Content area
This study compares complaints in Korean and Chinese, focusing on how they are expressed explicitly or implicitly. Complaints are potentially face-threatening, yet they frequently appear in conversations among native Korean and Chinese speakers who are characterized as upholding Neo-Confucian values and emphasizing social harmony. Although some contrastive studies have examined complaints across languages, none have specifically investigated the explicit and implicit strategies employed in Korean and Chinese complaint discourse. Given the growing intercultural contact between Korean and Chinese speakers, this gap calls for closer attention. To address this, the present study explores how native Korean and Chinese speakers articulate complaints in the Korean and Chinese versions of the travel reality show Sisters Over Flowers. Sixteen episodes were analyzed using interactional sociolinguistic methods, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The analysis uncovered both explicit and implicit strategies (e.g., expressions of annoyance or disapproval, overt grievances, questions, advice, teasing, and hints). Notably, the Korean participants produced significantly fewer complaints than their Chinese counterparts. These findings offer theoretical and practical insights. Theoretically, the results challenge overly broad notions of East–West pragmatic distinctions by demonstrating meaningful variation within East Asian cultures. Practically, a better understanding of explicit and implicit complaint strategies in Korean and Chinese can enhance intercultural communication, promote culturally sensitive responses, and bridge misunderstandings in increasingly globalized settings.
1. Introduction
Over the past two decades, reality TV shows have gained significant popularity, including 꽃보다 누나 Sisters Over Flowers in South Korea and its Chinese adaptation 花样姐姐 Sisters Over Flowers in mainland China. Despite some skepticism regarding the authenticity of reality TV shows, some scholars (e.g., Mandala, 2007; Gibson & Bell, 2010; Bednarek, 2018; Chu, 2020) have argued that participants on these shows often stay true to their feelings and display moments of authenticity. Reality TV shows can serve as a form of audiovisual input that provides a rich source of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic material (Peñarroja, 2020) for research on communicative acts, such as complaints (Schegloff, 2005), which are hard to observe in natural conversations in Korean and Chinese. “The difficulty of gathering complaints and their heterogeneous nature no doubt explains why natural conversations have rarely been used for the type of analysis proposed here” (Laforest, 2002, p. 1598).
Researchers have portrayed complaints as expressions of dissatisfaction directed at those responsible for an undesirable action (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1987, 1993; Wierzbicka, 1991; House & Kádár, 2021). Complaints may also be viewed as speech acts conveying disapproval and negative feelings toward a situation for which the hearer is accountable (Trosborg, 1995). These definitions highlight that complaints originate from unmet expectations (D’Amico-Reisner, 1983; Padilla-Cruz, 2019). Scholars have also employed participation frameworks in interpersonal communication to differentiate direct and indirect complaints (e.g., Clyne, 1994; Katriel, 2013). Olshtain and Weinbach (1993) portray a direct complaint or hearer-oriented complaint as one where the speaker confronts the hearer and holds them accountable for a negative situation, thereby seeking resolution. In contrast, indirect complaints or third-party complaints, as Boxer (1993a, 1993b, 1993c) points out, refer to complaints about someone or something absent that do not involve holding the hearer responsible. These types of complaints are somewhat similar to ‘venting’, ‘grumbling’, ‘griping’, or ‘whining’ (Kowalski, 2002) within ‘troubles-talk’ or ‘troubles-telling’ frameworks (e.g., Jefferson, 1984; Tannen, 1990), expressions of displeasure that serve not necessarily to resolve the issue but to alleviate emotional distress or frustration in a manner that fosters solidarity or empathy from the hearer (Boxer, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c; DuFon, 1995; Eggins & Slade, 2004).
In this study, I define complaints as communicative acts expressing negative feelings about a situation, service, product, or person, holding the hearer accountable. I do not address indirect complaints (Boxer, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c) or third-party complaints (Traverso, 2009; Wagner & Lewis, 2021) that do not hold the hearer responsible. Instead, I focus on direct complaints that contain both explicit and implicit forms. This approach is inspired by Drew (1998) who examined the differences between explicit and implicit moral work, using complaints as an example. Although Drew (1998) did not propose a taxonomy for complaint strategies, I adopt his concepts of explicitness and implicitness to frame my analysis. This allows me to move away from the commonly used terms ‘direct complaints’ and ‘indirect complaints’ in the existing literature. In the present analysis, both explicit and implicit complaints hold the hearer accountable. Implicit complaints use defensive tactics and mitigation strategies, allowing the speaker to justify their behavior without challenging the hearer outright. Conversely, explicit complaints openly condemn the hearer’s actions.
Complaints have been insufficiently studied across East Asian languages such as Korean and Chinese, despite being well-researched in other contexts (e.g., Du, 1995; Park et al., 1998; Honda & Kim, 2009; Laforest, 2009; S. Lee, 2009; Henry & Ho, 2010; Y.-S. Chen et al., 2011; Reiter, 2013; Al-Momani, 2014; Ekström & Lundström, 2014; Kurtyka, 2019; Rääbis et al., 2019; Råberus et al., 2019; Yoon, 2021; Y. Lin & Chen, 2022; Huang & Ran, 2023; Lei & Ran, 2023; Skogmyr Marian et al., 2023; Tao & Li, 2023). Beyond the scarcity of research comparing how direct complaints are voiced by native Korean and Chinese speakers to the responsible individual, another reason for examining Korean and Chinese complaint strategies is that complaints can pose a threat to face (Cupach & Carson, 2002; Cupach, 2007). Therefore, I attempt to address these three questions: (1) How do native Korean speakers express complaints explicitly or implicitly in the South Korean travel reality show 꽃보다 누나 Sisters Over Flowers? (2) How do native Chinese speakers express complaints explicitly or implicitly in 花样姐姐 Sisters Over Flowers, the Chinese version of the South Korean show? (3) What are the similarities and differences in explicit or implicit complaints between the Korean and Chinese speakers?
2. Theoretical Background
Explicit complaints, which occur when the speaker openly challenges the hearer, tend to be considered face-threatening (Cupach, 2007). They are related to negative attitudes (e.g., Trosborg, 1995; House & Kádár, 2021) which can damage the hearer’s positive face and the hearer’s negative face. In addition to threatening the hearer’s face, explicit complaints are more likely to harm the relationship. As a result, the speaker might carefully weigh the decision to complain explicitly or implicitly based on three dimensions: social distance, relative power, and ranking of imposition (P. Brown & Levinson, 1987). They may use various linguistic forms and nonverbal cues to mitigate the potential face-threatening feature of their complaints (i.e., implicit complaints) and maintain politeness (House & Kasper, 1981). They tend to balance negative content with positive evaluations, although the illocutionary function of a complaint may not always be fully realized, as the perlocutionary force is negotiable (Edmonson, 1981). To better understand how explicit or implicit complaints are enforced and alleviated in Korean and Chinese, it is essential to discuss some broad sociopragmatic features of Korean and Chinese societies and examine complaint strategies as well as their communicative functions.
2.1. Some Sociopragmatic Aspects of Korean and Chinese Societies
According to Sleziak (2014), sociopragmatic behavior in South Korea and China continues to be deeply influenced by Neo-Confucian values, which emphasize hierarchy, age-based respect, implicit communication, and social harmony. Though no longer official state ideologies, these principles remain embedded in the everyday linguistic and interpersonal conduct of both cultures. In South Korea, honorifics (L. Brown, 2015, 2022), age-based speech levels, and gendered conversational roles are central to communication, preserving a rigid hierarchical structure. In China, while language reforms under communism reduced the overt use of honorifics (Kádár & Pan, 2011) and simplified characters, Neo-Confucian values still underpin social behavior, particularly in how speakers manage authority, status, and familial roles. These cultural undercurrents reflect the persistent strength of Neo-Confucian thought as an ethnolinguistic framework even amidst modernization and political change.
As Sleziak (2014) argues, in modern times, South Korea’s democratization and China’s post-Mao economic reforms spurred a revival of Neo-Confucianism as a cultural and political resource. The governments now promote Neo-Confucian heritage through education reforms, cultural designations, and media, albeit cautiously, wary of over-legitimizing its more patriarchal aspects. In education, standardized testing, memorization, and teacher reverence echo traditional Confucian pedagogy, reinforcing hierarchical and familial networks. Meanwhile, Neo-Confucian ideals are subtly reinforced through entertainment. TV dramas, films, and online games frequently incorporate traditional moral codes, even under modern or globalized esthetics. Linguistic markers of respect and status, such as speech registers, continue to mediate interpersonal relationships, reflecting internalized notions of social rank. Eventually, Neo-Confucianism endures not simply as historical philosophy but as a living, adaptable system of social organization. Its dual nature (i.e., both conservative and transformative) ensures its continued relevance in Korean and Chinese societies, shaping communication and daily behavior in ways that bridge tradition and modernity.
Influenced by Neo-Confucianism, Korean speakers often use honorifics to convey respect in public interactions (Kim, 2011). In other words, Korean politeness remains strongly associated with the use of honorific forms, and failing to use them when addressing someone of higher status or age is generally considered rude (Kim, 2011). On the contrary, contemporary Chinese lacks an extensive honorific system (Kádár & Pan, 2011). Instead, Chinese politeness is more concerned with managing interpersonal face needs (Mao, 1994). To uphold face, both Korean and Chinese speakers may opt for implicit strategies when offering suggestions (Schmidt et al., 1996) or making requests (Ying & Hong, 2020). Nonetheless, studies have shown that Chinese speakers tend to adopt more explicit strategies than their Korean counterparts when making requests (Zou, 2015), refusing requests (Zou, 2015), expressing disagreement (Choi et al., 2021), or voicing criticism (Zhu, 2025).
