-

bido ciertas cosas que le piden o que las hace que o las entrega

mas tarde de lo de lo necesario e::h, o sea, yo tengo ta tam-

bien, yo no lo comprobe con mis propios ojos, pero yo tengo

informes de ciertas personas de jefes suyos, y del jefe del jefe

de personal me esta diciendo que tiene ese problema. No se.‘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 re-

ports from certain people from your bosses, and the head the

head of personnel is telling me you have that problem. Idon’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 at-

tributing it to a higher boss or to the company at large.

(25) AM: a mı 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 mı me han dado la orden de superiores, de hacercumplir 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’

28. O¤ering cooperation (cf. Head Acts)

4.1.2.2. Aggravators

29. Requesting justificationPeruvian, Venezuelan and Argentinean participants repeatedly requested

that their interlocutors provide a reason, explanation and/or justification

for their behaviour.

458 Carmen Garcıa



(26) AF: cual es el problema con el cual Ud. a veces llega tarde o se sesupone 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 ultimo

mes. Y y eres el primero que sale a las que- a las cinco de la

tarde, no se que 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 after-

noon, 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: Con la miseria del seguro social. disculpeme, ahı no se.

yo no puedo llevar- que quiere usted?, que yo lleve una

hija mıa 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’

VM: ¼ Yo no se, eso es problema suyo.¼ ‘I don’t know, that’s your problem’

Employee: ¼ hospital: publico 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 Argen-tinean participants shown in Table 2, it is easily observed that Venezue-

lans were the most verbose using a total of 375 strategies, compared to

331 used by Argentineans and 175 used by Peruvians. The Venezuelans




Table 2. Head acts and supportive moves.

Head Acts Peruvians Venezuelans Argentineans

n % n % n %

1. Claiming authority 25 23 41 21 52 20

2. Presenting facts 36 33 41 21 41 16

3. Warning/threatening 21 19 25 12 34 13

4. Recommending change of

behavior

15 14 13 7 0 0

5. Rejecting accusation/

explanation/request

0 0 37 19 20 8

6. Expressing dissatisfaction 0 0 2 1 0 0

7. Moralizing 11 10 4 2 9 4

8. Requesting cooperation 0 0 4 2 20 8

9. Requesting information 0 0 0 0 3 1

10. Disclaiming responsibility 0 0 2 1 0 0

11. O¤ering cooperation 0 0 16 8 21 8

12. Accepting excuse/

explanation

0 0 2 1 45 18

13. Claiming common ground 0 0 4 2 5 2

14. Planning future meeting 0 0 4 2 0 0

15. Indefinite reply 0 0 3 2 0 0

16. Indicating reluctance to

impinge

0 0 1 0.5 3 1

17. Expressing gratitude 0 0 1 0.5 2 1

Total # of Head Acts 108 200 255


n % n % n %

A. Mitigators

18. Preparator 4 6 15 9 8 11

19. Grounder 22 33 39 22 15 20

20. Compliment 4 6 3 2 0 0

21. Requesting confirmation 0 0 0 0 6 8


explanation

0 0 2 1 0 0

23. Claiming in-group

membership

0 0 9 5 0 0


25. Self-compliment 0 0 1 0.6 0 0

26. Mitigating accusation/

demands

0 0 10 6 6 8


28. O¤ering cooperation 0 0 1 0.6 0 0

Total # of Mitigators 30 45 103 58 38 51

460 Carmen Garcıa



also used a richer variety of strategies, both in their head acts and sup-

portive 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 seenbelow.

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% miti-

gators), 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 propor-

tions test, however, does not reject the null hypothesis of no preferencebetween mitigators and aggravators for Peruvians, Venezuelans and Ar-

gentineans. That is, even when the balance between mitigators and aggra-

vators was di¤erent, the di¤erence was not statistically significant to sup-

port 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

Table 2 (Continued )


n % n % n %

B. Aggravators

29. Requesting justification 24 36 29 17 11 14




33. Expressing concern 0 0 11 6 2 3


35. Moralizing 0 0 10 6 0 0

36. Claiming lack of interest 0 0 2 1 8 11

Total # of Aggravators 37 55 72 41 38 50

Total # of Supportive Moves 67 38 175 47 76 23

Total # of Strategies 175 375 331




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 Vene-

zuelans and Argentineans. The Peruvians used a higher number of co-

ercive than cooperative strategies, strongly emphasizing the powerdi¤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, Argenti-

