{"id":21248,"date":"2024-04-20T14:33:24","date_gmt":"2024-04-20T22:33:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/wordpress\/?page_id=21248"},"modified":"2024-04-21T02:44:29","modified_gmt":"2024-04-21T10:44:29","slug":"ej109a3","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/wordpress\/issues\/volume28\/ej109\/ej109a3\/","title":{"rendered":"The Triangle of Language Use: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hotel Responses to Reviews"},"content":{"rendered":"May 2024 – Volume 28, Number 1<\/h2>\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.55593\/ej.28109a3<\/strong><\/p>\nPiyanuch Laosrirattanachai<\/strong>
\nFaculty of Hospitality Industry, Kasetsart University, Thailand
\n<piyanuch.la![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
ku.th><\/p>\nPiyapong Laosrirattanachai<\/strong>
\nFaculty of Hospitality Industry, Kasetsart University, Thailand
\n<piyapong.lku.th><\/p>\nAbstract<\/h3>\n
Mastery of the art of crafting online reviews and responses is essential as a valuable additional tool for enhancing learners\u2019 English proficiency in specialised contexts. This study aims to: 1) Examine the formality levels in crafting reviews and responses; 2) Explore face-threatening acts utilised in reviews and politeness strategies employed in responses; and 3) Uncover moves and steps in composing reviews and responses. Data was collected from the Top 25 Hotels in the World in 2022 according to Tripadvisor.com. Six distinct corpora were formed, comprising positive, negative, and mixed reviews, along with corresponding responses, resulting in 87,973 tokens. Findings show reviewers leaned towards casual language (85.87%), while respondents used a consultative style (82.67%) in their responses. The shift from casual to consultative occurred most frequently (70.67%). For politeness, admiration (73.07%) and expressions of complaints\/reprimands (64.53%) were common in reviews. In responses, strategies like offering, promising, or giving gifts (72.00%) and apologising and begging for forgiveness (50.40%) were prevalent. Reviews used three moves and ten steps, while responses employed six moves and 16 steps. These insights can be integrated into ESP classrooms to enhance review and response writing skills effectively.<\/p>\n
Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: Hotel reviews\u2019 responses, Tripadvisor; Language formality, Politeness theory, Move analysis<\/p>\nNumerous tourism management studies have extensively explored the impact of electronic word-of-mouth discussions on consumer choices and hotel performance (Filieri et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2015; Luo & Zhong, 2015). These investigations highlight the significance of both reviews in raising consumer awareness about hotels (Vermeulen & Seegers, 2009). Hotels eagerly anticipate reviews as they provide prospective customers with authentic insights into specific products or services (Thumvichit & Gampper, 2019). These customer-generated reviews are often perceived as more reliable than business-generated content, which tends to focus solely on positives (Floyd et al., 2014). Online ratings and reviews play a dual role, guiding booking decisions and profoundly influencing overall hotel performance. Travellers frequently turn to shared experiences of others when making accommodation or destination choices. Similarly, service providers utilise review feedback to enhance their offerings. Acknowledging the impact of online reviews, numerous top hotels assign senior staff members to review management due to its potential effects on image and reputation (Panseeta & Watson Todd, 2014).<\/p>\n
Positive reviews (PRs) offer valuable insights for service providers, acknowledging strengths and encouraging growth. Responding to positive reviews (RPRs) can foster customer relationships and loyalty. Conversely, negative reviews (NRs) highlight weaknesses, prompting improvement efforts and prevention of recurring issues. Notably, responses to negative reviews (RNRs) are essential for addressing service failures and enabling recovery (Sparks et al., 2016). Additionally, mixed reviews (MRs), combining positive and negative sentiments towards hotel services, demand distinct responses. Thus, responses to mixed reviews (RMRs) are crucial, similar to the significance of RPRs and RNRs. These responses significantly impact guest satisfaction, extending beyond casual interactions. RNRs have predominantly been researched (Ho, 2017; Madon & Singh, 2023; Panseeta & Watson Todd, 2014; Thumvichit & Gampper, 2018; Zhang & V\u00e1squez, 2014), with limited attention to RPRs (Cenni & Goelthals, 2021; Thumvichit, 2016). Moreover, no research on RMRs is evident. Despite abundant literature, most studies focus on responses, neglecting the equally vital