2.2. Complaint Strategies Across Cultures
Unfortunately, little research on comparing Korean and Chinese complaints in mundane communication in South Korea and China has been conducted, although it can contribute to our understanding of how culture affects speakers’ deployment of strategies to achieve certain functions. By comparison, in some contrastive studies that center on the disparities between English and other languages, both direct complaints, including explicit and implicit complaints, and indirect complaints have been investigated. For example, comparing indirect complaints made by Russians and Americans, Kozlova (2004) discovers that Russian complaints tended to lack an optimistic attitude toward resolving issues, unlike American complaints which often included humorous elements. The Russians used positive politeness, whereas the Americans used negative politeness.
Focusing on direct complaints, Park et al. (1998) reveal that Korean managers’ complaint letters in English tended to be implicit and delay the main point, contrasting with the explicitness of American managers who stated the problem upfront. Al-Khawaldeh (2016) describes how English speakers were more likely to state their grievances openly and explicitly despite power difference. Conversely, Jordanian speakers were inclined to avoid confrontation, either by opting out or using more implicit strategies, when interacting with higher-status interlocutors. Y.-S. Chen et al. (2011) analyze complaint strategies used by American and Taiwanese college students, identifying implicit strategies, including opting out and questioning, as well as explicit complaints, such as expressing dissatisfaction, accusation, and issuing threats, with distinct linguistic forms and content differences. Yang and Wannaruk (2019) demonstrate that their Chinese participants produced more explicit complaints than their Thai counterparts, particularly toward individuals with whom they had closer relationships.
Numerous non-contrastive studies have investigated complaint strategies across cultures, revealing both explicit and implicit patterns. In American English, for example, speakers often employ explicit strategies such as expressing dissatisfaction, as well as implicit ones like explaining the reasons behind the complaint or requesting a resolution (Murphy & Neu, 1996). In French, speakers may explicitly identify the problem and assign blame to the hearer, but in more intimate, everyday interactions, they often rely on implicit strategies, such as offering justifications and subtly requesting changes (Laforest, 2002). Similarly, in Arabic, especially within broadcasting discourse, it is common to state the problem explicitly before moving on to propose a solution (Migdadi et al., 2012). In Hebrew, researchers have identified explicit complaint strategies, including immediate threats, accusations, warnings, and expressions of annoyance or disapproval, as well as sub-reproach-level complaints that convey dissatisfaction implicitly (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993). Implicit complaints are often realized with the assistance of some devices, such as wh-questions (Koshik, 2003), the use of the pronoun we, the depersonalization of the problem, the use of the mitigator kind of in English (Deveci, 2015), repetition, comparison, postures in Polish (Kurtyka, 2019), and intonation in Korean (Yoon, 2021).
2.3. Functions of Complaints Across Languages
Both explicit and implicit complaints have been shown to serve a wide range of functions across different languages and contexts (Drew & Walker, 2009; Ruusuvuori & Lindfors, 2009; Drew et al., 2021; Vladimirou et al., 2021; Rodriguez, 2022). Generally, explicit complaints allow speakers to articulate specific grievances, vent frustration (Kowalski, 1996), seek explanations, or demand corrective action. For example, in French, explicit complaints are often used to remind others of social norms that have been violated and to prompt behavioral change (Laforest, 2002). In Hebrew, such complaints commonly express negative emotions, such as irritation or disagreement, and are used to request restitution or behavioral modification from the hearer (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993).
Implicit complaints, on the other hand, tend to fulfill more relational functions, such as social comparison or the cultivation of social bonds. In Danish, for instance, complaints are often delivered implicitly to invite affiliation or strengthen interpersonal ties (Heinemann, 2009). In Finnish, implicit complaints may help build trust in the treatment process and establish rapport between patients and providers (Ruusuvuori & Lindfors, 2009). In British English, it is typical for speakers to engage in preparatory work to secure the recipient’s alignment before launching a complaint (Curl & Drew, 2008). Likewise, in Korean, implicit complaints are frequently used to foster emotional intimacy and mutual understanding during conversations (Yoon, 2021). On Chinese digital platforms, complaints can serve the functions of initiating social connections and showcasing accomplishments implicitly (Y. Lin & Chen, 2022).
3. Methodology
To compare complaints in Korean and Chinese, I integrate interactional sociolinguistic methods (Gumperz, 1982) with statistical tests in R for both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Interactional sociolinguistic methods highlight the importance of context in shaping language use and interpreting meaning. Factors like settings, social roles, and prior experiences, along with verbal and nonverbal cues, guide how speakers construct and understand messages (Gumperz, 1982). This approach, often called microethnography, examines gestures, posture, and gaze alongside speech (Boxer, 2002). Scholars such as Tannen (1989) and Schiffrin (1996) have used it to explore how meaning is negotiated in social settings. Rather than treating language as neutral, interactional sociolinguistics reveals how it reflects and shapes social reality, offering valuable insights into communication across cultural contexts.
I apply interactional sociolinguistic methods to identify the verbal and nonverbal features that shape the construction of and response to complaints in addition to interpreting complaints and responses in Korean and Chinese. I also employ statistical tests, including Chi-square tests, Fisher’s exact tests, and one-sample Z-tests, to investigate whether there are significant differences in the complaint strategies utilized by the Korean and Chinese participants on the shows and whether the proportion of one complaint strategy significantly surpasses that of another. However, it is important to note that the findings of this study cannot be generalized to all Korean and Chinese speakers because the data does not represent these groups as a whole.
This study examines complaints in travel reality TV shows. While TV shows often differ from natural conversations in terms of authenticity—given that they may be scripted and reflect the language habits of writers rather than participants—several scholars (e.g., Culpeper, 2005; L. Brown & Winter, 2018) have analyzed (im)politeness in scripted media. They argue that its manifestation may not significantly diverge from everyday language use, as scriptwriters often employ the same pragmatic strategies found in real-life interactions (L. Brown, 2013). I chose to study the Korean travel reality show 꽃보다 누나 Sisters Over Flowers and its Chinese adaptation 花样姐姐 Sisters Over Flowers because they provide a unique lens into interpersonal relationships that shape both the travel experience and the expression of grievances.
Traveling with others often reveals participants’ true personalities and interpersonal dynamics, as it involves a range of unpredictable and stressful situations that challenge individuals beyond their daily routines. In such unfamiliar settings, maintaining a polished persona becomes more difficult, allowing more spontaneous and authentic behavior to emerge. The participants’ complaints, whether explicit or implicit, often reflect real-time adaptation difficulties, such as fatigue, cultural discomfort, age-related needs, or shifting power dynamics. These expressions offer valuable insights into how dissatisfaction is communicated, particularly in Korean or Chinese cultural contexts where politeness is strongly emphasized. Moreover, analyzing complaints in reality shows contributes to our understanding of how these programs construct authenticity. The participants’ visible discomfort often serves to enhance the perception of “realness,” making the programs more relatable and genuine.
I extracted the data of this study from the first eight episodes of the Korean travel reality show 꽃보다 누나 Sisters Over Flowers (Season 1) and the first eight episodes of its Chinese adaptation, 花样姐姐 Sisters Over Flowers (Season 1), on two websites (
For instance, both shows feature a group of celebrity women, referred to as ‘older sisters’, as they embarked on a trip together, assisted by a couple of younger male celebrities, referred to as ‘younger brothers’ sometimes, who managed their luggage and itinerary. The shows share a down-to-earth and authentic vibe, as the celebrities, unaccustomed to backpacking or low-budget travel, face challenges such as carrying their own luggage, navigating unfamiliar countries, and adapting to a simpler lifestyle without luxury comforts. The emphasis is on their interactions, personalities, and the emotional bonds that develop as they connect over shared experiences. I focus on eight women and two men in the shows who were the closest in age for the purpose of comparison. The women held relatively equal status, while the men were younger and less experienced in the profession. They openly voiced grievances and expressed annoyance or disapproval at certain actions, which this study categorizes as explicit complaints. Meanwhile, they employed subtle strategies, such as asking questions, offering advice, teasing, and giving hints, which are considered implicit complaints in this study.
One of the explicit complaint strategies, ‘expressions of annoyance or disapproval’, was originally introduced by Olshtain and Weinbach (1993), later used in Trosborg (1995), and is comparable to Murphy and Neu’s (1996) term ‘expression of dissatisfaction.’ This type of complaint involves the release of emotional distress or frustration through evaluative or judgmental remarks directed at the recipient. Another form of explicit complaint discovered in the data collected is the overt grievance, which addresses the source of dissatisfaction without employing evaluative language. Like explicit complaints, implicit complaints are also driven by underlying dissatisfaction. To mitigate the illocutionary force of such complaints, speakers employ an array of strategies. One commonly observed approach is the use of questions—referred to as ‘interrogation’ in Y.-S. Chen et al. (2011)—which allows the speaker to express dissatisfaction implicitly. Another mitigated form is the giving of advice, which, in this study, is clearly motivated by discontent and subtly communicates the hearer’s shortcomings while appearing constructive, as noted by Hutchby (1995). Likewise, teasing functions as a softened expression of dissatisfaction, aiming to downplay the severity of the complaint, rather than to build rapport, in much the same way it does with criticism (Zhu, 2025). Finally, hints, which were identified by Trosborg (1995) as a form of implicit complaint, enable speakers to voice discontent non-confrontationally. These strategies constitute the foundation of the coding scheme developed from the empirical data collected (see Table 1).
