COMPLAINING STRATEGIES OF JUDGES’ COMMENTS IN MASTERCHEF

AMERICA AND INDONESIA: A CROSS-CULTURAL PRAGMATIC STUDY

Safira Cahyani A. Febrian Falentino F.

122114253012 122114253010

Abstract
The way people utter speech act depends on the context. There are many influential
factors such as culture. This study focuses on investigate the speech act of complaint strategy
uttered by the judges of both MasterChef Indonesia and MasterChef America using cross-
cultural pragmatics approach which compares the difference between American and Indonesian
people in complaining. This study identifies the complaint strategies proposed by Trosborg in
the spoken discourse from episode one of both MasterChef America S11 and MasterChef
Indonesia S9 using descriptive qualitative approach. The result shows that the most used
complaint strategy for MasterChef Indonesia is direct accusation (35.1%), while for MasterChef
America is hint (37%). The different cultural aspects in delivering their complaint speech can be
seen by how the Indonesian judges tend to use modifiers that tone down their degree of
complaint in direct accusation to show politeness, while the American judges tend to make the
people develop and learn independently by giving hints and make them think first.

Keywords: complaint strategy, cross cultural pragmatics, MasterChef, speech act

Abstrak
Cara orang mengucapkan tindak tutur tergantung pada konteksnya. Ada banyak faktor
yang berpengaruh, seperti budaya. Penelitian ini berfokus untuk mengkaji strategi tindak tutur
mengeluh yang diucapkan oleh juri MasterChef Indonesia dan MasterChef Amerika dengan
menggunakan pendekatan pragmatik lintas budaya yang membandingkan perbedaan antara
orang Amerika dan orang Indonesia dalam mengeluh. Penelitian ini mengidentifikasi strategi
pengaduan yang diajukan oleh Trosborg dalam wacana lisan dari episode satu MasterChef
Amerika S11 dan MasterChef Indonesia S9 menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif deskriptif.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa strategi mengeluh yang paling banyak digunakan untuk
MasterChef Indonesia adalah tuduhan langsung (35,1%), sedangkan untuk MasterChef
Amerika adalah petunjuk (37%). Perbedaan aspek budaya dalam menyampaikan keluhan dapat
dilihat dari bagaimana juri Indonesia cenderung menggunakan modifikator yang merendahkan
derajat keluhannya dalam tuntutan langsung untuk menunjukkan kesantunan, sedangkan hakim
Amerika cenderung membuat kontestan berkembang dan belajar secara mandiri dengan
memberikan petunjuk dan membuat mereka berpikir terlebih dahulu.

Kata Kunci: strategi mengeluh, pragmatik lintas budaya, MasterChef, tindak tutur

1. INTRODUCTION
In everyday life, human apply language to communicate and produce code.
Utaker (1992) stated that codes or systems are defined as words spoken by people in a
conversation. This code is a human intermediary to create a good communication
system between speaker and listener. To be able to communicate, both must have a
common understanding of certain languages. For example, British people will not
understand Indonesian if they do not know Indonesian and vice versa. Therefore, the
speaker and the listener must have the same knowledge of a particular language in the
same subject at a certain time, place and circumstances, also situation. In the process of
communication, the term "speech act" is not limited to the aspect of communication

1
itself. As mentioned earlier, both the speaker and the listener must speak the same
language and have insight into the use of that language in the communication process.
Speech act theory is considered under the study of pragmatics. Pragmatics is the study
of the meaning of an utterance that differs from the literal meaning of a word or phrase
depending on the context (Cumming, 2005; Thomas, 1995; Yule, 1996). It is a study of
meaning produced by the speaker in a particular context. As Leech (1983) has stated,
pragmatics is a study of the situation of speech.
Speech act theories proposed by Austin (1962) after which divided into three
categories, particularly locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act.
However, this observe handiest specializes in the illocutionary act that is described as an
utterance containing sure (conventional) power to do numerous actions (Austin, 1962;
Grice, 2011). The speaker should carry out the speaking action with the features such as
informing, claiming, guessing, warning, threatening, or asking. In different words,
illocutionary act (The Act of Doing Something) is an utterance which isn't always
handiest used to mention or tell some thing, however additionally to do some thing so
long as the speech scenario is cautiously considered (Levinson, 2001; Wijana, 1996). In
this case, John R. Searle (1979) classifies illocutionary acts into 5 extraordinary
capabilities particularly, assertive, directive, commissive, expressive, and declarative.
The way people utter speech act depends on the context. There are many
influential factors such as gender (Tuncer & Turhan, 2019) and culture. Basically, a
person's spoken words and actions influence the understanding of the behavior. In this
case, pragmatics overlaps with other cultures and is commonly referred to as
intercultural pragmatics (Wierzbicka, 2003). In this research, the researcher is going to
focus on the complaining strategies uttered by the judges of both MasterChef Indonesia
and MasterChef US.