review dimension. Understanding review composition nuances enhances response formulation by gaining insights into customer perceptions. The authors thus suggest exploring both response and review aspects. Additionally, mixed attitudes should be analysed in conjunction with positive and negative categories for effective online response to review management in the hotel industry. Additionally, based on the literature review, it was found that previous research on the use of language in responding to hotel service reviews has mainly focused on conducting move analysis (Cenni & Goelthals, 2021; Ho, 2017; Madon & Singh, 2023; Panseeta & Watson Todd, 2014; Thumvichit, 2016; Thumvichit & Gampper, 2018; Zhang & V\u00e1squez, 2014), and some have analysed aspects of speech acts (Madon & Singh, 2023; Nasser, 2022). However, research to find answers regarding responding to hotel service reviews still has many unexplored issues, such as the level of language formality or the politeness strategies that should be used in responses.<\/p>\n
Through an extensive literature review mentioned earlier, it is evident that present internet media has significantly altered the ways in which global customers communicate and express opinions about hotel services. Online genres have thus emerged in the era of technology to address the evolving and newly emerging requirements of professionals (Bhatia, 2005). Currently, with online channels providing users the opportunity to freely express their opinions on hotel services anytime and anywhere globally, organisations in the hotel business must pay attention to and deal with managing complaints, compliments, and feedback about services online. Genres on the web emphasise a distinct call for academia to fulfil the business\u2019s requirements for specialised communication in the English language (Anthony, 2016). English teaching for specific purposes related to the hotel business is now starting to focus on using language appropriately in responding to service reviews on the internet. Due to an inadequate essential knowledge on how to respond to hotel service reviews, hotels themselves often have to organise special classes to train staff on handling guests in various situations, including responding to service reviews in online channels. However, these training sessions often involve significant expenses, so they are usually undertaken by large hotels that can afford them. The ability to respond to online reviews appropriately is another essential skill that hotels of all sizes currently require from employees. These issues highlight the importance and urgency of finding ways and knowledge to strengthen language skills in responding to online reviews for English learners. To promote the ability to produce appropriate responses to reviews, a curriculum should be designed to provide learners with a comprehensive framework for crafting responses. This framework should include recommendations on language patterns and guidelines based on reliable and systematically conducted research, rather than being solely designed by individual instructors. Therefore, this study aims to offer learners a comprehensive framework for crafting review responses. The framework covers aspects of formality, politeness, and the typical structure used in hotel reviews and their corresponding responses.<\/p>\n
Language Formality and Formality Shifting<\/h4>\n
Individuals express themselves in various ways depending on the audience. Language formality profoundly impacts communication styles. People naturally differentiate between formal and informal communication. Consequently, when writing hotel reviews and responses, different levels of language formality might be necessary. Language formality discussions often revolve around the spectrum of formal and informal language, positioned at opposite ends. Formal language is known for precision, coherence, and clarity, regardless of context or shared knowledge. On the other hand, informal language is conversational, personal, and context-specific, relying on shared understanding and familiarity (Graesser et al., 2014). An important concept in language formality is \u201cThe Five Clocks,\u201d introduced by Joos (1962). Joos\u2019s influential work offers insightful observations and a systematic categorisation of five significant style levels in English through a straightforward hierarchical analysis. \u2018Clocks\u2019 refers to distinct formality levels in spoken and written English, classified as frozen, formal, consultative, casual, and intimate. These terms are based on varying degrees of familiarity and intimacy among individuals, significantly influencing their communication style (Coupland, 2007). The \u2018Frozen Clock\u2019 embodies highly formal and rigid language patterns, often found in religious rituals