Marocchini_4.2


EuroAmerican	
  Journal	
  of	
  Applied	
  Linguistics	
  and	
  Languages	
  
Special	
  Issue,	
  Volume	
  4,	
  Issue	
  2,	
  December	
  2017,	
  pages	
  75-­‐96	
  
ISSN	
  2376-­‐905X	
  	
  
DOI	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.7.98	
  
www.e-­‐journall.org	
  

©	
  Marocchini	
  2017.	
  This	
  work	
  is	
  licensed	
  under	
  a	
  Creative	
  Commons	
  Attribution	
  4.0	
  International	
  License.	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
*	
  Contact:	
  eleonora.marocchini@gmail.com	
  

	
   Politeness	
  strategies	
  in	
  complaints	
  in	
  Italian:	
  	
  
A	
  study	
  on	
  IFL	
  learners	
  and	
  Italian	
  native	
  speakers	
  

	
   ELEONORA	
  MAROCCHINI*1	
  
Università	
  degli	
  Studi	
  di	
  Pavia	
  

	
   	
  
	
   Received	
  30	
  March	
  2017;	
  received	
  in	
  revised	
  form	
  31	
  July	
  2017;	
  accepted	
  3	
  December	
  2017	
  
	
  

ABSTRACT 
EN This paper reports on an ongoing study of Dutch native speakers learning Italian as a foreign language in a guided learning 

context. The study compares native and non-native realization patterns of complaints, both in terms of the type of expression 
of judgment and the request for reparation performed (following the classifications suggested by Nuzzo, 2007), and of the 
use of modifiers. Special attention is given to the potential effects of learners’ language proficiency levels on the native-
likeness of their realization patterns and of the quantity and variety of modifiers they used. Methods consisted of a 
sociolinguistic questionnaire, a written discourse completion test, and a conditional inference trees analysis of the production 
of 23 learners attending a B1 level course, 19 learners attending a B2 level course, and 23 native Italian speakers. 
 
Key words: ITALIAN, DUTCH, PRAGMATICS, SPEECH ACTS, POLITENESS, MODIFIERS 
 

ES El presente trabajo documenta un estudio en curso relativo a hablantes nativos de holandés que aprenden italiano como 
lengua extranjera en un contexto de enseñanza guiada. El estudio compara patrones de realización de quejas en habla 
nativa y no nativa, tanto en términos de realización de expresión de juicio como en petición de compensación (siguiendo las 
clasificaciones sugeridas por Nuzzo, 2007), sin olvidar el uso de modificadores. Se ha prestado especial atención a los 
niveles de dominio del idioma de los estudiantes y a sus potenciales efectos en la semejanza que muestran sus patrones de 
realización con el habla nativa, así como en la cantidad y variedad de modificadores utilizados. Los métodos consistieron en 
un cuestionario sociolingüístico, un test para completar el discurso y un árbol de inferencia condicional sobre la producción 
de veintitrés estudiantes que asisten a un curso de nivel B1, diecinueve que asisten a un curso de nivel B2 y veintitrés 
hablantes nativos de italiano. 
 
Palabras clave: ITALIANO, HOLANDÉS, PRAGMÁTICA, ACTOS DE HABLA, CORTESÍA, MODIFICADORES	
  
 

IT Questo articolo tratta di uno studio in corso su soggetti di madre lingua olandese che studiano italiano in un contesto di 
apprendimento guidato. Lo studio confronta la realizzazione di formule di protesta da parte di madrelingua e non, prendendo 
in esame sia il tipo di espressione di giudizio che il tipo di richiesta di scuse (in base alle classificazioni suggerite da Nuzzo, 
2007), nonché l’uso di modificatori. Particolare attenzione è stata dedicata agli effetti potenziali del livello di padronanza 
linguistica degli apprendenti sui loro modelli (patterns di realizzazione) linguistici simili a quelli nativi e sulla quantità e varietà 
dei modificatori usati. La metodologia utilizzata è consistita in un questionario sociolinguistico, un test di completamento 
(DCT- written discourse completion test) e un’analisi CTree della produzione di 23 apprendenti di un corso di livello B1, 19 
apprendenti di un corso di livello B2 e 23 di madrelingua italiana. 
 
Parole chiave:  ITALIANO, OLANDESE, PRAGMATICA, ATTI LINGUISTICI, CORTESIA, MODIFICATORI 
 



MAROCCHINI	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
  76	
  

1.	
  Introduction	
  
The	
  present	
  paper	
  reports	
  on	
  an	
  ongoing	
  study	
  of	
  how	
  native	
  Italian	
  speakers	
  and	
  learners	
  of	
  Italian	
  

as	
   a	
   foreign	
   language	
   (IFL)	
   perform	
   complaints.	
   The	
   study	
   was	
   conducted	
   with	
   native	
   Dutch	
   speakers	
  
learning	
  IFL	
  in	
  a	
  guided	
  learning	
  context	
  in	
  Belgium.	
  

Grounded	
   in	
   the	
   field	
   of	
   acquisitional	
   pragmatics	
   of	
   Italian	
   as	
   a	
   second	
   or	
   a	
   foreign	
   language	
  
(Giacalone-­‐Ramat,	
  Chini,	
  &	
  Andorno,	
  2013),	
  this	
  paper	
  focuses	
  on	
  pragmatic	
  competence,	
  considered	
  here	
  as	
  
the	
   ability	
   to	
   perform	
   specific	
   communicative	
   acts	
   in	
   a	
   native-­‐like	
   way.	
   The	
   paper	
   analyzes	
   pragmatic	
  
competence	
   of	
   IFL	
   learners	
   by	
   looking	
   at	
   patterns	
   of	
   realization	
   of	
   certain	
   speech	
   acts,	
   especially	
   face-­‐
threatening	
   ones	
   (see	
   Brown	
   &	
   Levinson,	
   1987,	
   p.	
   61),	
   like	
   complaints,	
   and	
   analyzing	
   modification	
  
techniques,	
   both	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   quantity	
   and	
   variety	
   of	
   modifiers	
   used,	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   understand	
   learners’	
  
preferred	
  politeness	
  strategies.	
  

The	
   results	
   of	
   observation	
   and	
   analysis	
   are	
   then	
   compared	
   with	
   the	
   native	
   speakers’	
   linguistic	
  
behaviour	
  and	
  evaluated	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  native-­‐likeness.	
  These	
  results	
  provide	
  a	
  first	
  step	
  for	
  developing	
  specific	
  
didactic	
  methods,	
  advancing	
  recommendations	
  on	
  input	
  to	
  provide	
  to	
  learners,	
  and	
  studying	
  whether	
  didactic	
  
approaches	
  have	
  any	
  significant	
  effect	
  on	
  the	
  cultivation	
  of	
  pragmatic	
  competence.	
  
	
  
1.1.	
  Literature	
  review	
  
1.1.1.	
  Complaints	
  	
  

Research	
  on	
  speech	
  acts	
  dates	
  back	
  to	
  Austin’s	
  work	
  on	
  philosophy	
  of	
  language	
  (Austin,	
  1961;	
  1962)	
  
where	
  he	
  provided	
  a	
  classification	
  of	
  these	
  acts,	
  introducing	
  ideas	
  that	
  remain	
  central	
  to	
  modern	
  pragmatics	
  
such	
  as	
  a	
  speaker’s	
   intentions,	
  and	
   the	
   felicity	
  conditions	
  and	
   illocutionary	
   force	
  of	
  his/her	
  utterances	
   (see	
  
Austin,	
   1962).	
   These	
   and	
   other	
   ideas	
  were	
   discussed	
   and	
   implemented	
   by	
   Searle	
   (see	
   Searle,	
   1969,	
   1975,	
  
1976,	
  1979),	
  who	
  created	
  another	
  detailed	
   classification	
  of	
   speech	
  acts:	
   complaints	
  were	
   classified	
  here	
  as	
  
expressive	
  acts,	
  since	
  the	
  speaker	
  performing	
  a	
  complaint	
  communicates	
  his	
  reaction	
  to	
  a	
  negative	
  (verbal	
  or	
  
nonverbal)	
  action	
  (Searle,	
  1976).	
  	
  

Further	
   research,	
   though,	
   has	
   identified	
   complaints	
   as	
   more	
   complex	
   speech	
   acts	
   because	
   the	
  
speaker	
  usually	
  tries	
  to	
  influence	
  the	
  behavior	
  of	
  the	
  actor	
  of	
  the	
  negative	
  action	
  so	
  that	
  the	
  action	
  is	
  fixed	
  or,	
  
at	
   the	
   least,	
   not	
   repeated.	
   For	
   instance,	
   George	
   (1990)	
   identifies	
   two	
   kinds	
   of	
   complaints:	
   expressive	
   and	
  
directive.	
  Expressive	
  complaints	
  (according	
  to	
  George)	
  can	
  either	
  address	
  the	
  actor	
  of	
  an	
  annoying	
  act	
  or	
  not:	
  
in	
   fact,	
   the	
   speaker	
   performing	
   them	
   reports	
   on	
   an	
   annoying	
   act	
   without	
   asking	
   for	
   reparation.	
   Directive	
  
complaints,	
   instead,	
  are	
  performed	
  when	
  the	
  speaker	
   tries	
   to	
  convince	
   the	
  actor	
  of	
   the	
  annoying	
  act	
  not	
   to	
  
repeat	
  the	
  act.	
  This	
  distinction	
  is	
  not	
  far	
  from	
  Boxer’s	
  more	
  recent	
  idea	
  that	
  complaints	
  can	
  either	
  be	
  indirect	
  
or	
  direct	
   (Boxer,	
   2010,	
   pp.	
   163-­‐168).	
   For	
  Boxer,	
   indirect	
   complaints	
   only	
   address	
   someone	
  who	
   is	
   not	
   the	
  
actor	
  of	
   the	
  action	
   triggering	
   the	
  complaint.	
  This	
  means	
   that	
  only	
  direct	
  complaints	
  are	
   face-­‐threatening	
   in	
  
Brown	
   and	
   Levinson’s	
   (1987)	
   terms.	
   The	
   problem	
   with	
   this	
   dualism	
   is	
   that	
   a	
   direct	
   complaint	
   is	
   not	
  
infrequently	
  performed	
  along	
  with	
  an	
   indirect	
  one.	
  These	
  two	
  types	
  of	
  complaints	
  can	
  therefore	
   instead	
  be	
  
seen	
   as	
   two	
  parts	
   of	
   a	
   complaint,	
  which	
   can	
   be	
   termed,	
   following	
  Nuzzo	
   (2007,	
   p.	
   108),	
   an	
   “expression	
   of	
  
judgment”	
  and	
  a	
  “request	
   for	
  reparation”.	
  These	
   two	
  components	
  can	
  occur	
  simultaneously	
  or	
   individually.	
  
Rubino	
  and	
  Bettoni	
  (2006)	
  even	
  consider	
  a	
  third	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  complaint,	
  namely	
  the	
  “resolution	
  of	
  the	
  matter”,	
  
which	
  is	
  usually	
  shared	
  between	
  the	
  speaker	
  and	
  the	
  addressee.	
  

Complaint	
  realization	
  patterns	
  have	
  been	
  widely	
  studied	
  in	
  English	
  as	
  a	
  second	
  language	
  (see	
  Boxer,	
  
1993,	
  pp.	
  280-­‐281	
  for	
  a	
  short	
  review	
  and	
  Trosborg,	
  1995	
  in	
  detail),	
  but	
  they	
  remain	
  understudied	
  in	
  Italian.	
  
Some	
  relevant	
  exceptions	
  include	
  studies	
  conducted	
  by	
  George	
  (1990)	
  and	
  Rubino	
  and	
  Bettoni	
  (1993;	
  though	
  
their	
   point	
   of	
   view	
   was	
   more	
   cross-­‐cultural	
   than	
   acquisitional),	
   Nuzzo	
   (2006,	
   2007),	
   Rastelli	
   and	
   Nuzzo	
  
(2009),	
  and	
  Gauci	
  (2012,	
  2015).	
  

Nuzzo	
  (2007)	
  examined	
  pragmatic	
  competence	
  in	
  Italian	
  as	
  a	
  second	
  language,	
  studying	
  specific	
  and	
  
delicate	
  face-­‐threatening	
  speech	
  acts	
  like	
  requests,	
  complaints,	
  and	
  apologies.	
  The	
  researcher	
  classified	
  data	
  
collected	
  from	
  three	
  learners	
  of	
  Italian	
  as	
  a	
  second	
  language	
  studying	
  in	
  Milan	
  and	
  identified:	
  three	
  types	
  of	
  
expression	
  of	
  judgment	
  where	
  the	
  speaker	
  makes	
  clear	
  that	
  the	
  addressee	
  is	
  responsible	
  for	
  the	
  act	
  triggering	
  
the	
   complaint,	
   five	
   types	
  of	
   expression	
  of	
   judgment	
  where	
   the	
   speaker	
  does	
  not	
   explicitly	
   specify	
  anyone’s	
  
responsibility,	
  and	
  seven	
  types	
  of	
  requests	
  for	
  reparation	
  (Nuzzo,	
  2007,	
  pp.	
  112-­‐115).	
  	
  

In	
  addition	
  to	
  proposing	
  this	
  fine-­‐grained	
  classification,	
  Nuzzo’s	
  work	
  also	
  finds	
  that	
  native	
  speakers	
  
prefer	
  to	
  “underline	
  the	
  negativity	
  of	
  the	
  event	
  itself”	
  (Nuzzo,	
  2007,	
  p.	
  153),	
  rather	
  than	
  explicitly	
  state	
  that	
  
the	
   addressee	
   is	
   responsible	
   for	
   the	
   negative	
   event	
   and	
   explicitly	
   request	
   reparations:	
   65,4%	
   of	
   the	
  



POLITENESS	
  STRATEGIES	
  IN	
  COMPLAINTS	
  IN	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
   77	
  

complaints	
   collected	
   in	
   the	
   study	
   corpus	
   of	
   Italian	
   L1	
   only	
   contained	
   an	
   expression	
   of	
   judgment,	
   25,9%	
  
involved	
  a	
  judgment	
  and	
  a	
  request	
  for	
  reparation	
  and	
  only	
  8,7%	
  of	
  them	
  displayed	
  a	
  request	
  for	
  reparation	
  
with	
  no	
  expression	
  of	
  judgment.	
  In	
  contrast,	
  learners	
  were	
  seen	
  to	
  use	
  requests	
  for	
  reparation	
  more	
  often	
  and	
  
to	
  explicitly	
  blame	
  the	
  addressee	
  for	
  the	
  negative	
  event	
  (pp.	
  121-­‐122).	
  Nuzzo’s	
  data	
  will	
  be	
  compared	
  to	
  that	
  
collected	
  for	
  the	
  present	
  study,	
  though	
  with	
  some	
  adjustments;	
  since	
  her	
  data	
  were	
  collected	
  longitudinally,	
  
and	
  from	
  only	
  three	
  learners,	
  they	
  are	
  not	
  perfectly	
  comparable	
  to	
  the	
  data	
  presented	
  here.	
  

Realization	
   patterns	
   that	
   are	
   less	
   direct	
   are	
   perceived	
   by	
   native	
   Italian	
   speakers	
   as	
   more	
   polite:	
  
politeness	
   norms	
   compel	
   the	
   speaker	
   to	
   soften	
   face-­‐threatening	
   acts	
   through	
   indirect	
   formulations	
   and	
  
modification	
  devices	
  (that	
  will	
  be	
  defined	
  in	
  the	
  next	
  section)	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  be	
  perceived	
  as	
  less	
  imperative	
  and	
  
demanding	
   (see	
   Nuzzo	
   &	
   Gauci,	
   2012,	
   p.	
   18).	
   The	
   use	
   of	
   certain	
   realization	
   patterns	
   and	
   modifiers	
   can	
  
therefore	
   be	
   seen	
   as	
   a	
   set	
   of	
   politeness	
   strategies.	
   Not	
   all	
   of	
   these	
   strategies	
   are	
   universal	
   (see	
   Brown	
   &	
  
Levinson,	
  1987)	
  and	
  native	
  speakers	
  of	
  Italian	
  appear	
  to	
  use	
  them	
  more	
  naturally.	
  

	
  
1.1.2.	
  Modifiers	
  	
  

Even	
   if	
   native	
   speakers	
   (NSs)	
   tend	
   to	
   employ	
  more	
   indirect	
   expressions	
   of	
   judgment	
   than	
   explicit	
  
requests	
   for	
   reparation,	
   complaints	
   are	
   difficult	
   to	
   produce	
   without	
   attacking	
   one’s	
   relationship	
   with	
   the	
  
actor	
   of	
   the	
   complaint-­‐triggering	
   action.	
   For	
   this	
   reason,	
   as	
   stated	
   earlier,	
   modification	
   is	
   often	
   used	
   to	
  
mitigate	
  the	
  offensive	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
   judgments.	
   	
  Trosborg	
  (1995,	
  pp.	
  209-­‐219)	
  defines	
   internal	
  modifiers	
  as	
  
morphosyntactical	
   and	
   lexical	
   devices	
   used	
   by	
   speakers	
   to	
   decrease	
   (“downgraders”)	
   or	
   enhance	
  
(“upgraders”)	
  the	
  impact	
  an	
  utterance	
  may	
  have	
  on	
  the	
  hearer	
  (p.	
  209).	
  She	
  defines	
  external	
  modifiers	
  as	
  any	
  
supporting	
  utterances	
  used	
  to	
  attract	
  the	
  attention	
  of	
  the	
  addressee	
  and	
  prepare,	
  persuade,	
  and	
  disarm	
  the	
  
addressee	
  of	
  a	
  face-­‐threatening	
  speech	
  act	
  (p.	
  215).	
  	
  

Modifiers	
   can	
   therefore	
   be	
   deployed	
   in	
   speech	
   acts	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   modify	
   the	
   social	
   impact	
   of	
   one’s	
  
reaction,	
   communicate	
  a	
   specific	
  pragmatic	
   force,	
   and	
  downgrade	
  or	
  upgrade	
   the	
   level	
  of	
   coerciveness;	
   for	
  
this	
   reason	
   Blum-­‐Kulka	
   defines	
   them	
   “multifunctional	
   in	
   two	
   distinct	
   ways”	
   (1985,	
   p.	
   213).	
   Modification	
  
devices	
   are	
   a	
  widely-­‐used	
   category	
   of	
   analysis	
   for	
   all	
   the	
   studies	
   examining	
   pragmatic	
   competence	
   among	
  
language	
  learners	
  (see	
  for	
  instance	
  Forsberg,	
  Lundell,	
  &	
  Erman,	
  2012,	
  for	
  English	
  and	
  French;	
  Martínez-­‐Flor,	
  
2008	
  for	
  English;	
  Gauci,	
  2015,	
  and	
  Nuzzo,	
  2013	
  for	
  Italian;	
  Salazar	
  Campillo,	
  2008,	
  for	
  English).	
  These	
  devices	
  
were	
  studied	
  by	
  Nuzzo	
  (2007)	
  and	
  Gauci	
  (2015),	
  who,	
  with	
  a	
  specific	
   focus	
  on	
  morphosyntactic	
  and	
   lexical	
  
modifiers,	
  analyzed	
  the	
  realization	
  patterns	
  of	
  complaints	
  in	
  Italian	
  as	
  a	
  second	
  language	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  develop	
  
a	
  clear	
  picture	
  of	
  politeness	
  strategies	
  used	
  by	
  nonnative	
  speakers	
  (NNSs)	
  and	
  NSs	
  of	
  Italian.	
  