2. THEORETICAL REVIEW
As the expressive speech act, complaint is used to express the speakers’ disapproval
or negative feeling about something, and it can be directed towards the hearers as well.
Complaint can also be expressed at various degree of directness from only giving a hint
to explicitly blaming someone or something. Trosborg (1995) divides speech acts of
complaining into four main categories with eight sub-categories: (1) non explicit
reproach (hint); (2) expression of disapproval (annoyance and ill consequences); (3)
accusation (direct accusation and indirect accusation); (4) blame (modified blame,
explicit blame of behavior, and explicit blame of person).
The non-explicit strategy as in hint is the weakest complaint strategy that barely
state the idea of complaining, so if the hearers would not know if they are not aware by
the meaning behind it. In expression of disapproval, the speakers tend to express how
their annoyance and add the comment of unpleasant consequences occurred to them due
to the hearers’ action. Furthermore, accusation focus on how the speakers seek for the
blame and accuse the hearers. It can be in indirect accusation which tend to use
interrogative sentence to ask about the thing that bothers them as a complaint form or in
direct accusation which directly accuse the hearers regarding the things that bothers the
speakers. Lastly, blame consists of modified blame in which the speakers tend to give
an alternative approach that is not taken by the hearers as the complaint and explicit
blame in which the speakers explicitly state their complaint to blame the hearer. The
explicit blame here can be directed to the person or the action that the person does.

2
 There are several related studies that discuss the issue of complaint strategy
across discourse. Fiqih and Sudana (2022) examine the speech act of complaint by
customer on review page of e-commerce platforms in Indonesia. It shows that the
customer tends to use annoyance and explicit blame (person) strategies the most.
Another study is pursued by Auliya, Djatmika, and Abdullah (2021) which investigates
the complaining strategies expressed by the online shoppers of fashion product in a
specific e-commerce platform, Shopee, and comparing the use of strategies of male and
female customer. The result shows that male customers use more various complaint
strategies than female customers. To fill the gap between the previous related studies,
this study focuses on investigate the speech act of complaint strategy using cross-
cultural pragmatics approach which compares the difference between American and
Indonesian people in complaining.

3. RESEARCH METHOD
This study uses a qualitative approach which, according to Vanderstoep and
Johnston (2009), provides a richer and more in-depth understanding of the phenomenon
as it produces narrative or textual explanations. This means that this approach provides
a more plentiful and profound interpretation in explaining the phenomenon of language
use, particularly complaining strategies. Thus, the qualitative approach is suitable for
the study of complaining strategies involved in MasterChef America and Indonesia.
The data source of this study is the spoken discourse from episode one of both
MasterChef America S11 and MasterChef Indonesia S9. There are several steps in
collecting the data. First step is searching for the aimed episode of both series. The next
step is transferring the spoken data that contains of complaining speech by the judges in
the video into transcript text manually. Then, the collected complaining speech from
both MasterChef America and Indonesia are transferred into data sheets to be analyzed
and compared further.
To analyze the data, this study elaborates the differences in the use of
complaining strategies between judges of MasterChef America and Indonesia. This
study identifies the complaint strategies proposed by Trosborg. Thus, the results are
elaborated using descriptive qualitative approach to support the interpretation of the
data and draw the conclusion of the study.

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The results of complaint strategies used by the judges of both MasterChef America and
Indonesia is elaborated in the following table and discussion.

Table 1. Complaint Strategies Found in MasterChef America (USA) and Indonesia

(INA)
Frequency Percentage
Strategy
USA INA USA INA
Non explicit reproach
Hints 10 2 37% 5.4%
Expression of disapproval
Annoyance 2 2 7.4% 5.4%
Ill consequences 2 3 7.4% 8.1%
Accusation
Indirect accusation 5 6 18.5% 16.2%

3
 Direct accusation 5 13 18.5% 35.1%
Blame
Modified blame 1 1 3.7% 2.7%
Explicit blame (behavior) 2 7 7.4% 18.9%
Explicit blame (person) - 3 0% 8.1%
Total 27 37 100% 100%

Table 1 shows that the highest number of complaint strategy used by the judges
in MasterChef America is hints (37%), followed by indirect accusation (18.5%) and
direct accusation (18.5%). In contrast, modified blame (3.7%), followed by annoyance,
ill consequences, and explicit blame of behavior which share the same number of 7.4%
are the lowest number of complaint strategies used in the show. In addition, there is no
explicit blame of person strategy used by the judges of MasterChef America (0%).
Meanwhile, the highest number of complaint strategy used by the judges in
MasterChef Indonesia is direct accusation (35.1%) followed by explicit blame behavior
(18.9%) and indirect accusation (16.2%). In contrast, the lowest number of complaint
strategy used by the judges in MasterChef Indonesia is modified blame (2.7%) followed
by hints and annoyance (5.4%) while ill consequences and explicit blame person share
the same number with 8.1%.