I hired two project assistants to transcribe the Korean and Chinese conversations word for word, adhering to the modified transcription conventions of Schiffrin (1987) (see Appendix A). Both assistants were fluent in Korean and Chinese and enrolled in graduate programs at two American universities, where English was their primary language of communication. They translated the transcripts from Korean and Chinese into English. Based on the transcripts, I initially developed the coding system inductively. First, I identified instances of complaints in the first episode of the Korean travel reality show and its Chinese adaptation. In parallel, I compiled a list of complaint strategies drawn from the existing literature. Each identified instance was then matched with the most appropriate strategy from the list. When no suitable match could be found, a new strategy label was created to code the instance.
Once I established a set of complaint strategies based on the first episodes of both versions, my project assistants applied this framework deductively to code complaints in all the episodes including the first ones. They independently coded the data and categorized the complaint strategies as either explicit or implicit, recognizing that these strategies exist on a continuum from explicit to implicit. Within each category, they coded each instance of complaint based on the status difference between interlocutors, such as the relatively equal status among the women and the unequal status between the women and the men, given the crucial role that status differences play in interactions in South Korea and mainland China. After completing the initial coding with about 83 percent agreement, the assistants reviewed discrepancies, reached a consensus, and established interrater reliability.
When quantifying the strategies, I ensured that each utterance contributed only one instance to the statistical analysis to avoid duplication. Specifically, when multiple complaint strategies appeared in a single utterance, only one was counted. If both implicit and explicit complaint strategies were present, I prioritized and counted the implicit one. In cases where multiple implicit or explicit strategies co-occurred within the same utterance, only the first strategy was recorded. When one complaint strategy was embedded within another, the matrix (dominant) strategy was counted.
4. Results
4.1. Realization of Complaints
In what follows, I analyze examples for qualitative analysis. Both the Korean and Chinese participants expressed complaints using various strategies, including expressions of annoyance or disapproval, overt grievances, questions, advice, teases, and hints. To provide a balanced view of complaints in both languages, I present three instances from Chinese and three from Korean. Note that within each language group, two main interaction patterns emerged: sister-to-sister (female participant to female participant) and sister-to-brother (female participant to male participant). The sister-to-sister pattern represents relatively equal-status interactions between the female participants, while the sister-to-brother pattern reflects unequal-status interactions, as the older female participants appeared to hold more power than the younger male participant in the profession.
4.1.1. Expressions of Annoyance or Disapproval
Five instances of expressions of annoyance or disapproval in the Korean conversations were identified, compared to fourteen instances in the Chinese conversations. Excerpt (1) is an example of the Chinese sister-to-brother interaction pattern. It is taken from a casual conversation between Lin Wang, an actress, and Zhiting Li, a younger singer/actor. Prior to this exchange, Lin Wang requested a restroom break when touring a park. Zhiting Li volunteered to accompany her to prevent her from getting lost in an unfamiliar area. Due to diarrhea, Lin Wang ran to the restroom twice. While waiting for her, Zhiting Li also used the restroom once. However, when they were ready to return to the rest of the team, they discovered that the park gate had been closed, which triggered Lin Wang’s complaint.
| (1) | Expressions of Annoyance or Disapproval in Chinese | |
| 1. | 王琳 (looks at the park gate): 关了, 啊呀↓ 关了, 上不去了. | |
| Lin Wang (looks at the park gate): It’s closed. Aya↓ It’s closed. We cannot go up there. | ||
| 2. | 李治廷 (glances from the gate to his watch): 等等, 看看几点, 看看几点. | |
| Zhiting Li (glances from the gate to his watch): Wait a second. Let’s see what time it is. Let’s see what time it is. | ||
| 3. | →王琳 (stares at Zhiting Li): 都怨你, 都怨你. 你忍一下不就完了吗? 你就像我一样, 嗯↑ | |
| Lin Wang (stares at Zhiting Li): It’s all your fault. It’s all your fault. Couldn’t you have held it in? Just like me, En↑ | ||
| 4. | 李治廷 (looks at Lin Wang): 你去了两趟↓ | |
| Zhiting Li (looks at Lin Wang): You went to the restroom twice↓ | ||
| 5. | 王琳 (lowers her voice): 但我忍不住啊. | |
| Lin Wang (lowers her voice): But I couldn’t hold it in. | ||
In Turn 1, Lin Wang expresses panic upon realizing that the park gate is closed. She repeats 关了 ‘It is closed’ and states the consequence 上不去了 ‘We cannot go up there’ at a high volume. The repetition and her volume index her desperation and distress. This is amplified by the exclamation 啊呀 ‘Aya’ with a falling tone, which typically uncovers an unexpectedly disheartening revelation in Chinese. While Zhiting Li remains calm and glances from the gate to his watch (Turn 2), Lin Wang shifts to outright blame and articulate her annoyance at Zhiting Li by saying 都怨你, 都怨你 ‘It’s all your fault. It’s all your fault’ (Turn 3). The word 怨, which literally means ‘to blame’, is repeated at a high volume, emphasizing the speaker’s emotional intensity. This emphatic accusation lacks softeners but is reinforced by Lin Wang’s stare. It might have been warranted by their status difference (Kowalski & Erickson, 1997). It is then followed by unsolicited advice, 你忍一下不就完了吗? ‘Couldn’t you have held it in?’, associating their predicament with Zhiting Li’s restroom break. The advice ends with the agreement-seeking particle 嗯 ‘En’, spoken with a rising intonation, signaling a request for acknowledgment. But the complaint and suggestion may have put Zhiting Li on the defensive, prompting him to counter with a falling tone that Lin Wang herself used the restroom twice, a fact no one can deny. Zhiting Li’s instinct to defend himself and refusal to take full responsibility by implying Lin Wang’s shared culpability for the tardiness in Turn 4, along with her explanation in Turn 5, signals a perceived closeness between them. This aligns with Jauhari et al.’s (2020) findings which indicate that social distance influences the comprehension and execution of potentially face-threatening acts. Short social distance can lead to the rejection of blame (Laforest, 2002).
4.1.2. Overt Grievances
In addition to expressions of annoyance or disapproval, fifteen instances of overt grievances in the Chinese conversations and eight instances in the Korean conversations were identified. Excerpt (2) illustrates how a Korean actress, Mi-yeon Lee, employed this tactic in a conversation with a younger singer/actor, Seung-gi Lee, who served as their tour guide. This sister-to-brother interaction took place after Seung-gi Lee had gone to search for transportation to take them to the hotel he had reserved.
| (2) | Overt Grievances in Korean | |
| 1. | 이승기 (shifts gaze between Yuh-jung Youn and Mi-yeon Lee): 죄송합니다. | |
| Seung-gi Lee (shifts gaze between Yuh-jung Youn and Mi-yeon Lee): I’m sorry. | ||
| 2. | 윤여정 (smiles): 그래도 다행히 잘 들어왔다. 살아 돌아와서 고맙다. 이제 결과를 말해봐 봐. 우리 지금 막 패닉 상태가 됐어. | |
| Yuh-jung Youn (smiles): Fortunately, you made it back safely. Thank you. Now, tell us the result. We were just about to panic. | ||
| 3. | 이승기 (appears surprised): 왜요↑ 왜요↑ | |
| Seung-gi Lee (appears surprised): Why↑ Why↑ | ||
| 4. | →이미연 (stares at Seung-gi Lee): 너무 오래 걸려서↓ | |
| Mi-yeon Lee (stares at Seung-gi Lee): You took too long↓ | ||
| 5. | 이승기 (turns to Mi-yeon Lee): 아니, 아니. 체크하러 갔는데요. 체크하러 갔는데 공항 리무진은 지금도 있거든요. | |
| Seung-gi Lee (turns to Mi-yeon Lee): No, no. I went to check. There are still airport limousines available. | ||
In Excerpt (2), Seung-gi Lee has just returned from searching for transportation. As the youngest in the group, he apologizes for taking so long (Turn 1). Yuh-jung Youn, an elder actress, expresses relief and gratitude with a smile, saying 그래도 다행히 잘 들어왔다. 살아 돌아와서 고맙다 ‘Fortunately, you made it back safely. Thank you.’ (Turn 2). The smile and the sentiment are warm, focusing on his safe return. Her next statement, 우리 지금 막 패닉 상태가 됐어 ‘We were just about to panic’ (Turn 2), conveys a somewhat negative feeling but is self-oriented, highlighting the group’s concern rather than blaming Seung-gi Lee. None of Yuh-jung Youn’s words display any dissatisfaction toward Seung-gi Lee who takes on a great deal of responsibility for their trip. In contrast, another elder actress, Mi-yeon Lee, openly voices dissatisfaction with 너무 오래 걸려서 ‘You took too long’ (Turn 4). She intensifies the grievance with a stare, 너무 ‘very’, and a falling intonation, making her frustration explicit. This overt grievance appears to stem from the perceived status difference (S. Lee, 2009) between Mi-yeon Lee and Seung-gi Lee. It unexpectedly provokes Seung-gi Lee to deny the implied disparagement, responding with 아니, 아니 ‘No, no’ (Turn 5). His attempt to justify the delay and provide good news—mentioning that airport limousines are still available—indicates a desire to compensate for the inconvenience. This reaction might reflect the increasing familiarity and evolving dynamics between them (Weng et al., 2023).
