Person- versus content-oriented approaches in English and German email responses to customer complaints: a cross-cultural analysis of moves and first-person pronouns
-
Rebecca Van Herck
Rebecca Van Herck is currently pursuing her PhD in Linguistics at Ghent University, Belgium. Her main research interest is digital business communication, especially customer complaints and webcare. She has published in
European Journal of Language Policy andBusiness and Professional Communication Quarterly .
,
Babette Dobbenie
Babette Dobbenie studied Applied Linguistics and Multilingual Communication at Ghent University and graduated in February 2020. She wrote her Master thesis about German B2C-answers to customer complaints via e-mail.
Sofie Decock is Associate Professor at the Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication at Ghent University, Belgium. She conducts research in the fields of business communication and German Studies with a focus on discourse, (intercultural, digital) interactions and persuasion.
Abstract
This cross-cultural study examines the differences in communicative styles between English and German email responses to customer complaints by analysing their discourse structure (through a rhetorical move analysis) and the frequency of first-person references (I and we and their different forms). The framework is given by House (House, Juliane. 2006. Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of English Studies 10(3). 249–267.), who suggests that English speakers tend to use a more interpersonal (i.e., people-oriented) communicative style, while German speakers show a preference for a transactional (i.e., content-oriented) style. In addition, first-person references within the genre of email responses to complaints are associated with either the customer service agent’s personal or corporate identity. The data consist of 150 English and 84 German authentic emails. The results of the move analysis reveal that the discourse structure of both data sets is mainly similar, but the few differences point into the direction of support for House’s framework, in particular the dimension on addressee- or content-orientation. Although agents generally use more we than I-references in both data sets, thus exhibiting mainly a corporate identity, they tend to use the opposite in some moves (e.g., Apology), which points to pronominal shifting across move level, as suggested in previous research (Zhang, Yi & Camilla Vásquez. 2014. Hotels’ responses to online reviews: Managing consumer dissatisfaction. Discourse, Context and Media 6. 54–64.). Overall, the German agents use more we-references compared to their British colleagues. Finally, agents use pronominal shifting within move level to distance themselves from the company.
About the authors
Rebecca Van Herck is currently pursuing her PhD in Linguistics at Ghent University, Belgium. Her main research interest is digital business communication, especially customer complaints and webcare. She has published in European Journal of Language Policy and Business and Professional Communication Quarterly.
Babette Dobbenie studied Applied Linguistics and Multilingual Communication at Ghent University and graduated in February 2020. She wrote her Master thesis about German B2C-answers to customer complaints via e-mail.
Sofie Decock is Associate Professor at the Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication at Ghent University, Belgium. She conducts research in the fields of business communication and German Studies with a focus on discourse, (intercultural, digital) interactions and persuasion.
Overview of the moves and submoves found in the English and German data set with definitions and examples in both languages (primarily based on Van Herck et al. 2021 unless specified otherwise).
| Moves and submoves | Definition and examples | |
|---|---|---|
| This submove functions as … | ||
| 1 Opening | ||
| (a) Greeting | a salutation to address the customer and open the email. | |
| Dear Mr Smith, | ||
| Sehr geehrte Frau Smith, [Dear Mrs. Smith,] | ||
| (b) Identification | an introduction of the agent’s identity, their tasks, and/or their position in the company. | |
| My name is Alex, I’m part of the businessUK Customer Services team | ||
| Mein Name ist Alex Müller und ich bin gern für Sie da. [My name is Alex Müller and I am pleased to be at your disposal.] | ||
| 2 Acknowledging complaint | ||
| (a) Contact reason | the reason for writing the email. | |
| I thought I’d be better off explaining in an email some more details about your parcel. | ||
| Gern hätte ich Ihr Anliegen persönlich mit Ihnen geklärt, leider konnte ich Sie telefonisch nicht erreichen. [I would have liked to clarify your concerns with you personally, but unfortunately, I was unable to reach you by phone.] | ||
| (b) Acknowledgement of receipt | a confirmation that the company has received the customer’s message. | |
| I have received your email in regard to the trainers you have been sent in error. | ||
| Sie haben uns das E-Mail geschickt, in dem Sie Ihre Zahlungen über 425 Euro erfragen.[You have sent us an email, in which you inquire about your payments exceeding 425 Euro.] | ||
| (c) Gratitude | an expression of gratitude towards the customer for their comments, feedback, loyalty, patience, or understanding. | |