	
  
1.1.3.	
  Politeness	
  strategies	
  in	
  Dutch	
  	
  

Given	
   that	
   all	
   of	
   the	
   learners	
   in	
   the	
  present	
   study	
  were	
  native	
  Dutch	
   speakers,	
   a	
   comparison	
  with	
  
politeness	
  strategies	
   in	
  Dutch	
   is	
  needed.	
  According	
   to	
  a	
  study	
  by	
  Van	
  Mulken	
  (1996),	
  based	
  on	
  a	
  corpus	
  of	
  
parallel	
  Dutch	
  and	
  French	
  requests	
  (collected	
  from	
  20	
  French	
  participants	
  and	
  16	
  Dutch	
  participants),	
  Dutch	
  
NSs	
   tend	
   to	
   use	
   more	
   lexical	
   than	
   syntactic	
   and	
   external	
   modifiers	
   in	
   Dutch.	
   Comparing	
   their	
   politeness	
  
strategies	
   to	
   those	
  of	
  French	
  native	
  speakers,	
  Van	
  Mulken	
   found	
  that	
   the	
  French	
  participants	
  used	
  external	
  
modification	
  more,	
   while	
   the	
   Dutch	
   participants	
   tended	
   to	
  mitigate	
   their	
   requests	
  with	
   internal	
  modifiers	
  
(this	
  tendency	
  was	
  observed	
  in	
  previous	
  research	
  too,	
  as	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  in	
  Stalpers,	
  1993,	
  p.	
  91).	
  

In	
   fact,	
   there	
   were	
   no	
   significant	
   differences	
   between	
   the	
   Dutch	
   and	
   French	
   participants	
   in	
   Van	
  
Mulken’s	
  study	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  their	
  performance	
  of	
  head	
  acts	
  (in	
  line	
  with	
  previous	
  research	
  on	
  this	
  topic,	
  such	
  
as	
  Van	
  der	
  Wijst,	
  1991),	
  but	
  French	
  participants	
  produced	
   longer	
   requests	
  because	
  of	
   their	
  use	
  of	
  external	
  
modification	
  (Van	
  Mulken,	
  1996,	
  p.	
  693).	
  

Van	
  Mulken	
  states	
  that	
  if	
  a	
  Dutch	
  native	
  speaker	
  with	
  a	
  low	
  proficiency	
  in	
  French	
  tried	
  to	
  be	
  as	
  polite	
  
as	
  he	
  was	
  in	
  Dutch	
  he	
  would	
  fail	
  due	
  to	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  a	
  literal	
  translation	
  for	
  the	
  politeness	
  markers	
  that	
  he	
  would	
  
use	
  in	
  Dutch.	
  He	
  would	
  find	
  it	
  difficult	
  to	
  use	
  a	
  supportive	
  move,	
  instead	
  of	
  choosing	
  a	
  politeness	
  marker	
  and	
  
keeping	
  the	
  head	
  act	
  alone,	
  and	
  his	
  requests	
  would	
  therefore	
  come	
  across	
  as	
  impolite	
  and	
  unconvincing	
  (p.	
  
701).	
   Van	
   Mulken’s	
   observations	
   can	
   also	
   be	
   compared	
   with	
   findings	
   from	
   research	
   where	
   negotiation	
  
techniques	
   in	
   French	
   and	
   Dutch	
   are	
   studied	
   and	
   confronted:	
   even	
  when	
   the	
   subject	
   of	
   the	
   interactions	
   in	
  
question	
  was	
  specific	
  and	
  limited	
  to	
  business	
  matters,	
  Dutch	
  study	
  participants	
  seemed	
  less	
  concerned	
  with	
  
politeness	
   than	
   their	
   French	
   interlocutors	
   (see	
   Merk,	
   1987)	
   and	
   tended	
   to	
   be	
   more	
   direct	
   in	
   their	
  
negotiations.	
   These	
   studies	
   seem	
   to	
   align	
   with	
   Van	
   Mulken’s	
   findings,	
   also	
   with	
   regards	
   to	
   the	
   fact	
   that	
  
observed	
  directness	
  resulted	
  in	
  unconvincing	
  requests,	
  since	
  it	
  appeared	
  to	
  negatively	
  influence	
  the	
  outcome	
  
of	
  the	
  negotiations	
  (see	
  Van	
  der	
  Wijst	
  &	
  Ulijn,	
  1991).	
  	
  



MAROCCHINI	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
  78	
  

2.	
  Methodology	
  
2.1.	
  Research	
  questions	
  

Former	
  studies	
  in	
  the	
  field	
  have	
  attended	
  to	
  two	
  main	
  research	
  questions:	
  first,	
  whether	
  it	
  is	
  possible	
  
to	
   profile	
   a	
   path	
   of	
   progressive	
   convergence	
   between	
   non-­‐native	
   speakers’	
   (NNSs)	
   linguistic	
   behavior	
   and	
  
that	
   of	
   native	
   speakers	
   (NSs),	
   and	
   secondly	
   what	
   the	
   relationship	
   is	
   between	
   the	
   acquisition	
   of	
   linguistic	
  
forms	
  and	
  their	
  pragmatic	
  use	
  (Nuzzo,	
  2007,	
  p.	
  39).	
  	
  

It	
   is	
   known	
   that	
   learners	
   tend	
   to	
   develop	
   advanced	
   grammatical	
   competence	
   more	
   easily	
   than	
  
pragmatic	
  competence	
  (Bardovi-­‐Harlig	
  &	
  Hartford,	
  1990;	
  1993)	
  and	
  that	
  this	
  is	
  even	
  more	
  true	
  for	
  learners	
  of	
  
a	
  foreign	
  language	
  than	
  learners	
  of	
  a	
  second	
  language.	
  For	
  instance,	
  Bardovi-­‐Harlig	
  and	
  Dörney	
  (1998,	
  p.	
  258)	
  
found	
   that	
   ESL	
   learners	
   tended	
   to	
   recognize	
   and	
   consider	
   pragmatic	
   errors	
   that	
   were	
   as	
   serious	
   as	
  
grammatical	
   errors,	
   while	
   EFL	
   learners	
   had	
   difficulty	
   even	
   recognizing	
   them.	
   On	
   the	
   other	
   hand,	
   there	
   is	
  
evidence	
  that	
  some	
  learners	
  try	
  to	
  follow	
  pragmatic	
  rules	
  of	
  the	
  target	
  language	
  before	
  they	
  have	
  developed	
  
the	
  grammatical	
  competence	
  needed	
  to	
  follow	
  them	
  correctly	
  (Nuzzo,	
  2007,	
  p.	
  32).	
  Kasper	
  and	
  Rose	
  (2002,	
  p.	
  
185)	
  therefore	
  hypothesize	
  that	
  L2	
  learners	
  rely	
  on	
  pragmatic	
  competence	
  from	
  their	
  L1	
  when	
  grammatical	
  
knowledge	
   in	
   their	
  L2	
   is	
  not	
  high	
  enough	
  (pragmatic	
  over	
  grammatical	
  competence),	
  and	
   that	
   they	
  use	
   the	
  
new	
  grammatical	
  forms	
  that	
  they	
  learn	
  only	
  with	
  their	
  literal	
  meaning,	
  learning	
  to	
  use	
  their	
  pragmatic	
  values	
  
only	
   at	
   a	
   later	
   time	
   (grammatical	
   over	
   pragmatic	
   competence).	
   These	
   issues	
   can	
   be	
   addressed	
   in	
   different	
  
ways	
   as	
   smaller,	
   practical	
   questions	
   that	
  may	
   be	
   easier	
   to	
   answer.	
   This	
   paper	
   will	
   address	
   the	
   following,	
  
focusing	
  on	
  the	
  realization	
  patterns	
  of	
  complaints:	
  

RQ1:	
  What	
  are	
  the	
  most	
  common	
  ways	
  NSs	
  and	
  NNSs	
  of	
  Italian	
  express	
  their	
  judgment	
  for	
  a	
  negative	
  
action	
   that	
   they	
   find	
  annoying?	
  (Do	
  they	
  ask	
   for	
  reparation	
  of	
   the	
  negative	
  action	
  with	
   the	
  same	
   frequency	
  
and	
   illocutionary	
   force?	
   That	
   is,	
   are	
   there	
   substantial	
   differences	
   between	
   NSs	
   and	
   NNSs	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   the	
  
selection	
  of	
  the	
  complaint	
  type	
  to	
  perform?)	
  

RQ2:	
   Are	
   there	
   substantial	
   differences	
   between	
   NSs	
   and	
   NNSs	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   the	
   distribution	
   of	
  
morphosyntactical,	
  lexical	
  and	
  external	
  modifiers	
  used	
  in	
  performing	
  a	
  complaint?	
  

RQ3:	
  Do	
  NNSs	
  with	
  higher	
  linguistic	
  proficiency	
  exhibit	
  more	
  native-­‐likeness	
  in	
  their	
  performance	
  of	
  
complaints	
  than	
  NNSs	
  with	
  lower	
  linguistic	
  proficiency?	
  

And	
  finally,	
  following	
  Van	
  Mulken’s	
  (1996,	
  p.	
  701)	
  observation:	
  
RQ4:	
  Do	
  Dutch	
  NSs	
  who	
   are	
   IFL	
   learners	
   tend	
   to	
   use	
  more	
   internal	
   than	
   external	
  modifiers	
  when	
  

trying	
  to	
  be	
  polite	
  in	
  Italian?	
  
	
  

2.2.	
  Participants	
  
The	
  participants	
  were	
  students	
  of	
  Italian	
  as	
  a	
  foreign	
  language	
  from	
  two	
  different	
  classrooms	
  at	
  the	
  

Centrum	
   voor	
   Levende	
   Talen	
   (CLT)	
   in	
   Leuven,	
   Belgium.	
   Courses	
   at	
   the	
   CLT	
   are	
   taught	
   by	
   Italian	
   native	
  
speakers	
   and	
   based	
   on	
  materials	
   selected	
   from	
   various	
   sources	
   of	
   native	
   production,	
   namely	
   newspapers,	
  
excerpts	
  of	
  movies,	
  and	
  TV	
  shows.	
  The	
  participants	
  were	
  all	
  native	
  Dutch	
  speakers,	
  enrolled	
  in	
  course	
  5	
  and	
  
course	
  7	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  Belgian	
  system,	
  where	
  they	
  were	
  placed	
  after	
  a	
  grammatical	
  and	
  lexical	
  computer-­‐
based	
  language	
  assessment.	
  Twenty-­‐three	
  were	
  from	
  course	
  5,	
  which	
  is	
  approximately	
  B1-­‐level	
  according	
  to	
  
the	
   Common	
  European	
   Framework	
   of	
  Reference	
   for	
   Languages	
   (CEFR,	
   2001),	
   and	
  19	
  were	
   from	
   course	
   7,	
  
approximately	
  B2-­‐level.	
  Additional	
  data	
  were	
   collected	
  with	
   the	
   same	
  methods	
   from	
  a	
   control	
   group	
  of	
  23	
  
Italian	
  NSs,	
  born	
  and	
  living	
  in	
  Italy	
  with	
  Italian	
  parents	
  and	
  no	
  significant	
  periods	
  of	
  stay	
  abroad.	
  	
  

There	
  was	
  a	
  high	
  proportion	
  of	
  women	
  among	
  the	
  participants:	
  15	
  out	
  of	
  23	
  in	
  the	
  B1-­‐group,	
  10	
  out	
  
of	
  19	
  in	
  the	
  B2-­‐group	
  and	
  17	
  out	
  of	
  23	
  in	
  the	
  NSs	
  group.	
  The	
  Belgian	
  participants	
  were	
  generally	
  older	
  than	
  
the	
  Italian	
  participants,	
  although	
  the	
  participants	
  came	
  from	
  mixed-­‐age	
  classrooms:	
  the	
  mean	
  age	
  was	
  44.08	
  
(SD:	
  12.60)	
  in	
  the	
  B-­‐1	
  group	
  and	
  47.57	
  (SD:	
  12.15)	
  in	
  the	
  B2-­‐group,	
  while	
  it	
  was	
  28.56	
  (SD:	
  10.15)	
  in	
  the	
  NSs	
  
group.	
  All	
   participants	
   completed	
   a	
   sociolinguistic	
   questionnaire,	
   through	
  which	
   information	
  was	
   gathered	
  
about	
   their	
   personal	
   data,	
   their	
   self-­‐rated	
   level	
   of	
   proficiency	
   in	
   any	
   of	
   their	
   known	
   languages,	
   and	
   their	
  
sources	
   for	
   Italian	
   learning	
   (courses	
   attended,	
   additional	
   materials	
   used	
   during	
   and	
   outside	
   the	
   courses,	
  
contacts	
  with	
  Italian	
  native	
  speakers,	
  and	
  trips	
  to	
  Italy).	
  All	
  of	
  the	
  Dutch	
  participants	
  except	
  for	
  one	
  declared	
  
knowledge	
   of	
   French	
   and	
   English,	
   and	
   all	
   self-­‐evaluated	
   level	
   of	
   proficiency	
   in	
   these	
   languages	
   as	
   “C1”	
   or	
  
“+++”.	
  They	
  all	
  knew	
  at	
  least	
  two	
  languages	
  other	
  than	
  their	
  L1,	
  most	
  of	
  them	
  (36	
  out	
  of	
  43)	
  listed	
  more	
  than	
  
two	
   additional	
   languages,	
   and	
   all	
   of	
   them	
   graduated	
   from	
   university.	
   In	
   order	
   to	
   ensure	
   comparability	
  
between	
  Dutch	
   participants	
   and	
   the	
   control	
   group,	
   the	
   selected	
  NSs	
   of	
   Italian	
  were	
   chosen	
   among	
   college	
  
graduates	
  who	
  knew	
  at	
  least	
  two	
  languages	
  other	
  than	
  Italian	
  (except	
  for	
  5	
  out	
  of	
  23).	
  



POLITENESS	
  STRATEGIES	
  IN	
  COMPLAINTS	
  IN	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
   79	
  

2.2.1.	
  Grammatical	
  correctness	
  
To	
  determine	
  whether	
   there	
  was	
   a	
   statistically	
   significant	
   difference	
   between	
   the	
  B1-­‐	
   and	
   the	
  B2-­‐

level	
  groups	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  grammatical	
  competence,	
  grammatical	
  correctness	
  was	
  set	
  as	
  the	
  response	
  variable	
  
for	
  a	
  ctree	
  (conditional	
   inference	
  tree)	
  plot	
   in	
  R.	
  In	
  other	
  words,	
  this	
  was	
  done	
  to	
  see	
  whether	
  participants’	
  
stated	
   level	
  of	
  proficiency	
   in	
   Italian	
  (according	
  to	
   the	
  computer-­‐based	
  test	
  on	
  the	
  basis	
  of	
  which	
  they	
  were	
  
placed	
   in	
   their	
   classes)	
  had	
  a	
  significant	
  effect	
  on	
   the	
  grammatical	
   correctness	
  of	
   their	
   responses.	
  Answers	
  
containing	
   typographical	
   or	
   small	
   lexicon-­‐related	
   mistakes	
   were	
   not	
   considered	
   ungrammatical.	
   The	
  
randomly	
  selected	
  sample	
  on	
  which	
  the	
  analysis	
  was	
  carried	
  out	
  consisted	
  of	
  200	
  answers	
  per	
  group.	
  

As	
  a	
  non-­‐parametric	
  method	
  for	
  data	
  classification,	
  ctrees	
  evaluate	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  several	
  
possible	
  outcomes	
  and	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  predictors,	
  by	
  binary	
  recursive	
  partitioning,	
  and	
  identify	
  the	
  predictor	
  that	
  is	
  
most	
  strongly	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  data	
  partitions	
  as	
  the	
  basis	
  of	
  the	
  split.	
  Specifically,	
  the	
  algorithm:	
  

	
  
1) tests	
   the	
   global	
   null	
   hypothesis	
   of	
   independence	
   between	
   the	
   input	
   variables	
   and	
   the	
   response	
  

variable,	
  and	
  chooses	
  the	
   input	
  variable	
  that	
   is	
  most	
  strongly	
  associated	
  to	
  the	
  response	
  variable	
   if	
  
the	
  null	
  hypothesis	
  actually	
  is	
  rejected:	
  the	
  measure	
  for	
  the	
  association	
  is	
  a	
  p-­‐value	
  determined	
  by	
  a	
  
test	
   for	
  the	
  partial	
  null	
  hypothesis	
  of	
  a	
  single	
   input	
  variable.	
   If	
   the	
  global	
  null	
  hypothesis	
  cannot	
  be	
  
rejected,	
  the	
  algorithm	
  stops;	
  

2) develops	
  a	
  binary	
  split	
  in	
  the	
  individuated	
  input	
  variable;	
  
3) repeats	
  1)	
  and	
  2)	
  recursively	
  (see	
  Hothorn,	
  Hornik,	
  &	
  Zeileis,	
  2006,	
  p.	
  653).	
  

	
  
	
   Grammatical	
  correctness	
  was	
  therefore	
  set	
  as	
  the	
  response	
  variable,	
  and	
  proficiency	
  level	
  was	
  set	
  as	
  a	
  
predictor	
  for	
  the	
  ctree.	
  The	
  generated	
  plot	
  reported	
  in	
  Figure	
  1	
  clearly	
  shows	
  that	
  a	
  higher	
  proficiency	
  level	
  
unsurprisingly	
  correlates	
  with	
  a	
  higher	
  number	
  of	
  grammatically	
  correct	
  answers	
  (p	
  =	
  .004),	
  as	
  ctrees	
  do	
  not	
  
show	
   any	
   split	
   for	
   the	
   values	
   of	
   the	
   predictor	
   variable	
   that	
   did	
   not	
   prove	
   significant.	
   The	
   two	
   groups	
   of	
  
learners	
  can	
  therefore	
  be	
  considered	
  as	
  well	
  divided	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  grammatical	
  competence.	
  