4.1.3. Questions
Fifteen tokens of implicit complaints in the form of questions in the Korean conversations and thirty-five in the Chinese ones were detected. Take Excerpt (3) for instance. It is taken from a conversation among the Chinese participants. On a long road trip to another tourist destination, the actress Fan Xu seemed to be experiencing severe shoulder and neck pain from sitting in the van for an extended period, prompting her to request a stop at a rest area. She started a sister-to-sister conversation with another actress Zhiling Lin as follows.
| (3) | Questions in Chinese | |
| 1. | →徐帆 (massages her neck): 我的天呐, 天呐, 天呐! 啊呦↓ 为什么跑得这么远呢? 我的神呐! 我的肩架不住我的脖子了. 回家吧, 我想床了. | |
| Fan Xu (massages her neck): My heaven, heaven, heaven! Ayo↓ Why do we have to go so far? My god! my shoulders can’t hold up my neck anymore. Let’s go home—I miss my bed. | ||
| 2. | 林志玲 (looks at Fan Xu with concern): 还是在这边躺一下. | |
| Zhiling Lin (looks at Fan Xu with concern): You could lie down here for a bit. | ||
| 3. | 徐帆 (stretches her arms): 啊哟↓ 我的娘, 我的娘! 没事, 我就伸一下, 我伸一下就好了. | |
| Fan Xu (stretches her arms): Ayo↓ My mother, my mother! It’s okay, I just need to stretch a little. I’ll be fine after stretching. | ||
At the rest area, Fan Xu complains by asking the rest of the group the following: 为什么跑得这么远呢? ‘Why do we have to go so far?’ (Turn 1). Although the word 这么 ‘so’ is emphasized and discloses her unhappiness, this question form mitigates her grievance, as it does not blame anyone outright. It confirms Tao’s (2021) finding that such questions are often employed to provide a negative evaluation in Chinese. Fan Xu also intensifies her complaint by preceding it with repeated exclamations at a high volume—我的天呐, 天呐, 天呐 ‘My heaven, heaven, heaven’—as well as the interjection啊呦 ‘Ayo’ with a falling intonation that reveals discomfort or pain, followed by another exclamation 我的神呐 ‘My god’ at a high volume. These exclamations amplify her frustration about the long journey. She then attempts to justify her grievance with an explanation, 我的肩架不住我的脖子了 ‘My shoulders can’t hold up my neck anymore’, emphasizing the expression 架不住 ‘cannot hold up’ at a high volume. This explanation is followed by a suggestion 回家吧 ‘Let’s go home’. Her neck massage betrays the discomfort, leading her to voice a string of complaints. While her grievances are emotionally charged, the combination of her body language, question forms, justifications, and suggestions balances the intensified expressions of irritation. As a result, her complaint does not appear to be face-threatening to the other group members, as evidenced by Zhiling Lin’s expression of concern in Turn 2. Fan Xu continues to express discomfort through exclamations—啊哟 ‘Ayo’ with a falling intonation and 我的娘, 我的娘 ‘Oh my mother, my mother’ at a high volume—before reassuring Zhiling Lin with words and a stretching gesture (Turn 3). Fan Xu’s comforting words help ease Zhiling Lin’s concerns. The relatively equal status between the participants might account for Fan Xu feeling comfortable to complain and then downplay her distress freely, just as equal-status interlocutors in Chinese are more likely to express disagreement openly (Zhu, 2014, 2019; Zhu & Boxer, 2021).
4.1.4. Advice
Correspondingly, the Korean participants can also voice complaints implicitly by asking questions or offering advice. Eleven instances of advising in the Korean conversations and twelve in the Chinese conversations were uncovered. Consider Excerpt (4), taken from a sister-to-brother conversation about what to bring for a road trip among the younger singer/actor, Seung-gi Lee, and two elder actresses, Ja-ok Kim and Yuh-jung Youn.
| (4) | Advice in Korean | |
| 1. | 이승기 (shifts gaze between Ja-ok Kim and Yuh-jung Youn): 드라이기를 대표로 그냥 한 명이 가져 올까요? | |
| Seung-gi Lee (shifts gaze between Ja-ok Kim and Yuh-jung Youn): Should just one person bring a hairdryer as a representative? | ||
| 2. | 김자옥 (appears surprised): 그럼 그 방에서 다 기다리니↑ | |
| Ja-ok Kim (appears surprised): And everyone waits for their turn to use the hairdryer↑ | ||
| 3. | →윤여정 (stares at Seung-gi Lee): 순서대로 번호표 주니↑ 너 머리할 때까지↑ 얘는 공부 잘하는 애가 쓰는 머리는. 이상한 머리를 써↓ | |
| Yuh-jung Youn (stares at Seung-gi Lee): Give out numbers in order↑ Until you do your hair↑ I thought you were smart. Don’t use your smartness that way↓ | ||
| 4. | 김자옥 (turns to Yuh-jung Youn): 여자에 대해서 잘 모르잖아↓ 여자를 하나도 몰라요 쟤가↓ | |
| Ja-ok Kim (turns to Yuh-jung Youn): He doesn’t know much about women↓ He knows nothing about us↓ | ||
In Excerpt (4), Seung-gi Lee poses a genuine question concerning whether they bring only one hairdryer for the road trip (Turn 1). Upon hearing this, Ja-ok Kim strategically points out a potential repercussion: 그럼 그 방에서 다 기다리니 ‘And everyone waits for their turn to use the hairdryer’ (Turn 2). The rising tone at the end of her utterance indicates a question and simultaneously conveys surprise and disagreement. Yuh-jung Youn also paints, in the question form, a hypothetical and humorous picture of their group members taking numbered turns to do their hair. Her stare and remarks with a rising tone in Turn 3 signal mitigated dissent. Moreover, she comments 얘는 공부 잘하는 애가 쓰는 머리는 ‘I thought you were smart’, challenging Seung-gi Lee’s reasoning (Turn 3). This message is reinforced by her unsolicited advice 이상한 머리를 써 ‘Don’t use your smartness that way’ with a falling intonation. Her use of an imperative, delivered with a falling intonation, conveys firmness and implicitly expresses dissatisfaction with his question. Although unsolicited advice tends to be deemed impolite (Bar-Or & Meyer, 2019), it can index a close relationship (Feng & Magen, 2016) between Seung-gi Lee, the “brother”, and Yuh-jung Youn, the “sister” who is willing to offer advice and help him improve. Yuh-jung Youn’s implicit complaint in the form of advice aligns with Ja-ok Kim’s explicit complaint in Turn 4, where she asserts 여자에 대해서 잘 모르잖아 ‘He doesn’t know much about women’. The subsequent statement 여자를 하나도 몰라요 쟤가 ‘He knows nothing about us’ escalates the severity of Ja-ok Kim’s overt grievance (Turn 4). Both complaints are marked by a stern tone, characterized by a drop in intonation. More interestingly, Ja-ok Kim expresses her grievance toward Seung-gi Lee using a third-person singular pronoun, as though he were absent. This may arise from her perceived higher authority over the younger man who is receptive to advice, as suggested by C.-Y. Lin (2020).
4.1.5. Teases
Five instances of teases in the Korean conversations and sixteen in the Chinese ones were pinpointed. Excerpt (5) is an example of an elder Chinese actress, Lin Wang, and the younger singer/actor, Zhiting Li, playfully teasing each other. During the road trip, the two participants developed a close relationship, with Lin Wang pretending to be a daughter and Zhiting Li acting as her mother for fun. Right before the following sister-to-brother conversation, the participants were asked to walk across a plaza as if they were characters in a famous movie.
| (5) | Teases in Chinese | |
| 1. | 王琳 (shouts at directors): 再来一条, 再来一条, 我还要再来一条. 我还要再来一条, 再来一条, 我还要再_ | |
| Lin Wang (shouts at directors): ONE MORE TAKE. ONE MORE TAKE. I WANT TO DO ANOTHER ONE. I WANT TO DO ANOTHER ONE. ONE MORE TAKE. I STILL WANT TO_ | ||
| 2. | →李治廷 (smiles at other group members): 像不像 (imitates an ape) 我女儿↑ 我变种了, 我女儿也要跟着我变, 烧坏脑子了. @@ | |
| Zhiting Li (smiles at other group members): Doesn’t she look like (imitates an ape) my daughter↑ I’ve mutated, and now my daughter is following me. Her brain is fried. @@ | ||
| 3. | →王琳 (speaks to other group members): 我们这个花样姐姐来的这些演员们都是脑子有一点点问题, 我们都审核过的, 脑子没问题, 不能来的. @@ | |
| Lin Wang (speaks to other group members): All of us actresses on Sisters Over Flowers got something wrong with our heads. We’ve been screened. If we’re not crazy, we can’t be here. @@ | ||
| 4. | 其他团员: @@@@ | |
| Other group members: @@@@ | ||
After taking a walk, Lin Wang lightens the atmosphere by playfully calling for another take, loudly addressing directors (Turn 1). This playful interjection suggests a level of comfort and rapport with directors. As a reaction, Zhiting Li imitates an ape, teasing both himself and Lin Wang in the process (Turn 2). He jokes that since his genes have mutated into an ape, his “daughter”—Lin Wang—is following his steps, and her brain is now fried from requesting another take. When he says 女儿 ‘daughter’ with a rising tone and a smile, it frames the interaction as teasing. Imitating an ape and pretending to be a woman whose daughter is Lin Wang already added humor, but he enhances the tease further with the words 变种 ‘mutated’ and 烧坏脑子了 ‘brain fried’. Such teasing may reveal his frustration with Lin Wang’s repeated refusal to cooperate or her irrational demands—sentiments he cannot express explicitly. The tease also reflects their close relationship (De Koning & Weiss, 2002) even though they would be considered face-threatening and offensive in other contexts (Kowalski, 2009). Building on Zhiting Li’s tease, Lin Wang expands it to include the whole group, humorously suggesting that all the cast members of Sisters Over Flowers are crazy (Turn 3). To reinforce her point, she jokes that only eccentric people pass the selection process—我们都审核过的, 脑子没问题, 不能来的 ‘We’ve been screened. If we’re not crazy, we can’t be here’ (Turn 3). Lin Wang’s teasing implies that level-headed people would not take part in the reality show and reflects her dissatisfaction with the challenges of traveling with limited budgets in foreign countries. The tease uses the inclusive pronoun 我们 ‘us’, which can alleviate its negative impact, and elicits much laughter, indicating that none of the other Chinese participants display any sign of discomfort with being called crazy. It also reveals their professional identity (Bi & Marsden, 2020) as actors and actresses who are unbothered by such remarks on the show. Instead, these playful exchanges lighten the atmosphere, especially after the group has endured challenging situations. It is also reasonable to say that the teasing is softened by laughter and may have been facilitated by the newly developed friendship among the Chinese participants.