| Thank you for e-mailing us at businessUK. | ||
| vielen Dank für Ihre E-Mail.[Thank you for your email.] | ||
| (d) Apology | “a public expression of remorse through which the organization acknowledges the complainant’s distress” (Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2019: 105–106). | |
| I apologize for any delay and inconvenience that this may cause. | ||
| Bitte entschuldigen Sie, dass wir in diesem Fall Ihre Erwartungen nicht erfüllen konnten. [We apologize for not being able to meet your expectations in this case.] | ||
| (e) Empathy | an expression of the agent’s understanding of the customer’s experiences (Simon 2013). | |
| I can appreciate how frustrating this must have been for you and the impact it would’ve had on the rest of your journey. | ||
| Ihre Enttäuschung darüber können wir sehr gut nachvollziehen. [We can understand your disappointment about this very well.] | ||
| (f) Content reference | an explicit reference to the content of the complaint by repeating or paraphrasing it. | |
| I am sorry that the parcel was delivered damaged. | ||
| Es tut uns leid, dass Sie vergeblich versucht haben, eine Sendung bei der Filiale abzuholen.[We are sorry that you unsuccessfully tried to pick up the parcel at the store.] | ||
| 3 Brand positioning | ||
| (a) Reference to standards | a reference to the quality standards the company normally has. | |
| When it comes to issues with our accommodations and our staff services, we do conduct regular quality checks to be able to assess whether our standards are being met. | ||
| Wir möchten Ihnen jederzeit den besten Service bieten! [We want to offer you the best service at all times!] | ||
| (b) Improvement | an assurance that the feedback provided by the customer has been used or will be used to improve the company’s services or products. | |
| We can confirm that we have passed your comments to our Birmingham Airport Manager to ensure that this situation does not re-occur. | ||
| und werden unsere Qualitätsanstrengungen weiter intensivieren, um solche Verluste künftig zu vermeiden.[and will strengthen our efforts to improve quality in order to avoid such losses in the future.] | ||
| 4 Dealing with complaint | ||
| (a) Investigation | a reference to the investigation of the complaint. | |
| I have investigated your flight delay (…) | ||
| Soeben habe ich Ihr Anliegen genauer überprüft. [I have just investigated your concerns in detail.] | ||
| (b) Explanation | an explanation of the context of the complaint or rational arguments for the acceptance or refusal of the complaint. | |
| Our terms and conditions for staff travel clearly state at no point should the passenger make any demands or obstruct the crew. | ||
| Die Verzögerung entstand durch einen EDV-Fehler, es musste eine neue Paketnummer generiert werden.[The delay was caused by an IT error, a new package number had to be generated.] | ||
| (c) Conclusion | the decision that has been taken regarding the complaint (acceptance, refusal, or alternative solution). | |
| Unfortunately, I’m unable to offer any further compensation for the experience you had. | ||
| In Ihrem Fall können wir leider keiner Gutschrift im Nachhinein zustimmen.[Unfortunately, we cannot approve a credit note in retrospect in this case.] | ||
| (d) Action needed from customer | the actions that the customer must take before a final decision can be taken. | |
| However in order to do this we will require your bank details. | ||
| Bitte senden Sie die Unterlagen per Brief an folgende Adresse: [Please send the documents by post to the following address:] | ||
| 5 Concluding remarks | ||
| (a) Future contact | an invitation for the customer to contact the agent, the helpdesk, or the company again if necessary. | |
| Should you require any further assistance then please do not hesitate to contact us. | ||
| Haben Sie noch Fragen, dann melden Sie sich einfach. Wir sind gerne für Sie da.[If you have any questions, please contact us. We’ll be pleased to help you.] | ||
| (b) Future purchase | an invitation for the customer to use (purchase) the services or products of the company again. | |
| I hope we can welcome you and your travel companions on board again soon. | ||
| Wir freuen uns, Sie bald wieder als Kunden begrüßen zu dürfen! [We look forward to welcoming you as a customer again soon!] | ||
| (c) Request for feedback | a request for the customer to evaluate the way the complaint was handled or solved. | |
| Did I solve your problem? Yes/No | ||
| Konnte ich Ihr Problem lösen? Ja Nein [Was I able to solve your problem? Yes/No] | ||
| (d) Concluding sentence | an expression of hope or wish as an indication that the email is ending. | |
| I hope I’ve explained things clearly for you here. | ||
| Ich wünsche Ihnen einen schönen Tag![Have a nice day!] | ||
| 6 Closing | ||
| (a) Sign-off | an announcement of the ending of the email by using formal, semi-formal, or informal closing pleasantries. | |
| Kind regards, | ||
| Mit freundlichen Grüßen[Kind regards] | ||
| (b) Signature | an identification of the agent, the customer service team, and/or the company at the end of the email. | |
| Alex Müller Customer Service Advisor | ||
| Ihr Kundenservice[Your customer service] | ||
An example of how the emails were found on Facebook.