4.1 Complaint strategies in Judges’ Comments of MasterChef America

Annoyance
(1) Unfortunately, the dish completely mess today
The utterance above shows how the judge throw his dissapointment about the
food presentation and taste. In this strategy, the judge tends to express how they feel
about the food served by the contestant. In this case, the judge uses the word “mess” to
express his annoyance, and it is direct yet rude.

Hint
(2) Pilaf should be fluffy, fragrant, exciting, and even it’s crunchy, but some of
them left in my teeth, and the salmon is raw.
(3) Just be careful with the sugar because when you put too much sugar, then it
will cover all of other components.
In the utterance above, the judge hints his complaint about the presentation of
the pilaf rice that indeed pilaf rice must be crunchy, but unfortunately because of the
crunchiness, then some of the rice left in the judge’s mouth. In other words, the judge
here wants the contestant infer to the complaint directly. Later, the contestant just
nodded to admit her mistakes. In the second case, the judge told the contestant that her
dessert was good. However, she needs to be truly careful because by putting too much
sugar in it, than it will be cover all of other components.

Ill consequences
(3) I have a good news and bad news. The good news is this food will be seen in
the restaurant, but the bad news is the restaurant would’ve probably behind their board.
(4) It’s a little bit sad that you have to confidence to serve the seed because it’s
juicy.
While the annoyance strategy only expresses the judges’ feeling about the food, the
ill consequences strategy in the utterance above expands into the further effects caused

4
by the food served to the judges. In this utterance, the judge tells the contestant if he
serves that kind of food, then the restaurant is going to bankrupt. Interestingly, before
that, the judge seems like giving compliment to the contestant’s food, but then, he tells
the consequences of eating his food. In the fourth utterance, the judge said that his food
was good, but it needs more seed to tone down the oil and the juiciness. Therefore, the
judge told the contestant to supposedly add more seeds.

Direct accusation
(5) When you marinate something, you need to season it. The other side is
cooked, but there is no seasoning.
The utterance above shows how the judge directly accuses the food made by the
contestant by mentioning each complaint about the lack of seasoning in the food.
Interestingly, the judges of MasterChef US tend to use directive. Troborg (1995)
explains that directiveness make the complaint more direct, yet it also has no politeness
there, so it just stated to utter the complaint, but politeness seems does not matter here.

Indirect accusation
(6) “…. and the friend leeks need to look more like near than with what it should
do. I prefer to see one third less on there.”
The utterance above shows how the judge uses affirmative sentence as a format
of indirect accusation of more leeks on the food served by the contestant. As the leeks is
too much, then the characteristic of the food is less than it is supposed to be. However,
the judge here indirectly accused the too much leeks is the cause of the lack of
characteristic in his food.

Explicit blame (behavior)

(7) The bad news is the pesto is super garlicky and the tomato is all done right,
really not necessary.
(8) It needs just couple on the pesto because it is greasy.
The utterance above the shows the judge explicitly complains about what the contestant
has done by stating how the contestant put too much pesto, so the taste of the food is not
that good anymore. Yet, because of that, the judges said the pesto is greasy because the
contestant put too much pesto on the pasta.

4.2 Complaint strategies in Judges’ Comments of MasterChef Indonesia

Hint
(9) Coba kamu lihat naan-nya. Apa, kenapa naan-nya?
In the utterance above, the judge hints her complaint about the presentation of the naan
(flat bread) that does not look appealing by asking the contestant so that the contestant
can see and imply the complaint by himself. Later, the contestant answers the judges’
question by admitting that the naan looks like it was not baked properly.

Annoyance
(10) Cara presentasinya saya benci banget
The utterance above shows how the judge throw her irritation about the food
presentation. In this strategy, the judge tends to express how they feel about the food
served by the contestant. In this case, the judge uses the word “benci” to express her
annoyance.

5
Consequences
(11) Penampilannya sangat, sangat berantakan sampe nggak appetizing
ngelihatnya
While the annoyance strategy only expresses the judges’ feeling about the food, the
ill consequences strategy in the utterance above expands into the further effects caused
by the food served to the judges. In this utterance, the judge adds the comment about the
impact of the food by “sampe nggak appetizing ngelihatnya”.