4.1.6. Hints
Last but not least, both the Korean and Chinese participants delivered complaints through hints, though infrequently. Only two instances of hinting in both the Korean and Chinese conversations were identified. Take Excerpt (6) as an example of giving hints in Korean. This sister-to-brother dialog occurred after the young singer/actor, Seung-gi Lee, had brought the elder actresses to a hotel he had reserved within the limited budget set by the reality show’s directors. The hotel was small and inexpensive, with only one bathroom.
| (6) | Hints in Korean | |
| 1. | 이승기 (looks at Mi-yeon Lee): 괜찮아요? | |
| Seung-gi Lee (looks at Mi-yeon Lee): Is it okay? | ||
| 2. | →이미연 (looks around the suite): 응_ 화장실이 하나라는 게 좀 그런거지 (pause) 너무 좋아. | |
| Mi-yeon Lee (looks around the suite): Yeah_ Just the fact that there’s only one bathroom is a bit (pause) But it’s really nice. | ||
| 3. | 이승기 (nods): 네. | |
| Seung-gi Lee (nods): Yes. | ||
As the team inspects the small suite, Seung-gi Lee asks the elder actress, Mi-yeon Lee, if the suite is acceptable—괜찮아요? ‘Is it okay?’—out of concern that the “sisters” might struggle with the cramped space (Turn 1). Mi-yeon Lee responds pragmatically, initially agreeing with 응 ‘yeah’, followed by a brief pause, indicating hesitation in voicing a complaint (Turn 2). However, she then subtly expresses dissatisfaction by saying 화장실이 하나라는 게 좀 그런거지 ‘Just the fact that there’s only one bathroom is a bit (pause)’. The word 좀 ‘a bit’ clearly serves to mitigate the negative evaluation that is supposed to follow. However, what follows is a deliberately unfinished statement, accompanied by a long pause. This hint allows Seung-gi Lee to infer the implied complaint from the context. Mi-yeon Lee’s strategic use of the incomplete statement endorses Skogmyr Marian’s (2021) finding that interlocutors can employ verbally incomplete utterances to express negative assessment and voice complaints implicitly. The hint as an oblique approach makes the complaint sound more amicable and less confrontational. Furthermore, Mi-yeon Lee softens the impact of her dissatisfaction by concluding with a positive remark, 너무 좋아 ‘But it’s really nice’. The word 너무 ‘really’ is stressed to highlight her appreciation while also subtly masking the underlying complaint. This example suggests that an intentionally incomplete utterance as a hint can be an effective way to imply a complaint, enabling the speaker to avoid explicit negativity while still making the issue clear to the hearer. Such communication seems to align with the implicit nature of the Korean culture (Lim et al., 2002) and is apparently well received by Seung-gi Lee who nods to express agreement in Turn 3.
4.2. Distribution of Complaints
In this section, I compare the frequencies and proportions of different types of complaints between the Korean and Chinese participants and examine whether there are significant correlations between complaints and language use. The results show that the Korean participants voiced fewer complaints than the Chinese participants. Across both languages, explicit complaints occurred much less frequently than implicit complaints. The types of explicit and implicit complaints in Korean and Chinese differed in frequency and proportion.
Table 2 and Table 3 present the frequencies and proportions of specific complaint types expressed by participants in each language group. According to these tables, the Korean participants made 46 complaints, while the Chinese participants made 94 in total. Strategies such as overt grievances, advice, and hints appeared more frequently in Korean. In contrast, expressions of annoyance or disapproval, questions, and teasing were more common in Chinese. Statistical analysis further reveals that the Chinese participants were significantly more likely to voice complaints by asking questions than by giving advice (χ2 = 56.659, df = 1, p < 0.05) or using other strategies. They also utilized significantly more teases than hints when expressing complaints (χ2 = 102.53, df = 1, p < 0.05).
The results of Chi-square tests show a significantly lower number of complaints in Korean compared to Chinese (χ2 = 73.036, df = 1, p < 0.05). See Table 4. The participants made significantly fewer explicit complaints in Korean than in Chinese (χ2 = 26.77, df = 1, p < 0.05) and fewer implicit complaints in Korean than in Chinese (χ2 = 45.346, df = 1, p < 0.05). Both the Korean and Chinese participants used approximately 40% more implicit complaints than explicit ones. The one-sample Z-test results indicate a significantly higher frequency of implicit complaints than explicit ones in both Chinese (χ2 = 62.85, df = 1, p < 0.05) and Korean (χ2 = 40.775, df = 1, p < 0.05).
For the frequencies and proportions of the complaints expressed by the Korean and Chinese participants in the sister-to-sister and sister-to-brother interactions, see Table 5 and Table 6. The statistical results show a significantly higher number of explicit complaints in the Korean sister-to-sister interactions compared to the sister-to-brother interactions (χ2 = 7.3121, df = 1, p < 0.05). Likewise, the total number of complaints, whether explicit or implicit, was significantly higher in the Chinese sister-to-sister interactions than in the sister-to-brother interactions (χ2 = 11.03, df = 1, p < 0.05; χ2 = 10.016, df = 1, p < 0.05). But there were not significantly more implicit complaints in the Korean sister-to-sister interactions than in the sister-to-brother interactions, based on Fisher’s exact tests.
5. Discussion
The findings of this study are consistent with Bardovi-Harlig and Griffin (2005). The two scholars argue that while individuals from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds may use similar strategies when making complaints, the appropriateness of these expressions varies depending on cultural norms and situational contexts. Previous studies (e.g., Al-Khawaldeh, 2016; Wei, 2024) have also provided substantial evidence that sociocultural factors strongly influence how complaints are expressed. Differences in cultural expectations often lead to variations in the linguistic forms and content used in complaint strategies (Y.-S. Chen et al., 2011). A better understanding of how Korean and Chinese speakers communicate complaints can enhance intercultural competence and reduce misunderstandings arising from cross-cultural pragmatic differences.
This pragmatic study reveals that both the Korean and Chinese participants on the reality shows tended to use implicit complaints more frequently than explicit ones. This might be due to the fact that addressing complaints in person highlights undesirable or socially unacceptable behaviors (Rasekh, 2004). Explicit complaints, including overt grievances and expressions of annoyance or disapproval, can pose a threat to the hearer’s positive face by implying a failure to meet expectations, potentially harming their sense of respect; when complaints involve demands for compensation or corrective action, they may threaten the hearer’s negative face (P. Brown & Levinson, 1987). In face-to-face communication, complaints require careful phrasing and subtlety, as they can make the speaker vulnerable (Heinemann & Traverso, 2009). Therefore, a lower number of explicit complaints were discovered in both the Korean and Chinese conversations.
The prevalence of implicit complaints in both the Korean and Chinese conversations can also be attributed to shared Neo-Confucian values, which place a strong emphasis on social harmony and respect for hierarchical relationships (Sleziak, 2014). In both cultures, speakers often adopt circumlocutory strategies particularly when addressing superiors (e.g., Honda & Kim, 2009; S. Lee, 2009; Y.-S. Chen et al., 2011). Chinese speakers, for instance, favor implicit complaints as a means of preserving the hearer’s face, thereby reinforcing group unity (Du, 1995; Wang & Li, 2015). Disagreements or criticisms are frequently softened through hedging or supportive moves designed to minimize offense (e.g., Zhu, 2019, 2025). Similarly, Korean speakers are known to rely on the use of honorifics (L. Brown, 2013, 2015, 2022) or vague expressions to maintain social cohesion (Zhu, 2025).
Another similarity between the Korean and Chinese participants is the higher frequency of complaints in the interactions among the elder actresses compared to their conversations with the younger singer/actor. The women appeared more at ease expressing grievances to one another, likely due to their relatively equal status. Equal status can lead to more explicit communication such as strong disagreement or interruptions (Zhu, 2019). Nevertheless, it is surprising that fewer complaints were voiced by the women to the younger man, particularly in a hierarchically structured society like South Korea or mainland China. Two factors may explain this: (1) when speaking with the younger man, the women prioritized maintaining solidarity because the man was responsible for handling their luggage and itinerary; (2) voicing complaints to the younger man would undermine their image as kind and supportive elder sisters, as well as damage the rapport they had just built. This observation suggests that the participants placed a high value on relational constraints (e.g., Miyahara et al., 1998).
Beyond similarities, the Korean and Chinese participants were found to exhibit distinct complaining behaviors. Specifically, the Korean participants produced considerably fewer complaints than the Chinese participants. This aligns with research revealing pragmatic differences among Japanese, Korean, and Chinese speakers, despite their shared values and cultural background. For instance, Honda and Kim (2009) examine how Koreans and Japanese differed in their approaches to complaints, while S. Lee (2009) demonstrates that Korean speakers more frequently requested further action than Japanese speakers. Zhu and Chen (2024) further disclose that in first-time interactions on two reality dating shows, Chinese speakers introduced a broader range of topics than their Korean counterparts.