References
Barcelos, Renato H., Danilo C. Dantas & Sylvain Sénécal. 2018. Watch your tone: How a brand’s tone of voice on social media influences consumer responses. Journal of Interactive Marketing 41. 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2017.10.001.Search in Google Scholar
Baumgarten, Nicole & Demet Özçetin. 2008. Linguistic variation through language contact in translation. In Peter Siemund & Noemi Kintana (eds.), Language contact and contact languages, 293–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hsm.7.17bauSearch in Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Ulla Connor & Thomas A. Upton. 2007a. Discourse on the move. Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.28Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Ulla Connor & Thomas A. Upton. 2007b. Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics. In Douglas Biber, Ulla Connor & Thomas A. Upton (eds.), Discourse on the move. Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.28Search in Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav, Tony McEnery & Stephen Wattam. 2015. Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(2). 139–173. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805226Search in Google Scholar
Camiciottoli, Belinda C. 2014. Pragmatic uses of person pro-forms in intercultural financial discourse: A contrastive case study of earnings calls. Intercultural Pragmatics 11(4). 521–545. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0023.Search in Google Scholar
Cenni, Irene & Patrick Goethals. 2020. Responding to negative hotel reviews: A cross-linguistic perspective on online rapport-management. Discourse, Context and Media 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100430.Search in Google Scholar
Darics, Erika & Veronika Koller. 2018. Language in business, language at work. London: Palgrave Higher Education.10.1057/978-1-349-93808-7Search in Google Scholar
De Clerck, Bernard, Sofie Decock, Jasper Vandenberghe & Mathias Seghers. 2019. Theory versus practice: A closer look at transactional and interpersonal stance in English electronic complaint refusal notifications. English Text Construction 12(1). 103–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00020.cle.Search in Google Scholar
Du Bois, Inke. 2012. Grammatical, pragmatic and sociolinguistic aspects of the first person plural pronoun. In Nicole Baumgarten, Inke Du Bois & Juliane House (eds.), Subjectivity in language and discourse, 319–338. United Kingdom: Emerald.10.1163/9789004261921_015Search in Google Scholar
Dunning, Ted. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19(1). 61–74.Search in Google Scholar
Einwiller, Sabine A. & Sarah Steilen. 2015. Handling complaints on social network sites – an analysis of complaints and complaint responses on Facebook and Twitter pages of large US companies. Public Relations Review 41(2). 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.012.Search in Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita & Augustin Speyer. 2012. Discourse relations in English and German discourse: Local and not-so-local constraints. Intercultural Pragmatics 9(4). 413–452. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2012-0025.Search in Google Scholar
Field, Andy. 2018. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis (1971). Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Search in Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1989. Language, ideology, and political economy. American Anthropologist 91(2). 295–312. www.jstor.org/stable/681076.10.1525/aa.1989.91.2.02a00010Search in Google Scholar
Gardelle, Laure & Sandrine Sorlin. 2015. Personal pronouns. An exposition. In Laure Gardelle & Sandrine Sorlin (eds.), Pragmatics of personal pronouns, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.171.01garSearch in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Grieve, Averil. 2010. “Aber ganz ehrlich”: Differences in episodic structure, apologies and truth-orientation in German and Australian workplace telephone discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42(1). 190–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.009.Search in Google Scholar
Hall, Edward. 1976. Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.Search in Google Scholar
Henneberg, Stephan, Thorsten Gruber, Alexander Reppel, Peter Naudé, Bahar Ashnai, Frank Huber & Ilma Chowdhury. 2015. A cross-cultural comparison of business complaint management expectations. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 23(3). 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2015.1032392.Search in Google Scholar
Ho, Victor. 2017. Achieving service recovery through responding to negative online reviews. Discourse & Communication 11(1). 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316683292.Search in Google Scholar
Hogeweg, Lotte & Helen de Hoop. 2015. The flexibility of pronoun reference in context [Special issue]. Journal of Pragmatics 88. 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.009.Search in Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1996. Contrastive discourse analysis and misunderstanding: The case of German and English. In Marlis Hellinger & Ulrich Ammon (eds.), Contrastive Sociolinguistics, 345–362. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110811551.345Search in Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1997. Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Search in Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 2006. Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of English Studies 10(3). 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570600967721.Search in Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 2010. Impoliteness in Germany: Intercultural encounters in everyday and institutional talk. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(4). 561–595. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.026.Search in Google Scholar