neans 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 strat-

egies shows a highly significant di¤erence (z ¼ 5:40 > 2:58), but compar-

ing 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 Venezue-

lans and Argentineans, held a rapport-challenging orientation, which

might be permitted behavior within the context of this situation, exhibit-ing 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 per-

ceived 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 addi-

tion, they saw it right and proper to request the employee’s fair contribu-

tion to the job (recommending change of behavior). Both their claim toauthority-control and their request for fairness-reciprocity point to the

fact that this was a ‘‘conflictual interpersonal relationship’’ (Spencer-

Oatey 2005: 95) where they could not uphold the equity principle. The

strength of this rapport-challenging orientation becomes more evident ob-

serving that they did not invest much energy in upholding the association

principle. They only expressed respect to their interlocutor by using pre-

parators, grounders, and o¤ering a compliment. These only amounted to

17% of the total strategies employed as opposed to 83% of them violatingthe 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).

462 Carmen Garcıa



Table 3. Coercive and cooperative strategies.

Peruvians Venezuelans Argentineans

n % n % n %

Coercive strategies





behavior

15 9 13 3 0 0

5. Rejecting accusation/

explanation/request

0 0 37 10 20 6

6. Moralizing 11 6 14 4 9 3

7. Requesting justification 24 14 29 8 11 3


9. Self-compliment 0 0 1 0.3 0 0

10. Claiming lack of interest 0 0 2 0.5 8 2

11. Expressing dissatisfaction 0 0 2 0.5 4 1

Total # of coercive strategies 145 83 236 63 194 59

Cooperative strategies

1. Preparator 4 2 15 4 8 2

2. Grounder 22 13 39 10 15 5

3. Compliment 4 2 3 1 0 0

4. Requesting confirmation 0 0 0 0 6 2

5. Requesting cooperation 0 0 4 1 20 6

6. Requesting information 0 0 0 0 3 1


8. O¤ering cooperation 0 0 17 5 21 6


explanation

0 0 4 1 45 14


11. Planning future meeting 0 0 4 1 0 0



impinge

0 0 1 0.3 3 1

14. Claiming in-group

membership

0 0 9 2 0 0

15. Mitigating accusation/

demands

0 0 10 3 6 2

16. Expressing gratitude 0 0 1 0.3 2 1

Total # of cooperative

strategies

30 17 139 37 137 41

Total # of strategies 175 375 331




The situation is di¤erent in the case of Venezuelan and Argentinean

bosses. Venezuelan bosses also maintained a rapport-challenging orien-

tation, not upholding the equity principle by asserting their authority-

control (claiming authority, presenting facts, warning/threatening, reject-

ing 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, dif-

ferent from Peruvian bosses, they invested some e¤ort in upholding the

association principle. They expressed their desire for involvement (claim-

ing common ground, claiming in-group membership, o¤ering coopera-

tion, requesting cooperation, planning future meeting), expressed em-

pathy (accepting excuse/explanation, expressing concern)—and finally,

showed respect (preparator, grounder, compliment, indicating reluctanceto impinge, expressing gratitude). Strategies upholding the association

principle amounted to 36% of their strategies which illustrates how de-

spite 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, pre-

senting facts, warning/threatening, rejecting accusation/explanation/request, moralizing, requesting justification, expressing dissatisfaction, re-

questing confirmation, requesting information and disclaiming responsi-

bility) 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 cooper-

ation, o¤ering cooperation, claiming common ground) expressed em-

pathy (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 similar-

ities 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 fairness-

reciprocity components to a large extent (87% of their strategies), Vene-zuelans and Argentineans did so less strongly (64% of their strategies for

both groups). Moreover, Peruvians respected, albeit weakly, the associa-

tion principle, namely the respect components (17% of their strategies);

464 Carmen Garcıa



while Venezuelans and Argentineans not only expressed empathy and re-

spect, but emphasized the involvement component, thus respecting the as-

sociation principle more strongly with 36% of their strategies.

Given these findings, it is safe to state that these three groups’ interac-

tional wants were mostly transactional rather than relational. They con-

centrated their e¤orts on solving the task at hand, i.e., on the employee’s

unsatisfactory performance at the workplace, as opposed to establishing apositive 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 cul-tural groups, we now turn to see how the di¤erent head acts and suppor-

tive 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 interac-

tional encounters’’ (Spencer-Oatey 2005: 103), we will concentrate on

identity face here.