One key reason why the Korean participants in this study expressed fewer complaints may be related to their sense of professionalism. The Korean professionals appeared to make a deliberate effort to avoid complaining in public settings, reflecting a broader cultural expectation to prioritize respect and uphold group solidarity (C. Lee, 2012). Publicly expressing negative comments is considered potentially harmful to interpersonal relationships (Southerton, 2008). A central cultural value guiding this behavior is inhwa, the ideal of harmony in human relations. Korean professionals are expected to serve as role models by demonstrating socially appropriate conduct, particularly by showing sensitivity to others’ kibun or emotional well-being (C. Lee, 2012). They tend to avoid delivering bad news or expressing dissatisfaction, instead favoring positive or neutral responses. Consequently, complaints are often suppressed, as they may cause embarrassment or disrupt the emotional equilibrium of others (Alston, 1989).
Another important difference is that the Korean participants exhibited a significantly lower frequency of explicit complaints, compared to the Chinese participants. This supports Wei (2024) who emphasizes the significantly higher frequency of explicit complaints in Chinese online restaurant reviews compared to American reviews. By contrast, Byon (2006) reveals that Korean speakers often deployed honorific elements and downgrading devices to make requests implicitly and to achieve discernment politeness. They avoided explicit requests when the requests did not serve the hearer’s best interests (Cho, 1982), when the hearer held greater authority, or when interlocutors were not close (Byon, 2006). When imposing behavior was involved, implicit communication was favored. X. Chen and Wang (2021) explain that in certain contexts, Korean speakers might deem explicitness as inconsiderate, whereas Chinese speakers would view it as candid.
The final noteworthy differences are that the Korean participants asked considerably fewer questions and deployed fewer teases than the Chinese participants. The Chinese participants often framed complaints as questions because this form can soften the impact of complaints and make them more acceptable. Rhetorical questions can function as strategic performatives in complaints (Koshik, 2003), allowing speakers to express dissatisfaction while minimizing face-threatening consequences (Wang & Li, 2015). Like questions, teasing can serve a range of purposes, such as expressing complaints (Haugh, 2014), causing offense (Chang et al., 2021), disclaiming offense (Chang & Haugh, 2021), entertaining (Qiu et al., 2021), or enhancing interpersonal relationships (Haugh, 2010). Complaints with the use of teasing can either soften or intensify the politeness level depending on the context (Roberts & Kreuz, 1994; Leech, 2014). The functions of teasing, unfortunately, have not been explored in the context of Korean communication. The most relevant study on teasing in Korean interactions is L. Brown’s (2013), which reveals that Korean acquaintances overused honorific elements to convey sarcasm. This implies that teasing is not typically normative in Korean conversations.
6. Conclusions
This study examines the similarities and differences in complaint strategies in the Korean and Chinese versions of the same reality TV show, Sisters Over Flowers. Through qualitative analysis, this study offers detailed insights into how complaints were expressed, often with the support of both verbal and nonverbal cues. The quantitative findings indicate that implicit complaints were more prevalent than explicit ones in the conversational data. Moreover, the Chinese participants were found to express significantly more grievances than their Korean counterparts.
The participants’ complaint behaviors appeared to be shaped by several factors, including shared Neo-Confucian values, such as the emphasis on harmony, rapport, and face management, as well as cultural norms surrounding professionalism and social appropriateness.
These findings yield both theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, they can challenge overly generalized East–West pragmatic dichotomies (Leech, 2007) by highlighting nuanced variation within East Asian communicative practices. Practically, a deeper understanding of explicit and implicit complaint strategies in Korean and Chinese can inform intercultural communication, foster culturally sensitive interactions, and help bridge misunderstandings in increasingly globalized contexts.
However, this study has certain limitations. A contrastive analysis of complaints and responses in natural, mundane conversations in Korean and Chinese would offer valuable insights. Moreover, investigating the impact of sociolinguistic factors on complaints and responses in these languages through quantitative analysis could further enhance our understanding. Future research could also explore other pragmatic behaviors in Korean and Chinese or between other East Asian languages.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The original data presented in the study are openly available on two websites—
I would like to extend my special thanks to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation for funding this research. I am very grateful to my project assistants who provided help with data transcription and coding. My sincere gratitude also goes to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. Any remaining errors are solely my responsibility.
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
The coding scheme for complaints.
| Type of Explicit Complaints | Example of Explicit Complaints | |
| Korean | Chinese | |
| 1. Expression of annoyance or disapproval | 이미연: 너 때문에 죽을 거 같아. ‘Mi-yeon Lee: You’re making me crazy.’ | 王琳: 你们好过分, 我就知道是故意的. ‘Lin Wang: You guys are being too much. I knew it was on purpose.’ |
| 2. Overt grievance | 김자옥: 화장실이 하나라 머리도 못 감겠네. ‘Ja-ok Kim: With only one bathroom, I can’t even wash my hair.’ | 王琳: 我肚子_ 我肚子痛, 我要拉肚子. 啊, 拉肚子, 我拉肚子你还笑我. ‘Lin Wang: My stomach_ my stomach hurts. I need to use the bathroom. Ah, I have diarrhea, and you’re still laughing at me.’ |
| Type of Implicit Complaints | Example of Implicit Complaints | |
| Korean | Chinese | |
| 3. Question | 이미연: 너 왜 이렇게 오래 걸려? ‘Mi-yeon Lee: Why did it take you so long?’ | 李治廷: 怎么这么燥呢? ‘Zhiting Li: Why are you so agitated?’ |
| 4. Advice | 윤여정: 예쁘게 얘기해 여배우럼. ‘Yuh-jung Youn: Speak nicely, like an actress.’ | 徐帆: 你太过于关闭自己了, 但是每一个人都需要有一个表达方式, 你试着打开一下, 试着所有的东西都要尝试着. ‘Fan Xu: You’ve closed yourself off too much, but everyone needs a way to express themselves. Try to open up a little. Try to give everything a chance.’ |
| 5. Tease | 윤여정: 노숙자 같아@. ‘Yuh-jung Youn: You look like a homeless person @.’ | 奚美娟: 你这就是任性, 任性啊@. ‘Meijuan Xi: You’re just being spoiled, spoiled @.’ |
| 6. Hint | 이미연 (looks around the suite): 응_ 화장실이 하나라는 게 좀 그런거지 (pause) 너무 좋아. ‘Mi-yeon Lee (looks around the suite): Yeah_ Just the fact | 李治廷: 就一晚同房就已经没有新鲜感， 现在的女生真的是 (pause) ‘Zhiting Li: After just one night in the same room, there’s already no sense of novelty. Girls these days really are (pause)’ |
Distribution of complaints in Korean.
| Type of Complaints | Frequency | Proportion | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explicit complaint | Expression of annoyance or disapproval | 5 | 10.87% | |
| Equal status | Sister to sister | 3 | ||
| Unequal status | Sister to brother | 2 | ||
| Overt grievance | 8 | 17.39% | ||
| Equal status | Sister to sister | 6 | ||
| Unequal status | Sister to brother | 2 | ||
| Implicit complaint | Question | 15 | 32.61% | |
| Equal status | Sister to sister | 12 | ||
| Unequal status | Sister to brother | 3 | ||
| Advice | 11 | 23.91% | ||
| Equal status | Sister to sister | 2 | ||
| Unequal status | Sister to brother | 9 | ||
| Tease | 5 | 10.87% | ||
| Equal status | Sister to sister | 3 | ||
| Unequal status | Sister to brother | 2 | ||
| Hint | 2 | 4.35% | ||
| Equal status | Sister to sister | 1 | ||
| Unequal status | Sister to brother | 1 | ||
| Total | 46 | 100% | ||
Distribution of complaints in Chinese.
| Type of Complaints | Frequency | Proportion | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explicit complaint | Expression of annoyance or disapproval | 14 | 14.89% | |
| Equal status | Sister to sister | 8 | ||
| Unequal status | Sister to brother | 6 | ||
| Overt grievance | 15 | 15.96% | ||
| Equal status | Sister to sister | 11 | ||
| Unequal status | Sister to brother | 4 | ||
| Implicit complaint | Question | 35 | 37.23% | |
| Equal status | Sister to sister | 25 | ||
| Unequal status | Sister to brother | 10 | ||
| Advice | 12 | 12.77% | ||
| Equal status | Sister to sister | 2 | ||
| Unequal status | Sister to brother | 10 | ||
| Tease | 16 | 17.02% | ||
| Equal status | Sister to sister | 11 | ||
| Unequal status | Sister to brother | 5 | ||
| Hint | 2 | 2.13% | ||
| Equal status | Sister to sister | 1 | ||
| Unequal status | Sister to brother | 1 | ||
| Total | 94 | 100% | ||
Association between complaint and language.
| Category | Explicit Complaint | Implicit Complaint | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Korean | 13 (28.26%) | 33 (71.74%) | <0.05 |
| Chinese | 29 (30.85%) | 65 (69.15%) | <0.05 |
Complaints by the Korean participants.
| Category | Sister to Sister | Sister to Brother | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Explicit complaint | 9 (69.23%) | 4 (30.77%) | <0.05 |
| Implicit complaint | 18 (54.55%) | 15 (45.45%) | >0.05 |
| Total (Proportion) | 27 (58.7%) | 19 (41.3%) | <0.05 |
Complaints by the Chinese participants.