House, Juliane & Dániel Kádár. 2020. T/V pronouns in global communication practices: The case of IKEA catalogues across linguacultures. Journal of Pragmatics 161. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.03.001.Search in Google Scholar
Íñigo-Mora, Isabel. 2004. On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics 3(1). 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.1.05ini.Search in Google Scholar
Jensen, Astrid. 2009. Discourse strategies in professional e-mail negotiation: A case study. English for Specific Purposes 28(1). 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.10.002.Search in Google Scholar
Kanoksilapatham, Budsaba. 2007. Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. In Douglas Biber, Ulla Connor & Thomas A. Upton (eds.), Discourse on the move. Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure, 73–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.28.06kanSearch in Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2016. Contrastive pragmatics and translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.261Search in Google Scholar
Kwon, Eun S. & Yongjun Sung. 2011. Follow me! Global marketers’ Twitter use. Journal of Interactive Advertising 12(1). 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2011.10722187.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (Original work published in 1983).Search in Google Scholar
Liao, Hui. 2007. Do it right this time: The role of employee service recovery performance in customer-perceived justice and customer loyalty after service failures. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(2). 475–489.10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.475Search in Google Scholar
Lombard, Matthew, Jennifer Snyder-Duch & Cheryl C. Bracken. 2002. Content analysis in mass communication. Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research 28(4). 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x.Search in Google Scholar
McKay‐Semmler, Kelly. 2017. High‐ and low‐context cultures. In Young Yun Kim (ed.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/978111878366510.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0106Search in Google Scholar
Meier, Lars. 2010. Multiple selfing. In Albert J. Mills, Gabrielle Durepos & Elden Wiebe (eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar
Meinl, Marja E. 2013. Electronic complaints: An empirical study on British English and German complaints on eBay. Bonn: Frank & Timme.Search in Google Scholar
Moberg, Ulla & Göran Eriksson. 2013. Managing ideological differences in joint political press conferences. A study of the strategic use of the personal pronoun ‘we’. Journal of Language and Politics 12(3). 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.12.3.01mob.Search in Google Scholar
Morrow, Phillip R. & Kenta Yamanouchi. 2020. Online apologies to hotel guests in English and Japanese. Discourse, Context and Media 34. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100379.Search in Google Scholar
Neuendorf, Kimberly A. 2017. The content analysis guidebook, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.10.4135/9781071802878Search in Google Scholar
Ombudsman Services. 2018. Consumer action monitor March 2018. Available at: https://www.ombudsman-services.org/about-us/annual-reports/consumer-action-monitor-report.Search in Google Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 2005. And stuff und so: Investigating pragmatic expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11). 1845–1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.015.Search in Google Scholar
Packard, Grant, Sarah G. Moore & Brent McFerran. 2018. (I’m) happy to help (you): The impact of personal pronoun use in customer–firm interactions. Journal of Marketing Research 55(4). 541–555. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.16.0118.Search in Google Scholar
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula. 2012. Collective aspects of subjectivity: The subject pronoun emeı´B (‘we’) in Modern Greek. In Nicole Baumgarten, Inke Du Bois & Juliane House (eds.), Subjectivity in language and discourse, 33–66. United Kingdom: Emerald.10.1163/9789004261921_004Search in Google Scholar
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula. 2014. Constructing collectivity with ‘we’: An introduction. In Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou (ed.), Constructing collectivity: ‘We’ across languages and contexts, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.239.03pavSearch in Google Scholar
Risager, Karen. 2013. Linguaculture. In Carol Chapelle (ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics, Vol. 6, 3418–3421. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0709Search in Google Scholar
Saxe, Robert & Barton A. Weitz. 1982. The SOCO scale: A measure of the customer orientation of salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research 19(3). 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100379.Search in Google Scholar