For this purpose, we have classified self-compliment and disclaimingresponsibility 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 identi-

fied. 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 quantita-tive 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 iden-

tity face, the di¤erence between Peruvian, Venezuelans and Argentineans

being scant (96%, 91% and 93%, respectively) and not statistically signi-ficant. These results, rather than surprising, are in line with the partici-

pants’ behavioral expectations and interactional wants as pointed out

above.




Table 4. Face sensitivities: Strategies respecting and threatening the interlocutor’s and

speaker’s identity face.

Peruvians Venezuelans Argentineans

n % n % n %

A. Strategies respecting the

speaker’s identity face

1. Self-compliment 0 0 1 1 0 0


Total 0 0 8 6 3 4

B. Strategies threatening the

speaker’s identity face

— 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total # of strategies addressing

the speaker’s identity face

0 0 8 6 3 4

C. Strategies respecting the

interlocutor’s identity face

3. Compliment 4 4 3 2 0 0


impinge

0 0 1 1 3 3

5. Expressing gratitude 0 0 1 1 2 2

Total 4 4 5 4 5 4

D. Strategies threatening the

interlocutor’s identity face



behavior

15 16 13 9 0 0





12. Claiming lack of interest 0 0 2 1 8 7

13. Moralizing 11 12 14 10 9 8

Total 88 96 131 91 111 93


the Interlocutor’s identity face

92 100 136 94 116 97


identity face

92 144 119

466 Carmen Garcıa



5. Conclusions

When comparing Peruvian, Venezuelan and Argentinean participation in

terms of their behavioral expectations, interactional wants, and face sen-

sitivities, 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 theywere attained. Peruvians adopted a rapport-challenging orientation, co-

erced 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¤eren-

tial 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 equityprinciple. 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 ex-

pense 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 as-serting their authority-control and demanding fairness-reciprocity from

their employee, but di¤erently from Peruvian bosses, they hinted at an in-

terest in the establishment of interdependence, upholding the association

principle to a small degree; they expressed desire for involvement, empa-

thy 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, theyexpressed their desire for involvement, expressed empathy, and showed

respect.

The only similarity among the three groups was that they all concen-

trated on threatening their interlocutor’s identity face. Although Venezue-

lans 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 in-teresting, the results presented here cannot be generalized to all Peru-

vians, Venezuelans, and Argentineans. An analysis of natural conversa-

tions would help to verify/reject these findings. Also, age and social class




variables, as well as the level of familiarity with the interlocutor, should

be controlled in further studies. Moreover, research using alternative ap-

proaches 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 Argen-

tinean cultural perspectives.Although these results cannot be generalized, it is worth noting the pos-

sible 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, in-

deed, 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 par-

ticipants, a hypothetical encounter between a Peruvian boss and a Vene-

zuelan or Argentinean employee would possibly result in Venezuelan andArgentinean employees being taken aback by the Peruvian boss’s author-

itative, 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 approach-

able and leaving the doors open for negotiation. This cooperativeness and

approachability, however, might be accepted by an Argentinean em-

ployee but not by a Peruvian who might perceive it as a flaw in his/herauthority, 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 Co-

lombian and Peninsular Spanish; Fant’s (1996) comparison of Mexican and Peninsular-

Spanish speakers’ negotiating strategies; Puga Larraın’s (1997) analysis of mitigation in

468 Carmen Garcıa



Chilean and Peninsular Spanish; Achugar’s (2001, 2002) work on compliments in

Spanish-speaking countries; Marquez Reiter’s (2002) study of Peninsular Spanish

speakers’ and Uruguayan Spanish speakers’ requesting strategies; Marquez Reiter and

Placencia’s (2004) comparison of Ecuadorian and Uruguayan service encounter interac-

tions and Garcıa’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 cul-

tures. Pragmatics 11(2): 127–137.

Achugar, Mariana (2002). Piropos: Cambios en la valoracion del grado de cortesıa de una

practica discursiva [Piropos: Changes in their courtesy value in discursive practice]. In Ac-

tos de habla y cortesıa en espanol [Speech acts and politeness in Spanish] (LINCOM

Studies in Pragmatics 5), Marıa Elena Placencia and Diana Bravo (eds.), 175–192. Mu-

nich: 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 analisis argumentativo de un texto coloquial. La incidencia

de los conectores pragmaticos [Toward an argumentative analysis of a colloquial text. The

occurrence of pragmatic connectors]. Verba 21: 369–388.