| Category | Sister to Sister | Sister to Brother | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Explicit complaint | 19 (65.52%) | 10 (34.48%) | <0.05 |
| Implicit complaint | 39 (60%) | 26 (40%) | <0.05 |
| Total (Proportion) | 58 (61.7%) | 36 (38.3%) | <0.05 |
Appendix A
Transcription conventions (adapted from
| : | Speaker turn start |
| [ ] | Overlapping utterances |
| = | Contiguous utterances after an interruption |
| … | Omission |
| _ | A short untimed pause |
| (pause) | Long untimed intervals |
| @ | Laughter |
| italics | Higher volume or emphasis |
| (coughs) | Characteristics of the talk |
| (indistinct) | Items in doubt |
| CAPITALS | Shouted words |
| ↑ | Rising tone |
| ↓ | Falling tone |
| → | An utterance of particular interest |
Al-Khawaldeh, N. A pragmatic cross-cultural study of complaints expressions in Jordan and England. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature; 2016; 5,
Al-Momani, K. R. Strategies of persuasion in letters of complaint in academic contexts: The case of Jordanian university students’ complaints. Discourse Studies; 2014; 16,
Alston, J. P. Wa, guanxi, and inhwa: Managerial principles in Japan, China, and Korea. Business Horizons; 1989; 32,
Bardovi-Harlig, K.; Griffin, R. L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System; 2005; 33,
Bar-Or, S.; Meyer, J. What is good help? Responses to solicited and unsolicited assistance. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction; 2019; 35,
Bednarek, M. Language and television series: A linguistic approach to TV dialogue; Cambridge University Press: 2018.
Bi, X.; Marsden, E. Managing interpersonal relationships: Teasing as a method of professional identity construction. Journal of Pragmatics; 2020; 165,
Boxer, D. Complaining and commiserating: Exploring gender issues. Text; 1993a; 13,
Boxer, D. Complaints as positive strategies: What the learner needs to know. TESOL Quarterly; 1993b; 27,
Boxer, D. Speech behavior and social distance: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics; 1993c; 18, pp. 103-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90084-3]
Boxer, D. Discourse issues in cross-cultural pragmatics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics; 2002; 22, pp. 150-167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000089]
Brown, L. “Mind your own esteemed business”: Sarcastic honorifics use and impoliteness in Korean TV dramas. Journal of Politeness Research; 2013; 9,
Brown, L. Honorifics and politeness. The handbook of Korean linguistics; Brown, L.; Yeon, J. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: 2015; pp. 303-319.
Brown, L. Politeness as normative, evaluative and discriminatory: The case of verbal hygiene discourses on correct honorifics use in South Korea. Journal of Politeness Research; 2022; 18,
Brown, L.; Winter, B. Multimodal indexicality in Korean: “Doing deference” and “performing intimacy” through nonverbal behavior. Journal of Politeness Research; 2018; 15,
Brown, P.; Levinson, S. Politeness: Some universals in language usage; Cambridge University Press: 1987.
Byon, A. S. The role of linguistic indirectness and honorifics in achieving linguistic politeness in Korean requests. Journal of Politeness Research; 2006; 2, pp. 247-276. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/PR.2006.013]
Chang, W.-L. M.; Haugh, M. Teasing and claims to non-serious intent in Chinese talk shows. East Asian Pragmatics; 2021; 6,
Chang, W.-L. M.; Haugh, M.; Su, H.-Y. Taking it too far: The role of ideological discourses in contesting the limits of teasing and offence. Pragmatics; 2021; 31,
Chen, X.; Wang, J. First order and second order indirectness in Korean and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics; 2021; 178, pp. 315-328. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.022]
Chen, Y.-S.; Chen, C.-Y. D.; Chang, M.-H. American and Chinese complaints: Strategy use from a cross-cultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics; 2011; 8,
Cho, C.-H. A study of Korean pragmatics: Deixis and politeness; Hanshin: 1982.
Choi, J.; Nishijima, Y.; Yoon, S.; Zhao, D. Mammadova, T. Cultural differences in disagreement: A contrastive analysis of Japanese, Chinese, and Korean. Cultural diversity in cross-cultural settings: A global approach; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 2021; pp. 89-116.
Chu, D. An (un)romantic journey: Authentic performance in a Chinese dating show. Global Media and China; 2020; 5,
Clyne, M. Pütz, M. Cultural variation in the interrelation of speech acts and turn-taking. Language contact and language conflict; John Benjamins: 1994; pp. 205-221.
Culpeper, J. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The weakest link. Journal of Politeness Research; 2005; 1,
Cupach, W. R. Spitzberg, B. H.; Cupach, W. R. “You’re bugging me!”: Complaints and criticism from a partner. 2nd ed. The dark side of interpersonal communication; Lawrence Erlbaum: 2007; pp. 143-168.
Cupach, W. R.; Carson, C. L. Characteristics and consequences of interpersonal complaints associated with perceived face threat. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships; 2002; 19,
Curl, T.; Drew, P. Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction; 2008; 41,
D’Amico-Reisner, L. Wolfson, N.; Judd, E. An analysis of the surface structure of disapproval exchanges. Sociolinguistics and language acquisition; Newbury House: 1983; pp. 103-115.
De Koning, E.; Weiss, R. L. The relational humor inventory: Functions of humor in close relationships. American Journal of Family Therapy; 2002; 30,
Deveci, T. The complaint speech act set produced by university students speaking English as a Foreign Language. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal; 2015; 4,
Drew, P. Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction; 1998; 31,
Drew, P.; Hakulinen, A.; Heinemann, T.; Niemi, J.; Rossi, G. Hendiadys in naturally occurring interactions: A cross-linguistic study of double verb constructions. Journal of Pragmatics; 2021; 182, pp. 322-347. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.02.008]
Drew, P.; Walker, T. Going too far: Complaining, escalating and disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics; 2009; 41, pp. 2400-2414. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.046]
Du, J. Kasper, C. Performance of face-threatening acts in Chinese: Complaining, giving bad news and disagreeing. Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language; University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center: 1995; pp. 165-206.
DuFon, M. A. Review of the book Complaining and Communicating. Journal of Pragmatics; 1995; 23, pp. 693-707. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)90021-7]
Edmonson, W. Coulmas, F. On saying you’re sorry. Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech; Mouton: 1981; pp. 273-286.
Eggins, S.; Slade, D. Analysing casual conversation; Equinox Publishing Ltd.: 2004.
Ekström, M.; Lundström, F. The termination of complaints in calls to an authority for student support. Journal of Pragmatics; 2014; 74, pp. 132-149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.09.006]
Feng, B.; Magen, E. Relationship closeness predicts unsolicited advice giving in supportive interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships; 2016; 33,
Gibson, A.; Bell, A. Performing Pasifika English in New Zealand: The case of bro’town. English World-Wide; 2010; 31,
Gumperz, J. Discourse strategies; Cambridge University Press: 1982.
Haugh, M. Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics; 2010; 42, pp. 2106-2119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018]
Haugh, M. Jocular mockery as interactional practice in everyday Anglo-Australian conversation. Australian Journal of Linguistics; 2014; 34,
Heinemann, T. Participation and exclusion in third party complaints. Journal of Pragmatics; 2009; 41,
Heinemann, T.; Traverso, V. Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics; 2009; 12, pp. 2381-2384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.006]
Henry, A.; Ho, D. G. E. The act of complaining in Brunei—Then and now. Journal of Pragmatics; 2010; 42, pp. 840-855. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.011]
Honda, T.; Kim, I. Hankuke ilpone pulphyeng hwahaynguy pikyo munhwa hwayongloncek yenku [A cross-cultural study on the speech act of complaint in Korean and Japanese]. Kukceyemun [Kuk-je Language and Literature]; 2009; 45, pp. 5-44.
House, J.; Kasper, G. Coulmas, F. Politeness markers in English and German. Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech; Mouton: 1981; pp. 157-186.
House, J.; Kádár, D. Cross-cultural pragmatics; Cambridge University Press: 2021.
Huang, X.; Ran, Y. 知识论视角下网络购物抱怨管理的语用研究 [A pragmatic study of complaint management in e-shopping service encounters from the perspective of epistemics]. 外语与外语教学 [Foreign Languages and Their Teaching]; 2023; 331,
Hutchby, I. Aspects of recipient design in expert advice-giving on call-in radio. Discourse Processes; 1995; 19, pp. 219-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544915]
Jauhari, E.; Djatmika, D.; Santosa, R. Criticism in the Javanese Arek cultural community: Its expression context and strategy use. Pragmatics and Society; 2020; 11,
Jefferson, G. Atkinson, J. M.; Heritage, J. On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis; Cambridge University Press: 1984; pp. 191-222.
Katriel, T. Carbaugh, D. Griping as a verbal ritual in some Israeli discourse. Cultural communication and intercultural contact; Routledge: 2013; pp. 99-113.
Kádár, D.; Pan, Y. Kádár, D.; Mills, S. Politeness in China. Politeness in East Asia; Cambridge University Press: 2011; pp. 125-146.
Kim, A. H.-O. Kádár, D.; Mills, S. Politeness in Korea. Politeness in East Asia; Cambridge University Press: 2011; pp. 176-207.
Koshik, I. Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies; 2003; 5,
Kowalski, R. M. Complaints and complaining: Functions, antecedents, and consequences. Psychological Bulletin; 1996; 119,
Kowalski, R. M. Whining, griping, and complaining: Positivity in the negativity. Journal of Clinical Psychology; 2002; 58,
Kowalski, R. M. Spitzberg, B. H.; Cupach, W. R. Teasing and bullying. The dark side of interpersonal communication; Routledge: 2009; pp. 179-208.