	
  

	
  
Figure 1. Conditional inference tree for grammatical correctness in a random sample of answers (n = 600) from the DCT. 

 
 

2.3.	
  Methods	
  and	
  units	
  of	
  analysis	
  
The	
  data	
  were	
  collected	
  separately	
  in	
  the	
  two	
  classrooms,	
  using	
  a	
  written	
  Discourse	
  Completion	
  Test	
  

(DCT),	
   which	
   was	
   explained	
   orally	
   immediately	
   after	
   all	
   of	
   the	
   participants	
   completed	
   the	
   sociolinguistic	
  
questionnaire	
   mentioned	
   in	
   the	
   previous	
   section.	
   The	
   DCT	
   outcome	
   was	
   used	
   to	
   build	
   a	
   dataset	
   in	
   Excel	
  
where	
  each	
  answer	
  was	
  given	
  an	
  ID	
  and	
  annotated	
  for	
  several	
  variables:	
  the	
  types	
  of	
  expressions	
  of	
  judgment	
  
and	
  requests	
   for	
  reparation	
  used	
  (as	
  described	
  below	
  in	
  Table	
  1	
  and	
  2),	
   the	
  subtypes	
  of	
  modifiers	
  used	
  (as	
  



MAROCCHINI	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
  80	
  

classified	
  in	
  Table	
  3)	
  and	
  the	
  grammatical	
  correctness	
  of	
  the	
  answers.	
  The	
  grammatical	
  correctness	
  variable	
  
was	
  used,	
  as	
  stated	
  earlier,	
  to	
  check	
  that	
  the	
  participants	
  belonging	
  to	
  the	
  three	
  different	
  groups	
  (B1,	
  B2	
  and	
  
Italian	
  NSs)	
  were	
  in	
  fact	
  comparable	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  grammatical	
  competence.	
  

The	
  decision	
  to	
  employ	
  a	
  written	
  DCT	
  is	
  complex	
  and	
  debatable,	
  as	
  each	
  research	
  method	
  presents	
  
different	
   advantages	
   and	
   shortcomings.	
   Naturalistic	
   observational	
   data	
   are	
   more	
   informative	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
  
spontaneous	
   language	
   use	
   and	
   shed	
   more	
   light	
   on	
   the	
   development	
   of	
   specific	
   pragmatic	
   behaviors	
  
performed	
  by	
  NNS,	
   if	
   the	
  participants	
  are	
  followed	
  long	
  enough	
  and	
  their	
  productions	
  are	
  well-­‐analyzed.	
  In	
  	
  
longitudinal	
  studies,	
  however,	
   it	
   is	
  difficult	
   for	
  the	
  researcher	
  to	
  gather	
  and	
  analyze	
  large	
  quantities	
  of	
  data	
  
and	
  it	
  consequently	
  becomes	
  necessary	
  for	
  him/her	
  to	
  repeatedly	
  test	
  and	
  observe	
  the	
  learners	
  (which	
  could	
  
be	
  considered	
  a	
  bias,	
  or	
  cause	
  the	
  learners	
  to	
  leave	
  before	
  the	
  study	
  is	
  concluded).	
  Cross-­‐sectional	
  studies,	
  on	
  
the	
   other	
   hand,	
   allow	
   the	
   researcher	
   to	
   control	
   for	
  more	
   variables	
   (such	
   as	
   gender,	
   age,	
   proficiency	
   level,	
  
education),	
   include	
   more	
   participants,	
   and	
   create	
   a	
   large	
   corpus	
   of	
   data	
   in	
   a	
   short	
   time.	
   The	
   main	
  
disadvantage	
  is	
  the	
  non-­‐spontaneous	
  nature	
  of	
  these	
  data,	
  usually	
  elicited	
  through	
  specifically	
  designed	
  tests,	
  
that	
  may	
  not	
  correspond	
  with	
  learners’	
  natural	
  language	
  use	
  (Ellis,	
  2008,	
  pp.	
  167-­‐168).	
  

The	
   tests	
   that	
   are	
  most	
   frequently	
   employed	
   by	
   researchers	
   in	
   this	
   field	
   are	
  Role-­‐Plays	
   (RPs)	
   and	
  
Discourse	
  Completion	
  Tests	
  (DCTs).	
  RPs	
  share	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  disadvantages	
  mentioned	
  for	
  longitudinal	
  studies:	
  
gathering	
   a	
   large	
   amount	
   of	
   data	
   with	
   RPs	
   is	
   not	
   easy	
   and	
   takes	
   time.	
   Consequently,	
   DCTs	
   are	
   widely	
  
preferred,	
  in	
  two	
  main	
  versions:	
  multiple-­‐choice,	
  useful	
  for	
  examining	
  the	
  learners’	
  knowledge	
  through	
  their	
  
choices,	
  without	
   the	
   fluency	
  bias	
   (Kasper	
  &	
  Blum-­‐Kulka,	
   1993,	
   p.	
   61),	
   and	
  written,	
   addressing	
   both	
   offline	
  
knowledge	
   of	
   pragmatics	
   and	
   (written)	
   fluency	
   (Alcón-­‐Soler,	
   2005;	
   Blum-­‐Kulka	
   &	
   Olshtain,	
   1984;	
   Gauci,	
  
2015).	
  Written	
  DCTs	
  have	
  been	
  criticised	
  for	
  their	
  distance	
  from	
  spontaneous	
  speech.	
  Yuan	
  (2001)	
  suggests	
  
mitigating	
  these	
  disadvantages	
  by	
  explaining	
  the	
  situations	
  orally:	
  since	
  orally	
  elicited	
  data	
  are	
  usually	
  closer	
  
to	
  natural	
  speech,	
  DCTs	
  may	
  be	
  more	
  accurate,	
  even	
  if	
  written.	
  This	
  is	
  the	
  reasoning	
  behind	
  the	
  choice	
  of	
  an	
  
orally	
  explained,	
  written	
  DCT	
  for	
  the	
  present	
  study.	
  

The	
  DCT	
  is	
  comprised	
  of	
  21	
  scripted	
  situations	
  in	
  which	
  a	
  specific	
  speech	
  act	
  should	
  be	
  performed:	
  7	
  
requests,	
  7	
  complaints,	
  and	
  7	
  apologies.	
  The	
  present	
  paper	
  analyzes	
  the	
  data	
  for	
  complaints.	
  The	
  situations	
  
were	
   formulated	
   in	
   such	
   a	
  way	
   that	
   the	
   participants	
   had	
   to	
   verbalize	
   complaints	
   to	
   different	
   people,	
  with	
  
different	
  levels	
  of	
  social	
  distance	
  (as	
  defined	
  in	
  Brown	
  &	
  Levinson,	
  1987)	
  and	
  intimacy	
  with	
  the	
  subject.	
  Out	
  
of	
   the	
   7	
   situations	
   formulated	
   for	
   complaints	
   (found	
   in	
   the	
   Appendix),	
   3	
   simulated	
   a	
   dialogue	
   with	
   an	
  
addressee	
  with	
  whom	
   the	
   speaker	
  was	
   intimate	
   (an	
   acquaintance,	
   a	
   friend,	
   and	
   a	
   relative)	
   and	
   4	
  with	
   an	
  
addressee	
  with	
  whom	
  the	
  speaker	
  was	
  not	
  intimate	
  (two	
  with	
  a	
  worker:	
  a	
  waiter	
  and	
  a	
  cashier;	
  two	
  with	
  a	
  
professional:	
  a	
  teacher	
  and	
  a	
  hotel	
  receptionist).	
  The	
  situations	
  were	
  meant	
  to	
  resemble	
  as	
  much	
  as	
  possible	
  
the	
   range	
   of	
   potential	
   relationships	
   with	
   an	
   addressee	
   that	
   can	
   be	
   found	
   in	
   everyday	
   life,	
   so	
   that	
   the	
  
participants’	
  choices	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  type	
  of	
  complaints	
  and	
  modifiers	
  were	
  not	
  biased	
  by	
  an	
  imbalanced	
  structure	
  
in	
  the	
  test	
  with	
  regard	
  to	
  this	
  variable.	
  

The	
  situations	
  were	
  described	
  orally,	
  explained	
  in	
  detail	
  by	
  a	
  native	
  speaker,	
  in	
  light	
  of	
  Yuan’s	
  (2001)	
  
findings	
  on	
  how	
  orally	
  elicited	
  data	
  appear	
  closer	
   to	
  natural	
   speech.	
  Participants	
  were	
   then	
  asked	
   to	
  write	
  
down	
  what	
  they	
  would	
  have	
  said	
  had	
  they	
  found	
  themselves	
  in	
  the	
  situations	
  in	
  question.	
  Several	
  variables	
  
were	
  considered	
  for	
  building	
  the	
  answer	
  dataset:	
  

	
  
1) proficiency	
  level	
  (of	
  the	
  individual	
  who	
  wrote	
  each	
  answer):	
  NS,	
  B1	
  or	
  B2;	
  
2) identity	
  of	
  the	
  addressee:	
  the	
  addressee	
  could	
  be	
  a	
  relative,	
  a	
  friend,	
  an	
  acquaintance,	
  a	
  worker	
  or	
  a	
  

professional	
  (see	
  Appendix);	
  
3) intimacy:	
  the	
  speaker	
  and	
  the	
  addressee	
  could	
  know	
  (+)	
  each	
  other	
  or	
  not	
  (-­‐)	
  (see	
  Appendix);	
  
4) type	
   and	
   subtype	
   of	
   complaint	
   as	
   defined	
   in	
   the	
   following	
   sections:	
   each	
   complaint	
   could	
   be	
  

performed	
  as	
  an	
  expression	
  of	
  judgment,	
  a	
  request	
  for	
  reparation,	
  or	
  a	
  combination	
  of	
  the	
  two	
  (each	
  
expression	
  of	
   judgment	
  and	
  request	
   for	
  reparation	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  performed	
  in	
  several	
  different	
  ways	
  
that	
  will	
  be	
  defined	
  and	
  explained	
  with	
  specific	
  examples	
  -­‐	
  see	
  Tables	
  1	
  and	
  2);	
  	
  

5) number	
  and	
  type	
  of	
  morphosyntactic,	
  lexical	
  and	
  external	
  modifiers	
  used	
  (see	
  Table	
  3).	
  	
  
	
  
2.3.1.	
  Units	
  of	
  analysis	
  

The	
  unit	
  of	
  analysis	
  for	
  the	
  complaints	
  analyzed	
  in	
  this	
  paper	
  is	
  the	
  set	
  of	
  utterances	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  
participants	
  while	
  responding	
  to	
  the	
  DCT.	
  Although	
  all	
  of	
  them	
  are	
  considered	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  realization	
  patterns	
  
of	
  the	
  speech	
  act,	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  sequences	
  can	
  be	
  divided	
  into	
  portions	
  with	
  different	
  functions.	
  	
  



POLITENESS	
  STRATEGIES	
  IN	
  COMPLAINTS	
  IN	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
   81	
  

The	
  nucleus	
  of	
  the	
  speech	
  act,	
  which	
  is	
  usually	
  referred	
  to	
  as	
  the	
  “head	
  act”	
  in	
  the	
  literature,	
  is	
  what	
  
is	
  needed	
  in	
  order	
  for	
  the	
  speech	
  act	
  to	
  be	
  realized.	
  As	
  previously	
  mentioned,	
  complaints	
  can	
  be	
  performed	
  
with	
  an	
  expression	
  of	
  judgment	
  and/or	
  a	
  request	
  for	
  reparation:	
  when	
  either	
  one	
  of	
  them	
  is	
  presented	
  alone,	
  
that	
  represents	
  the	
  head	
  act	
  and	
  the	
  other	
  portions	
  of	
  the	
  answers	
  should	
  be	
  considered	
  external	
  modifiers	
  
(they	
  will	
  be	
  defined	
  and	
  illustrated	
  through	
  examples	
  in	
  section	
  2.3.3).	
  

It	
  is	
  not	
  infrequent	
  that	
  expressions	
  of	
  judgment	
  and	
  requests	
  for	
  reparation	
  occur	
  together	
  as	
  a	
  head	
  
act.	
   In	
   such	
  cases,	
  both	
  of	
   them	
  have	
  been	
  analyzed	
  separately	
   in	
  order	
   to	
  define	
   the	
   type	
  of	
  expression	
  of	
  
judgment	
   or	
   request	
   for	
   reparation	
   that	
   they	
   represent	
   (see	
   Table	
   4	
   for	
   the	
   findings).	
   Yet,	
   as	
   far	
   as	
   the	
  
definition	
   of	
   the	
   head	
   act	
   is	
   concerned,	
  while	
   expressions	
   of	
   judgment	
   and	
   requests	
   for	
   reparation	
   can	
   be	
  
considered	
  as	
  equally	
  important	
  components	
  of	
  the	
  complaint	
  as	
  a	
  whole,	
  the	
  expression	
  of	
  judgment	
  seems	
  
to	
  be	
   the	
  part	
  explicitly	
   signaling	
   that	
  a	
  complaint	
   is	
  being	
  performed	
  (unless	
   the	
  request	
   for	
   reparation	
   is	
  
presented	
  alone	
  and	
  the	
  judgment	
  is	
  somehow	
  implicit).	
  	
  

The	
   head	
   act	
   alone	
   was	
   also	
   analyzed	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   the	
   number	
   of	
   modifiers	
   used,	
   for	
   a	
   better	
  
comparison	
  with	
  previous	
  studies	
  providing	
  their	
  results	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  head	
  act	
  alone	
  (e.g.	
  Gauci,	
  2015:	
  p.	
  
116)	
  when	
  counting	
  the	
  mean	
  number	
  of	
  modifiers	
  (that	
  can	
  be	
  found	
  in	
  Table	
  4).	
  For	
  the	
  reasons	
  expressed	
  
previously,	
  when	
  the	
  complaint	
  was	
  expressed	
  by	
  a	
  combination	
  of	
  an	
  expression	
  of	
  judgment	
  and	
  a	
  request	
  
for	
  reparation,	
  the	
  expression	
  of	
  judgment	
  has	
  been	
  considered	
  here	
  as	
  the	
  head	
  act.	
  
	
  
2.3.2.	
  Criteria	
  for	
  analysis:	
  complaints	
  	
  

In	
  order	
  to	
  analyze	
  the	
  realization	
  patterns	
  for	
  complaints	
  found	
  in	
  the	
  data,	
  it	
  is	
  necessary	
  to	
  define	
  
the	
   types	
  of	
   complaints	
   to	
  be	
  used	
  as	
  categories	
  of	
  analysis.	
  The	
   taxonomy	
  provided	
   in	
   the	
   following	
  short	
  
summary	
   is	
  mostly	
   based	
   on	
  Nuzzo	
   (2007),	
   and	
   therefore	
   classifies	
   types	
   of	
   expressions	
   of	
   judgment	
   and	
  
requests	
  for	
  reparation	
  separately.	
  These	
  subtypes	
  reflect	
  Nuzzo’s	
  classification	
  but	
  have	
  been	
  streamlined	
  in	
  
order	
  to	
  underscore	
  some	
  similarities	
  between	
  certain	
  types	
  of	
  expression	
  of	
  judgment,	
  rather	
  than	
  stressing	
  
every	
  difference	
  between	
  them	
  (which	
  can	
  undoubtedly	
  be	
   identified	
   in	
   the	
  data,	
  but	
  could	
  overcomplicate	
  
the	
   analysis),	
   and	
   to	
   make	
   the	
   continuum	
   from	
   the	
   least	
   direct	
   to	
   the	
   most	
   direct	
   type	
   clearer.	
   This	
  
classification	
  is	
  consequently	
  less	
  fine-­‐grained	
  than	
  Nuzzo’s.	
  The	
  examples	
  provided	
  in	
  Table	
  1	
  are	
  taken	
  from	
  
the	
  present	
  study’s	
  NS	
  data.	
  

	
  
Table 1 
Classification of types of expression of judgment found in complaints of NSs, from the least (1) to the most direct (5) 

 Type Description Example 
1. Mention of 

the Negative 
Action 

The negative action is mentioned, and 
disapproved of, but not aggressively 
criticized. No specific reference to the 
action or the actor is made. 

“Mi scusi, in realtà avrei ordinato un primo diverso da questo.” 
Excuse me, actually I had ordered a different first course. 

2. Indirect 
Charge 

The accusation clearly addresses the 
interlocutor but it is not explicit. 

“Scusi mi sa che c'è qualcosa di sbagliato nel resto che mi ha 
dato.” 
Excuse me, I feel like there is something wrong with the change 
you gave me. 

3. Direct 
Charge 

It is clear that the interlocutor is to be 
charged of the negative action. 

“Mi scusi, ho notato che non avete cambiato le lenzuola in 
questo giorno.” 
Excuse me, I noticed that you have not changed the sheets 
today. 

4. Act 
Reproach 

It is usually clear that the interlocutor 
has done the negative action, but the 
focus of the reproach is on the action 
itself - and it can be violent. 

“Hanno dimenticato di cambiare le lenzuola della nostra camera! 
È inaccettabile!” 
They forgot to change the sheets of our room! This is 
unacceptable! 

5. Actor 
Reproach 

The reproach clearly addresses the 
interlocutor and it can be fierce. 
Sometimes it takes an ironical form. 

“Siete davvero attenti alle ordinazioni, in questo ristorante!” 
You really pay attention to the orders in this restaurant! 

	
  
The	
  expression	
  of	
   judgment	
   (if	
  present)	
   therefore	
  has	
   five	
  possible	
  values,	
  namely	
   “mention	
  of	
   the	
  

negative	
  action”,	
  “indirect	
  charge”,	
  “direct	
  charge”,	
  “act	
  reproach”,	
  and	
  “actor	
  reproach”.	
  These	
  are	
  presented	
  
as	
   a	
   continuum,	
   from	
   the	
   least	
  direct	
   (mention	
  of	
   the	
  negative	
   action)	
   to	
   the	
  most	
  direct	
   (actor	
   reproach).	
  



MAROCCHINI	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
  82	
  

This	
   classification	
   was	
   based	
   on	
   the	
   researcher’s	
   introspection	
   and	
   on	
   the	
   examples	
   provided	
   by	
   Nuzzo	
  
(2007)	
  for	
  the	
  types	
  where	
  the	
  classification	
  matches	
  (i.e.,	
  2.,	
  3.,	
  and	
  5.);	
  another	
  researcher’s	
  judgment	
  was	
  
used	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  resolve	
  cases	
  of	
  ambiguity	
  in	
  categorizing	
  an	
  answer	
  (each	
  ambiguous	
  answer	
  was	
  discussed	
  
until	
   the	
   researchers	
   reached	
   consensus).	
   In	
   those	
   cases	
  where	
   the	
   answer	
   could	
   fall	
   into	
  more	
   than	
   one	
  
category,	
  it	
  was	
  counted	
  as	
  representing	
  the	
  more	
  direct	
  possibility.	
  