or legal decrees, characterised by strict standardisation and unchanging conventions. The \u2018Formal Clock\u2019 signifies precise and refined language used in formal settings like public speeches, academic presentations, or official documents. Meanwhile, the \u2018Consultative Clock\u2019 reflects language used in professional or consultative contexts, involving more interaction and collaboration among participants and often using specialised terms. The \u2018Casual Clock\u2019 represents everyday informal language, featuring relaxed and familiar speech patterns, often including slang and colloquialisms, commonly used among acquaintances. Lastly, the \u2018Intimate Clock\u2019 corresponds to the most informal language level, typically used in close relationships or private conversations, characterised by personal language, inside jokes, and shared understandings between individuals. In the realm of reviews and corresponding responses, both guests and service providers have the ability to adeptly switch between these distinct linguistic \u2018clocks\u2019, guided by the specific social situation and context. The research aims to explores the complexity of five formality levels, investigating how shifts occur in reviews and their responses.<\/p>\n
Face-Threatening Acts and Politeness Strategies<\/h4>\n
Politeness, deeply rooted in human interaction, arises from our innate drive to cultivate harmonious connections and resolve conflicts (Brown & Levinson, 1978; Kasper, 1990; Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983). Universally acknowledged, it involves adeptly adapting communication styles within specific linguistic contexts (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1986). This concept has given rise to notions like \u201cface\u201d and the \u201cFace-Threatening Act\u201d (FTA). Brown and Levinson (1987) differentiate face into positive and negative forms. Positive face entails seeking approval and recognition, aligning with one\u2019s self-image, while negative face emphasises autonomy and freedom from external disruption. Both carry emotional weight, being internalised and influenced externally. Recognising interactions\u2019 impact on face, the FTA enhances understanding of communication management. This comprehension is indispensable for hotels when responding to online reviews, as it aids in maintaining reputation. Politeness is key to rephrasing messages during inevitable FTAs, preserving recipients\u2019 reputation and fostering politeness. Brown and Levinson (1987) extensively discuss recognised politeness strategies, including choices to convey or not convey messages as indicators of FTA performance. When conveyed, four strategies can be used. Direct and unambiguous speech acts involve clear and straightforward communication. Positive politeness includes speech acts that show solidarity, intimacy, or empathy with the listener. On the other hand, negative politeness is used in social situations where there is a certain distance between individuals, requiring formal politeness and respect. Off-record strategies involve speech acts that allow the listener to draw their own conclusions, avoiding imposition.<\/p>\n
The increase in online platforms for reviewing hotel services has raised the significance of politeness in corporate communication. Despite its vital role in managing responses, the significance of incorporating politeness into response composition has largely been overlooked (Cowan & Anthony, 2008; Harrison-Walker, 2001). In this study, we analyse the FTAs employed in reviews. Conversely, we investigate the politeness utilised in responses to reviews.<\/p>\n
Move Analysis<\/h4>\n
Genre analysis involves a comprehensive exploration of text structures and how they interact with members of the discourse community (Bhatia, 2002; Martin, 1985). Swales (1990) defines genre as a distinct category of communicative events marked by shared communicative objectives. These genres exhibit evident patterns of similarity in structure, style, content presentation, and audience preferences. The analytical approach of move analysis plays a vital role in illustrating this concept, where each move and step serves a coherent communicative function in written or spoken discourse (Bhatia, 2013; Ho, 2017; Swales, 2004).<\/p>\n
Utilising move analysis, a method adapted to study diverse text types, proves valuable for understanding the rhetorical structure of various genres (Connor, 1996; Martin, 2003). This approach involves closely examining a collection of texts that represent a specific genre (Biber & Conrad, 2009). Move analysis finds relevance across multiple domains, including research abstracts (Alyousef, 2021; Fauzan et al., 2020; Yoon & Casal, 2020), presentations (Hu & Liu, 2018; Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas, 2005), TED talks (Chang & Huang, 2015; Li & Li, 2021), job recruitment posters (Phattisiri, et al., 2023), and press conferences (Laosrirattanachai & Laosrirattanachai, 2023).<\/p>\n