Indirect accusation
(12) Kamu chicken nanban lupa nanban sauce-nya? Hahahaha, jadinya chicken
karaage dong
The utterance above shows how the judge uses interrogative sentence as a format of
indirect accusation of the lack of the sauce on the food served by the contestant. As the
sauce is the important component that gives a characteristic of the “chicken nanban”,
the lack of the sauce means that the “chicken nanban” has lost its essential part to be
called that way. Therefore, the judge adds the additional comment with sarcasm with
joking tone of “hahaha, jadinya chicken karaage dong” that essentially enrich how
indirect accusation is used by the judges of MasterChef Indonesia.

Direct accusation
(13) Di sini nanban kamu enak, sayangnya kurang pungent, jahenya kurang
nendang, apalagi kamu juga tidak pake sake
Contrasted to indirect accusation, the utterance above shows how the judge directly
accuses the food made by the contestant by mentioning each complaint about the lack of
elements in the food. Interestingly, the judges of MasterChef Indonesia tend to use
modifiers which lessen the degree of accusation or make the accusation becomes more
polite as Troborg (1995) explains that modifiers play down the impact of a complaint
and make it sound more polite. In the utterance above, the modifier can be seen in the
word “sayangnya” and the use of word “kurang” instead of “tidak/nggak”.

Modified blame
(14) Harusnya ‘kan diulek. … yang dicari di sini teksturnya tidak terlalu halus
In the utterance above, the judge complains about the texture of the food served by
modifying the blame into what the contestant could have been done with the food. From
the modification of the complaint gave by the judge, it can be implied that the contestant
did not mash the food manually.

Explicit blame (behavior)

(15) Kamu cuma naruh nggak sampai satu gram di situ … Itu bukan salad, ya,
itu
garnish.
The utterance above the shows the judge explicitly complains about what the contestant
has done by stating how the contestant only putting a little amount of vegetable is a
wrong doing to do.

Explicit blame (person)

(16) Kamu bikin malu orang Manado dengan plating seperti itu

6
While the explicit blame (behavior) emphasizes about the wrongdoing of the
participant, the utterance above emphasizes more about throwing the blame to the
participant himself. The judge blames the participant who cannot serve the Manado
food properly even though he is from Manado. What makes it more interesting is that
the judge who gives the complaint to the participant is also from Manado which add a
higher tone of explicit blame here.

5. CONCLUSION
In this study, we found several strategies of complaint used by both judges of
MasterChef Indonesia and MasterChef US. For MasterChef Indonesia, the most used
complaining strategy is direct accusation (35.1%), while for MasterChef US is hint
(37%). For MasterChef US, the direct blame (person) data is not found. It means that
not all of the complaining strategies used by the judges of MasterChef US, but in
Indonesia, they try use all of the complaining strategies.
These data show that Indonesian tends to complaint the people directly than the
American. However, when Indonesian judges complain directly, they tend to use
modifiers that tone down their degree of complaint. It means that Indonesian is still
consider to deliver their speech in politeness and modesty even in the form of complaint
speech. American, when they are complaining about something, they try to make people
think first by giving hints, then the people who get complained must think what does
meant by the complainer. In other words, American tends to make the people develop
and learn independently by giving hints as a complaint strategy.
In this research, we limited our data only in language aspects because it is still
part of linguistics students, so we do not analyze the tone and facial expression.
Therefore, it could be a suggestion for a further study in the future.

REFERENCES
Auliya, N., Djatmika, & Abullah, W. (2021). Strategi Mengeluh Online Shoppers Berbasis
Gender: Sebuah Kajian Pragmatik. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Linguistik dan Sastra
(SEMANTIKS) (pp. 118-126). Surakarta: Prosiding Seminar Nasional Linguistik dan
Sastra (SEMANTIKS).

Austin, J. L. (1992). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clanrendon Press.

Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics: multidisciplinary perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

Fiqih, E. A., & Sudana, D. (2022). The speech acts of consumers' complaining and sellers'
responses on the review page of the e-commerce platforms. AMCA Journal of Science
and Technology, 2(1), 14-17. doi:https://doi.org/10.51773/ajst.v2i1.132

Grice, H. P. (2011). Logic and conversation. In D. A. Grundy, The Pragmatics Reader (pp. 43-
54). Abingdon: Routledge.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Routledge.

Levinson, C. S. (2001). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

7
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression & meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.

Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Request, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Utaker, A. (1992). Form in Language: Wittgenstein and structuralism. Wittgenstein and

Contemporary Theories of Language Papers Edited by Paul Henry and Arild Utaker.
Wittgenstein: University of Bergen.

Vanderstoep, S. W., & Johnston, D. D. (2009). Research methods for everyday life. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.