As	
   previously	
   stated,	
   the	
   expression	
   of	
   judgment	
   can	
   (but	
   need	
   not)	
   be	
   followed	
   by	
   a	
   request	
   for	
  
reparation,	
   usually	
   expressed	
   in	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   following	
   ways.	
   In	
   fact,	
   Nuzzo	
   (2007)	
   found	
   that	
   requests	
   for	
  
reparation	
  usually	
  occur	
  in	
  combination	
  with	
  an	
  expression	
  of	
  judgment	
  and	
  are	
  rarely	
  present	
  alone.	
  Again,	
  
the	
  examples	
  in	
  Table	
  2	
  are	
  taken	
  from	
  the	
  NSs	
  data.	
  

	
  
Table 2 
Proposed classification of types of requests for reparation found in complaints by NSs, from the least (1) to the most direct (5) 

      Types Description Examples 
1. Verification of 

the 
Preparatory 
Conditions 

The speaker asks something ‘verifying’ that 
conditions for the request to be met are 
present. This can include modal verbs, 
conditionals, and negative interrogative forms. 

“Potrebbe mandare qualcuno a cambiarle?” 
Could you send somebody to change them? 

2. Negotiation It usually takes the form of a question, 
sometimes a first-person plural is present to 
include the speaker and the interlocutor in a 
communal attempt of reparation. 

“Scusi, quando riesce a riportarmi il mio quaderno?” 
Excuse me, when can you bring my exercise book 
back to me? 

3. Suggestion This is a particularly circumlocutory type of 
request, where the speaker gives the 
interlocutor a hint as to how to repair the 
negative action. 

“Provi a controllare, io ho ordinato un risotto.” 
Try and check, I have ordered a risotto. 

4. Demand The speaker firmly demands reparation. “Si deve cambiare le lenzuola!” 
The sheets have to be changed! 

5. Threat The speaker (sometimes violently) threatens 
a consequence for the interlocutor should 
there be no reparation for the negative action.  

“Sbrigati, ancora cinque minuti e me ne vado.” 
Hurry up, five more minutes and I’m gone. 

	
  
	
  
The	
  request	
  for	
  reparation	
  (if	
  present)	
  can	
  also	
  have	
  five	
  possible	
  values,	
  namely	
  “verification	
  of	
  the	
  

preparatory	
   conditions”,	
   “negotiation”,	
   “suggestion”,	
   “claim”	
   and	
   “threat”.	
   These	
   are	
   presented	
   as	
   on	
   a	
  
continuum,	
  from	
  the	
  least	
  direct	
  (verification	
  of	
  the	
  preparatory	
  conditions)	
  to	
  the	
  most	
  direct	
  (threat).	
  

As	
   stated	
   for	
   the	
   expressions	
   of	
   judgment,	
   this	
   classification	
   was	
   based	
   on	
   the	
   researcher’s	
  
introspection	
  and	
  on	
  the	
  examples	
  provided	
  by	
  Nuzzo	
  (2007)	
  for	
  the	
  types	
  where	
  the	
  classification	
  matches	
  
(i.e.,	
   1.,	
   2.,	
   and	
   3.);	
   another	
   researcher’s	
   judgment	
   was	
   used	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   resolve	
   cases	
   of	
   ambiguity	
   in	
  
categorizing	
  an	
  answer	
  (each	
  ambiguous	
  answer	
  was	
  discussed	
  until	
  the	
  researchers	
  reached	
  consensus).	
  In	
  
those	
  cases	
  where	
  the	
  impression	
  was	
  that	
  the	
  answer	
  could	
  fall	
  into	
  more	
  than	
  one	
  category,	
  it	
  was	
  counted	
  
as	
  representing	
  the	
  more	
  direct	
  type.	
  

	
  
2.3.3.	
  Criteria	
  for	
  analysis:	
  modifiers	
  

	
  Following	
  previous	
  explanations	
  concerning	
  the	
  need	
   for	
  modification	
  to	
  mitigate	
   face-­‐threatening	
  
acts	
   like	
   complaints,	
  modifiers	
  were	
   also	
   used	
   as	
   a	
   category	
   of	
   analysis.	
   The	
   following	
   classification	
   of	
   the	
  
types	
  of	
  modifiers	
  used	
  for	
  the	
  analysis	
  in	
  the	
  present	
  paper	
  was	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  researcher’s	
  introspection	
  and	
  
on	
  the	
  examples	
  provided	
  by	
  Gauci	
  (2012,	
  2015),	
  Nuzzo	
  (2007),	
  and	
  Trosborg	
  (1995),	
  with	
  these	
  same	
  labels.	
  
The	
  examples	
  are	
  taken	
  from	
  the	
  present	
  study’s	
  NS	
  data.	
  	
  
	
  

 
 
 
 
 
 



POLITENESS	
  STRATEGIES	
  IN	
  COMPLAINTS	
  IN	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
   83	
  

Table 3 
Types of modifiers considered 
Type of modifiers Subtype of modifiers Examples 

Lexical politeness markers per favore, per piacere, per cortesia (please), mi scusi (excuse me) 
appellatives signore (Sir), signora (Madam) 
subjectivizers secondo me (in my opinion), credo (I think), immagino (I imagine) 
intensifiers proprio (definitely), davvero (really) 
discourse markers cioè, tipo (like), senti (listen), guarda (look) 
softeners un attimo (a moment), un pochino (a little bit) 
commitment markers sono sicuro (I am sure), ti assicuro (I can assure you), giuro (I swear) 
greetings ciao (hello, informal), salve (hello, formal),  

buongiorno (good morning), buonasera (good evening) 
doubters forse (maybe), probabilmente (probably) 

 
Morphosyntactic continuous aspects mi stavo chiedendo... (I was wondering...) 

imperatives cambiatele! (do change them!), muoviti! (hurry up!) 
consultative devices ti dispiace se... (would you mind if...) 
past tenses volevo... (I wanted), pensavo... (I thought) 
embedding mi chiedo se non possiate cambiarle (I was wondering whether you could 

change them), sarebbe bello se mi portaste il mio (it would be great if you 
brought me mine) 

conditionals potresti...? (could you...?), desidererei... (I would like) 
modal verbs puoi (can you), voglio (I want), dovete (you have to) 

 
External alerts mi spiace doverglielo dire (I am sorry but i have to tell you), scusi ma 

devo fare una lamentela (I am sorry but I have to make a complaint) 
grounders deve esserci stato uno scambio di tavolo (there must have been a 

confusion with another table), ho controllato il compito e ho visto... (I 
checked the assignment and I saw...) 

supportive reasons c'è qualcosa che non mi torna nel calcolo degli errori e vorrei capire dove 
sbaglio (there is something that doesn’t add up to me in the evaluation of 
the errors and I would like to understand where I am mistaken) 

sweeteners mi fido molto di lei, quindi... (I trust you a lot, so...) 
	
  

	
  
The	
  annotation	
  of	
  these	
  types	
  of	
  modifiers	
  was	
  carried	
  out	
  manually	
  for	
  each	
  answer	
  on	
  a	
  randomly	
  

selected	
  sample	
  of	
  300	
  observations,	
  100	
  for	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  three	
  groups	
  of	
  participants.	
  	
  
Another	
   researcher’s	
   judgment	
   was	
   used	
   to	
   resolve	
   cases	
   of	
   ambiguity	
   in	
   categorizing	
   a	
  modifier	
  

(each	
  ambiguous	
  modifier	
  was	
  discussed	
  until	
  the	
  researchers	
  reached	
  consensus).	
  	
  
	
  

3.	
  Findings	
  
3.1.	
  Type	
  of	
  complaints	
  

As	
   previously	
   noted,	
   complaints	
   can	
   be	
   performed	
   as	
   an	
   expression	
   of	
   judgment,	
   a	
   request	
   for	
  
reparation,	
  or	
  a	
  combination	
  of	
  the	
  two,	
  following	
  the	
  classification	
  proposed	
  by	
  Nuzzo	
  (2007).	
  The	
  present	
  
study	
  found	
  that,	
  for	
  all	
  three	
  groups	
  of	
  participants,	
  expressions	
  of	
  judgment	
  (of	
  the	
  act	
  or	
  the	
  actor)	
  were	
  
almost	
  always	
  present,	
  either	
  alone	
  or	
  in	
  combination	
  with	
  a	
  request	
  for	
  reparation.	
  On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  it	
  was	
  
very	
  rare	
  to	
  find	
  a	
  request	
  for	
  reparation	
  with	
  no	
  judgment	
  mentioned.	
  

As	
   shown	
   in	
   Table	
   4,	
   expressions	
   of	
   judgment	
   are	
   almost	
   always	
   used,	
   both	
   by	
   learners	
   and	
  NSs,	
  
while	
  requests	
  for	
  reparation	
  alone	
  only	
  constitute	
  2%	
  of	
  the	
  answers	
  provided	
  by	
  NSs	
  and	
  B2-­‐level	
  learners.	
  
B1-­‐level	
  learners,	
  however,	
  used	
  a	
  higher	
  percentage	
  (12%)	
  of	
  requests	
  for	
  reparation	
  alone.	
  Based	
  on	
  prior	
  
research,	
   Italian	
  NSs	
  would	
  view	
  a	
  request	
   for	
  reparation	
  without	
  an	
  attempt	
  to	
  decrease	
  the	
   impact	
  of	
   the	
  
request	
  (with	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  downgraders	
  as	
  impolite	
  (see	
  Nuzzo	
  &	
  Gauci,	
  2012,	
  p.	
  18).	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  



MAROCCHINI	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
  84	
  

Table 4 
Realization patterns for complaints: types of complaint 
Proficiency level Type of complaint Expression of judgment Request for reparation 

Learners - B1 Judgment: 52% 
Judgment and Request: 36% 
Request: 12% 

Mention: 26% 
Indirect Charge: 18% 
Direct Charge: 40% 
Act Reproach: 2% 
Actor Reproach: 2% 
None: 12% 
 

None: 52% 
Verification: 40% 
Negotiation: 4% 
Demand: 4% 
 

Learners - B2 Judgment: 50% 
Judgment and Request: 48% 
Request: 2% 

Mention: 46% 
Indirect Charge: 14% 
Direct Charge: 38% 
None: 2% 

None: 50% 
Verification: 22% 
Negotiation: 12% 
Demand: 14% 
Threat: 2% 

Native Speakers Judgment: 64% 
Judgment and Request: 34% 
Request: 2% 

Mention: 22% 
Indirect Charge: 52% 
Direct Charge: 24% 
None: 2% 

None: 64% 
Verification: 32% 
Suggestion: 4% 

Note: types of expressions of judgment: from the least direct, Mention of the Negative Action, to the most direct, Actor Reproach; and types 
of requests for reparation: from the least direct, Verification of the Preparatory Conditions, to the most direct, Threat. 

The	
   most	
   significant	
   difference,	
   however,	
   is	
   that,	
   while	
   NSs	
   use	
   indirect	
   forms	
   of	
   expressions	
   of	
  
judgement,	
   such	
  as	
   the	
  Mention	
  and	
   the	
   Indirect	
  Charge	
   type,	
  NNSs	
   tend	
   to	
  use	
  more	
  direct	
   forms,	
  e.g.	
   the	
  
Direct	
   Charge	
   type	
   and	
   the	
   Act	
   or	
   Actor	
   Reproach	
   types.	
   For	
   learners,	
   the	
   most	
   common	
   expression	
   of	
  
judgement	
  is	
  the	
  Direct	
  Charge	
  type,	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  speaker	
  makes	
  it	
  clear	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  the	
  addressee	
  who	
  has	
  done	
  
something	
  annoying,	
  as	
  in	
  this	
  example	
  by	
  a	
  B1-­‐level	
  learner:	
  
	
   	
  
(1)	
   Scusi	
   signora,	
   è	
  sbagliato.	
   Non	
  ha	
  dato	
   il	
  resto	
  corretto.	
  
	
   Excuse	
  me	
   Madame,	
   it’s	
  wrong.	
   You	
  have	
  not	
  given	
   the	
  right	
  change.	
  

	
  
B1	
  learners	
  were	
  also	
  the	
  only	
  group	
  to	
  use	
  a	
  very	
  direct	
  form,	
  i.e.	
  the	
  Act	
  Reproach	
  type,	
  where	
  the	
  

speaker	
   makes	
   it	
   clear	
   that	
   the	
   interlocutor	
   is	
   responsible	
   for	
   the	
   negative	
   action,	
   but	
   the	
   focus	
   of	
   the	
  
reproach	
  is	
  on	
  the	
  action	
  itself.	
  There	
  were,	
  though,	
  only	
  a	
  few	
  occurrences	
  of	
  this	
  type:	
  

	
  
(2)	
   Scusi,	
  ma	
   hanno	
  dimenticato	
   di	
  cambiare	
  le	
  lenzuola	
   della	
  nostra	
  camera!	
  	
   È	
  inaccettabile!	
  
	
   Excuse	
  me,	
  but	
   they	
  forgot	
   to	
  change	
  the	
  sheets	
   of	
  our	
  room!	
   It’s	
  intolerable!	
  

	
  
In	
  the	
  NSs	
  data,	
  expressions	
  of	
  judgement	
  still	
  make	
  it	
  clear	
  that	
  the	
  addressee	
  is	
  to	
  blame,	
  but	
  these	
  

are	
  more	
  frequently	
  carried	
  out	
  through	
  indirect	
  formulations,	
  as	
  in	
  the	
  following	
  example	
  (Indirect	
  Charge	
  
type):	
  	
  

	
   	
   	
   	
  
(3)	
   Mi	
  scusi,	
   abbia	
  pazienza,	
   ho	
  paura	
  che	
   ci	
  sia	
  un	
  errore	
   nel	
  resto...	
  
	
   Excuse	
  me,	
  	
   be	
  patient,	
   I’m	
  afraid	
  that	
   	
  	
  	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  mistake	
  	
   in	
  the	
  change...	
  

	
  
When	
  NSs	
  choose	
  to	
  perform	
  an	
  expression	
  of	
  judgment	
  as	
  a	
  Direct	
  Charge,	
  they	
  usually	
  add	
  a	
  kind	
  

request	
  for	
  reparation	
  and	
  make	
  extensive	
  use	
  of	
  modifiers:	
  
	
  

4)	
   Mi	
  scusi,	
  	
   penso	
  che	
  abbia	
  sbagliato	
   a	
  darmi	
  	
  	
   il	
  resto.	
   Potrebbe	
  verificare?	
  
	
   Excuse	
  me,	
   I	
  think	
  that	
  you	
  made	
  a	
  mistake	
   while	
  giving	
  me	
  	
   the	
  change.	
   Could	
  you	
  verify?	
  
	
   Expression	
  of	
  judgment	
   Request	
  for	
  reparation	
  
	
  



POLITENESS	
  STRATEGIES	
  IN	
  COMPLAINTS	
  IN	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
   85	
  

B2-­‐level	
   learners	
   participating	
   in	
   this	
   study	
   tended	
   to	
   use	
   the	
   Direct	
   Charge	
   type	
   of	
   complaint	
   as	
  
much	
  as	
  B1-­‐learners,	
  but	
  they	
  favored	
  Mention	
  of	
  the	
  Act	
  they	
  were	
  complaining	
  about	
  (which	
  is	
  a	
  less	
  direct	
  
type)	
  over	
  Reproach,	
  and	
  made	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  higher	
  number	
  of	
  downgraders,	
  which	
  made	
  the	
  complaints	
  less	
  face-­‐
threatening,	
  as	
  in	
  this	
  example:	
  

	
  
(5)	
   Scusi,	
  	
   ho	
  ordinato	
  qualcos'altro.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Può	
  darmi	
  le	
  penne	
  all'arrabbiata,	
   prego?	
  
	
   Excuse	
  me,	
   I	
  have	
  ordered	
  something	
  else.	
   Can	
  you	
  give	
  me	
  the	
  penne	
  all’arrabbiata,	
   please?	
  
	
   Expression	
  of	
  judgment	
   Request	
  for	
  reparation	
  

	
  
While	
   NSs	
   showed	
   a	
   clear	
   preference	
   for	
   indirect	
   expressions	
   of	
   judgement	
   and	
   NNSs	
   for	
   direct	
  

approaches,	
  some	
  exceptions	
  could	
  be	
  found.	
  The	
  data	
  show	
  that	
  B1-­‐level	
  learners	
  are	
  also	
  able	
  to	
  perform	
  
more	
  indirect	
  complaints	
  (Indirect	
  Charge	
  type),	
  although	
  even	
  when	
  they	
  do	
  so	
  (18%	
  of	
  the	
  expressions	
  of	
  
judgment	
  performed	
  by	
  B1-­‐level	
  learners)	
  they	
  tend	
  not	
  to	
  use	
  many	
  downgraders.	
  This	
  is	
  well	
  exemplified	
  
with	
  this	
  complaint	
  to	
  a	
  cashier	
  who	
  has	
  mistakenly	
  given	
  the	
  wrong	
  change:	
  

	
  
(6)	
   Scusa	
  	
   	
   signora,	
   penso	
  che	
   manchino	
  qualche	
  dinari.	
  
	
   Excuse	
  me,	
  	
   madame,	
   I	
  think	
  that	
   some	
  money	
  is	
  missing.	
  

	
  
Although	
  the	
  example	
  evidences	
  some	
  confusion	
  in	
  forms	
  of	
  address	
  (an	
  Italian	
  native	
  speaker	
  would	
  

definitely	
  say	
  scusi	
  to	
  a	
  signora,	
  using	
  a	
  second-­‐person	
  polite/honorific	
  form),	
  appropriate	
  lexical	
  choices,	
  and	
  
grammatical	
  agreement,	
  it	
  is	
  clear	
  that	
  the	
  focus	
  of	
  the	
  complaint	
  is	
  on	
  the	
  missing	
  money	
  and	
  not	
  the	
  cashier	
  
who	
  has	
  committed	
  the	
  mistake.	
  	