The domain of computer-mediated business discourse has garnered substantial interest in move analysis, particularly in relation to responses to reviews, focusing primarily on RNRs of hotels (Ho, 2017; Madon & Singh, 2023; Panseeta & Watson Todd, 2014; Thumvichit & Gampper, 2018, 2019; Zhang & V\u00e1squez, 2014), followed by RPRs (Cenni & Goelthals, 2021; Thumvichit, 2016). To ensure a comprehensive analysis of the various attitudes expressed towards hotel services in reviews, this study conducts a move analysis encompassing NRs, PRs, MRs, RNRs, RPRs, and RMRs.<\/p>\n
Research Questions<\/h4>\n
The present study aims to investigate the following research questions:<\/p>\n
\n- What are the prevalent levels of language formality observed in hotel service reviews and their corresponding responses? Moreover, what patterns of formality shifting are commonly employed?<\/li>\n
- Which Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs) are predominantly used in delivering service reviews within the hotel business context, and what specific politeness strategies are frequently applied in formulating responses?<\/li>\n
- What are the discernible moves and submoves present in hotel service reviews and their corresponding responses?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Methodology<\/h3>\nCorpora Compilation<\/h4>\n
The study employed a systematic data collection method, focusing on reviews and corresponding responses from the Top 25 Hotels in the World for 2022, as ranked by Tripadvisor.com. A total of 15 review-response pairs were meticulously gathered from each hotel, resulting in a dataset of 375 pairs. These were evenly distributed among positive (rated as excellent or very good), negative (rated as terrible or poor), and mixed (rated as average) categories, with 125 pairs in each. Table 1 presents a brief overview of the three corpora.<\/p>\n
Table 1. General information of the three corpora<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nCorpus<\/strong><\/td>\nCorpus size<\/strong> (Tokens)<\/strong><\/td>\nTotal (Tokens)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\n| Positive category<\/td>\n | Review<\/td>\n | 7,301<\/td>\n | 15,514<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Response<\/td>\n | 8,213<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Negative category<\/td>\n | Review<\/td>\n | 24,775<\/td>\n | 45,114<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Response<\/td>\n | 20,339<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Mixed category<\/td>\n | Review<\/td>\n | 14,323<\/td>\n | 27,345<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Response<\/td>\n | 13,022<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nTotal<\/strong><\/td>\nReview<\/strong><\/td>\n46,399<\/strong><\/td>\n87,973<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nResponse<\/strong><\/td>\n41,574<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nExploring the Shifts in Language Formality Used in Hotels\u2019 Reviews and Responses<\/h4>\nThe study analysed both reviews and their corresponding responses to assess formality, covering five styles: frozen, formal, consultative, casual, and intimate (Joos, 1962). Formality shifts within each review-response pair were then examined. Results as percentages showed how reviews and responses demonstrated different formality levels. A thorough evaluation identified respondent tendencies to match observed formality levels in reviews. As asserted by Skalicky (2013), the communicative function of every textual unit encompasses a compilation of one or more clauses, which facilitates the conveyance of a singular idea or topic. It is noteworthy that each review or response is constituted by one or more clauses. Consequently, the formality level attributed to each review or response is determined by the formality level predominating in the majority of its constituent sentences. For example, if a review has five sentences and three of them are casual, the review is classified as manifesting a casual level. Figure 1 shows 25 potential patterns of formality shifts based on the five degrees of formality.<\/p>\n ![](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej109\/a3pix\/image1.png\")
