The speech etiquette unit “complaint” in dialogic unity: pragmatic polyfunctionality, typology of response moves, and conditions of perlocutionary success

Aim: to identify the pragmatic and communicative-functional features of the speech etiquette unit (SEU) “complaint|” in the structure of dialogic unity, to determine the full range of SEUs from other thematic groups that can be combined with it, to characterize the conditions for achieving the perlocutionary effect of empathy and the factors leading to its absence, and to develop a multiparameter classification of complaints.

Methodology. The main content of the study consists of an analysis of typical dialogues modeling various ways of including a complaint in an initiating or responding speech move. The method of pragmalinguistic description, elements of discourse analysis, and classification of speech acts according to their illocutionary orientation are applied. Observations on the verbal and gestural-mimetic accompaniment of the complaint are summarized. An analysis of researchers' views in the field of speech etiquette and pragmatics is presented. The method of introspection and analysis of communicative failures is used.

Results. The conducted analysis has shown that the complaint as an SEU realizes three variants of dialogic functioning: the first variant – a self-sufficient complaint acting both as a stimulus and as a response replica (a "complaint + complaint" dialogue); the second variant – the complaint as an initiating speech move; the third variant – the complaint as a response to worry/concern. The SEUs combined with the complaint in the response move have been identified and systematized: worry/ concern, sympathy, indignation, condolence, regret, consolation, compliment, advice, apology, indifference, ignoring, as well as negative reactions (distrust, disappointment, irritation). According to the author's conclusion, the achievement of the perlocutionary effect of empathy depends on the coincidence of the communicants' attitudes toward the subject of the complaint, the anamnesis of their relationship, and spatial-temporal and social factors. It has been established that the addresser's stress state paradoxically hinders the correct assessment of the communicative situation before verbalizing the complaint. A multi-parameter classification of complaints based on five criteria is developed.

Research implications. An author's distinction is introduced between sympathy, condolence, and regret as different ways of verbalizing empathy, distinguished by the degree of coincidence of the attitude toward the subject of the complaint. New material on the classification of response speech moves to a complaint is summarized. The research updates the issues of studying speech etiquette units from the perspective of perlocutionary effect. An integrative model for predicting the success of a complaint is proposed for the first time. The results can be applied in courses on pragmalinguistics, speech act theory, intercultural communication, as well as in practical rhetoric and psychological counseling.

1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

2. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press.

3. Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In: Language, mind, and knowledge. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. Vol. 7. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 344–369.

4. Paronyan, Sh. (2026). Sociocultural Pragmatic Differences of Complaining in English. In: Bulletin of Yerevan State University B: Philology, 17 (1), 90–100. DOI: 10.46991/BYSU.B/2026.17.1.090.

5. Andryushchenko, O. K. (2014). Speech act of complaint: semantics, pragmatics, typology. In: Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 46–50 (in Russ.).

6. Wei, M. (2024). A contrastive study of Chinese and American online complaints: Speech act construction in relation to face management. In: Pragmatics and Society, 15 (3), 376–399. DOI: 10.1075/ps.21059.wei.

7. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8. Sauer, M. (2000). Complaints: a cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies: Master of Arts Thesis. Victoria, Canada: University of Victoria.

9. Ivanova, S. A. (2022). Genres of oral speech. Complaint. In: XXV Open Conference for Philology Students at St. Petersburg State University: Abstracts. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University publ., pp. 139–140 (in Russ.).

10. Lipko, Yu. G. (2006). Communicative and pragmatic aspects of the complaint discourse in modern English [dissertation]. Irkutsk (in Russ.).

11. Kolyadov, D. M. (2020). Terms of address as discourse markers. In: Topics in the study in language, 6, 7–30. DOI: 10.31857/0373-658X.2020.6.7-30 (in Russ.).

12. Vásquez, C. (2011). Complaints Online: The Case of TripAdvisor. In: Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (6), 1707–1723.