  

For	
  all	
  three	
  groups,	
  requests	
  for	
  reparation	
  are	
  almost	
  always	
  expressed	
  through	
  the	
  Verification	
  of	
  
the	
  Preparatory	
  Conditions	
  pattern.	
  As	
   the	
  name	
   implies,	
   the	
  speaker	
  “verifies”	
   that	
  conditions	
  are	
  present	
  
for	
  the	
  request	
   for	
  reparation	
  to	
  be	
  met.	
  This	
  pattern	
  usually	
   includes	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  modal	
  verbs,	
  conditionals,	
  
and	
  (sometimes)	
  negative	
   interrogative	
   forms.	
   In	
  general,	
  most	
  of	
   the	
  participants	
  (even	
  B1-­‐level	
   learners)	
  
used	
  modals	
  when	
  performing	
  requests	
  for	
  reparation,	
  as	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  in	
  example	
  (5).	
  Conditionals	
  were	
  less	
  
frequent	
   among	
   learners,	
   even	
   those	
   at	
   B2-­‐level,	
   while	
   NSs	
   tended	
   to	
   use	
   them	
   more,	
   as	
   can	
   be	
   seen	
   in	
  
example	
  (4),	
  where	
  the	
  pattern	
  is	
  clearly	
  recognizable.	
  

Some	
  NNSs,	
   though,	
  performed	
  a	
   few	
  requests	
   for	
  reparation	
  of	
   the	
  Demand	
  type,	
  as	
   in	
  example	
  7,	
  
where	
  a	
  B1-­‐level	
  learner	
  insists	
  that	
  the	
  teacher	
  change	
  the	
  mark	
  that	
  she	
  has	
  given	
  him	
  because	
  the	
  number	
  
of	
  mistakes	
  was	
  miscalculated.	
  
	
  
(7)	
   Scusa	
  Maria,	
   ma	
  questo	
  non	
  è	
  un	
  errore.	
   Ti	
  prego	
   di	
  correggere	
  il	
  mio	
  voto.	
  
	
   Sorry	
  Maria,	
   but	
  this	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  mistake.	
   I	
  beg	
  you	
   to	
  correct	
  my	
  mark.	
  
	
  

The	
  learner	
  likely	
  thought	
  that	
  use	
  of	
  the	
  verb	
  pregare	
  (to	
  beg)	
  was	
  sufficient	
  to	
  mitigate	
  the	
  request,	
  
unaware	
  that	
  the	
  directness	
  of	
  the	
  request	
  was	
  probably	
  too	
  strong	
  to	
  be	
  performed	
  with	
  a	
  teacher.	
  It	
  should	
  
be	
   noted,	
   however,	
   that	
   the	
   situation	
   is	
   complicated	
   for	
   a	
   novice	
   language	
   learner,	
   and	
   can	
   be	
   potentially	
  
difficult	
  for	
  NSs	
  alike.	
  

Lastly,	
   less	
   direct	
   and	
   more	
   complicated	
   patterns	
   like	
   Negotiation	
   (where	
   the	
   speaker	
   and	
   the	
  
interlocutor	
  are	
  presented	
  together	
  -­‐	
  usually	
  via	
  a	
  first-­‐person	
  plural	
  -­‐	
  in	
  a	
  communal	
  attempt	
  of	
  reparation)	
  
and	
  particularly	
  Suggestion	
  (where	
  the	
  speaker	
  gives	
  the	
  interlocutor	
  a	
  hint	
  as	
  to	
  how	
  to	
  repair	
  the	
  negative	
  
action)	
  seem	
  to	
  be	
  too	
  difficult	
  for	
  NNSs:	
  Negotiation	
  is	
  used	
  slightly	
  more	
  by	
  B2-­‐level	
  learners	
  (12%	
  of	
  their	
  
answers	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  the	
  4%	
  of	
  B1-­‐level	
  learners’	
  answers),	
  while	
  Suggestion	
  is	
  only	
  used	
  by	
  NSs.	
  

All	
   of	
   these	
   results	
   seem	
   to	
   support	
  Trosborg’s	
   (1995)	
   findings,	
   in	
  which	
  ESL	
   learners	
   overused	
   a	
  
type	
   of	
   complaint	
   that	
   she	
   labelled	
   “Accusation”	
   (p.	
   348),	
   essentially	
   a	
   combination	
   of	
  Direct	
   Charge,	
   Act	
  
Reproach,	
   and	
   Actor	
   Reproach.	
   In	
   her	
   work,	
   Trosborg	
   argued	
   that	
   NNSs	
   generally	
   come	
   across	
   as	
   more	
  
straightforward	
  (and	
  therefore	
  less	
  polite)	
  than	
  NSs.	
  Nuzzo	
  (2007,	
  p.	
  153)	
  also	
  came	
  to	
  this	
  conclusion	
  in	
  her	
  
longitudinal	
   study	
   of	
   three	
   learners.	
   The	
   data	
   from	
   the	
   present	
   study	
   concerning	
   the	
   frequent	
   use	
   of	
   the	
  
Verification	
   pattern	
   in	
   requests	
   for	
   reparation	
   also	
   align	
  with	
   Nuzzo’s	
   (2007)	
   data;	
   her	
   learners	
   used	
   the	
  
Verification	
  pattern	
  50%	
  of	
  the	
  time	
  (p.	
  123).	
  



MAROCCHINI	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
  86	
  

3.2.	
  Modifiers	
  
In	
   addition	
   to	
   examining	
   types	
   of	
   complaints,	
   modifiers	
   (both	
   internal	
   and	
   external)	
   have	
   been	
  

considered	
   and	
   counted	
   following	
   the	
   classification	
   described	
   in	
   Table	
   3.	
   The	
   analysis	
   was	
   carried	
   out	
  
manually	
  for	
  each	
  answer	
  on	
  a	
  randomly	
  selected	
  sample	
  of	
  300	
  observations,	
  100	
  for	
  each	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  three	
  
groups	
  of	
  participants.	
  The	
  overall	
  mean	
  number	
  of	
  modifiers	
  is	
  reported	
  in	
  Table	
  5.	
  In	
  analyzing	
  modifiers,	
  
in	
   addition	
   to	
   considering	
   the	
  whole	
   utterance,	
   the	
   head	
   act	
  was	
   also	
   examined	
   separately,	
   and	
   the	
  mean	
  
number	
  of	
  modifiers	
  per	
  head	
  act	
  can	
  be	
  found	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  column	
  of	
  Table	
  5.	
  	
  

	
  
Table 5 
Use of modifiers in the three groups of participants.  

Proficiency 
level 

Overall mean 
number of 
modifiers 

Mean number of 
morphosyntactic 

modifiers 

Mean number of 
lexical 

modifiers 

Mean number of 
external 

modifiers 

Mean number of 
modifiers per 

head act 
Learners - B1 3.4 

(SD: 1.14) 
 

0.78 
(SD: 0.93) 

2.12 
(SD: 0.68) 

2.36 
(SD: 0.96) 

1.06 
(SD: 0.65) 

Learners - B2 4.34 
(SD: 1.71) 

 

1.02 
(SD: 1.13) 

2.56 
(SD: 0.92) 

3.18 
(SD: 1.63) 

1.12 
(SD: 0.87) 

Native Speakers 4.92 
(SD: 2.58) 

1.82 
(SD: 1.50) 

2.4 
(SD: 1.08) 

3.24 
(SD: 2.09) 

1.66 
(SD: 1.02) 

 
  Note:	
  All of these measures are calculated per answer except for the mean number of modifiers per head act in the last column. 

	
  
All	
  of	
  these	
  quantitative	
  measures	
  showed	
  a	
  correlation	
  between	
  a	
  higher	
  proficiency	
  level	
  and	
  the	
  

usage	
   of	
   a	
   higher	
   number	
   of	
   modifiers	
   per	
   answer,	
   i.e.,	
   a	
   progressive	
   convergence	
   between	
   the	
   NNSs’	
  
behavior	
  and	
  that	
  of	
  NSs.	
  This	
  table	
  also	
  shows	
  that	
  all	
  three	
  groups	
  were	
  observed	
  to	
  use	
  more	
  lexical	
  and	
  
external	
  modifiers	
  than	
  morphosyntactic	
  modifiers,	
  and	
  that	
  NNSs,	
  even	
  if	
  they	
  were	
  highly	
  proficient	
  in	
  their	
  
L2,	
  consistently	
  employed	
  a	
  lower	
  number	
  of	
  modifiers	
  than	
  NSs,	
  who	
  generally	
  used	
  more	
  modifiers	
  of	
  any	
  
kind.	
  	
  

The	
  B2-­‐group,	
  however,	
  performed	
  better	
  than	
  the	
  B1-­‐group	
  (as	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  both	
  in	
  Table	
  5	
  and	
  in	
  
the	
   following	
   figures)	
   in	
   terms	
  of	
   number	
   and	
   also	
   variety	
   of	
  modifiers	
   used.	
   In	
   terms	
  of	
   number,	
   Table	
   5	
  
shows	
  that	
  they	
  even	
  used	
  more	
  lexical	
  modifiers	
  than	
  NSs.	
  In	
  terms	
  of	
  variety,	
  the	
  following	
  charts	
  illustrate	
  	
  
their	
  use.	
  	
  
	
  

	
  
Figure 2. Distribution of lexical modifiers in a random sample of complaints by the three groups 
(n = 100 each).	
  

	
  



POLITENESS	
  STRATEGIES	
  IN	
  COMPLAINTS	
  IN	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
   87	
  

As	
   previously	
   noted,	
   there	
   is	
   a	
   general	
   tendency	
   among	
  NNSs	
   to	
   perform	
  more	
   direct	
   complaints,	
  
which	
  can	
  be	
  perceived	
  as	
  impolite	
  by	
  Italian	
  NSs:	
  their	
  observed	
  selection	
  of	
  modifiers	
  was	
  consistent	
  with	
  
this	
  tendency.	
  It	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  from	
  Figure	
  2	
  that	
  NNSs	
  tended	
  not	
  to	
  mitigate	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  their	
  complaints:	
  
they	
  used	
  hardly	
  any	
  softener	
  (some	
  B2-­‐level	
  learners	
  did	
  employ	
  some),	
  no	
  doubters,	
  and	
  a	
  lower	
  number	
  of	
  
subjectivizers	
  than	
  NSs.	
  Although	
  the	
  B2-­‐group	
  performed	
  better	
  than	
  the	
  B1-­‐group	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  number	
  and	
  
variety	
  of	
  lexical	
  modifiers,	
  they	
  also	
  complained	
  in	
  a	
  more	
  direct	
  way	
  than	
  NSs.	
  Yet,	
  the	
  B2-­‐group	
  tended	
  to	
  
address	
   the	
   interlocutor	
   softly,	
   by	
   explaining	
   the	
   reasons	
   for	
   their	
   complaint	
   by	
  means	
   of	
   intensifiers	
   and	
  
commitment	
  markers.	
  This	
  behavior	
  was	
  largely	
  present	
  among	
  NSs	
  as	
  well	
  but	
  tended	
  to	
  be	
  exaggerated	
  by	
  
B2-­‐level	
  learners:	
  

	
  
(8)	
   Scusa,	
   penso	
  che	
  si	
  sia	
  sbagliata,	
   sono	
  veramente	
  sicura	
  che	
  questo	
  è	
  giusto!	
  
	
   POLITENESS.MARKER	
   SUBJECTIVIZER	
   COMMITMENT.MARKER	
  
	
   Excuse	
  me,	
   I	
  think	
  you	
  were	
  wrong,	
   I	
  really	
  am	
  sure	
  that	
  this	
  is	
  correct!	
  

	
  
All	
   groups	
   also	
   tended	
   to	
   employ	
   fewer	
   morphosyntactic	
   than	
   lexical	
   modifiers	
   in	
   performing	
  

complaints.	
  Yet,	
  even	
  at	
  a	
  morphosyntactic	
  level,	
  where	
  the	
  numbers	
  are	
  lower	
  for	
  every	
  group,	
  the	
  B2-­‐group	
  
performed	
  more	
  natively	
  than	
  the	
  B1-­‐level	
  learners	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  modal	
  verbs	
  and	
  conditionals	
  used	
  to	
  reduce	
  
the	
  impact	
  of	
  the	
  request	
  for	
  reparation.	
  This	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  in	
  Figure	
  3.	
  

	
  

	
  
Figure 3. Distribution of morphosyntactic modifiers in a random sample of complaints 
by the three groups (n = 100 each).	
  

	
  
In	
  comparing	
  Figure	
  3	
  to	
  Figure	
  2,	
  we	
  can	
  infer	
  that	
  the	
  tendency	
  for	
  all	
  speakers	
  was	
  to	
  soften	
  the	
  

illocutionary	
   force	
   of	
   the	
   complaints	
  with	
   the	
  modifiers	
   that	
   are	
   easiest	
   to	
   learn:	
   politeness	
  markers.	
   The	
  
increased	
  use	
  of	
  discourse	
  markers,	
  softeners	
  and,	
  more	
  than	
  anything,	
  subjectivizers,	
  accounts	
   for	
  most	
  of	
  
the	
   perceived	
   politeness	
   in	
   the	
   NSs’	
   and	
   the	
   B2-­‐learners’	
   realizations	
   of	
   this	
   speech	
   act.	
   The	
   following	
  
example	
  from	
  the	
  NS	
  data	
  illustrates	
  how	
  Italian	
  NSs	
  tended	
  to	
  use	
  indirect	
  strategies	
  for	
  complaints,	
  along	
  
with	
  downgraders,	
  especially	
  when	
  talking	
  with	
  a	
  professional.	
  Even	
  when	
  charging	
  the	
  addressee	
  directly	
  in	
  
their	
   actual	
   expression	
   of	
   judgment,	
   the	
   NSs	
   used	
   lexical	
   modifiers	
   to	
   make	
   the	
   complaint	
   sound	
   less	
  
threatening.	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  



MAROCCHINI	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
  88	
  

(9)	
   Professoressa	
   mi	
  scusi,	
   credo	
  	
   	
   ci	
  sia	
  stato	
   un	
  
errore	
  

nel	
  
conteggio	
  

	
   	
   POLITENESS.MARKER	
   SUBJECTIVIZER	
   PAST.TENSE	
   	
   	
  
	
   Professor	
  	
  	
   excuse	
  me,	
   	
  	
  I	
  believe	
   there	
  has	
  

been	
  
a	
  
mistake	
  

in	
  the	
  
calculation	
  

	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
  
	
   degli	
  errori	
  	
  	
   del	
  mio	
  compito,	
   potrebbe	
   ricontrollare?	
   	
   	
  
	
   	
   	
   MODAL.VERB|CONDITIONAL	
   	
   	
   	
  
	
   of	
  the	
  errors	
   of	
  my	
  homework,	
   could	
  you	
   check	
  again?	
   	
   	
  

	
  
Additionally,	
  there	
  were	
  differences	
  in	
  the	
  types	
  of	
  complaints	
  for	
  which	
  speakers	
  used	
  modification.	
  

NSs	
  generally	
  used	
  modification	
  the	
  most	
  in	
  Direct	
  Charge	
  complaints,	
  while	
  NNSs	
  tended	
  to	
  employ	
  the	
  same	
  
number	
   of	
  modifiers,	
   regardless	
   of	
   the	
   type	
   of	
   complaint	
   they	
   were	
   performing.	
   B2-­‐level	
   learners,	
   on	
   the	
  
other	
  hand,	
  seemed	
  to	
  be	
  more	
  conscious	
  of	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  polite	
  while	
  complaining,	
  at	
  least	
  if	
  we	
  consider	
  
cases	
   of	
   overperformance	
   such	
   as	
   example	
   8.	
   This	
   tendency	
   can	
   be	
   seen	
   in	
   the	
   distribution	
   of	
   external	
  
modifiers,	
   too.	
  Looking	
  at	
   the	
  three	
  groups’	
  behavior	
  (Figure	
  4),	
   it	
   is	
   immediately	
  striking	
  that	
   the	
  B1-­‐level	
  
learners	
   do	
   not	
   employ	
   any	
   sweeteners	
   in	
   their	
   answers,	
   while	
   the	
   B2-­‐level	
   group	
   uses	
   them	
   even	
  more	
  
frequently	
   than	
  NSs.	
  This	
   can	
  be	
   interpreted	
  as	
   learners’	
  overuse	
  of	
  known	
   forms	
  as	
   compensation	
   for	
   the	
  
politeness	
  strategies	
  that	
  they	
  lack	
  the	
  grammatical	
  competence	
  to	
  perform.	
  	
  

	
  
 

 
Figure 4. Distribution of external modifiers in a random sample of complaints 
by the three groups (n = 100 each).	
  

	
  
B2-­‐level	
   learners	
   seem	
   to	
   use	
   alerters	
   more	
   rarely	
   (to	
   prepare	
   the	
   addressee	
   for	
   an	
   impending	
  

complaint)	
  than	
  B1-­‐level	
  learners.	
  B1	
  learners	
  overuse	
  grounders	
  as	
  well.	
  The	
  following	
  examples	
  illustrate	
  
the	
  relative	
  simplicity	
  of	
  B1	
   learners’	
  grammar:	
  Because	
  they	
  do	
  not	
  use	
  many	
  lexical	
  and	
  morphosyntactic	
  
modifiers	
  (shown	
  in	
  brackets),	
  they	
  may	
  compensate	
  with	
  external	
  modifiers	
  instead.	
  

	
  
(10)	
   Scusi,	
   ho	
  un	
  problema	
  	
  	
  nella	
  mia	
  camera	
   non	
  ci	
  hanno	
  cambiato	
   le	
  lenzuole.	
  
	
   (POLITENESS.MARKER)	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  ALERTER	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   GROUNDER	
  
	
   Excuse	
  me,	
   I	
  have	
  a	
  problem	
  	
  	
  in	
  my	
  room:	
   they	
  did	
  not	
  change	
   the	
  sheets.	
  
	
  
	
  
(10)	
   	
  	
  Può	
   risolvere	
   questo	
  problema	
   per	
  favore?	
  
	
   (MODAL.VERB)	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   HEAD	
  ACT	
   (POLITENESS.MARKER)	
  
	
   	
  	
  Can	
  you	
   solve	
   this	
  problem	
   please?	
  
	
  



POLITENESS	
  STRATEGIES	
  IN	
  COMPLAINTS	
  IN	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
   89	
  

	
  
(11)	
   Scusa	
   cameriere,	
   non	
  è	
  il	
  piatto	
  giusto,	
   avevo	
  ordinato	
  un	
  altro	
  
	
   (POLITENESS.MARKER)	
  	
  	
  	
  ALERTER	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  HEAD	
  ACT	
   (PAST.TENSE)	
  	
  	
  GROUNDER	
  	
  	
  
	
   Excuse	
  me	
   waiter,	
   it’s	
  not	
  the	
  right	
  course,	
   	
   I	
  had	
  ordered	
  something	
  else.	
  
	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
  

These	
   findings	
   are	
   in	
   line	
  with	
   previous	
   research	
   on	
   Italian	
   (Gauci,	
   2015;	
  Nuzzo,	
   2007)	
   and	
   other	
  
languages	
  as	
  a	
  L2	
  (Faerch	
  &	
  Kasper,	
  2001;	
  Trosborg,	
  1995):	
  NNSs	
  showed	
  a	
  tendency	
  to	
  use	
  a	
  lower	
  number	
  
of	
  modifiers	
  than	
  NSs,	
  irrespective	
  of	
  their	
  proficiency.	
  	