\nFigure 1. Twenty-five possible patterns of formality-shifting<\/strong><\/p>\nInvestigating the FTA Used in Reviews and the Politeness Strategies Used in Responses<\/h4>\nIn the current study, a two-fold approach was employed. Firstly, the construction of politeness measurement items was derived from the FTAs identified by Brown and Levinson (1987). Then, the adapted FTA framework was utilised for coding the instances of FTAs present in the PRs, NRs, and MRs. Secondly, Brown and Levinson\u2019s (1987) politeness strategies were applied to code the RPRs, RNRs, and RMRs obtained from Tripadvisor.com. Subsequently, a quantitative investigation was conducted to examine the correlations between the occurrence of FTAs in reviews and the politeness strategies observed in the corresponding responses.<\/p>\n Unveiling Moves and Steps within Three Types of Hotels\u2019 Reviews and Responses<\/h4>\nLiterature reviews on hotel review responses have mainly focused on RNRs, with limited attention given to RPRs, and scarce investigations conducted on RMRs. The present study adopted a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches. Leveraging insights from previous investigations on RNRs (Ho, 2017; Panseeta & Watson Todd, 2014; Thumvichit & Gampper, 2019; Zhang & V\u00e1squez, 2014) and RPRs (Cenni & Goelthals, 2021; Thumvichit, 2016), the top-down approach was initially applied to analyse RNRs, RPRs, and RMRs provided by hotel staff in the current study. Subsequently, any additional moves and steps identified during the analysis were incorporated to refine the move structure. In contrast, for NRs, PRs, and MRs submitted by hotel reviewers, the bottom-up approach was employed, as no prior studies have been conducted on these specific categories.<\/p>\n The research began by analysing ten comments from each review and response category: NRs, PRs, MRs, RNRs, RPRs, and RMRs. Trial move and step candidates were identified. Another set of ten comments from each category was then examined using trial move codes to uncover additional moves or steps. The third round of coding was conducted with an additional set of ten comments from each category to develop the final move code. After obtaining a stable and comprehensive set of move codes, the subsequent step involved having two trained move coders proceed with the coding process. In this step, the sample set consisting of 25 randomly selected NRs, PRs, and MRs, totalling 75 reviews (20% of all reviews), and 25 randomly selected RNRs, RPRs, and RMRs, totalling 75 responses (20% of all responses), was coded. Two trained coders used a yes-no codebook to achieve an agreement rate of 89.60% for reviews and 91.78% for responses, signifying strong agreement. With the coding protocol validated, it was applied to the entire set of NRs, PRs, MRs, RNRs, RPRs, and RMRs.<\/p>\n Identifying compulsory moves is crucial for highlighting suitable move types and their significance in reviews and responses. Researchers have used various cut-off percentages to define compulsory moves, such as 60% (Kanoksilapatham, 2005; Yang, 2015), 90% (Thumvichit & Gampper, 2019; Xiao & Cao, 2013), 95.6% (Cheung, 2008), and 100% (Tessuto, 2015). However, rigidly categorising moves as compulsory or optional can be overly restrictive in authentic language use. This study proposes criteria: moves in 80% or more of the corpus are compulsory, 50\u201379% are recommended, and less than 50% are elective.<\/p>\n Results<\/h3>\nAlthough an equal number of reviews and responses were collected for positive, negative, and mixed attitudes, the corpus\u2019s token count yields intriguing findings. The reviewer exhibited a tendency to express their opinions more extensively when dissatisfied, evident in the larger number of tokens found in NRs (24,775) compared to PRs (approximately 7,301 tokens, about 3.40 times fewer). MRs, with 14,323 tokens, likely resulted from encompassing both positive and negative sentiments about the service. The overall corpus size showed a ratio of approximately 1:2:3 for PRs, MRs, and NRs, indicating the reviewer\u2019s inclination to offer feedback, particularly concerning mixed and negative attitudes. These findings underscore the significance of integrating these service reviews into the evaluation and enhancement of hotel business services and utilising them as an additional tool alongside user survey questionnaires to gather authentic, in-depth, and valuable insights.<\/p>\n Language Formality<\/h4>\nLanguage levels in reviews can vary based on attitudes towards the received service. However, what is more crucial is the language level that the respondent chooses when responding to these reviews. This can impact guest perceptions and future service usage. Adapting language in responses can encourage repeated service usage. Language levels in composing reviews, responding, and shifts in formality are displayed in Tables 2 and 3.<\/p>\n Table 2. Proportions of different formality levels (Clocks) used in reviews and responses<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nFormality levels<\/strong><\/td>\nPRs<\/strong><\/td>\nNRs<\/strong><\/td>\nMRs<\/strong><\/td>\nTotal<\/strong><\/td>\nRPRs<\/strong><\/td>\nRNRs<\/strong><\/td>\nRMRs<\/strong><\/td>\nTotal<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\nFrozen<\/strong><\/td>\n0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/strong><\/td>\n0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFormal<\/strong><\/td>\n0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/strong><\/td>\n11