Skorczynska, Hanna. 2020. “We are prepared to play our part …”: A case study of the use of first-person references in e-releases from two oil companies. Journal of Pragmatics 155. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.013.Search in Google Scholar
Sherblom, John C. 1990. Organizational involvement expressed through pronoun use in computer mediated communication. Communication Research Reports 7(1). 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099009359853.Search in Google Scholar
Simon, Françoise. 2013. The influence of empathy in complaint handling: Evidence of gratitudinal and transactional routes to loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20. 599–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.05.003.Search in Google Scholar
Smidts, Ale, Ad Pruyn & Cees van Riel. 2001. The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal 44(5). 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069448.Search in Google Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
The Institute of Customer Service. 2020a. UK customer satisfaction index. The state of customer satisfaction in the UK, July 2020. https://www.instituteofcustomerservice.com/product/uk-customer-satisfaction-index-july-2020/.Search in Google Scholar
The Institute of Customer Service. 2020b. UK customer satisfaction index. The state of customer satisfaction in the UK, January 2020.https://www.instituteofcustomerservice.com/product/ukcsi-the-state-of-customer-satisfaction-in-the-uk-january-2020/.Search in Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 1996. A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics. London: Routledge (Original work published 1992).Search in Google Scholar
Tseng, Fan-Ping. 2011. Analyses of move structure and verb tense of research article abstracts in applied linguistics journals. International Journal of English Linguistics 1(2). 27–39. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v1n2p27.Search in Google Scholar
Upton, Thomas A. & Mary A. Cohen. 2009. An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example. Discourse Studies 11(5). 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609341006.Search in Google Scholar
Van Herck, Rebecca E., Sofie Decock & Bernard De Clerck. 2020. “Can you send us a PM please?” Service recovery interactions on social media from the perspective of organizational legitimacy. Discourse, Context & Media 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100445.Search in Google Scholar
Van Herck, Rebecca E., Sofie Decock & Bridgit C. Fastrich. 2021. A unique blend of interpersonal and transactional strategies in English business-to-consumer email complaint responses: A move analysis. Under review with English for Specific Purposes.10.1016/j.esp.2021.08.001Search in Google Scholar
Van Mulken, Margot & Wouter van der Meer. 2005. Are you being served? A genre analysis of American and Dutch company replies to customer inquiries. English for Specific Purposes 24(1). 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.07.001.Search in Google Scholar
Van Noort, Guda, Lotte Willemsen, Peter Kerkhof & Joost Verhoeven. 2014. Webcare as an integrative tool for customer care, reputation management, and online marketing: A literature review. In Philip J. Kitchen & Ebru Uzunoglu (eds.), Integrated communications in the post-modern era, 77–99. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.10.1057/9781137388551_4Search in Google Scholar
Van Vaerenbergh, Yves, Dorottya Varga, Arne De Keyser & Chiara Orsingher. 2019. The service recovery journey: Conceptualization, integration, and directions for future research. Journal of Service Research 22(2). 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670518819852.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Yi & Camilla Vásquez. 2014. Hotels’ responses to online reviews: Managing consumer dissatisfaction. Discourse, Context and Media 6. 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2014.08.004.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Social-pragmatic contextual comprehension in Italian preschool and school-aged children: a study using the Pragma test
- Realizations of oppositional speech acts in English: a contrastive analysis of discourse in L1 and L2 settings
- Person- versus content-oriented approaches in English and German email responses to customer complaints: a cross-cultural analysis of moves and first-person pronouns
- Disagreement and mitigation in power-asymmetrical venture capital reality TV shows: a comparative case study of Shark Tank in the US and Dragon’s Den in China
- Book Reviews
- Second Language Pragmatics
- Saving Face in Business: Managing Cross-Cultural Interactions
- In Memoriam Ferenc Kiefer
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Social-pragmatic contextual comprehension in Italian preschool and school-aged children: a study using the Pragma test
- Realizations of oppositional speech acts in English: a contrastive analysis of discourse in L1 and L2 settings
- Person- versus content-oriented approaches in English and German email responses to customer complaints: a cross-cultural analysis of moves and first-person pronouns
- Disagreement and mitigation in power-asymmetrical venture capital reality TV shows: a comparative case study of Shark Tank in the US and Dragon’s Den in China
- Book Reviews
- Second Language Pragmatics
- Saving Face in Business: Managing Cross-Cultural Interactions
- In Memoriam Ferenc Kiefer