Briz, Antonio (2002). La atenuacion en una conversacion polemica [Mitigation in an argu-

mentative conversation]. In Estudios sobre Lengua y Sociedad [Studies on Language and

Society] (Estudis filologics 9), Jose Luis Blas, Margarita Porcar Millares, Santiago For-

tuno Llorens, and Manuela Casanova (eds.), 87–103. Valencia: Universidad Jaime I de

Castellon.

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 Cas-

tilian Spanish, and U.S. English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stony Brook, NY:

State University of New York at Stony Brook.

Fant, Lars (1996). Regulacion conversacional en la negociacion. Una comparacion entre

pautas mexicanas y peninsulares [Conversational rules in negotiation. A comparison be-

tween Mexican and Peninsular Spanish]. In El Espanol hablado y la cultura oral en Espana

e Hispanoamerica [The Spanish language in the oral tradition in Spain and Latin America]

(Biblioteca Ibero-Americana 59), Thomas Kotschi, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Klaus Zim-

mermann (eds.), 147–183. Madrid: Iberoamericana.

Felix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar (2009). Pragmatic variation across Spanish(es): Requests in Mexi-

can, 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.




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 Coup-

land (eds.), 245–269. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Garcıa, Carmen (1996). Reprimanding and responding to a reprimand: A case study of Pe-

ruvian Spanish speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 26(5): 663–697.

Garcıa, 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 repri-

mand: Power and solidarity]. In ACTAS del Primer Coloquio del Programa EDICE [Pro-

ceedings of the First Coloquium of the EDICE Program], Diana Bravo (ed.), 257–297.

Stockholm: Stockholm University.

Garcıa, Carmen (2004a). Coercion and cooperation: A case study of Argentinean repri-

mands and responses to reprimands. In Current trends in the pragmatics of Spanish (Prag-

matics and Beyond 123), Rosina Marquez Reiter and Marıa Elena Placencia (eds.),

231–264. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Garcıa, Carmen (2004b). Reprendiendo y respondiendo a una reprimenda: Similitudes y di-

ferencias 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 dialogo espontaneo: Un estudio de conversa-

ciones 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 univari-

ate and multivariate methods. New York: Radius Press.

Krauss, Robert M. (1987). The role of the listener: Addressees’ influences on message formu-

lation. 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 cogni-

tion, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98(2): 224–253.

Marquez Reiter, Rosina (2002). A contrastive study of indirectness in Spanish: Evidence

from Uruguayan and Peninsular Spanish. Pragmatics 12(2): 135–151.

Marquez Reiter, Rosina and Marıa Elena Placencia (2004). Displaying closeness and re-

spectful distance in Montevidean and Quiteno service encounters. In Current trends in the

pragmatics of Spanish (Pragmatics and Beyond 123), Rosina Marquez Reiter and Marıa

Elena Placencia (eds.), 121–155. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Marquez Reiter, Rosina and Marıa Elena Placencia (eds.) (2005). Spanish pragmatics. New

York, NY: Palgrave, Macmillan.

Placencia, Marıa Elena (1994). Pragmatics across varieties of Spanish. Donaire 2: 65–78.

Placencia, Marıa Elena (1998). Pragmatic variation: Ecuadorian Spanish vs. Peninsular

Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics 2(1): 71–103.

470 Carmen Garcıa



Placencia, Marıa Elena (2005). Pragmatic variation in corner store interactions in Quito and

Madrid. Hispania 88(3): 583–598.

Placencia, Marıa Elena (2008). Requests in corner shop transactions in Ecuadorian Andean

and Coastal Spanish. In Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricen-

tric languages (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 178), Klaus P. Schneider and Anne

Barron (eds.), 307–332. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Puga Larraın, Juana (1997). La atenuacion en el castellano de Chile: Un enfoque pragmalin-

guıstico [Attenuation in Chilean Spanish: A pragmalinguistic approach]. (Estudios ibero-

americanos. Universitat de Valencia.) Valencia, Spain: Tirant Lo Blanch Libros.

Scarcella, Robin (1979). On speaking politely in a second language. In On TESOL ’79, Car-

los 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 Cultur-

ally 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’’.




(LF) marks laughter.

(( )) encloses description of gestures or other non-verbal

information.

Underlining marks emphasis.CAPITAL

LETTERS

mark increased volume in the production of a given word

or words of the utterance.

E. Transcriber doubt

( ) is used to mark unintelligible utterances.

[email protected]

472 Carmen Garcıa



Date post:	04-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	carmen
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in the performance of reprimanding

Documents