\n(8.80%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 11
\n(2.93%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nConsultative<\/strong><\/td>\n22
\n(17.60%)<\/td>\n | 20
\n(16.00%)<\/td>\n | 11
\n(8.80%)<\/td>\n | 53
\n(14.30%)<\/strong><\/td>\n104
\n(83.20%)<\/td>\n | 116
\n(92.80%)<\/td>\n | 90
\n(72.00%)<\/td>\n | 310
\n(82.67%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nCasual<\/strong><\/td>\n103
\n(82.40%)<\/td>\n | 105
\n(84.00%)<\/td>\n | 114
\n(91.20%)<\/td>\n | 322
\n(85.87%)<\/strong><\/td>\n10
\n(8.00%)<\/td>\n | 9
\n(7.20%)<\/td>\n | 35
\n(28.00%)<\/td>\n | 54
\n(14.40%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nIntimate<\/strong><\/td>\n0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/strong><\/td>\n0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nTotal
\n(%)<\/strong><\/td>\n125
\n(100%)<\/strong><\/td>\n125
\n(100%)<\/strong><\/td>\n125
\n(100%)<\/strong><\/td>\n375
\n(100%)<\/strong><\/td>\n125
\n(100%)<\/strong><\/td>\n125
\n(100%)<\/strong><\/td>\n125
\n(100%)<\/strong><\/td>\n375
\n(100%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nTable 2 indicates the frequent use of casual language by the reviewer, evident in 322 reviews (85.87%) out of a total of 375 reviews. Distribution of language across the three review types – PRs (82.40%), NRs (84.00%), and MRs (91.20%) – reveals a similar frequency of usage. This implied a consistent inclination towards casual language in reviews, regardless of the reviewers\u2019 attitudes towards the service. An examination of responses to these reviews highlighted the respondent\u2019s preference for the consultative level in interactions, representing 310 out of 375 responses (82.67%). Notably, in the analysis of RNRs, the respondent\u2019s use of consultative language was significantly higher (92.80%) compared to RPRs (83.20%) and RMRs (72.00%). This observation underscored the respondent\u2019s deliberate employment of consultative language to mitigate negative sentiments and restore trust among guests.<\/p>\n Table 3. Patterns of formality shifting in reviews and their corresponding responses<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nRank<\/strong><\/td>\nPRs to RPRs (125)<\/strong><\/td>\nNRs to RNRs (125)<\/strong><\/td>\nMRs to RMRs (125)<\/strong><\/td>\nRs to RRs (375)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\n1<\/strong><\/td>\nCasual to Consultative
\n(86 = 68.80%)<\/td>\n | Casual to Consultative
\n(96 = 76.80%)<\/td>\n | Casual to Consultative
\n(83 = 66.40%)<\/td>\n | Casual to Consultative
\n(265 = 70.67%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n2<\/strong><\/td>\nConsultative to Consultative
\n(18 = 14.40%)<\/td>\n | Consultative to Consultative
\n(20 = 16.00%)<\/td>\n | Casual to Casual
\n(31 = 24.80%)<\/td>\n | Casual to Casual
\n(48 = 12.80%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n3<\/strong><\/td>\nCasual to Formal
\n(9 = 7.20%)<\/td>\n | Casual to Casual
\n(9 = 7.20%)<\/td>\n | Consultative to Consultative
\n(7 = 5.60%)<\/td>\n | Consultative to Consultative
\n(45 = 12.00%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n4<\/strong><\/td>\nCasual to Casual
\n(8 = 6.40%)<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | Consultative to Casual
\n(4 = 3.20%)<\/td>\n | Casual to Formal
\n(9 = 2.40%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n5<\/strong><\/td>\nConsultative to Casual
\n(2 = 1.60%)<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | Consultative to Casual
\n(6 = 1.60%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n6<\/strong><\/td>\nConsultative to Formal
\n(2 = 1.60%)<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | Consultative to Formal
\n(2 = 0.53%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nAs was evident from Table 3, six distinct patterns of formality shifting have been identified in reviews and their corresponding responses. Among these six patterns, the casual to consultative pattern was the most frequently employed (70.67%). The findings in the domain of language formality shifting aligned with the results presented in Table 2, underscoring the recurrence of the reviewer\u2019s inclination to employ language at the casual level when composing reviews. Simultaneously, a shift in the level of language employed became apparent in the responses, moving towards the consultative level. Notably, the patterns of formality shifting most frequently encountered in the second and third ranks were the casual to casual pattern (12.80%) and the consultative to consultative pattern (12.00%), respectively. These instances emphasised the significance of these patterns within the contextual dynamics of linguistic interaction.