  

The	
  differences	
  in	
  use	
  of	
  modifiers	
  by	
  Italian	
  NSs	
  and	
  NNSs	
  found	
  in	
  these	
  data	
  also	
  seem	
  to	
  mirror	
  
the	
  pattern	
  observed	
  in	
  Trosborg’s	
  (1995)	
  study	
  of	
  English	
  NSs’	
  and	
  NNSs’	
  performance	
  of	
  complaints:	
  NSSs	
  
tended	
  to	
  use	
  a	
  combination	
  of	
  downgraders	
   to	
  decrease	
  the	
   impact	
  of	
   the	
  utterance	
  on	
  the	
  addressee	
  and	
  
upgraders	
  to	
  strengthen	
  the	
  force	
  of	
  the	
  complaint;	
  NNSs,	
  on	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  intensified	
  their	
  complaints	
  less	
  
and	
  used	
  fewer	
  downgraders,	
  thus	
  producing	
  less	
  polite	
  complaints	
  on	
  the	
  whole	
  (p.	
  358).	
  	
  

	
  
4.	
  Discussion	
  

The	
   present	
   study	
   reveals	
   a	
   tendency	
   for	
  NNSs	
   to	
   perform	
   similar	
   types	
   of	
   complaints,	
  which	
   are	
  
generally	
  more	
  direct,	
   in	
   terms	
  of	
  expressions	
  of	
   judgment	
  and	
  requests	
   for	
  reparation,	
  when	
  compared	
   to	
  
NSs	
  (as	
  shown	
  in	
  section	
  3.1).	
  	
  

The	
  percentages	
  of	
   judgment-­‐only	
   (around	
  50%	
   for	
  NNSs	
  and	
  64%	
   for	
  NSs),	
   request-­‐only	
   (2%	
   for	
  
B2-­‐level	
  learners	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  for	
  NSs)	
  and	
  judgment-­‐and-­‐request	
  (around	
  35%	
  for	
  B1-­‐level	
  learners	
  and	
  NSs)	
  
complaints	
   were	
   similar	
   across	
   the	
   three	
   groups.	
   In	
   12%	
   of	
   B1-­‐level	
   learners’	
   utterances,	
   however,	
   a	
  
complaint	
  was	
   performed	
   only	
   through	
   a	
   request	
   for	
   reparation	
  with	
   no	
   expression	
   of	
   judgment.	
   B2-­‐level	
  
learners	
  used	
  the	
  judgment-­‐and-­‐request	
  type	
  48%	
  of	
  the	
  time,	
  more	
  than	
  either	
  NSs	
  or	
  B1-­‐level	
  learners.	
  	
  

In	
  expressions	
  of	
  judgment,	
  both	
  groups	
  of	
  NNSs	
  chose	
  to	
  use	
  the	
  Direct	
  Charge	
  type	
  in	
  around	
  40%	
  
of	
  the	
  cases	
  (40%	
  for	
  B1-­‐learners,	
  38%	
  for	
  B2-­‐learners).	
  This	
  contrasts	
  sharply	
  with	
  NSs’	
  use	
  of	
  Direct	
  Charge	
  
(just	
   24%	
   of	
   cases)	
   and	
   their	
   preference	
   for	
   Indirect	
   Charges	
   (52%),	
   a	
   strategy	
   that	
   was	
   chosen	
   by	
   B2-­‐
learners	
   in	
   14%	
   of	
   cases	
   and	
   by	
   B1-­‐learners	
   in	
   just	
   18%	
   (see	
   Table	
   4).	
   These	
   data	
   can	
   be	
   interpreted	
   as	
  
evidence	
   that	
   NNSs	
   are	
   more	
   direct	
   than	
   NSs	
   in	
   their	
   complaints.	
   This	
   is	
   also	
   true	
   for	
   their	
   use	
   of	
  
modification,	
  as	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  in	
  the	
  analysis	
  provided	
  in	
  section	
  3.1.	
  In	
  comparing	
  B1-­‐	
  and	
  B2-­‐level	
  learners,	
  
though,	
  B2	
  learners	
  present	
  a	
  higher	
  percentage	
  of	
  Mentions	
  of	
  the	
  Negative	
  Action	
  (46%),	
  considered	
  a	
  less	
  
aggressive	
   form	
  of	
   judgement	
   than	
  Direct	
  Charges.	
   In	
   fact	
   this	
  was	
   the	
  most	
  used	
  expression	
  of	
   judgement	
  
among	
  B2	
  learners.	
  It	
  may	
  therefore	
  be	
  suggested	
  that	
  indirectness	
  progresses	
  according	
  to	
  learners’	
  level	
  of	
  
grammatical	
  competence.	
  

Together,	
  these	
  results	
  seem	
  to	
  suggest	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  easier	
  for	
  NNSs	
  to	
  be	
  native-­‐like	
  when	
  choosing	
  the	
  
type	
   of	
   complaint	
   to	
   perform	
   than	
   when	
   deciding	
   how	
   to	
   express	
   judgement	
   and	
   how	
   to	
   downgrade	
  
complaints	
  through	
  modification.	
  

These	
   results	
   are	
   in	
   line	
  with	
   previous	
   studies	
   on	
   speech	
   act	
   realization	
   patterns	
   in	
   Italian	
   L2:	
   In	
  
Nuzzo’s	
  (2007)	
  data,	
  NSs	
  preferred	
  to	
  state	
  that	
  a	
  certain	
  event	
  was	
  negative,	
  but	
  they	
  avoided	
  harsh	
  or	
  direct	
  
judgement	
  of	
  the	
  addressee	
  to	
  which	
  the	
  complaint	
  was	
  directed.	
  This	
  trend	
  is	
  in	
  line	
  with	
  Trosborg’s	
  (1995)	
  
data,	
   too:	
  Her	
   learners	
  overused	
  “Accusation”	
  (p.	
  348),	
  a	
   type	
  of	
  complaint	
  corresponding	
  to	
  Direct	
  Charge,	
  
Act	
  Reproach,	
  and	
  Actor	
  Reproach	
  (types	
  that	
  were	
  present	
  in	
  the	
  B1-­‐learner	
  data	
  here).	
  	
  

The	
   correlation	
   between	
   indirectness	
   and	
   proficiency	
   seemed	
   present	
   among	
   Nuzzo’s	
   (2007)	
  
learners	
  as	
  well:	
  Learners’	
  complaints	
  shifted	
  from	
  “excessively	
  aggressive”	
  to	
  “slightly	
  more	
  aggressive”	
  to	
  
“rather	
  aggressive”	
  (p.	
  153)	
  with	
  their	
  increasing	
  level	
  of	
  grammatical	
  competence.	
  

The	
   relative	
   native-­‐likeness	
   of	
   NNSs’	
   choices	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   requests	
   for	
   reparation	
   and	
   types	
   of	
  
complaints	
  observed	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  seems	
  to	
  confirm	
  Nuzzo’s	
  (2007)	
  statement	
  that	
  strategies	
  for	
  performing	
  
head	
  acts	
  are	
  acquired	
  earlier	
  than	
  techniques	
  of	
  using	
  internal	
  modifiers.	
  

The	
  tendency	
  among	
  NSs	
  to	
  prefer	
  the	
  judgment-­‐only	
  type	
  of	
  complaint	
  also	
  confirms	
  Nuzzo’s	
  (2007)	
  
analysis	
   of	
   a	
   corpus	
   of	
   Italian	
   L1,	
   where	
   65,4%	
   of	
   complaints	
   were	
   judgment-­‐only,	
   as	
   opposed	
   to	
   25,9%	
  
judgment-­‐and-­‐request	
  cases,	
  and	
  just	
  a	
  8,7%	
  request-­‐only	
  cases	
  (p.	
  121),	
  which	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  were	
  used	
  even	
  
less	
  (in	
  favor	
  of	
  the	
  combined	
  form).	
  	
  

The	
   results	
   of	
   this	
   study	
   show	
   that	
   NNSs	
   are	
   less	
   native-­‐like	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   their	
   employment	
   of	
  
modifications	
  than	
  they	
  are	
  in	
  their	
  choice	
  of	
  complaint	
  types:	
  It	
  appears	
  that	
  most	
  of	
  them	
  have	
  yet	
  to	
  learn	
  
to	
  use	
  doubters,	
  continuous	
  aspects,	
  and	
  consultative	
  devices.	
  Additionally,	
  commitment	
  markers,	
  softeners,	
  
discourse	
  markers,	
  and	
  past	
  tenses	
  were	
  only	
  used	
  at	
  the	
  B2-­‐level.	
  	
  



MAROCCHINI	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
  90	
  

On	
   the	
  one	
  hand,	
  as	
   the	
  B2	
  group	
  performed	
  significantly	
  better	
   than	
   the	
  B1,	
   this	
   finding	
  suggests	
  
that	
  the	
  amount	
  and	
  variety	
  of	
  lexical	
  and	
  morphosyntactic	
  modifiers	
  in	
  the	
  realization	
  of	
  complaints	
  (shown	
  
in	
  Figures	
  2	
  and	
  3)	
  reveal	
  a	
  progression	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  native-­‐likeness	
  in	
  the	
  quantitative	
  and	
  qualitative	
  use	
  of	
  
modification,	
   which	
   follows	
   an	
   increase	
   in	
   proficiency	
   level.	
   On	
   the	
   other	
   hand,	
   only	
   a	
   small	
   quantity	
   of	
  
discourse	
   markers	
   and	
   softeners	
   (seen	
   in	
   Figure	
   2)	
   were	
   found	
   in	
   the	
   answers	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
   NNSs,	
  
regardless	
  of	
  their	
  proficiency	
  level.	
  	
  When	
  we	
  asked	
  the	
  teachers	
  at	
  the	
  language	
  center	
  about	
  these	
  findings,	
  
they	
   recognized	
   that	
   they	
   hardly	
   ever	
   teach	
   or	
   discuss	
   discourse	
  markers	
   in	
   class,	
   due	
   to	
   the	
   difficulty	
   of	
  
translating	
   them	
   into	
   other	
   languages	
   and	
   because	
   of	
   the	
   small	
   amount	
   of	
   time	
   students	
   spend	
   in	
  
spontaneous	
  conversation	
  with	
  NSs:	
  The	
  only	
  spontaneous	
  speech	
  that	
  they	
  analyzed	
  in	
  class	
  was	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  
learners	
   attending	
   the	
   course	
   (e.g.	
   during	
   role	
  plays	
  or	
   in	
   class	
  discussions	
  on	
  a	
   given	
   topic),	
  which	
   rarely	
  
included	
  any	
  discourse	
  markers.	
  

When	
  discourse	
  markers	
  and	
   softeners	
  were	
  present	
   in	
   learners’	
  data,	
   they	
   shared	
  with	
   the	
  NSs	
  a	
  
moderate	
   but	
   intelligent	
   use	
   of	
   subjectivizers,	
   although	
   less	
   frequent	
   in	
   the	
   B1-­‐group	
   data.	
   Learners	
   also	
  
showed	
  an	
  overuse	
  of	
  intensifiers,	
  especially	
  at	
  a	
  B2-­‐level.	
  The	
  B2-­‐level	
  learners	
  participating	
  in	
  the	
  present	
  
study	
  were	
  probably	
  at	
  an	
  intermediate	
  stage	
  where,	
  paradoxically,	
  an	
  increased	
  use	
  of	
  intensifiers	
  coincides	
  
with	
  the	
  first	
  appearance	
  of	
  various	
  downgraders,	
  namely,	
  subjectivizers,	
  discourse	
  markers,	
  and	
  softeners.	
  
The	
   distribution	
   of	
   these	
  modifiers	
   among	
   the	
   different	
   situations	
   described	
   in	
   the	
   DCT	
   shows	
   how,	
   even	
  
when	
  strategies	
  and	
  types	
  of	
  modifiers	
  to	
  be	
  used	
  are	
  varied	
  and	
  essentially	
  learned	
  (as	
  in	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  the	
  B2-­‐
level	
  group),	
  insufficient	
  attention	
  may	
  be	
  paid	
  to	
  the	
  situations	
  and	
  contexts	
  in	
  which	
  communication	
  takes	
  
place.	
  Although	
  the	
  methods	
  for	
  this	
  study	
  and	
  a	
  written	
  DCT	
  in	
  particular	
  could	
  be	
  seen	
  as	
  contributing	
  to	
  
this	
  lack	
  of	
  attention	
  to	
  context	
  and	
  interlocutors,	
  the	
  situational	
  data	
  were	
  clearly	
  explained	
  in	
  person,	
  so	
  it	
  
would	
   have	
   been	
   possible	
   to	
   fine-­‐tune	
   strategies	
   and	
   modification	
   devices	
   with	
   the	
   described	
   context.	
  
Instead,	
   NNSs	
   seem	
   unable	
   to	
   account	
   for	
   the	
   identity	
   of	
   the	
   addressee	
   and	
   the	
   presence	
   or	
   absence	
   of	
  
intimacy	
  between	
  them,	
  and	
  they	
  used,	
  on	
  average,	
  the	
  same	
  number	
  of	
  modifiers	
  in	
  almost	
  all	
  situations.	
  	
  

On	
  a	
  more	
  general	
   level,	
   learners	
  also	
  tended	
  to	
  use	
  more	
  lexical	
  than	
  syntactic	
  modifiers:	
  B1-­‐level	
  
learners	
  employed	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  2.12	
  lexical	
  modifiers	
  per	
  answer	
  but	
  only	
  0.78	
  morphosyntactic	
  modifiers,	
  
and	
   B2-­‐level	
   learners	
   used	
   2.56	
   lexical	
  modifiers	
   per	
   answer	
   but	
   only	
   1,02	
  morphosyntactic	
  modifiers,	
   as	
  
shown	
  in	
  Table	
  5.	
  This	
  may	
  be	
  due	
  to	
  higher	
  offline	
  pragmatic	
  knowledge	
  that	
   the	
   learners	
  were	
  unable	
   to	
  
encode	
  grammatically.	
  

These	
   data	
   also	
   confirm	
   the	
   theoretical	
   framework	
   proposed	
   by	
   Nuzzo	
   (2007,	
   p.	
   154).	
   First,	
   the	
  
presence	
   of	
   such	
   a	
   small	
   number	
   of	
   discourse	
  markers	
   can	
   be	
   explained	
   by	
   their	
   particular	
   complexity	
   in	
  
terms	
  of	
  comprehension	
  and	
  acquisition;	
  this	
  can	
  probably	
  be	
  said	
  of	
  downgraders,	
  too	
  (two	
  of	
  the	
  learners	
  
in	
  Nuzzo’s	
   study	
   “rarely	
   [used]	
  mitigation	
  devices	
   in	
   their	
   expressions	
  of	
   judgment”,	
  p.	
   153).	
   Secondly,	
   the	
  
presence	
  of	
  intensifiers	
  in	
  the	
  answers	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  B2	
  group	
  may	
  plausibly	
  be	
  explained	
  by	
  Nuzzo’s	
  idea	
  
that,	
  for	
  learners	
  with	
  an	
  intermediate	
  level	
  of	
  interlanguage,	
  intensifiers	
  are	
  the	
  most	
  accessible	
  tools	
  in	
  their	
  
linguistic	
   repertoire	
   for	
   gaining	
   “stronger	
   effectiveness”.	
   Only	
   later	
   on	
   will	
   they	
   learn	
   how	
   to	
   balance,	
   in	
  
general,	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  upgraders	
  and	
  downgraders,	
  “gradually	
  reducing	
  the	
  aggressiveness	
  of	
  their	
  complaints”	
  
(Nuzzo,	
  2007,	
  p.	
  154).	
  The	
  overuse	
  of	
  politeness	
  markers	
  by	
  NNSs	
  has	
  already	
  been	
  observed	
  and	
  studied	
  as	
  
well:	
   It	
   seems	
   that	
   learners	
   use	
   them	
   both	
   as	
   indicators	
   of	
   illocutionary	
   force	
   of	
   their	
   sentences	
   and	
   as	
  
downgraders	
  (Gauci,	
  2012,	
  p.	
  100,	
  p.	
  106).	
  The	
  same	
  can	
  be	
  said	
   for	
   the	
   little	
  attention	
  paid	
  by	
   learners	
   to	
  
contexts	
  in	
  which	
  communication	
  takes	
  place,	
  as	
  noted	
  by	
  Gauci	
  (2015,	
  p.	
  118)	
  as	
  well.	
  

	
  
4.1.	
  Cross-­‐linguistic	
  influence	
  and	
  potential	
  transfer	
  from	
  L1	
  or	
  other	
  known	
  languages	
  

The	
   present	
   data	
   also	
   confirm	
   (some)	
   results	
   from	
   the	
   study	
   by	
   Van	
   Mulken	
   (1996)	
   mentioned	
  
previously.	
   Van	
   Mulken	
   stated	
   that	
   Dutch	
   NSs	
   tend	
   to	
   mitigate	
   their	
   requests	
   for	
   reparation	
   with	
   lexical	
  
rather	
   than	
  syntactic	
  and	
  external	
  modifiers,	
  not	
  only	
   in	
   their	
  native	
   language.	
   In	
   this	
  study,	
   it	
   seems	
  to	
  be	
  
true	
   that,	
   as	
   Van	
  Mulken	
   (1996,	
   p.	
   701)	
   observed	
   for	
   French	
   NSs,	
   Dutch	
   NSs	
   learning	
   Italian	
   as	
   a	
   foreign	
  
language	
  commonly	
  chose	
  a	
  politeness	
  marker	
  and	
  kept	
  the	
  head	
  act	
  alone.	
  External	
  modifiers,	
   though,	
  are	
  
proportionally	
  more	
   present	
   in	
   the	
   NNSs	
   data	
   than	
   internal	
  modifiers	
   (both	
  morphosyntactic	
   and	
   lexical)	
  
overall.	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  



POLITENESS	
  STRATEGIES	
  IN	
  COMPLAINTS	
  IN	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
   91	
  

Since	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  participants	
  knew	
  French	
  as	
  well	
  (for	
  most	
  of	
  them	
  it	
  was	
  their	
  second	
  language),	
  
some	
   forms	
   that	
   can	
   be	
   found	
   in	
   the	
   NNSs	
   data,	
   like	
   scusate	
   (‘excuse	
   me’,	
   second-­‐person	
   plural/second-­‐
person	
  singular	
  honorific/polite	
  form),	
  which	
  they	
  had	
  probably	
  never	
  heard	
  in	
  class	
  and	
  were	
  not	
  present	
  at	
  
all	
   in	
  the	
  NS	
  data,	
  were	
  most	
   likely	
  used	
  by	
  the	
  NNSs	
  due	
  to	
  cross-­‐linguistic	
   influence	
  from	
  vous	
   (the	
  polite	
  
form	
   in	
  French).	
  Transfer	
   from	
  French	
  may	
  also	
  be	
   seen	
   in	
   the	
  persistent	
  use	
  of	
   the	
   form	
  *è	
  possibile	
  di…?	
  
instead	
  of	
  the	
  correct	
  Italian	
  form	
  è	
  possibile…?	
  with	
  no	
  di	
  following,	
  since	
  the	
  same	
  form	
  in	
  French	
  would	
  be	
  
est-­‐il	
  possible	
  de…?.	
  	