Kowalski, R. M.; Erickson, J. Kowalski, R. M. Complaining: What’s all the fuss about?. Aversive interpersonal behaviors; Plenum Press: 1997; pp. 92-112.
Kozlova, I. Can you complain? Cross-cultural comparison of indirect complaints in Russian and American English. Prospect; 2004; 19,
Kurtyka, A. I complain, therefore I am: On indirect complaints in Polish. Journal of Pragmatics; 2019; 153, pp. 34-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.009]
Laforest, M. Scenes of family life: Complaining in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics; 2002; 34, pp. 1595-1620. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00077-2]
Laforest, M. Complaining in front of a witness: Aspects of blaming others for their behavior in multi-party family interactions. Journal of Pragmatics; 2009; 41, pp. 2452-2464. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.043]
Lee, C. Korean culture and its influence on business practice in South Korea. Journal of International Management Studies; 2012; 7,
Lee, S. Hankuke hwacawa ilpone hwacauy sepisu cangmyeneyseuy pulphyeng hwahayng [Complaints by Korean and Japanese native speakers in service situations]. Ilponekyoyuk [Journal of Japanese Language Education Association]; 2009; 51, pp. 15-26.
Leech, G. Politeness: Is there an East-West divide?. Journal of Politeness Research; 2007; 3, pp. 167-206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.009]
Leech, G. Principles of pragmatics; Routledge: 2014.
Lei, R.; Ran, Y. 道德规范视角下抱怨回应的社会语用研究 [A Sociopragmatic study of complaint responses from the perspective of moral norms]. 外语教学 [Foreign Language Education]; 2023; 44,
Lim, W.; Plucker, J.; Im, K. We are more alike than we think we are: Implicit theories of intelligence with a Korean sample. Intelligence; 2002; 30,
Lin, C.-Y. Exploring judges’ compliments and criticisms on American, British, and Taiwanese talent shows. Journal of Pragmatics; 2020; 160, pp. 44-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.008]
Lin, Y.; Chen, X. Also on humblebragging: Why many Chinese posters brag by complaining. Journal of Pragmatics; 2022; 201, pp. 149-159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.10.002]
Mandala, S. Solidarity and the Scoobies: An analysis of the -y suffix in the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Language and Literature; 2007; 16,
Mao, R. L. Beyond politeness theory: “Face” revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics; 1994; 21, pp. 451-486. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6]
Migdadi, F.; Badarneh, M. A.; Momani, K. Public complaints and complaint responses in calls to a Jordanian radio phone-in program. Applied Linguistics; 2012; 33,
Miyahara, A.; Kim, M.-S.; Shin, H.-C.; Yoon, K. Conflict resolution styles among collectivist cultures: A comparison between Japanese and Koreans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations; 1998; 22,
Murphy, B.; Neu, J. Gass, S. M.; Neu, J. My grade’s too low: The speech act set of complaining. Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communicate in a second language; Mouton de Gruyter: 1996; pp. 191-216.
Olshtain, E.; Weinbach, L. Verschueren, J.; Papi, M. B. Complaints: A study of speech act behavior among native and non-native speakers of Hebrew. The pragmatic perspective; John Benjamins: 1987; pp. 195-208.
Olshtain, E.; Weinbach, L. Kasper, G.; Blum-Kulka, S. Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. Interlanguage pragmatics; Oxford University Press: 1993; pp. 108-137.
Padilla-Cruz, M. On the pragmatic and conversational features of venting: A reply to Thorson and Baker. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective; 2019; 8,
Park, M. Y.; Dillon, W. T.; Mitchell, K. L. Korean business letters: Strategies for effective complaints in cross-cultural communication. The Journal of Business Communication; 1998; 35,
Peñarroja, M. R. Analysing the pragmatics of speech acts in sitcom and drama audiovisual genres; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 2020.
Qiu, J.; Chen, X.; Haugh, M. Jocular flattery in Chinese multi-party instant messaging interactions. Journal of Pragmatics; 2021; 178, pp. 225-241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.020]
Rasekh, Z. E. Face-keeping strategies in reaction to complaints: English and Persian. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication; 2004; 14,
Rääbis, A.; Hennoste, T.; Rumm, A.; Laanesoo, K. They are so stupid, so stupid: Emotional affect in Estonian school-related complaints. Journal of Pragmatics; 2019; 153, pp. 20-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.016]
Råberus, A.; Holmström, I. K.; Galvin, K.; Sundler, A. J. The nature of patient complaints: A resource for healthcare improvements. International Journal for Quality in Health Care; 2019; 31,
Reiter, R. M. The dynamics of complaining in a Latin American for-profit commercial setting. Journal of Pragmatics; 2013; 57, pp. 231-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.024]
Roberts, R.; Kreuz, R. Why do people use figurative language?. Psychological Science; 1994; 5,
Rodriguez, A. “Ay no I do feel exhausted”: Affiliative practices and interpersonal relationships in indirect complaints in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics; 2022; 194, pp. 39-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.008]
Ruusuvuori, J.; Lindfors, P. Complaining about previous treatment in health care settings. Journal of Pragmatics; 2009; 41, pp. 2415-2434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.045]
Schegloff, E. A. On complainability. Social Problems; 2005; 52,
Schiffrin, D. Discourse markers; Cambridge University Press: 1987.
Schiffrin, D. McKay, S. Interactional sociolinguistics. Sociolinguistics and language teaching; Cambridge University Press: 1996; pp. 307-328.
Schmidt, R.; Shimura, A.; Wang, Z.; Jeong, H.-S. Gass, S.; Neu, J. Suggestions to buy: Television commercials from the U.S., Japan, China, and Korea. Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language; Mouton De Gruyter: 1996; pp. 285-316.
Skogmyr Marian, K. Assessing without words: Verbally incomplete utterances in complaints. Frontiers in Psychology; 2021; 12, 689443. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689443] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34646193]
Skogmyr Marian, K.; Nilsson, J.; Norrby, C.; Lindström, J.; Wide, C. On the verge of (in)directness: Managing complaints in service interactions. Journal of Pragmatics; 2023; 213, pp. 126-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.05.013]
Sleziak, T. The influence of Confucian values on modern hierarchies and social communication in China and Korea: A comparative outline. Kritike; 2014; 8,
Southerton, D. G. More thoughts on Korean business and popular culture; Von Gilnow, H. Bridging Culture Publications: 2008; Vol. 2.
Tannen, D. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse; Cambridge University Press: 1989.
Tannen, D. You just don’t understand: Men and women in conversation; William Morrow & Company: 1990.
Tao, Y. Who should apologize: Expressing criticism of public figures on Chinese social media in times of COVID-19. Discourse and Society; 2021; 32,
Tao, Y.; Li, J. “跟团旅游”的游客抱怨行为影响因素研究 [A study on the influencing factors of complaints by tourists in group tours]. 合肥师范学院学报 [Journal of Hefei Normal University]; 2023; 41,
Traverso, V. The dilemmas of third-party complaints in conversation between friends. Journal of Pragmatics; 2009; 41, pp. 2385-2399. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.047]
Trosborg, A. Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies; Mouton de Gruyter: 1995.
Vladimirou, D.; House, J.; Kádár, D. Aggressive complaining on social media: The case of #MuckyMerton. Journal of Pragmatics; 2021; 177, pp. 51-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.017]
Wagner, S.; Lewis, K. B. Third-party complaints in teacher post-observation meetings. Journal of Pragmatics; 2021; 178, pp. 378-390. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.003]
Wang, J.; Li, L. Comparative study on online shopping complaints and the directness and severity levels of complaint response realizations in China and America. Journal of Guiyang University; 2015; 10,
Wei, M. A contrastive study of Chinese and American online complaints: Speech act construction in relation to face management. Pragmatics and Society; 2024; 15,
Weng, X.; Jiang, X.; Liao, Q. Using information of relationship closeness in the comprehension of Chinese ironic criticism: Evidence from behavioral experiments. Journal of Pragmatics; 2023; 215, pp. 55-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.07.005]
Wierzbicka, A. Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction; Mouton de Gruyter: 1991.
Yang, L.; Wannaruk, A. A cross-cultural pragmatic study of the speech act of complaining by native Thai and Chinese speakers. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences; 2019; 40,
Ying, J.; Hong, G. A cross-cultural comparative study of requests made in Chinese by South Korean and French learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research; 2020; 11,
Yoon, K.-E. Complaining as a sociocultural activity: Examining how and why in Korean interaction; Rowman & Littlefield Publishing: 2021.
Zhu, W. Managing relationships in everyday practice: The case of strong disagreement in Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics; 2014; 64, pp. 85-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.010]
Zhu, W. Interaction in Mandarin Chinese and English as a Multilingua Franca: Context, practice, and perception; Routledge: 2019.
Zhu, W. Criticism in Korean and Chinese workplace observation reality shows. Journal of Pragmatics; 240, 2025; pp. 35-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2025.02.011]
Zhu, W.; Boxer, D. Turn-taking and disagreement: A comparison of American English and Mandarin Chinese. Contrastive Pragmatics; 2, 2021; pp. 227-257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/26660393-BJA10019]
Zhu, W.; Chen, X. Topic initiation by Korean and Chinese speakers on reality dating shows. Contrastive Pragmatics; 2024; 5, pp. 421-455. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10083]
Zou, J. A comparative study of Chinese and Korean request speech act. The Guide of Science and Education; 2015; 7, pp. 44-46.
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.