<\/p>\n FTAs Used in Reviews and Politeness Strategies Used in Responses<\/h4>\nBesides considering language level, when the reviewer composes reviews, the FTAs often come into play. To ensure seamless communication and positive operational outcomes, the respondent needs to employ various politeness strategies to address these FTAs from the reviewer. See Tables 4 and 5.<\/p>\n Table 4. FTAs utilised in giving reviews<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nFace Threatening Acts<\/strong><\/td>\nPRs
\n(125)<\/strong><\/td>\nNRs
\n(125)<\/strong><\/td>\nMRs
\n(125)<\/strong><\/td>\nTotal
\n(375)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\nPositive Face
\nThreatening Acts
\n(P-FTA)<\/td>\n | P-FTA1: Expressions of complaints and reprimands<\/td>\n | 1
\n(0.80%)<\/td>\n | 124
\n(99.20%)<\/td>\n | 117
\n(93.60%)<\/td>\n | 242
\n(64.53%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| P-FTA2: Expressions of insults<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 29
\n(23.20%)<\/td>\n | 12
\n(9.60%)<\/td>\n | 41
\n(10.93%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| P-FTA3: Boasting about self<\/td>\n | 11
\n(8.80%)<\/td>\n | 49
\n(39.20%)<\/td>\n | 16
\n(12.80%)<\/td>\n | 76
\n(20.27%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nNegative Face
\nThreatening Acts
\n(N-FTA)<\/td>\n | N-FTA1: Suggestions and advice<\/td>\n | 1
\n(0.80%)<\/td>\n | 16
\n(12.80%)<\/td>\n | 28
\n(22.40%)<\/td>\n | 45
\n(12.00%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| N-FTA2: Reminders<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 34
\n(27.20%)<\/td>\n | 12
\n(9.60%)<\/td>\n | 46
\n(12.27%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| N-FTA3: Threats, warnings, and dares<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 11
\n(8.80%)<\/td>\n | 6
\n(4.80%)<\/td>\n | 17
\n(4.53%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| N-FTA4: Expressions of admiration<\/td>\n | 125
\n(100.00%)<\/td>\n | 37
\n(29.60%)<\/td>\n | 112
\n(89.60%)<\/td>\n | 274
\n(73.07%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nTable 5. Politeness strategies employed in composing responses<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nPoliteness Strategies<\/strong><\/td>\nRPRs
\n(125)<\/strong><\/td>\nRNRs
\n(125)<\/strong><\/td>\nRMRs
\n(125)<\/strong><\/td>\nTotal
\n(375)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\nBald on Record
\n(OnR-PS)<\/td>\n | OnR-PS: Doing FTA directly without mitigating threats<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 12
\n(9.60%)<\/td>\n | 7
\n(5.60%)<\/td>\n | 19
\n(5.07%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nPositive
\nPoliteness
\nStrategies
\n(P-PS)<\/td>\n | P-PS1: Noticing and attending to the reviewer\u2019s patronage, interests, and wants<\/td>\n | 12
\n(9.60%)<\/td>\n | 25
\n(20.22%)<\/td>\n | 12
\n(9.60%)<\/td>\n | 49
\n(13.07%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| P-PS2: Expressing agreement and avoiding disagreement<\/td>\n | 16
\n(12.80%)<\/td>\n | 52
\n(41.60%)<\/td>\n | 17
\n(13.60%)<\/td>\n | 85
\n(22.67%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| P-PS3: Offering, promising, or giving gifts to the reviewer<\/td>\n | 119
\n(95.20%)<\/td>\n | 77
\n(61.60%)<\/td>\n | 74
\n(59.20%)<\/td>\n | 270
\n(72.00%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| P-PS4: Being optimistic<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 15
\n(12.00%)<\/td>\n | 10
\n(8.00%)<\/td>\n | 25
\n(6.67%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| P-PS5: Giving explanations or reasons<\/td>\n | 3
\n(2.40%)<\/td>\n | 44
\n(35.20%)<\/td>\n | 37
\n(29.60%)<\/td>\n | 84
\n(22.40%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nNegative
\nPoliteness
\nStrategies
\n(N-PS)<\/td>\n | N-PS1: Questioning and hedging<\/td>\n | 10
\n(8.00%)<\/td>\n | 49
\n(39.20%)<\/td>\n | 42
\n(33.60%)<\/td>\n | 101
\n(26.93%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| N-PS2: Minimising the imposition<\/td>\n | 7
\n(5.60%)<\/td>\n | 39
\n(31.20%)<\/td>\n | 32
\n(25.60%)<\/td>\n | 78
\n(20.80%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| N-PS3: Giving deference<\/td>\n | 6
\n(4.80%)<\/td>\n | 30
\n(24.00%)<\/td>\n | 29
\n(23.20%)<\/td>\n | 65
\n(17.33%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| N-PS4: Apologising and begging for forgiveness<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 103
\n(82.40%)<\/td>\n | 86
\n(68.80%)<\/td>\n | 189
\n(50.40%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| N-PS5: Stating the FTA as a general rule<\/td>\n | 0