  

5.	
  Conclusion	
  
The	
  present	
  paper	
   analyzes	
   initial	
   data	
   from	
  on	
  an	
  ongoing	
   study	
   in	
   two	
   classrooms	
  of	
  Dutch	
  NSs	
  

learning	
  Italian	
  as	
  a	
  foreign	
  language	
  in	
  a	
  language	
  center	
  in	
  Belgium,	
  23	
  at	
  a	
  B1	
  level,	
  19	
  at	
  a	
  B2	
  level.	
  The	
  
study	
  follows	
  an	
  existing	
  line	
  of	
  research	
  that	
  examines	
  the	
  ability	
  of	
  learners	
  of	
  a	
  second	
  or	
  foreign	
  language	
  
to	
  perform	
  specific,	
  face-­‐threatening	
  (see	
  Brown	
  &	
  Levinson,	
  1987),	
  communicative	
  acts	
  (here,	
  complaints)	
  as	
  
a	
  native	
  speaker	
  would.	
  For	
  this	
  reason,	
  the	
  data	
  produced	
  by	
  the	
  NNs	
  have	
  been	
  compared	
  with	
  data	
  from	
  a	
  
group	
  of	
  (23)	
  Italian	
  NSs	
  responding	
  to	
  the	
  same	
  written	
  DCT.	
  

The	
   answers	
   were	
   analyzed	
   both	
   from	
   a	
   quantitative	
   and	
   a	
   qualitative	
   perspective,	
   following	
   the	
  
classifications	
  suggested	
  by	
  Nuzzo	
  (2007)	
  for	
  the	
  types	
  of	
  complaints—either	
  composed	
  by	
  an	
  expression	
  of	
  
judgment	
  or	
  a	
  request	
  for	
  reparation,	
  or	
  by	
  a	
  combination	
  of	
  the	
  two—,	
  and	
  by	
  Nuzzo	
  (2007)	
  and	
  Trosborg	
  
(1995)	
  for	
  the	
  types	
  of	
  internal	
  (morphosyntactic	
  and	
  lexical)	
  and	
  external	
  modifiers.	
  

In	
   response	
   to	
   our	
   first	
   research	
   question	
   (RQ1)	
   about	
   the	
  most	
   common	
  ways	
   NSs	
   and	
  NNSs	
   of	
  
Italian	
  express	
  their	
  judgment	
  for	
  a	
  negative	
  action	
  that	
  has	
  annoyed	
  them,	
  the	
  learners	
  performed	
  in	
  native-­‐
like	
  ways	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  complaint	
  types:	
  all	
  three	
  groups	
  tended	
  to	
  prefer	
  the	
  judgment-­‐only	
  type	
  of	
  complaint,	
  
although	
  the	
  B1-­‐level	
  learners	
  used	
  more	
  request-­‐only	
  complaints	
  (still	
  just	
  12%	
  of	
  the	
  answers	
  provided	
  to	
  
the	
  DCT)	
  and	
  B2-­‐level	
  learners	
  tended	
  to	
  generally	
  use	
  more	
  indirect	
  types	
  of	
  expressions	
  of	
  judgment.	
  

In	
  regards	
  to	
  the	
  second	
  research	
  question	
  (RQ2),	
  though,	
  which	
  asked	
  whether	
  there	
  are	
  substantial	
  
differences	
  between	
  NSs	
  and	
  NNSs	
   in	
   terms	
  of	
   their	
  distribution	
  of	
  morphosyntactical,	
   lexical	
   and	
  external	
  
modifiers,	
  NNSs	
  systematically	
  used	
  a	
  lower	
  number	
  of	
  modifiers	
  than	
  native	
  speakers.	
  This	
  was	
  even	
  true	
  for	
  
the	
  B2-­‐level	
  learners,	
  who	
  proved	
  to	
  be	
  highly	
  proficient	
  in	
  their	
  L2.	
  	
  

Nevertheless,	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  the	
  B2-­‐level	
  learners	
  exhibited	
  more	
  native-­‐like	
  performance	
  than	
  the	
  B1-­‐
level	
   learners,	
  both	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  number	
  and	
  variety	
  of	
  modifiers	
  used,	
  seems	
  to	
  suggest	
  that	
   it	
  could	
  be	
  
possible	
   to	
  define	
  a	
  developmental	
  path	
  whereby	
  a	
  higher	
  proficiency	
   level	
   in	
   the	
   language	
  means	
   smaller	
  
differences	
  between	
  non-­‐native	
  and	
  native	
   linguistic	
  behavior.	
  A	
  slight	
  preference	
   for	
   lexical	
  over	
  syntactic	
  
modifiers	
  both	
  among	
  B1-­‐level	
  learners	
  and	
  B2-­‐level	
  learners	
  may	
  be	
  interpreted	
  as	
  substantial	
  evidence	
  that	
  
a	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  acquisition	
  and	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  linguistic	
  forms	
  exists	
  (a	
  question	
  previously	
  raised	
  by	
  
Nuzzo,	
  2007,	
  p.	
  39)	
   in	
   terms	
  of	
   consequentiality:	
  Most	
  of	
   the	
  B2-­‐level	
   learners	
  displayed	
  knowledge	
  of	
   the	
  
majority	
   of	
   the	
   morphosyntactic	
   modifiers	
   analyzed	
   in	
   this	
   study,	
   and	
   yet	
   they	
   did	
   not	
   employ	
   them	
   as	
  
pragmatic	
  modification	
  devices.	
  These	
  observations	
  partially	
  respond	
  to	
  the	
  third	
  research	
  question	
  (RQ3),	
  
which	
  asked	
  whether	
  NNSs	
  with	
  higher	
  linguistic	
  proficiency	
  show	
  more	
  native-­‐like	
  behavior	
  in	
  performing	
  
complaints	
  than	
  NNSs	
  with	
  lower	
  linguistic	
  proficiency.	
  The	
  use	
  of	
  external	
  modifiers	
  could	
  be	
  explained	
  as	
  
proof	
  of	
  a	
  higher	
  level	
  of	
  awareness,	
  even	
  among	
  the	
  B1-­‐level	
  learners,	
  that	
  a	
  native	
  speaker’s	
  utterances	
  in	
  
the	
  situations	
  presented	
  would	
  be	
  more	
  varied.	
  With	
   this	
  awareness,	
   learners	
  would	
   the	
  need	
   to	
  use	
  more	
  
words	
   than	
   they	
   currently	
   employ.	
   Cases	
   of	
   overuse	
   of	
   external	
   modification	
   and	
   a	
   lack	
   of	
   internal	
  
modification,	
   though,	
   combined	
  with	
   the	
   frequent	
   selection	
  of	
  direct	
   expressions	
  of	
   judgment,	
   reflect	
   early	
  
strategies..	
  

The	
   findings	
  regarding	
   the	
   fourth	
  and	
   final	
   research	
  question	
   (RQ4)	
  —	
  Do	
  Dutch	
  NSs	
  who	
  are	
   IFL	
  
learners	
   tend	
   to	
   use	
  more	
   internal	
   than	
   external	
  modifiers	
  when	
   trying	
   to	
   be	
   polite	
   in	
   Italian?	
  —	
   seem	
   to	
  
confirm	
  part	
  of	
  what	
  Van	
  Mulken	
  observed	
  about	
  Dutch	
  NSs	
  speaking	
  in	
  French	
  (Van	
  Mulken,	
  1996,	
  p.	
  701):	
  
for	
   Dutch	
   NSs	
   learning	
   Italian	
   as	
   a	
   foreign	
   language	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   most	
   common	
   strategies	
   seems	
   to	
   be	
   the	
  
decision	
   to	
   use	
   a	
   politeness	
   marker	
   and	
   keep	
   the	
   head	
   act	
   alone.	
   However,	
   external	
   modifiers	
   are	
  
proportionally	
  more	
  present	
  in	
  the	
  NNSs	
  data	
  than	
  internal	
  modifiers	
  in	
  general	
  (both	
  morphosyntactic	
  and	
  
lexical).	
  

These	
   results	
   strongly	
   confirm	
  previous	
   studies	
  on	
   Italian	
   (Gauci,	
   2012;	
  2015;	
  Nuzzo,	
  2006;	
  2007;	
  
Rastelli	
  &	
  Nuzzo,	
  2009)	
  and	
  other	
  languages	
  (Faerch	
  &	
  Kasper,	
  2001;	
  Trosborg,	
  1995),	
  as	
  the	
  findings	
  show	
  
that	
  learners,	
  even	
  those	
  with	
  high	
  L2	
  proficiency,	
  systematically	
  use	
  fewer	
  modifiers	
  than	
  native	
  speakers.	
  



MAROCCHINI	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
  92	
  

The	
   developmental	
   path	
   outlined	
   by	
   these	
   data	
   was	
   also	
   highlighted	
   by	
   Gauci	
   (2012)	
   and	
   Nuzzo	
  
(2006,	
   2007).	
   The	
   same	
   can	
   also	
   be	
   said	
   about	
   B1	
   and	
   B2	
   learners’	
   displayed	
   preference	
   for	
   lexical	
   over	
  
syntactical	
  modifiers	
  (although	
  this	
  preference	
  was	
  more	
  significant	
   in	
  previous	
  studies,	
  at	
   least	
  more	
  than	
  
the	
  results	
  from	
  B1-­‐level	
  learners	
  here	
  suggest).	
  

As	
  far	
  as	
  potential	
  improvement	
  for	
  pedagogy,	
  a	
  study	
  conducted	
  by	
  Gauci	
  (2015)	
  on	
  complaints	
  and	
  
requests,	
  which	
  employed	
  more	
  varied	
  methods	
  than	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  (i.e.,	
  a	
  role-­‐play	
  and	
  a	
  multiple	
  choice	
  
DCT	
   in	
   addition	
   to	
   the	
  written	
   DCT),	
   revealed	
   that	
   after	
   six	
  weeks	
   of	
   instruction	
   (one	
   hour	
   per	
  week)	
   on	
  
pragmalinguistic	
  forms	
  and	
  detailed	
  lessons	
  on	
  sociopragmatic	
  rules,	
  the	
  mean	
  number	
  of	
  internal	
  modifiers	
  
used	
  per	
  head	
  act	
  increased	
  significantly	
  in	
  the	
  experimental	
  group	
  compared	
  to	
  a	
  control	
  group	
  (who	
  had	
  no	
  
training	
  between	
  the	
  two	
  tests),	
  and	
  the	
  variety	
  of	
  modifiers	
  was	
  also	
  greater	
   in	
  the	
  former	
  group	
  (p.	
  116).	
  
Although	
  it	
  was	
  beyond	
  the	
  scope	
  of	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  to	
  examine	
  the	
  potential	
  effects	
  of	
  instruction,	
  lessons	
  
would	
  likely	
  prove	
  useful	
  if	
  they	
  focused	
  on	
  specific	
  modifiers,	
  with	
  overt	
  explanations	
  of	
  their	
  functions	
  and	
  
importance.	
  	
  

Instruction	
  on	
   less	
  direct	
   expressions	
  of	
   judgment	
   could	
  also	
  be	
  useful.	
  The	
  data	
  produced	
  by	
  NSs	
  
participating	
   in	
   this	
   study	
   could	
   be	
  manipulated	
   and	
   learners	
   could	
   be	
   exposed	
   to	
   short	
   audio-­‐	
   or	
   video-­‐
recordings	
  of	
  NSs’	
  production	
  of	
  and	
  reaction	
  to	
  complaints.	
  Some	
  of	
   the	
  sequences	
  could	
  be	
  used	
  for	
  role-­‐
plays.	
  In	
  fact,	
  Gauci	
  (2015,	
  p.	
  123)	
  highlights	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  using	
  varied	
  teaching	
  methods,	
  since	
  no	
  one	
  
method	
  has	
  been	
  shown	
  to	
  be	
  more	
  useful	
  than	
  another	
  in	
  the	
  previous	
  literature.	
  

On	
   a	
   side	
   note,	
   as	
   part	
   of	
   their	
   usual	
   course	
   activities,	
   the	
   learners	
   from	
   the	
   B2-­‐level	
   classroom	
  
followed	
   a	
   curriculum	
   that	
   involved	
   role-­‐play	
   of	
   certain	
   speech	
   acts	
   (requests	
   in	
   particular).	
  However,	
   the	
  
kinds	
  of	
   pragmatic	
   abilities	
   that	
   learners	
  would	
   try	
   and	
   stimulate	
  were	
  only	
   implicitly	
   communicated.	
  The	
  
teacher	
  proposed	
  them	
  as	
  side	
  exercises	
  to	
  break	
  up	
  strongly	
  theoretical	
  lessons,	
  and	
  although	
  the	
  repetition	
  
of	
   similar	
   tasks	
   could	
   result	
   in	
   a	
   conscious	
   approach	
   to	
   the	
   tasks	
   as	
   being,	
   for	
   instance,	
   all	
   related	
   to	
   the	
  
performance	
  of	
  complaints,	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  difficult	
  to	
  reach	
  a	
  real	
  understanding	
  of	
  how	
  to	
  produce	
  a	
  native-­‐like	
  
speech	
   act	
   in	
   this	
  way.	
   Following	
   Takahashi	
   (2010,	
   p.	
   138),	
  who	
   states	
   that	
   explicit	
   and	
   implicit	
   forms	
   of	
  
intervention	
  (with	
  reference	
  to	
  the	
  definition	
  by	
  Housen	
  &	
  Pierrard,	
  2005)	
  may	
  be	
  better	
  conceptualized	
  on	
  a	
  
continuum	
   rather	
   than	
   as	
   separate,	
   binary	
   concepts,	
   it	
   would	
   be	
   interesting	
   to	
   explore	
   whether	
   a	
   more	
  
explicit	
  teaching	
  intervention	
  on	
  the	
  sociopragmatic	
  variables,	
  especially	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  social	
  distance	
  and	
  
the	
   identity	
  of	
   the	
   interlocutor	
   (as	
   suggested	
  by	
  Gauci,	
   2015,	
  p.	
  123),	
  may	
  be	
  useful,	
   after	
   implicit	
   training	
  
with	
  the	
  mentioned	
  audiovisual	
  materials.	
  

In	
  conclusion,	
  the	
  analysis	
  offered	
  by	
  this	
  paper	
  may	
  have	
  useful	
  pedagogical	
   implications,	
  as	
  DCTs	
  
provide	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  information	
  on	
  the	
  forms	
  that	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  used	
  as	
  a	
  target	
  of	
  specific	
  training.	
  Unfortunately,	
  
only	
  a	
  few	
  of	
  the	
  teachers	
  at	
  the	
  language	
  center	
  had	
  a	
  background	
  in	
  pragmatics	
  and	
  would	
  have	
  been	
  able	
  to	
  
provide	
  instruction	
  without	
  first	
  receiving	
  specific	
  training	
  themselves.	
  Therefore,	
  in	
  addition	
  to	
  carrying	
  out	
  
more	
   instructional	
   studies,	
   there	
   is	
   a	
  need	
   to	
  make	
  acquisitional	
  pragmatics	
  known	
   to	
   teachers	
   in	
   the	
   first	
  
place.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
References	
  
	
  
Alcón-­‐Soler,	
   	
  Eva	
   (2005).	
  Does	
   instruction	
  work	
   for	
   learning	
  pragmatics	
   in	
   the	
  EFL	
  context?,	
  System,	
  33(3),	
  

417-­‐435.	
  
Andorno,	
  Cecilia	
  (2003).	
  La	
  Grammatica	
  Italiana.	
  Milano,	
  Italia:	
  Mondadori.	
  
Bardovi-­‐Harlig,	
   Kathleen,	
   &	
   Dörney,	
   Zoltàn	
   (1998).	
   Do	
   language	
   learners	
   recognize	
   pragmatic	
   violations?	
  

Pragmatic	
  Versus	
  Grammatical	
  Awareness	
   in	
   Instructed	
  L2	
  Learning.	
  TESOL	
  Quarterly,	
  32(2),	
   233-­‐
259.	
  

Bardovi-­‐Harlig,	
   Kathleen,	
   &	
   Hartford,	
   Beverly.	
   (1993).	
   Learning	
   the	
   rules	
   of	
   academic	
   talk:	
   A	
   longitudinal	
  
study	
  of	
  pragmatic	
  development.	
  Studies	
  in	
  Second	
  Language	
  Acquisition,	
  15(3),	
  279-­‐304.	
  

Bardovi-­‐Harlig,	
   Kathleen,	
   &	
   Hartford,	
   Beverly.	
   (1990).	
   Congruence	
   in	
   native	
   and	
   nonnative	
   conversations:	
  
Status	
  balance	
  in	
  the	
  academic	
  advising	
  session.	
  Language	
  Learning,	
  40(4),	
  467-­‐501.	
  

Blum-­‐Kulka,	
  Shoshana	
  (1985).	
  Modifiers	
  as	
   indicating	
  devices:	
  The	
  case	
  of	
   requests.	
  Theoretical	
  Linguistics,	
  
12(2-­‐3),	
  213-­‐230.	
  



POLITENESS	
  STRATEGIES	
  IN	
  COMPLAINTS	
  IN	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
   93	
  

Blum-­‐Kulka,	
  Shoshana,	
  &	
  Olshtain,	
  Elite	
  (1984).	
  Requests	
  and	
  apologies:	
  A	
  cross-­‐cultural	
  study	
  of	
  speech	
  act	
  
realization	
  patterns	
  (CCSARP)1,	
  Applied	
  Linguistics	
  5(3),	
  196-­‐213.	
  

Boxer,	
  Diana	
  (1993).	
  Complaints	
  as	
  positive	
  strategies:	
  What	
  the	
  learner	
  needs	
  to	
  know.	
  TESOL	
  Quarterly,	
  
27(2),	
  277-­‐298.	
  

Boxer,	
   Diana	
   (2010).	
   Complaints:	
   how	
   to	
   gripe	
   and	
   establish	
   rapport.	
   In	
  Martínez-­‐Flor,	
   Alicia	
   &	
   Usó-­‐Juan,	
  
Esther	
  (Eds.),	
  Speech	
  act	
  performance:	
  Theoretical,	
  empirical	
  and	
  methodological	
  issues	
  (pp.	
  163-­‐178).	
  
Amsterdam,	
  The	
  Netherlands:	
  Benjamins.	
  

Brown,	
   Penelope,	
   &	
   Levinson,	
   Stephen	
   (1987).	
   Politeness:	
   Some	
   universals	
   in	
   language	
   usage.	
   Cambridge,	
  
United	
  Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Council	
   of	
   Europe	
   (2001).	
   Common	
   European	
   Framework	
   of	
   Reference	
   for	
   Languages:	
   Learning,	
   teaching,	
  
assessment.	
  Cambridge,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Dardano,	
  Maurizio,	
  &	
  Trifone,	
  Pietro	
  (1985).	
  La	
  lingua	
  italiana.	
  Bologna,	
  Italia:	
  Zanichelli.	
  
Donaldson,	
  Bruce	
  (2008).	
  Dutch:	
  A	
  comprehensive	
  grammar.	
  London,	
  UK:	
  Routledge.	
  
Ellis,	
   Rod	
   (2008).	
   Pragmatic	
   aspects	
   of	
   learner	
   language.	
   In	
   Ellis,	
   Rod	
   (Ed.),	
  The	
   Study	
   of	
   Second	
   Language	
  

Acquisition	
  (pp.	
  159-­‐199).	
  Oxford,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Oxford	
  University	
  Press.	
  
Faerch,	
   Claus,	
   &	
   Kasper,	
   Gabriele	
   (1989).	
   Internal	
   and	
   external	
   modification	
   in	
   interlanguage	
   request	
  

realization.	
   In	
   Blum-­‐Kulka,	
   Shoshana,	
   House,	
   Juliane,	
   &	
   Kasper,	
   Gabriele	
   (Eds.),	
   Cross-­‐cultural	
  
pragmatics	
  (pp.	
  221-­‐247).	
  Norwood,	
  New	
  Jersey:	
  Ablex.	
  

Forsberg	
   Lundell,	
   Fanny	
  &	
  Erman,	
   Britt	
   (2012).	
  High-­‐level	
   requests:	
   A	
   study	
   of	
   long	
   residency	
   L2	
   users	
   of	
  
English	
  and	
  French	
  and	
  native	
  speakers.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Pragmatics,	
  44	
  (6–7),	
  756-­‐775.	
  

Gauci,	
   Phyllisienne	
   (2012).	
   Insegnare	
   a	
   protestare	
   in	
   italiano	
   L2.	
   In	
   Bernini,	
   Giuliano,	
   Lavinio,	
   Cristina	
   &	
  
Valentini,	
  Ada	
  (Eds.),	
  Atti	
  dell’XI	
  Congresso	
  della	
  Associazione	
  Italiana	
  di	
  Linguistica	
  Applicata	
  (AItLA),	
  
(Bergamo,	
  9-­‐11	
  giugno	
  2011)	
  (pp.	
  383-­‐424).	
  Perugia,	
  Italia:	
  Guerra.	
  

Gauci,	
   Phyllisienne	
   (2015).	
   Teaching	
   L2	
   pragmatics:	
   from	
   an	
   empirical	
   study	
   to	
   recommendations	
   for	
  
pedagogical	
  practice.	
  In	
  Gesuato,	
  Sara,	
  Bianchi,	
  Francesca	
  &	
  Cheng,	
  Winnie	
  (Eds.),	
  Teaching,	
  learning	
  
and	
  investigating	
  about	
  pragmatics:	
  principles,	
  methods	
  and	
  practices	
  (pp.	
  109-­‐132).	
  Cambridge,	
  UK:	
  
Cambridge	
  Scholars	
  Publishing.	
  	
  

George,	
   Susan	
   (1990).	
   Getting	
   things	
   done	
   in	
   Naples	
   -­‐	
   a	
   description	
   of	
   Neapolitan	
   directives	
   in	
   discourse.	
  
Bologna,	
  Italia:	
  CLUEB.	
  

Giacalone-­‐Ramat,	
  Anna,	
   Chini,	
  Marina,	
  &	
  Andorno,	
   Cecilia	
   (2013).	
   Italiano	
   come	
  L2.	
   In	
  Gabriele	
   Iannaccaro	
  
(Ed.),	
   La	
   linguistica	
   italiana	
   all’alba	
   del	
   terzo	
   millennio	
   (1997-­‐2010)	
   (pp.	
   149–206).	
   Roma,	
   Italia:	
  
Bulzoni.	
  

Hothorn,	
   Torsten,	
   Hornik,	
   Kurt,	
   &	
   Zeileis,	
   Achim	
   (2006).	
   Unbiased	
   recursive	
   partitioning:	
   A	
   conditional	
  
inference	
  framework.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Computational	
  and	
  Graphical	
  Statistics,	
  15(3),	
  651–674.	
  

Housen,	
  Alex,	
  &	
  Pierrard,	
  Michel	
  (Eds.).	
  (2005),.	
  Studies	
  in	
  language	
  acquisition	
  25:	
  Investigations	
  in	
  instructed	
  
second	
  language	
  acquisition.	
  Berlin,	
  Germany:	
  Walter	
  de	
  Gruyter.	
  

Kasper,	
  Gabriele,	
  &	
  Blum-­‐Kulka,	
  Shoshana	
  (1993).	
  Interlanguage	
  pragmatics.	
  Oxford,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Oxford	
  
University	
  Press.	
  

Kasper,	
   Gabriele,	
   &	
   Rose,	
   Kenneth.	
   (2002).	
   Pragmatic	
   development	
   in	
   a	
   second	
   language.	
   Oxford,	
   United	
  
Kingdom:	
  Blackwell.	
  

Martínez-­‐Flor,	
   Alicia	
   (2008).	
   Analysing	
   Request	
   Modification	
   Devices	
   in	
   Films:	
   Implications	
   for	
   Pragmatic	
  
Learning	
  in	
  Instructed	
  Foreign	
  Language	
  Contexts.	
  In	
  Alcón-­‐Soler,	
  Eva,	
  &	
  Safont-­‐Jordà,	
  M.	
  Pilar	
  (Eds.),	
  
Intercultural	
   language	
   use	
   and	
   language	
   learning	
   (pp.	
   245-­‐280).	
   Dordrecht,	
   The	
   Netherlands:	
  
Springer.	
  

Merk,	
   Vincent	
   (1987).	
   Négociation	
   et	
   culture	
   française:	
   un	
   exemple	
   de	
   communication	
   bi-­‐culturelle	
   dans	
  
l'entreprise.	
  Toegepaste	
  Taalwetenschap	
  in	
  Artikelen,	
  28,	
  193-­‐202	
  

Musumeci,	
  Diane	
  (1991).	
  Ciao,	
  professoressa!	
  A	
  study	
  of	
   forms	
  of	
  address	
   in	
  Italian	
  and	
  its	
   implications	
  for	
  
the	
  language	
  classroom.	
  Italica,	
  68(1),	
  434-­‐456.	
  	
  

Nuzzo,	
   Elena,	
   &	
   Gauci,	
   Phyllisienne	
   (2012).	
   Insegnare	
   la	
   pragmatica	
   in	
   italiano	
   L2:	
   recenti	
   ricerche	
   nella	
  
prospettiva	
  della	
  teoria	
  degli	
  atti	
  linguistici.	
  Roma:	
  Carocci.	
  

	
  



MAROCCHINI	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
  94	
  

Nuzzo,	
  Elena	
  (2006).	
  Sviluppare	
  la	
  competenza	
  pragmatica:	
  proteste	
  in	
  italiano	
  L2.	
  Studi	
  Italiani	
  di	
  Linguistica	
  
Teorica	
  ed	
  Applicata,	
  35(3),	
  579-­‐601.	
  

Nuzzo,	
  Elena	
   (2007).	
   Imparare	
  a	
   fare	
   cose	
   con	
   le	
  parole.	
  Richieste,	
  proteste,	
   scuse	
   in	
   italiano	
   lingua	
   seconda.	
  
Perugia,	
  Italia:	
  Guerra.	
  

Nuzzo,	
   Elena	
   (2013).	
   La	
   Pragmatica	
   nei	
  manuali	
   d’Italiano	
   L2:	
   una	
   prima	
   indagine	
   sull’atto	
   linguistico	
   del	
  
ringraziare.	
  Revista	
  de	
  Italianística,	
  26(2),	
  5-­‐29.	
  

Rastelli,	
   Stefano,	
   &	
   Nuzzo,	
   Elena	
   (2009).	
   Didattica	
   acquisizionale	
   e	
   cortesia	
   linguistica	
   in	
   italiano	
   L2.	
  
Cuadernos	
  de	
  Filologia	
  Italiana,	
  16(1),	
  13-­‐30.	
  

Renzi,	
   Lorenzo	
   (1995).	
   La	
   deissi	
   personale	
   e	
   il	
   suo	
   uso	
   sociale.	
   In	
   Renzi,	
   Lorenzo,	
   Salvi,	
   Giampaolo,	
   &	
   	
  	
  
Cardinaletti,	
  Anna	
  (Eds.),	
  Grande	
  grammatica	
  italiana	
  di	
  consultazione,	
  vol.	
  3	
  (pp.	
  350-­‐375).	
  Bologna,	
  
Italia:	
  Il	
  Mulino.	
  

Rubino,	
   Antonia,	
   &	
   Bettoni,	
   Camilla	
   (2006).	
   Handling	
   complaints	
   cross-­‐culturally:	
   Italians	
   vs	
   Anglo-­‐
Australians.	
  Studi	
  Italiani	
  di	
  Linguistica	
  Teorica	
  e	
  Applicata,	
  35(2),	
  pp.	
  339-­‐358.	
  

Sabatini,	
   Francesco	
   (1980).	
  Lingua	
  e	
   linguaggi:	
  Educazione,	
   linguistica	
   e	
   italiano	
  nella	
   scuola	
  media.	
  Torino,	
  
Italia:	
  Loescher.	
  	
  

Salazar	
   Campillo,	
   Patricia	
   (2008).	
   Examining	
   Mitigation	
   in	
   Requests.	
   A	
   Focus	
   on	
   Transcripts	
   in	
   ELT	
  
Coursebooks.	
   In	
   Alcón-­‐Soler,	
   Eva,	
   Safont-­‐Jordà,	
   M.	
   Pilar	
   (Eds.),	
   Intercultural	
   language	
   use	
   and	
  
language	
  learning	
  (pp.	
  207-­‐222).	
  Dordrecht,	
  The	
  Netherlands:	
  Springer.	
  

Schwarze,	
  Christoph	
  (1988).	
  Grammatik	
  der	
  italienischen	
  Sprache.	
  Tübingen,	
  Germany:	
  Niemeyer.	
  
Searle,	
   John	
   (1969).	
   Speech	
   Acts.	
   An	
   Essay	
   in	
   the	
   Philosophy	
   of	
   Language.	
   Cambridge,	
   United	
   Kingdom:	
  

Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  	
  
Searle,	
   John	
   (1975).	
   Indirect	
   Speech	
   Acts.	
   In	
   Cole,	
   Peter,	
   &	
   Morgan,	
   Jerry	
   L.	
   (Eds),	
   Syntax	
   and	
   Semantics,	
  

Volume	
  3:	
  Speech	
  Acts	
  (pp.	
  59–82).	
  Cambridge,	
  Massachussets,	
  USA:	
  Academic	
  Press.	
  
Searle,	
  John	
  (1976).	
  The	
  classification	
  of	
  illocutionary	
  acts.	
  Language	
  in	
  Society,	
  5(1),	
  1-­‐24.	
  
Searle,	
   John	
   (1979).	
   Expression	
   and	
   Meaning:	
   Studies	
   in	
   the	
   Theory	
   of	
   Speech	
   Acts.	
   Cambridge,	
   United	
  

Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  
Sensini,	
  Marcello	
  (1997).	
  La	
  grammatica	
  della	
  lingua	
  italiana.	
  Milano,	
  Italia:	
  Mondadori.	
  
Sobrero,	
   Alberto	
   (1993).	
   Pragmatica.	
   In	
   Sobrero,	
   Alberto	
   (Ed.),	
   Introduzione	
   all’italiano	
   contemporaneo.	
   Le	
  

strutture	
  (pp.	
  403-­‐450).	
  Bari,	
  Italia:	
  Laterza.	
  
Stalpers,	
  Judith	
  (1993).	
  Progress	
  in	
  discourse:	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  foreign	
  language	
  use	
  on	
  business	
  talk.	
  The	
  Hague,	
  

Netherlands:	
  Tilburg	
  University.	
  
Takahashi,	
  Satomi	
  (2010).	
  The	
  effect	
  of	
  pragmatic	
   instruction	
  on	
  speech	
  act	
  performance.	
   In	
  Martínez-­‐Flor,	
  

Alicia	
  &	
  Usó-­‐Juan,	
  Esther	
   (Eds.),	
  Speech	
  act	
   performance:	
  Theoretical,	
   empirical	
   and	
  methodological	
  
issues	
  (pp.	
  125-­‐42).	
  Amsterdam,	
  The	
  Netherlands:	
  Benjamins.	
  

Trosborg,	
   Anna	
   (1995).	
   Interlanguage	
   pragmatics:	
   Requests,	
   complaints,	
   and	
   apologies.	
  Berlin	
   –	
   New	
   York:	
  
Mouton	
  de	
  Gruyter.	
  

Van	
  der	
  Wijst,	
  Per	
  (1991).	
  Beleefdheidsmarkeringen	
  in	
  Franse	
  en	
  Nederlandse	
  verzoeken.	
  In	
  Van	
  Hout,	
  Roeland	
  
&	
   Huls,	
   Erica	
   (Eds.),	
   Artikelen	
   van	
   de	
   le	
   sociolinguistische	
   conferentie,	
   (pp.	
   473-­‐491).	
   Delft,	
   The	
  
Netherlands:	
  Eburon.	
  

Van	
   der	
  Wijst,	
   Per,	
   &	
   Ulijn,	
   Jan	
   (1991).	
   Nederlanders	
   en	
   Fransen	
   in	
   zakelijke	
   onderhandeling:	
   beïnvloedt	
  
beleefdheid	
  het	
  resultaat?.	
  Negotiation	
  Magazine,	
  4	
  (1),	
  25-­‐31.	
  

Van	
  Mulken,	
  Margot	
   (1996).	
  Politeness	
  markers	
   in	
  French	
  and	
  Dutch	
   requests.	
  Language	
  Sciences,	
  18(3-­‐4):	
  
689-­‐702.	
  

Yuan,	
  Yi	
   (2001).	
  An	
   inquiry	
   into	
  empirical	
  pragmatics	
  data-­‐gathering	
  methods:	
  written	
  dcts,	
  oral	
  dcts,	
   field	
  
notes,	
  and	
  natural	
  conversations.	
  Journal	
  of	
  pragmatics,	
  33(2),	
  271-­‐292.	
  



MAROCCHINI	
  
	
  

©	
  Marocchini	
  2017.	
  This	
  work	
  is	
  licensed	
  under	
  a	
  Creative	
  Commons	
  Attribution	
  4.0	
  International	
  License.	
  

Appendix	
  
	
  
 

Discourse Completion Test 
 

Some questions slightly varied in the two versions of this test: anytime a professor or a classmate was mentioned, the 
course was described as the Italian course at CLT in the version tailored for NNSs, whilst it was described as a generic evening 
course in the version tailored for the NSs.  

These differences are marked in this Appendix with a slash separating the two versions, in brackets. 
 

 
Identity of the 

addressee Situations Intimacy 
1. Professional L’albergo in cui soggiorni non ha provveduto a cambiare le lenzuola usate dai clienti 

precedenti. Fallo presente in reception. 
 
The hotel you’re staying in did not change the sheets used by the previous 
costumers. Go tell the receptionists. 
 

LOWER 

2. Friend Il tuo amico Giuseppe ha preso in prestito un tuo libro ma te l’ha riportato senza 
copertina. Faglielo presente. 
 
Your friend Giuseppe borrowed a book from you and he’s giving it back to you without 
its cover. Tell him. 

HIGHER 

3. Worker La cassiera del supermercato ha sbagliato a darti il resto. Faglielo presente. 
 
You were given the wrong change by the cashier at the supermarket. Tell her. 
 

LOWER 

4. Worker Hai ordinato un primo piatto al ristorante, ma te ne hanno portato uno sbagliato. Dillo 
al cameriere. 
 
You have ordered a first course at a restaurant, but the waiter brings you a wrong 
one. Tell him. 
 

LOWER 

5. Professional La professoressa del [CLT/corso che frequenti] ha sbagliato a conteggiare gli errori 
nel tuo ultimo compito. Faglielo presente. 
 
Your teacher at [CLT/a course you are enrolled at] made some errors in counting your 
mistakes in your last Italian test. Let her know. 
 

LOWER 

6. Relative Tua sorella ti ha chiesto di accompagnarla a comprare un vestito ma ci sta 
impiegando ore per scegliere. Faglielo presente. 
 
Your sister asked you to come with her to buy a dress, but it’s taking hours for her to 
choose. Tell her.  
 

HIGHER 

7. Acquaintance Hai prestato il tuo quaderno a un signore che [studia italiano con te al CLT/segue con 
te un corso che frequenti], ma dopo due settimane non te l’ha ancora riportato. 
Faglielo presente. 
 
You’ve lent your notebook to a gentleman who [studies Italian with you at CLT/studies 
with you at a course], but two weeks have passed without him giving it back to you. 
Tell him. 
 

HIGHER 

	
  

 
 



MAROCCHINI	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  75-­‐96	
  96	
  

 

 

Eleonora Marocchini, 	
  Università degli Studi di Pavia 
eleonora.marocchini@gmail.com 
  
EN Eleonora Marocchini graduated in Linguistics Theory, Applied Linguistics and Modern Language Linguistics from the 

University of Pavia and is currently studying at the Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS of Pavia. Her main research 
interests include pragmatics, the acquisition of Italian as second language and bilingualism. 
 

ES Eleonora Marocchini es licenciada en Lingüística Teórica, Lingüística Aplicada y Lingüística de Lenguas Modernas en 
la Universidad de Pavía. Actualmente estudia en la Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS de Pavía. Entre sus principales 
intereses de investigación se encuentran la pragmática, la adquisición del italiano como segunda lengua y el bilingüismo. 
 

IT Eleonora Marocchini è laureata in Linguistica Teorica, Applicata e delle Lingue Moderne presso l'Università di Pavia 
ed è Allieva della Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS di Pavia. I suoi principali interessi di ricerca includono la 
pragmatica, l’acquisizione di italiano come lingua seconda e il bilinguismo.