\n(0.00%)<\/td>\n | 24
\n(19.20%)<\/td>\n | 12
\n(9.60%)<\/td>\n | 36
\n(9.60%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nTable 4 presents an extensive analysis of the FTAs utilised by the reviewer in conveying PRs, NRs, or MRs. In the realm of PRs, expressions of admiration (N-FTA4) emerged as the predominant choice, closely followed by self-boasting (P-FTA3). A parallel trend was evident for NRs, with expressions of complaints and reprimands (P-FTA1) emerging as the most frequently utilised FTA, trailed by self-boasting (P-FTA3) and expressions of admiration (N-FTA4), respectively. This suggested that despite negative sentiments towards the hotel\u2019s services, the guest acknowledged aspects deserving appreciation. Within the context of MRs, the reviewer notably favoured expressions of complaints and reprimands (P-FTA1), followed by expressions of admiration (N-FTA4) and offering suggestions and advice (N-FTA1). Broadly observed, expressions of admiration (N-FTA4) remained the consistently preferred FTA choice, supported by the comprehensive data analysis.<\/p>\n The reviewer employed the P-FTA through three approaches. Expressions encompassing complaints and rebukes (P-FTA1) were conveyed through utterances such as \u201cThe hotel staff is not friendly, not helpful, and not flexible.<\/em>\u201d Sometimes, the reviewer expressed certain phrases in a sarcastic manner. For example, instances of insults (P-FTA2) were represented by phrases like \u201cUpon arrival, I was taken to the reception, and the first thing they offered was a voucher for the swimming pool. Really? It was raining heavily! Who wants to go to the pool at that time?<\/em>\u201d Lastly, within the context of P-FTA, the reviewer might engage in self-promotion (P-FTA3) by articulating statements like \u201cI am a very frequent customer of [hotel\u2019s name] worldwide. I have stayed in at least 20 different [hotel\u2019s name] properties. At least 5 different [hotel\u2019s name] properties only this year.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\nThe N-FTA could be enacted in four distinct ways when composing reviews. Instances of suggestions or advice (N-FTA1) were illustrated by phrases like \u201cMaybe the management should spend a few days in some pool villas of their competition to understand what the standard of hospitality is and how to get repeating customers.<\/em>\u201d Utterances providing reminders (N-FTA2), especially when the reviewer reminded the hotel that it was claimed as a 5-star hotel but provided an underqualified service, such as \u201cWe are given only 3 towels for 2 guests; generally, in all 5-star hotels, we get at least 4, 2 per person,<\/em>\u201d were another manifestation. Should the reviewer aim to employ expressions that threaten, warn, or challenge the hotel (N-FTA3), they could do so through statements like \u201cSuch a place should invest more in their staff\u2019s manners; otherwise, they will, of course, lose high-potential clients forever.<\/em>\u201d Finally, the hotel could be praised by the reviewer (N-FTA4), exemplified by an utterance like \u201cEverything was perfect! Food, service, the property was super clean<\/em>,\u201d for instance.<\/p>\nIn Table 5, to compose responses to reviews, the respondent employed politeness strategies through various methods. For RPRs, the strategy of offering, promising, or giving gifts to the guest (P-PS3) was the most frequently used (95.20%). In the context of RNRs and RMRs, the strategy of apologising and begging for forgiveness (N-PS4) was utilised most often, at 82.40% and 68.80% respectively, in response to FTAs directed towards the reviewer. Overall, the strategy of offering, promising, or giving gifts to the reviewer (P-PS3) was the most commonly employed (72.00%) across all three categories.<\/p>\n In the case of OnR-PS, the respondent was expected to communicate the intended message directly to the reviewer without making significant efforts to mitigate potential threats to the reviewer\u2019s face. For instance, \u201cIt\u2019s rather silly that this review was even permitted to be posted.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\nIn relation to the positive politeness strategies, five strategies were found to be applied in crafting responses. The respondent mentioned the guest\u2019s patronage, interests, and desires (P-PS1) to emphasise something positive about the reviewer and show appreciation for it, with an utterance such as \u201cWe thank you for your patronage and deeply appreciate your kind words.<\/em>\u201d To avoid disagreement, the respondent expressed agreement with the reviewer, indicating that the reviewer\u2019s opinion was correct and endorsed (P-PS2), through a response like \u201c | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |