Spanish Travellers' Expectations of Service Encounters in Domestic and International Settings

Tourism, Culture & Communication, Vol. 14, pp. 000–000 1098-304X/14 $60.00 + .00

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/109830414X14133839512703

Copyright Ó 2014 Cognizant Comm. Corp. E-ISSN 1943-4146

www.cognizantcommunication.com

1

Address correspondence to María de la Hernández-López, Depto. Filología y Traducción, Universidad Pablo de Olavide,

Despacho 14.01.37, Ctra. Utrera Km. 1, 41013 Sevilla, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]

SPANISH TRAVELERS’ EXPECTATIONS OF SERVICE ENCOUNTERS

IN DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL SETTINGS

LUCÍA FERNÁNDEZ-AMAYA,* M. DE LA HERNÁNDEZ-LÓPEZ,*

AND PILAR GARCÉS-CONEJOS BLITVICH†

*Depto. Filología y Traducción, Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain

†Department of English, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC, USA

Despite the vast literature on customer satisfaction and cultural expectations, little attention has been

paid to guests’ linguistic expectations in interaction with receptionists. To help fill in this gap, this

study examines 183 questionnaires that include guests’ general expectations when communicating

with receptionists in either their home country (Spain) or abroad, in order to understand whether

there are stable expectations in relation to 1) attitude, 2) cultural values, and 3) language used. The

results show that there are some expectations that vary depending on whether guests are either in

their home country or abroad. These findings may not only help understand guests’ specific prefer-

ences and expectations, but also their orientations towards either solidarity or deference.

Key words: Hospitality interaction; Politeness; Cross-cultural communication;

Customer expectations; Communication

Introduction

Studies have shown that hotel receptionist–guest

interaction is central to the evaluation of guests’

(dis)satisfaction, and thus to the success of the ser-

vice encounter itself (see, e.g., Bitner, Booms, &

Tetreault, 1990; Lovelock, 1988; Shostack, 1985;

Solomon, Surprenant, Czepiel, & Gutman, 1985;

Surprenant & Solomon, 1987). When the service

encounter occurs among people from different

culture or language groups, dissatisfaction may

also be a consequence of intercultural differences

in what is considered appropriate communicative

behavior—that is, what nonverbal/verbal behav-

ior may be conducive to customer satisfaction

(Bailey, 1997; Bilbow & Yeung, 1998; Blue &

Harun, 2003; Callahan, 2006; Leung & Lo, 1996;

Reichert & Gill, 2004; Sparks & Callan, 1992;

Stauss & Mang, 1999). Thus, having access to par-

ticipants’ perceptions may help unveil their expec-

tations regarding norms of appropriate nonverbal/

verbal behavior that regulate reception desk ser-

vice encounters and explain why encounters were

assessed as unsatisfactory/satisfactory. Although

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

2 FERNÁNDEZ-AMAYA, DE LA HERNÁNDEZ-LÓPEZ, AND GARCÉS-CONEJOS BLITVICH

there is an ample literature on hospitality com-

munication (e.g., Blue & Harun, 2003; Bunzel,

2007; Cardoso, 2003; Leung & Lo, 1996), little has

been researched with regards to expectations and

assessments of impoliteness/politeness tied to hotel

reception interaction. An important exception to

this trend is Sirikhan and Prapphal’s (2011) work,

which assesses the pragmatic ability of Thai stu-

dents in hospitality-oriented programs using a test

that targets students’ knowledge of speech acts and

politeness.

The present study thus aims at helping fill in this

gap by analyzing the perceptions of Spanish guests

staying in a variety of hotels in Spain and English-

speaking countries (in particular, the UK, Austra-

lia, and the US) with the aim of examining their

expectations regarding the receptionists’ behavior

in terms of politeness or appropriateness (i.e., the

communicative strategies employed to maintain

social harmony) (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987;

Lakoff, 1989; Leech, 1983).

There are numerous studies that have linked inap-

propriateness/appropriateness and impoliteness/

politeness, equating them with specific norms and

expectations (Arundale, 2006; Bousfield & Locher,

2008; Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987; Eelen, 2001;

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2010a, 2010b; Locher &

Watts, 2005). Although inappropriateness/appro-

priateness is, to a point, subjectively shaped in

the mind of individuals as particular expectations,

these are mostly socially shared by members of the

same community of practice and constrained by

a specific genre. Olson, Roese, and Zanna (1996)

refer to these expectations as “expectancies” and

define them as beliefs about a future event or situ-

ation. People rarely interact without having a spe-

cific set of expectations regarding others’ behavior

(Jones, 1986). Furthermore, expectations may help

us better understand individuals’ cultural and edu-

cational values, and thus provide a framework for

interpersonal relationships and professional train-

ing (Burgoon, 1993). Regarding professional set-

tings, Joardar (2011), highlights that:

A local workgroup’s initial acceptance of a new-

comer from a different culture is determined by

the group members’ expectations of the newcomer

that are influenced by his/her category stereotypes.

If the resulting attitude towards the newcomer is

not favorable initially, it becomes important to

study how it can be changed to ensure that the

workgroup functions properly. (p. 341)

When applied to the genre here under consider-

ation, we may say that expectations may influence

the attitude of a newcomer or guest from a differ-

ent culture or background if the hotel professionals

or receptionists fail to live up to them. As Truong

and King (2006, 2009, 2010a, 2010b) have shown,

staff’s behavior has an influence on tourists’ per-

ceptions, which may result in holiday satisfaction

and repeated visit. For that reason, it is important to

take into account that “delivering a satisfying tour-

ist experience is unlikely if frontline staff lack an

understanding of the cultural backgrounds of tour-

ists from key source markets.” (Truong & King,

2010a, p. 16).

In this study, 183 Spanish subjects who had

recently stayed at Spanish- and English-speaking

hotels completed a questionnaire that elicited their

perceptions on their interactions with hotel recep-

tionists. The results show that a) guests had very

specific expectations regarding what constitutes

appropriate receptionists’ behavior and b) there

appears to be a mismatch between genre-specific

versus general expectations of politeness. Finally,

a comparison between both groups (i.e., Spanish

guests staying at Spanish hotels and Spanish guests

staying at hotels in English-speaking countries)

shows that, even though there seems to be a gen-

eral perception of what is expected regardless the

country/culture visited, participants’ expectations

regarding receptionists’ behavior seem to fluctuate

when traveling abroad. Thus, both genre and cul-

ture considerations need to be addressed in order to

understand in what ways these can have an impact

on customers’ expectations.

Reception Desk Interaction and

Customer Satisfaction

Although hotel service encounters have been

widely addressed in the literature (e.g., Bunzel,

2007; Cardoso, 2003; Katz, 2001), little descriptive

work has been done regarding reception desk inter-

action. Most of the studies carried out in relation

with hotels have to do with customer satisfaction

in more general terms (Bitner et al., 1990; Danaher

& Mattsson, 1994a, 1994b; Yung & Chan, 2001).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

SPANISH TRAVELERS’ EXPECTATIONS OF SERVICE ENCOUNTERS 3

These studies have shown that customers’ expec-

tations regarding the interaction with employees,

perceptions of current performance, and discon-

firmation experiences have an effect on their dis-

satisfaction/satisfaction with the service (Bitner et

al., 1990; Bolton & Drew, 1991; Lovelock, 1988;

Oliver, 1980; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry,

1985, 1988, 1994; Shostack, 1985; Solomon et

al., 1985; Surprenant & Solomon, 1987; Zeithaml,

Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990). Along these lines,

Zeithaml et al. (1990) identify different dimensions

of service quality about which customers can pro-

vide opinions: a) responsiveness (i.e., willingness

to help customers), b) assurance (i.e., employees’

politeness and ability to express confidence), and

c) efforts to empathize (i.e., individualized attention).

Even though these dimensions are, without doubt,

useful, it is also true that it is difficult to know to

what extent customers have the same perception

of what “willingness to help” entails and how this

is performed. Furthermore, what is understood by

“politeness” varies from culture to culture and does

not necessarily go hand in hand with confidence.

In other words, linguistic expectations should

be described in more specific terms to provide a

clearer sense of what customers generally expect.

According to Czepiel (1990), customers are often

incapable of distinguishing between the individual

and the organization: if an individual fails to pro-

vide the service, the organization is also seen as

having failed to satisfy the customer’s needs. Along

these lines, Sparks and Callan (1992) and Leung

and Lo (1996) show that perceptions of hotel ser-

vice quality are determined by the quality of the

guest’s experience during face-to-face interaction

with staff in service encounters. More concretely,

Sparks and Callan (1992) argue that, since the hotel

industry deals with intangible elements, it is the

quality of the service encounter that establishes and

confirms customer expectations about the hospital-

ity product:

The manner in which host–guest encounters are

managed by front line staff will be a direct deter-

minant of the guest’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction

with the service offered. This is particularly so for

hotels, as the guest perceives their hotel as a home

or even refuge from the outside world. However,

there are many factors that might negatively

influence host-guest relations, including poor

communication between the parties. Relations may

be affected because the host and the guest use dif-

ferent languages and have different cultural expec-

tations. (p. 220)

Some aspects of hotel quality and service influ-

encing customers’ experience and assessment in

hotels are more palpable (e.g., quality of the bed-

room or price) but some others are much more

subtle and difficult to pinpoint, as it is the case

with nonverbal/verbal communicative styles. That

is why unveiling customer expectations regarding

actual communication is so important, because the

success of the overall service experience depends

considerably upon the efficiency of receptionists in

managing their interpersonal relations with guests.

Along with the general expectations guests may

have prior to their arrival, there are others that are

raised by the perception of the destination itself,

the price guests have to pay for their stay, or the

image projected by the hotel in different websites

and magazines, etc. The extensive marketing lit-

erature on the vast array of variables influencing

customers’ expectations, originally described by

Oliver (1980) and Churchill and Surprenant (1982),

has emphasized the complexity of these variables

as well as the great diversity of expectations influ-

encing service encounters. However, there are two

key aspects of hotel experience that, due to their

sociolinguistic orientation, fall out of the scope of

marketing: first, how culture may influence expec-

tations, and second, what interlocutors’ specific lin-

guistic and communicative expectations going into

the encounter may be. Accordingly, Joardar (2011)

used expectation violation theory to explain that

when a newcomer’s performance and attitude does

not adapt to the target culture, a group’s expecta-

tions are not confirmed and a change in terms of

perceptions is experienced. The direction of change,

be it positive or negative, is always determined by

whether the violation favors the group or not. In

this respect, more studies examining variation in

expectations within and across cultures are needed.

Thus, the present study will aim at studying varia-

tion in the participants’ expectations at home and

abroad, to compare guests’ needs and expectations.

The language used for communicative exchanges

in hotels is known as “hospitality language,” a term

that Blue and Harun (2003) define as, “all linguistic

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


expressions which relate to and represent hospitality

concerns” (p. 74). The authors indicate that there are

certain linguistic and nonverbal skills that hotel staff

should develop, such as knowing how to address a

person, solicit and give the necessary information,

respond to questions/requests, use prompts, adopt

specific body language, deal with difficult custom-

ers, or appease complainants. Soderberg and Holden

(2002) and Blue and Harun (2003) believe that these

skills may be basically the same worldwide because

hospitality language has been somewhat standard-

ized due to globalization. However, there is no gen-

eral consensus on this point. Lenartowicz and Roth

(1999, 2004) and Sackmann and Phillips (2004),

among others, support the idea that national cul-

tures should be taken into consideration even in the

global economic context, given that uniformity of

values and expectations only occurs at a very super-

ficial level of consciousness in customers. Hope

(2004) also demonstrated that “cultural differences

do have an impact on the management of operations

in hotels” (p. 51).

In close relation to the present study, research

has also proven that customer dissatisfaction may

occasionally be a consequence of intercultural dif-

ferences between what is considered appropriate

behavior by interlocutors who do not share a com-

mon cultural background (Bailey, 1997; Bilbow &

Yeung, 1998; Blue & Harun, 2003; Callahan, 2006;

Leung & Lo, 1996; Reichert & Gill, 2004; Sparks

& Callan, 1992; Stauss & Mang, 1999; Truong &

King, 2006, 2009, 2010a, 2010b). Stauss and Mang

(1999) were among the first to empirically inves-

tigate the role of culture in service encounters and

discovered that the cultural distance between the ser-

vice provider and the customer had a major impact

on customer satisfaction. It is this controversy that

motivates this study, which aims at unveiling to

what extent communicative cultural variation is a

variable in customer satisfaction and evaluation in

relation to attitudes, values, and expected language

use in reception desk interactions. The motivation

to restrict the analysis to the reception desk and not

other communicative situations within the hotel

experience lies in the fact that the internalized lin-

guistic scripts1 (Schank, 1986) of each genre and

situational frame (Hall, 1959/1990) are socially

internalized differently depending on whether the

traveler is communicating with a receptionist, shop

assistant, waiter, or room service provider, and thus

the expectations in terms of language use will be

different.

Within hospitality language, sociopragmatic and

interpersonal aspects of communication are proven

to be the most important ones when it comes to cus-

tomer satisfaction. Ruiz Garrido and Iborra (2006)

and Vandermeeren (2005) emphasize the idea that

professional staff in the hospitality industry needs

pragmatic instruction to carry out their work suc-

cessfully. Quite often, however, training and actual

performance do not match due to the substantial

differences between the classroom environment

and the real world. In line with this, Blue and Harun

(2003) stated that most of the language used in text-

books related to hotel service encounters tends to

be too explicit, excessively deferential, generic, and

frequently oversimplified. It is clear that in order to

prepare professionals to transfer classroom learning

into successful reception desk performance, teach-

ers need to know enough about the work environ-

ment that receptionists are being trained for. Also,

Kankaanranta and Louhiala-Salmini (2010) state

that “knowledge of the specific business context,

the particular genres used in the particular business

area, and overall business communication strategies

are tightly intertwined with proficiency in English,

which impacts upon teaching” (p. 204). Thus, the

results obtained from the present study may be use-

ful not only to raise awareness of the importance

of appropriate communication with customers, but

also to provide trainers with authentic teaching

materials based on real data.

Reception Desk Interaction and

Impoliteness/Politeness

Traditionally, politeness is understood as the

communicative strategies employed to maintain

social harmony (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987;

Lakoff, 1989; Leech, 1983). Politeness phenomena

have been widely addressed since the publication

of Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness

theory and constitute one of the most researched

areas within pragmatics and intercultural com-

munication. One of the most important concepts

within politeness frameworks is face. Brown and

Levinson’s politeness theory is based on Goffman’s

(1967) notion of face and they define it as “the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


public self-image that every member wants to claim

for himself” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61).

Brown and Levinson considered that there are two

interconnected aspects of face: positive and nega-

tive. More recent approaches have referred to these

two same aspects of sociability in communication

as involvement and independence (e.g., Scollon &

Scollon, 1995) or closeness and respectful distance

(Hernández-López, 2009, 2011; Márquez Reiter &

Placencia, 2011). Involvement reflects the human

need to be involved and connected with others,

in a way that the interlocutors show empathy and

familiarity with others. This is also related to the

need to minimize status differences and to maxi-

mize equality between interlocutors. On the other

hand, independence focuses on the individuality of

participants, reflecting the individual’s autonomy

and freedom from imposition.

Therefore, involvement, or positive face, is

related to trying to achieve some type of bonding

in interpersonal relationships by diminishing social

distance among speech participants. To enhance

involvement, the speaker pays attention to the

interlocutor’s desire to be liked and appreciated by

claiming common ground, by agreeing and avoid-

ing overt disagreement, by delivering compliments,

etc. This provides proximity between speech par-

ticipants, which is also called “solidarity” (Scollon

& Scollon, 1983).

On the other hand, independence, or negative

face, deals with “the basic claim to territories, per-

sonal preserves, rights to non-distraction, i.e., to

freedom of action and freedom from imposition”

(Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61). Thus, in order to

preserve the interlocutor’s personal space and terri-

tory, the speaker makes use of indirectness, apolo-

gies, imposition–avoidance, and hesitation. This

negative face is what Scollon and Scollon (1983)

call “deference.” Independence or deference has

been traditionally associated with respect and for-

mality in the Anglo-Saxon literature; therefore,

it could also be associated to either status/role or

variation in terms of distance or power.

The latest developments in politeness studies

show that being polite is much more than using spe-

cific communicative strategies, but also understand-

ing, assessing, and negotiating meaning. Here, the

possibility of distinguishing between positive and

negative face has also been questioned (see Garcés-

Conejos Blitvich, 2010a, 2010b). This is the so-

called postmodern or discursive approach (Eelen,

2001; Linguistic Politeness Research Group, 2011;

Locher, 2004, 2006; Locher & Watts, 2005; Mills,

2003; Watts, 2003, 2005), which focuses on long

stretches of discourse in context, rather than iso-

lated utterances. In order to account for a more

objective and comprehensive view of communi-

cation, Watts, Ide, and Ehlich (1992) differentiate

between “first-order politeness” (based on partici-

pants’ perceptions) and “second-order politeness”

(based on researchers’ interpretations, grounded

in pragmatic theory), also known as Politeness1

and Politeness2, and developed later on by Eelen

(2001), Locher (2004), and Watts (2003).

In particular, Eelen (2001) stated that a theory of

politeness should take both politeness and impolite-

ness into consideration, focus on both the speaker

and the hearer, and be based on a dynamic notion

of culture and social reality. Thus, the author pro-

posed an alternative view of politeness based on

Bourdieu’s (1991) concept of habitus and whose

basic tenets are:

argumentativity (which incorporates evaluativity),

historicity and discursiveness. The incorporation

of these characteristics leads to a notion that takes

full account of the hearer’s position and the evalu-

ative moment; is able to capture both politeness

and impoliteness; provides a more dynamic, bi-

directional view of the social-individual relation-

ship. (Eelen, 2001, p. 247)

Also relevant for this study is the idea that polite-

ness should be studied within a larger model of

interpersonal communication, whether it is called

“relational work” (Locher, 2006; Locher & Watts,

2005; Watts, 2005), “face constitution” (Arundale,

1999, 2006), or “rapport management” (Spencer-

Oatey, 2000, 2008, 2009). In contrast to earlier

theories, these approaches focus on interpersonal

communication that encompasses all variables influ-

encing conversation, rather than on the individual.

Nonetheless, not only are the dynamic variables of

interaction relevant here, but also the situational

context, which may constrain the interlocutors’

expectations. This is what Terkourafi (2003, 2005)

calls a frame-based approach. In line with this, the

study of politeness in specific contexts of use is

also supported by Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (2010a,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


2010b, 2013) with one of the latest contributions to

this area of research: the genre approach to impo-

liteness/politeness. According to this author, a com-

prehensive impoliteness/politeness model needs to

take into account both first-order and second-order

politeness, conceived and displayed in a way that is

generally associated with particular social practices

or genres. That is, a unit of analysis is needed that

should be useful not only for interpersonal, face-to-

face, dyadic communication but also for intergroup,

mediated, polylogal communication. Garcés-Conejos

Blitvich (2010b) considers that this unit is genre,

following Swales’ (1990) and Fairclough’s (2003)

works. Swales (1990) defines genre as

a class of communicative events, the members

of which share some set of communicative pur-

poses. These purposes are recognized by the expert

members of the parent discourse community, and

thereby constitute the rationale for the genre. This

rationale shapes the schematic structure of the

discourse and influences and constrains choice of

content and style . . . exemplars of a genre exhibit

various patterns of similarity in terms of structure,

style, content and intended audience. (p. 58)

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (2010b) indicates that

this definition needs to be complemented with

Fairclough’s (2003), in which interactions are drawn

from the resources that a particular genre offers.

Accordingly, Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (2010b) pro-

poses a definition of politeness that is directly related

to the concept of “genre” and that will be utilized

for the purposes of this study:

(i) the use of lexico-grammatical strategies or

realizations of prosodic features typically associ-

ated, i.e. recurrent, with a specific (pre)genre and/

or (ii) the complying with the established, (pre)

genre-sanctioned, norms and interactional param-

eters regulating the rights and obligations associ-

ated therein with a given individual/social identity

which can thus be interpreted as face-maintaining

or enhancing. (p. 62)

The main motivation to base the present study

on the genre approach to impoliteness/politeness

rather than on traditional theoretical frameworks

is the fact that it addresses features, such as situa-

tional rights and obligations (Fraser, 1990; Spencer-

Oatey, 2000, 2008), associated with a given identity,

coconstructed as individuals engage in a given social

practice. Social practices guide our expectations

regarding what behavior is inappropriate/appropri-

ate therein. Expectations, in fact, can be classified

into two different categories according to Joardar

(2011): target-based expectancies (i.e., a particular

individual’s knowledge of a situation prior behav-

ior) and category-based expectancies (i.e., knowl-

edge of the group to which a person belongs).

While the latter is closely related to cultural expec-

tations based on general knowledge, the former is

more specifically local, and thus greatly depends

on genre and individual traits. Both concepts are

central to the present study, which analyzes the

realization of a given genre practice (reception desk

interaction) in two cultural backgrounds. Partici-

pants are assigned specific guest/receptionist roles

and can claim specific face needs along with rights

and obligations, which are all constrained by the

norms of this genre practice.

Despite the major changes in the field outlined

above, the vast majority of scholarship within the

field of politeness continues to take a Politeness2

approach (researchers’ interpretations grounded in

pragmatic theory). For its part, however, the present

study aims at contributing to explore Politeness1 in

service encounters.

Thus, it is against the theoretical background

presented that this study seeks to answer the fol-

lowing research questions:

Do guests expect: a) genre orientation (i.e., task 1.

and role orientation) or person orientation on the

part of the receptionist? b) deference or solidar-

ity orientation on the part of the receptionist?

Do guests have the same expectations when 2.

they stay in hotels in Spain as when they stay at

hotels in English-speaking countries?

Methodology

Data Collection

The data-gathering method for this study is

based on questionnaires addressed to Spanish

guests who had recently stayed at hotels located

in Spain, on the one hand, and English-speaking

countries (England, Scotland, US, and Australia),

on the other. The variety of destinations is justified

by the fact that we do not aim at collecting data on

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


two specific communities of speakers interacting,

but rather at examining the assessments of Span-

ish speakers when interacting with receptionists

in their home country and abroad in order to elu-

cidate whether cultural or situational constraints

determine their expectations or whether there are

stable genre expectations across cultures. Nonethe-

less, we deemed it necessary to restrict our data to

English-speaking countries, given that including

other countries would involve knowledge of other

languages as a variable.

In order to obtain information about the percep-

tion of Spanish guests when interacting with recep-

tionists, questionnaires were distributed among

faculty at different universities and departments.

These were sent by email, either as an attached

word document or in online format2, depending

on the participants’ preferences. All the data were

gathered from January 2011 to September 2012.

A total of 183 questionnaires were completed and

returned (93 from guests staying at Spanish hotels

and 90 staying at hotels abroad).

Participants

An on-line version of the questionnaire was cre-

ated and sent to listservs of different universities in

Spain, including all Andalusian Universities, dif-

ferent universities in Alicante and Valencia, Uni-

versidad Complutense de Madrid, and Universidad

de Vigo. Given the high mobility of scholars and

students, geographical distribution was not consid-

ered. The focus of interest, instead, was the amount

of questionnaires completed by Spanish academics

who usually travel for either holidays or research-

related activities. Making sure that most of the sub-

scribers to these lists were graduate students and

faculty was key to ensure homogeneity of data, as

it has been demonstrated that members of the same

community of practice3 will know and share the

implicit norms of conversation in a given context,

and thus the expectations would be specific for this

specific profile. Moreover, this allowed us to ensure

homogeneity regarding age (the majority averaged

between 30 and 44 years of age), educational back-

ground (most of them held a Ph.D. or were pursuing

a graduate degree), and occupation (teaching and/

or researching at different levels). In other words,

the motivation to focus only on this specific group

of participants is driven by the fact that age, educa-

tion, work experience, and international experience

may influence their expectations in communication

when it comes to intercultural encounters (Joardar,

2011). Also, this may ensure higher representative-

ness, given that our focus of interest was entirely on

the perception of this sector of society. In fact, given

that the number of participants was limited, includ-

ing any profile as participants would have led to less

representativity. Needless to say, the designed ques-

tionnaire included questions about type of hotel,

country, number of stars, and number of days at the

hotel. All the respondents were chosen after ensur-

ing that their stay was recent (within the last year).

Regarding gender, 36.56% of the participants

staying at hotels in Spain (PS henceforth) were male

and 62.37% were female (1.93% of the respondents

did not include any genre-related information).

Staying abroad (PA from now onwards), there were

45.38% male and 53.08% female participants. Most

of them had stayed at either three- or four-star hotels

(82.8% PS; 60% PA), which they had mostly visited

for the first time (81.72% PS; 84.62% PA). How-

ever, although this was their first time staying at that

particular hotel, in most cases, it was not the par-

ticipants’ first visit to the specific city (64.52% PS;

63.08% PA). Thus, the subjects’ profile emerges as

one type of guest with some experience in interna-

tional travel. The number of nights they spent at the

hotel ranged mainly between 1 and 3 (82%, 80%) in

the case of hotels in Spain and between 4 and 7 when

traveling abroad (50%). Among all the options given

regarding the purpose of their trip, most participants’

visit was either for holidays (38% PS; 50.68% PA)

or to attend a conference or professional event (33%

PS; 17.12% PA). The fact that most respondents

were university professors also had an influence on

the results related to participants’ level of English

(65.21% PS and 61.54% PA considered their level to

be either intermediate or high), and their education,

as most of them held a Ph.D. (50.36% PS; 43.08%

PA) or were pursuing a graduate degree (17.20% PS;

19.92% PA).

Questionnaire Design

Our main goal when designing the questionnaire

was to elicit Spanish guests’ perceptions on their

interactions with hotel receptionists in Spain and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


English-speaking countries. Questionnaires have

been widely used for gathering data within the field

of pragmatics (e.g., Blum-Kulka, 1982; Blum-Kulka

& Olshtain, 1986; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Garcés-

Conejos Blitvich, Bou-Franch, & Lorenzo-Dus,

2010; House & Kasper, 1987; Lorenzo-Dus, Garcés-

Conejos Blitvich, & Bou-Franch, 2011; Sifianou,

1992; Sifianou & Tzanne, 2010). Research on polite-

ness has also utilized multiple-choice surveys to

examine people’s preferences for specific linguis-

tic features, such as speech acts (Hudson, Detmer,

& Brown, 1995; Liu, 2006; Roever, 2005, 2006;

Shimazu, 1989). Finally, rating scales have also

been used to investigate “how appropriate, polite,

deferential and so forth people assess strategies of

communicative action and their linguistic realiza-

tions to be, usually in specific scenarios” (Kasper,

2008, p. 295).

The present study is not based on interactions

proper but rather on the perceptions and evaluations

of the hospitality encounter with receptionists as a

whole. In our opinion, without the value judgments

of the speakers themselves, the analyst cannot be

certain of accurately accounting for the perception

of politeness and motivations for its strategic use.

This is obviously relevant, as the examination of

linguistic data will hardly find an application if it is

not grounded on interpretations of real-life encoun-

ters. In this sense, we support the idea that polite-

ness should not only be qualified (i.e., examined in

detail through linguistic data) but also quantified,

in this particular case considering what the partici-

pants themselves perceive. Also, the vast majority

of studies tackling linguistic politeness have been

based on qualitative approaches while interest in

quantitative results has been generally neglected

(but see, e.g., Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Lorenzo-

Dus, & Bou-Franch, 2013; Lorenzo-Dus et al.,

2011). While the quantitative results in this study

will also help draw inferences on qualitative aspects

of the data with the help of the literature, a quan-

titative approach is needed in order to know which

aspects of interaction are relevant or irrelevant for

a specific community of practice (university staff)

in interaction in a given genre (the reception desk

at hotels).

The questionnaire used in this study was validated

by means of the Delphi method and a Cronbach’s

alpha analysis. First, following the Delphi method,

the questionnaire was administered in three differ-

ent rounds to 15 “experts”, who provided feedback

regarding those aspects of the first version of the

questionnaire design that, in their view, needed

improvement. Some of the experts were linguists

with research experience in (im)politeness; others

were experts on questionnaire design, whereas oth-

ers were lay people whose main task was to ascer-

tain whether the questionnaire presented problems

of understanding for those not familiar with lin-

guistics or research.

Secondly, a Cronbach’s alpha analysis resulted

in scores oscillating between 0.809 and 0.971,

which implies that the questionnaire fulfills the

necessary reliability criteria. Thus, a final version

of the questionnaire was designed taking into con-

sideration the comments provided both by a stat-

istician and the group of “experts” chosen for the

Delphi test.

The questionnaire is divided into three main

parts, each of them addressing relevant information

related to our research goals:

General information about the guest: age, gender, 1.

nationality, education, occupation, level of Eng-

lish, languages spoken, country visited, number

of times staying at that hotel and country, length

of stay, and purpose of the visit.

The guest’s evaluation of and experience with 2.

the receptionists’ interaction at the hotel.

The guest’s preferences and expectations regard-3.

ing receptionists’ interaction with clients in

general.

Given that our interest in this study lies in par-

ticipants’ expectations and preferences when inter-

acting with receptionists, this article just focuses

on the results obtained from the last section (i.e.,

guests’ preferences and expectations).

Items Related to the Guest’s Preferences and

Expectations Regarding Receptionists in Gen-

eral. The information gathered was divided into

three different sections, corresponding to subjects’

expectations in terms of a) attitude and behavior,

b) cultural values, and c) language used.

In terms of attitude, the guests had to rate,

by means of a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 is

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


unimportant and 5 is crucial whether the reception-

ist should:

Use a proper tone of voice: not too soft, not 1.

too high.

Look at the customer (eye contact) all the 2.

time.

Not interrupt when the customer is speaking.3.

Be humble: acknowledge mistakes, accept criti-4.

cism, show willingness to change, apologize if

the customer complains about the service pro-

vided, or if misunderstandings occur.

Smile at the customer all the time.5.

Be clear and informative: stick to the informa-6.

tion they need to provide as receptionists.

Show some closeness and familiarity with the 7.

customer: that is, treat you as if you were some-

body she/he knows well and whose well-being

she/he is concerned about.

Have a good sense of humor.8.

Be truthful and transparent: that is, provide 9.

truthful information regardless whether the

information is positive or negative.

Always pay close attention to the customer’s 10.

needs.

Avoid barging in/meddling in the customers’ 11.

personal concerns.

The motivation behind including these items was

to find out whether participants exhibit a preference

towards solidarity–involvement (items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,

8, 10) or towards deference–independence (items

4, 11). The former reflect positive politeness strat-

egies by means of which the receptionist shows

interest in the guest, whereas the latter are negative

politeness strategies that the receptionist may use to

provide the guest with options, freedom of action,

and freedom from imposition.

At the same time, the inclusion of these items

would test whether guests prefer a genre/task orien-

tation (items 4, 6, 9, 10, 11); that is, they take into

consideration both their rights as guests to obtain

appropriate help and information and the reception-

ists’ obligation to provide them. It is worth noting

that some features included as genre-specific items

are, in fact, related to the expected rights and obli-

gations constrained by the situation itself.

As for different cultural values, the participants

were again asked to use a 5-point Likert scale (1 =

unimportant to 5 = crucial) to rate their interaction

with the receptionist on the basis of these traits:

Honesty1.

Formality2.

Not being imposed on3.

Clarity4.

Friendliness5.

Humor6.

Informativeness7.

Chattiness8.

Efficiency9.

Once again, these ratings may help unveil

whether participants expect solidarity orientation

(items 5, 6, 8), deference orientation (items 2, 3),

task orientation (items 1, 4, 7, 9), or a combination

thereof on the part of the receptionist.

Likewise, the linguistic expectations of the par-

ticipants in interaction with the receptionists were

examined. The linguistic items to be measured

were:

Kind words and expressions, such as 1.

compliments.

Certain expressions such as “please” and “thank 2.

you,” “sorry”; indirect requests (“Can I have

your room number, please?” rather than “Give

me your room number”).

Use of small talk: for example, talking 3.

about the weather, sports.

Use of formal language: for example, using 4. usted

instead of tu in Spanish, or “Good morning, Sir,”

instead of “Hi, there,” etc.

Unsolicited suggestions, advice giving in terms 5.

of what to do/how.

Expressions of interest in the customer’s well- 6.

being during their stay: for example, is every-

thing alright?/did you sleep well? etc.

Farewell wishes: for example, “Have a nice 7.

journey, Sir.”

The aim of this section was to ascertain whether

participants prefer that receptionists’ linguistic pro-

duction be oriented towards solidarity–involvement

(items 1, 3, 5, 6) or towards deference–independence

(questions 2, 4, 7) in terms of the language used.

Furthermore, these data also provided valuable

information on whether participants prefer that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


receptionists’ linguistic expressions be oriented

towards the task at hand (questions 2, 4, 6, 7) or to

the person being served (items 1, 3, 5).

Therefore, the data elicited by the questionnaire

provide information about participants’ expecta-

tions regarding interactions with receptionists in

Spain and abroad, in three specific areas: attitude,

traits, and language used.

Results and Discussion

Expected Attitude in Reception Desk Interaction

A quantitative analysis of the data was carried out

in order to ascertain which attitudes were expected

at the reception desk. The participants, who had to

rate the importance of each of the items, provided a

varied array of answers, as shown below in Table 1.

A calculation of the average of these scores

showed that participants’ general expectations were

similar for the at home and abroad categories. This

is also shown in Figure 1.

In both cases, home and abroad, the item that

was most highly rated by participants was num-

ber 6: be clear and informative. The second most

valued items were 9 (be truthful and transparent),

10 (pay attention to customers’ needs), and 11

(avoid barging in customers’ personal concerns).

Thus, it seems that in this genre practice Spanish

guests pay more attention to the transactional part

of their interaction with the receptionist. This idea

is confirmed by the fact that most relational items

(i.e., those not related with the task at hand) were

not scored as highly in this section of the ques-

tionnaire. Thus, items 5 (smile at the customer),

7 (show closeness and familiarity), and 8 (have a

good sense of humor) are the items with the lowest

average score.

Also, there seems to be a preference for a def-

erence–independence orientation on the part of the

receptionist, since the least valued items are related

to involvement or positive politeness strategies that

display proximity and a friendly attitude. The only

solidarity–involvement strategy that was highly

scored is number 10 (pay attention to the custom-

er’s needs), which is directly related to the transac-

tion per se. In sum, it seems that the participants in

this study prefer receptionist’s behavior oriented to

deference–independence.

Thus, we can conclude that participants expect

the same attitude from the receptionist regardless

of whether they are staying at hotels in Spain or

abroad. The receptionist is thus expected to be a

person who provides information clearly and pays

attention to what guests need without meddling in

their personal life. Therefore, we can conclude that

there are stable generic expectations regarding the

realization of the genre practice under study across

different cultures.

Table 1

Percentages on the Expected Attitude in Reception Desk Interaction

Spanish Hotels Foreign Hotels

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1. Use a proper tone of voice 0.00% 1.22% 25.61% 30.49% 42.68% 0.00% 0.93% 33.33% 33.33% 32.41%

2. Look at the customer

(eye contact)

0.00% 6.17% 37.04% 25.93% 30.86% 0.93% 6.48% 19.44% 45.37% 27.78%

3. Not interrupt 1.22% 1.22% 23.17% 40.24% 34.15% 0.00% 2.75% 17.43% 44.95% 34.86%

4. Be humble 2.50% 1.25% 25.00% 31.25% 40.00% 0.98% 5.88% 23.53% 39.22% 30.39%

5. Smile at the customer 3.66% 20.73% 37.80% 24.39% 13.41% 3.70% 20.37% 35.19% 28.70% 12.04%

6. Be clear and informative 0.00% 1.23% 12.35% 22.22% 64.20% 0.00% 2.78% 4.63% 33.33% 59.26%

7. Show some closeness

and familiarity

3.66% 25.61% 37.80% 28.05% 4.88% 5.56% 28.70% 30.56% 25.93% 9.26%

8. Have a good sense of humour 3.70% 16.05% 37.04% 34.57% 8.64% 5.56% 15.74% 47.22% 25.00% 6.48%

9. Be truthful and transparent 0.00% 1.22% 23.17% 21.95% 53.66% 0.94% 1.89% 12.26% 34.91% 50.00%

10. Pay attention to the

customer’s needs

0.00% 3.70% 17.28% 29.63% 49.38% 0.00% 2.78% 12.04% 25.93% 59.26%

11. Avoid barging in the customers’

personal concerns

1.22% 1.22% 18.29% 25.61% 53.66% 2.78% 3.70% 10.19% 28.70% 54.63%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


Expected Traits and Behaviors in

Reception Desk Interaction

The second aspect under consideration in the

present study was the expected traits and behaviors

associated with the receptionist. Table 2 and Figure 2

show that there is also a stable tendency displayed

by both data sets, in Spain and abroad.

Results show that participants’ expectations

regarding different traits and behaviors related with

their interaction with the receptionist do not vary

when they are staying at Spanish- or at English-

speaking hotels. The three traits and behaviors most

highly rated were clarity, informativeness, and effi-

ciency. On the other hand, the three least valued

were friendliness, sense of humor, and chattiness.

Thus, participants give more importance to traits

and behaviors related to the transactional part of the

interaction and prefer an orientation towards defer-

ence–independence on the part of the receptionist,

both in terms of attitudes and traits. We can con-

clude that Spanish guests, when interacting with

receptionists, expect a focus on the task at hand and

a certain social distance with the interlocutor, be it

at Spanish- or English-speaking hotels.

Figure 1. Expected attitude in Spanish and foreign reception desk interactions.

Table 2

Percentages on the Expected Values/Traits in Reception Desk Interaction


1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1. Honesty 0.00% 1.23% 19.75% 25.93% 53.09% 0.93% 2.78% 16.67% 37.04% 42.59%

2. Formality 0.00% 3.75% 25.00% 31.25% 40.00% 3.77% 4.72% 25.47% 30.19% 35.85%

3. Not being imposed on 0.00% 3.80% 26.58% 25.32% 44.30% 1.90% 2.86% 29.52% 28.57% 37.14%

4. Clarity 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 26.25% 61.25% 0.00% 1.85% 11.11% 33.33% 53.70%

5. Friendliness 0.00% 4.88% 23.17% 39.02% 32.93% 0.00% 11.11% 32.41% 31.48% 25.00%

6. Humour 1.23% 18.52% 39.51% 28.40% 12.35% 2.78% 31.48% 32.41% 24.07% 9.26%

7. Informativeness 0.00% 2.41% 9.64% 26.51% 61.45% 1.87% 0.00% 8.41% 38.32% 51.40%

8. Chattiness 8.75% 21.25% 45.00% 10.00% 15.00% 8.33% 34.26% 33.33% 18.52% 5.56%

9. Efficiency 0.00% 0.00% 13.41% 30.49% 56.10% 0.93% 0.00% 10.19% 30.56% 58.33%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


Expected Language in Reception Desk Interaction

The last aspect of communication included in

the questionnaire was language itself, with a focus

on the different communicative strategies used by

receptionists. Table 3 and Figure 3 show a variety

of expectations that differ from the findings in pre-

vious sections.

In this case, results show that participants in this

study do not expect the same kind of language pro-

duction on the part of receptionists when staying at

Spanish- or English-speaking hotels. It seems that

when being in Spain, guests expect a linguistic ori-

entation towards deference–independence. In this

case, the most valued items were numbers 2 (polite

greetings and apologies, indirectness), 7 (farewell

wishes), and 4 (use of formal language), which are

deference strategies by means of which the recep-

tionist tends to convey conventionally indirect

meanings. When using this kind of language, the

receptionist is giving the guest freedom of action

Figure 2. Expected values/traits in Spanish and foreign reception desk interaction.

Table 3

Percentages on the type of Expected Language at Home and Abroad


1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1. Kind words and expressions,

such as compliments

20.73% 20.73% 31.71% 15.85% 10.98% 0.00% 0.93% 33.33% 33.33% 32.41%

2. Expressions such as “please”

and “thank you,” “sorry”;

indirect requests

1.20% 1.20% 8.43% 22.89% 66.27% 0.93% 6.48% 19.44% 45.37% 27.78%

3. Use of small talk 25.61% 35.37% 24.39% 12.20% 2.44% 0.00% 2.75% 17.43% 44.95% 34.86%

4. Use of formal language 0.00% 4.82% 19.28% 37.35% 38.55% 0.98% 5.88% 23.53% 39.22% 30.39%

5. Unsolicited suggestions,

advice giving in terms of

what to do/how

12.05% 16.87% 25.30% 22.89% 22.89% 3.70% 20.37% 35.19% 28.70% 12.04%

6. Expressions of interest in

the customer’s well-being

during their stay

0.00% 1.22% 18.29% 50.00% 30.49% 0.00% 2.78% 4.63% 33.33% 59.26%

7. Farewell wishes 0.00% 2.41% 20.48% 33.73% 43.37% 5.56% 28.70% 30.56% 25.93% 9.26%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


and displaying politeness considerations that are

expected in situations in which there are differences

in status among participants. In this particular case,

the receptionist is the server and the guest, the cus-

tomer, expects to be treated respectfully.

On the other hand, when staying abroad, partici-

pants not only prefer to be treated respectfully, as pre-

viously stated, but they also value the receptionist’s

interest in their well-being (item 6), which is clearly

linked to solidarity–involvement strategies. In this

same vein, the second most valued behavior when

participants are staying abroad is the use of small

talk (item 3). In other words, when participants are

abroad, they expect the receptionist to show interest

in them by, for example, spending time talking for a

while about topics not related to the transaction. The

third most highly rated behavior when participants

stay at hotels abroad also denotes involvement: the

use of kind words and expressions such as compli-

ments (item 1). Note that all these three strategies are

poorly rated when participants are staying at Spanish

hotels, as shown in Figure 2 and Table 3.

Thus, we can conclude that participants prefer an

orientation towards deference–independence and a

use of formulaic language on the part of the recep-

tionist when staying at Spanish hotels while those

staying at hotels in English-speaking countries

value more the interest the receptionist may show

in their well-being by engaging in small talk and

conversation (i.e., solidarity–involvement orienta-

tion). This is a significant finding: whereas there

is uniformity in expectations regarding attitude and

cultural values, participants have different expecta-

tions regarding receptionists’ language production

depending on whether they are staying at Spanish-

or English-speaking hotels.

Conclusion and Opportunities

for Additional Research

This study has shown that the Spanish guests in

the data set have specific expectations regarding

what constitutes appropriate receptionists’ behavior

(i.e., efficiency, professionalism, task-oriented strat-

egies, formal use of language, and deferential strate-

gies). These expectations do not vary when guests

are staying at hotels in Spain or in English-speaking

countries. Therefore, the analytical variable that is

consistent here is genre practice: reception desk

interaction. In other words, regardless of the coun-

try and the interlocutors, there is a set of norms and

expectations that are kept stable regarding reception

desk interaction. It is then the genre—reception desk

interaction—that constrains these expectations.

Thus, participants’ preference for deference over

solidarity regarding cultural values and attitudes

Figure 3. Type of expected language at home and abroad.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


contradicts previous research that identified Penin-

sular Spanish at large as a positive politeness cul-

ture, in which involvement and in-group relations are

emphasized (Ardila, 2004; Carrasco Santana, 1998,

1999; García, 1989; García Vizcaíno & Martínez

Cabeza, 2005; Haverkate, 1998, 2002; Hickey, 1991;

Hickey & Vázquez Orta, 1994; Portolés Lázaro &

Vázquez Orta, 2000; Walters, 1979; Wierzbicka,

1985). This proves that, rather than coming up with

overarching generalizations that span the whole pop-

ulation of Spaniards, conclusions regarding inap-

propriateness/appropriateness should be made for

individual genres.

Regarding the kind of language that the guests

included in the data set expected from the reception-

ist, there is some variation depending on whether

it is the interaction at the Spanish or the foreign

hotels that is being assessed by participants. In line

with the aforementioned findings, Spanish guests

staying at hotels in Spain prefer an orientation on

the part of the receptionist towards deference–

independence and a use of formulaic language,

while those staying abroad value rather the inter-

est the receptionist may show in their well-being

by, for example, engaging them with off-task con-

versation (i.e., solidarity–involvement orientation).

Here, then, we may conclude that the factor influ-

encing expectations is culture. This variation might

be based on the fact that, in intercultural encoun-

ters, the native speaker (in this case the reception-

ist) might be expected to display more empathy and

consideration towards the non-native speaker (the

Spanish guest). When abroad, guests might feel the

need to be assisted in whatever issues may come up

while staying at a hotel. Also, it is worth considering

that some guests might not feel competent enough

to communicate in English and thus some empathy

or sympathy towards their condition as non-native

speakers may be perceived as gratifying.

This study has shown that factors such as language,

cultural expectations, and value judgments are con-

text specific, rather than cultural. In particular, here

the context is provided by the genre practice, which

constraints expectations. As a consequence, genre

seems to exert more influence on the expected atti-

tude and values than culture. In turn, when there is an

intercultural encounter, linguistic expectations seem

to be affected, and therefore the participants com-

municative needs do as well. Future research should

try to elucidate how these two factors (i.e., genre

and culture) interact. This is also relevant in order

to understand that expected politeness strategies, ori-

ented either towards involvement or deference, may

be constant across cultures. Future research should

also address this issue in other communities of prac-

tice different from the one here under scrutiny. Lan-

guage is usually context bound, and factors such as

age or academic status definitely have an impact on

results with samples of this size. We based our deci-

sion of focusing on a particular age group and educa-

tion level on the fact that each community of practice

(group of individuals with shared characteristics and

knowledge) will use communication differently to

fit their needs. Needless to say, we cannot draw gen-

eralizations to the whole population, but this was not

our intention either. What we aimed at, instead, was

to test the importance and influence of genre and/or

cultural values on expectations in a particular group

of interlocutors with specific features. Future contri-

butions to this line of research should compare this

particular academic group to other groups in which

the purpose of the stay, level of English, or education

is different.

All in all, receptionists and, therefore, hotel man-

agers, should be aware that language needs to be

carefully studied and modified during interaction to

ensure customer satisfaction and thus the success of

the service encounter. If customer expectations are

not met, the consequences can be very dire for the

hotel. As stated by Lemmink and Mattsson (2002),

“short-term emotional judgments do seem to have

long terms effects on customer perceptions . . .

[and] emotional judgments change rapidly (posi-

tively and negatively)” (pp. 30–31). Therefore,

constant attention needs to be paid to interpersonal

needs and expectations.

Furthermore, this raises a final consideration

regarding Politeness1 and Politeness2 approaches.

Traditionally, it was considered that by analyzing

long stretches of talk in context the analyst could

disentangle what was inappropriate/appropriate (i.e.,

impolite/polite). For their part, the Anglo-Saxon tra-

ditions built upon Goffman’s (1967) considerations

of face have argued that displaying indirectness

or negative politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1978)

was the default choice in contexts when interlocu-

tors were unsure of what linguistic strategies to

deploy. Along these lines, a variety of contrastive

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


studies (Fernández-Amaya, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011;

Hernández-López, 2009, 2011; Hernández-López

& Placencia, 2004) have shown that Spanish speak-

ers tend to display closeness, informality, direct-

ness, and friendliness, especially when compared to

British speakers. This study, however, shows that a)

such conclusions were subject to linguistic analy-

sis, rather than to the analysis of interlocutors’ per-

ceptions b) conclusions of Politeness2 studies—as

posed by analysts—do not necessarily match

interlocutors’ perceptions, needs, or expectations;

c) expectations of politeness are tied to the norms of

the different genre practices, and d) service encoun-

ters involve nonreciprocal expectations based on a

mixture of deference and solidarity.

These findings, however, are revealing not only

in contrast to previous studies of Spanish politeness,

but also regarding the variation between findings

based on Politeness1 (the interlocutors’ perceptions)

versus Politeness2 (linguistic analysis) approaches.

More Politeness1 studies are needed to further shed

light on communicative expectations, genre con-

straints, and how to improve service encounter inter-

action on the basis of our perception of the world.

Notes

1The term “script” has been used in a number of disci-

plines (psychology, linguistics, anthropology, business, etc.)

to designate a number of acts performed by an actor on an

object and that tends to be predictable in a given situation.

These acts are specific memories of how to behave that are

stored and allow individuals to make inferences needed for

understanding missing information, inferring meanings from

what is not said and behaving accordingly (Schank, 1986).

Schank (1986) believes that events are partly understood in

terms of scripts.

2The full version of the survey may be accessed at: http://

www.e-encuesta.com/answer.do?testid=kU/QctJt7UU=

3A community of practice (CoP) is, according to Wenger

(1998), a group of people who share a craft, skill or profes-

sion. The group will share a certain number of assumptions

about their own environment, which are different from other

contexts.

References

Ardila, J. A. G. (2004). Transition relevance and overlap-

ping in (Spanish–English) conversational etiquette. The

Modern Language Review, 99(3), 635–650.

Arundale, R. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of

communication for an alternative to politeness theory.

Pragmatics, 9, 119–153.

Arundale, R. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: a

communication framework for research on face, face-

work and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2,

193–217.

Bailey, B. (1997). Communication of respect in interethnic

service encounters. Language in Society, 26, 327–356.

Bilbow, G. T., & Yeung, S. (1998). Learning the pragmatics

of ‘successful’ impression management in cross-cultural

interviews. Pragmatics, 8(3), 405–417.

Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The

service encounter: Diagnosing favorable and unfavor-

able incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 71–84.

Blue, G. M., & Harun, M. (2003). Hospitality language as a

professional skill. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1),

73–91.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean

in a second language: A study of speech act performance

of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Lin-

guistics, 3, 29–59.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words:

Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 8, 165–180.

Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of

customers assessment of service quality and value. Jour-

nal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 375–384.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bousfield, D., & Locher, M. A. (Eds.). (2008). Impoliteness

in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory

and practice (Vol. 21). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals of language

usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Ques-

tions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction

(pp. 56–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some univer-

sals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Bunzel, D. (2007). The guest as a friendly foe? Hotel ser-

vice encounters in-between the face and the gaze of the

guest. In C. Carter, S. Clegg, M. Kornberger, S. Laske,

& M. Messner (Eds.), Business ethics as practice: Rep-

resentation, reflexivity, and performance (pp. 209–226).

Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expec-

tancy violations and emotional communication. Journal

of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 30–48.

Callahan, L. (2006). English or Spanish? Language accom-

modation in New York City service encounters. Intercul-

tural Pragmatics, 3(1), 29–53.

Cardoso, Z. (2003). Check-in: A familiar genre to hotel

receptionists. The ESPecialist, 24(2), 143–153.

Carrasco Santana, A. (1998). Tendencias relacionales de los

españoles en las interacciones verbales, I: La distancia

social en la conversación. Cuadernos del Lazarillo, 15,

55–61.

Carrasco Santana, A. (1999). Revisión y evaluación del

modelo de cortesía de Brown y Levinson. Pragmal-

ingüística, 7, 1–44.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investiga-

tion into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Jour-

nal of Marketing Research, 19, 491–504.

Czepiel, J. A. (1990). Service encounters and service rela-

tionships: Implications for research. Journal of Business

Research, 20(1), 13–21.

Danaher, P. J., & Mattsson, J. (1994a). Customer satisfac-

tion in the service delivery process. European Journal of

Marketing, 28(5), 5–16.

Danaher, P. J., & Mattsson, J. (1994b). Cumulative encounter

satisfaction in the hotel conference process. International

Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(4), 69–80.

Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. Man-

chester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modi-

fication in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-

Kulka et al. (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests

and apologies (pp. 221–247). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analy-

sis for social research. London: Routledge.

Fernández-Amaya, L. (2004). Las estrategias de cortesía

en la secuencia de cierre de la conversación telefónica

en inglés y español. In P. Garcés Conejos et al. (Eds.),

Current trends in intercultural, cognitive and social

pragmatics (pp. 255–265). Sevilla: Research Group

“Intercultural Pragmatic Studies.”

Fernández-Amaya, L. (2008). La traducción al español de

estrategias de cortesía en inglés. El caso de well y you

know. In D. Bravo, N. Hernández Flores, & A. Cordisco

(Eds.), Aportes pragmáticos, sociopragmáticos y socio-

culturales a los estudios de la cortesía en español (pp.

109–134). Estocolmo/Buenos Aires: Dunken.

Fernández-Amaya, L. (2010). Análisis contrastivo del silen-

cio en los cierres de conversaciones telefónicas en inglés

y español. In Analysing data > Describing variation

(pp. 960–968). Vigo: Universidad de Vigo.

Fernández-Amaya, L. (2011). La cortesía en el cierre de con-

versaciones telefónicas: diferencias y similitudes entre

el inglés americano y el español peninsular. In Aproxi-

maciones a la (des)cortesía verbal en español (Vol. 3,

pp. 331–344). New York: Peter Lang.

Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of

Pragmatics, 14, 219–236.

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010a).The status quo and quo-

vadis of impoliteness research. Intercultural Pragmatics,

7(4), 535–559.

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010b). A genre approach to

the study of im-politeness. International Review of Prag-

matics, 2, 46–94.

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2013). Face, identity, and im/

politeness: Looking backwards, moving forward—From

Goffman to practice Theory. Journal of Politeness

Research, 9(1), 1–33.

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Bou-Franch, P., & Lorenzo-

Dus, N. (2010). A genre-approach to im-politeness in

a Spanish TV talk show: Evidence from corpus-based

analysis, questionnaires and focus groups. Intercultural

Pragmatics, 7(4), 689–723.

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Bou-

Franch, P. (2013). Relational work in anonymous, asyn-

chronous communication: A study of (dis)affiliation on

YouTube. In I. Kecskes & J. Romero-Trillo (Eds.), Lin-

guistic aspects of intercultural pragmatics. Berlin: De

Gruyter Mouton.

García, C. (1989). Apologizing in English: Politeness strate-

gies used by native and non-native speakers. Multilin-

gua, 8, 3–20.

García Vizcaíno, M. J., & Martínez Cabeza, M. A. (2005).

The pragmatics of well and bueno in English and Span-

ish. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(1), 69–92.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to

face behavior. New York: Pantheon.

Hall, E. T. (1990). The silent language. New York: Anchor

Books. (Original publication 1957)

Haverkate, H. (1998). Politeness strategies in verbal interac-

tion: An analysis of directness and indirectness in speech

acts. Semiotica, 71(1/2), 59–71.

Haverkate, H. (2002). The syntax, semantics and pragmatics

of Spanish mood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publish-

ing Company.

Hernández-López, M. (2009). Affiliative strategies to man-

age rapport in Spanish and British medical consultations.

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense de

Madrid, 17, 37–56.

Hernández-López, M. (2011). Negotiation strategies and

patient empowerment in Spanish and British medical con-

sultations. Communication and Medicine, 8(2), 169–180.

Hernández-López, M., & Placencia, M. E. (2004). Modos de

conducir las relaciones interpersonales en interacciones

de atención al público: el caso de las farmacias en Sevilla

y Londres. ELUA. Estudios de Lingüística, 18, 129–150.

Hickey, L. (1991). Comparatively polite people in Spain and

Britain. ACIS, 4(2), 2–6.

Hickey, L., & Vázquez Orta, I. (1994). Politeness as defer-

ence: A pragmatic view. Pragmalingüística, 2, 267–286.

Hope, C. A. (2004). The impact of national culture on the

transfer of “best practice operations management” in

hotels in St. Lucia. Tourism Management, 25(1), 45–59.

House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics:

Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Lorscher &

R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in perfor-

mance (pp. 1250–1288). Festschrift for Werner Hiillen,

Tubingen: Narr.

Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. D. (1995). Developing

prototypic measure of cross-cultural pragmatics. Hono-

lulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center,

University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Joardar, A. (2011). Examining changes in group acceptance

of a newcomer from a different culture. An expectancy

violation perspective. International Journal of Cross-

cultural Management, 11(3), 341–362.

Jones, E. E. (1986). Interpreting interpersonal behaviour:

The effects of expectancies. Science, 234, 41–46.

Kankaanranta, A., & Louhiala-Salmini, L. (2010). “English?—

Oh, its just work!” A study of BELF users’ perception.

English for Specific Purposes, 29, 204–209.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


Kasper, G. (2008). Data collection in pragmatics research.

In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking. Culture,

communication and politeness (pp. 316–341). London:

Continuum.

Katz, M-L. (2001). Engineering a hotel family: Language

ideology, discourse, and workplace culture. Linguistics

and Education, 12(3), 309–343.

Lakoff, R. T. (1989). The limits of politeness: Therapeutic

and courtroom discourse. Multilingua, 8, 101–129.

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

Longman.

Lemmink, J., & Mattsson, J. (2002). Employee behavior,

feelings of warmth and customer perception in service

encounters. International Journal of Retail & Distribu-

tion Management, 30(1), 18–33.

Lenartowicz, T., & Roth, K. (1999). A framework for culture

assessment. Journal of International Business Studies,

30(4), 781–798.

Lenartowicz, T., & Roth, K. (2004). The selection of key

informants in IB cross-cultural studies. MIR: Manage-

ment International Review, 23–51.

Leung, P., & Lo, T. (1996). Quality communication in hos-

pitality: Language skills or culture transfer. In T. Crooks

(Ed.), ESP in Southeast Asia (pp. 65–75). Bali: Indonesia

Australia Language Foundation.

Linguistic Politeness Research Group. (Ed.). (2011). Dis-

cursive approaches to politeness. Berlin: De Gruyter

Mouton.

Liu, S. (2006). Measuring interlanguage pragmatic knowl-

edge of EFL learners. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Dis-

agreements in oral communication. Berlin: De Gruyter

Mouton.

Locher, M. A. (2006). Polite behavior within relational

work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilin-

gua, 25(3), 249–267.

Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and

relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9–33.

Lorenzo-Dus, N., Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., & Bou-

Franch, P. (2011). On-line polylogues and impoliteness:

The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reg-

gaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10),

2578–2593.

Lovelock, C. H. (1988). Managing services: Marketing,

operations and human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Márquez Reiter, R., & Placencia, M. E. (2011). Displaying

closeness and respectful distance in Montevidean and

Quiteño service encounters. In Zhu, H. (Ed.), The lan-

guage and intercultural communication reader (pp. 367–

385). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of antecedents and

consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Mar-

keting Research, 17, 460–469.

Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1996). Expectan-

cies. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kuglanski (Eds.), Social

psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 211–238).

New York: Guilford Press.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A

conceptual model of service quality and its implications

for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988).

SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring con-

sumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retail-

ing, 64, 12–40.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994).

Alternative scales for measuring service quality: A com-

parative assessment based on psychometric and diagnos-

tic criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 201–230.

Portolés Lázaro, J., & Vázquez Orta, I. (2000). Mitigating or

compensatory strategies in the expression of politeness

in Spanish and in English? Hombre/Mujer as politeness

discourse markers revisited. In M. P. Navarro Errasti et

al. (Eds.), Transcultural communication. Pragmalinguis-

tic aspects (pp. 219–226). Zaragoza: Anubak.

Reichert, C. F., & Gill, T. (2004). Effect of cultural distance

on customer service satisfaction: A theoretical framework

and research agenda. Advances in Consumer Research,

31, 202–207.

Roever, C. (2005). Testing ESL pragmatics: Development

and validation of a web-based assessment battery.

Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Roever, C. (2006). Validation of a web-based test of ESL

pragmatics. Language Testing, 23(1), 229–256.

Ruiz Garrido, M., & Iborra, S. (2006). Why call it business

English if we mean English for tourism? Some reflec-

tions. ESP SIG Newsletter, 9–12.

Sackmann, S. A., & Phillips, M. E. (2004). Contextual

influences on culture research. Shifting assumptions for

new workplace realities. International Journal of Cross-

cultural Management, 4(3), 370–390.

Schank, R. C. (1986). Explanation patterns: Understanding

mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1983). Face in interethnic com-

munication. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.),

Language and communication (pp. 156–190). London:

Longman.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1995). Intercultural communica-

tion. A discourse approach. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell

Publishers.

Shimazu, Y. M. (1989). Construction and concurrent valida-

tion of a written pragmatic competence test of English

as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of San Francisco.

Shostack, G. L. (1985). Planning the service encounter. In

J. A. Czepiel, M. R. Solomon, & C. F. Surprenant (Eds.),

The service encounter (pp. 243–254). Lexington, MA:

Lexington Books.

Sifianou, M. (1992). The use of diminutives in expressing

politeness: Modern Greek versus English. Journal of

Pragmatics, 17(2), 155–173.

Sifianou, M., & Tzanne, A. (2010). Conceptualizations of

politeness and impoliteness in Greek. Intercultural Prag-

matics, 7(4), 661–687.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49


Sirikhan, S., & Prapphal, K. (2011). Assessing pragmatic

ability of Thai hotel management and tourism students

in the context of hotel front office department. The Asian

EFL Journal, 53, 79–94.

Soderberg A. M., & Holden N. J. (2002). Rethinking cross-

cultural management in a globalising business world.

International Journal of Cross-cultural Management,

2(1), 103–121.

Solomon, M. R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J. A., & Gutman,

E. G. (1985). A role theory perspective on dyadic interac-

tions: The service encounter. Journal of Marketing, 49,

99–111.

Sparks, B., & Callan, V. J. (1992). Communication and the

service encounter: The value of convergence. Interna-

tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 11, 213–224.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000), Rapport management: a frame-

work for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally

speaking. Managing rapport through talk across cultures

(pp. 11–46). London: Continuum.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2008). Culturally speaking. Cul-

ture, communication and politeness. London: Continuum.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2009). Face, identity and interactional

goals. In F. Bargiela-Chiappnini & M. Haugh (Eds.),

Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 137–

154). London: Equinox Publishing.

Stauss, B., & Mang, P. (1999). “Culture shocks” in inter-

cultural service encounters? Journal of Services Market-

ing, 13(4/5), 329–346.

Surprenant, C. F., & Solomon, M. R. (1987). Predictability

and personalization in the service encounter. Journal of

Marketing, 51, 73–80.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. English in academic and

research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Terkourafi, M. (2003). Generalised and particularized

implicatures of politeness. In P. Kühnlein, H. Rieser, &

H. Zeevat (Eds.), Perspectives on dialogue in the new

millennium (pp. 151–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness

research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 237–262.

Truong, T-H., & King, B. E. M. (2006). Comparing cross-

cultural dimensions of the experiences of international

tourists in Vietnam. Journal Business Systems, Gover-

nance and Ethics, 1(1), 65–75.

Truong, T-H., & King, B. E. M. (2009). An evaluation of sat-

isfaction levels of Chinese tourists. International Journal

of Tourism Research, 11(6), 521–535.

Truong, T-H., & King, B. E. M. (2010a). Cultural values and

service quality: Host and guest perspectives. Tourism,

Culture & Communication, 10(1), 15–32.

Truong, T-H., & King, B. E. M. (2010b). Tourism service

experiences in Vietnam. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science

Publishers.

Vandermeeren, S. (2005). Foreign language need of business

firms. Second Language Needs Analysis, 159–179.

Walters, J. (1979). The perception of politeness in English

and Spanish. In C. A. Yorio et al. (Eds.), TESOL ’79:

The learner in focus (pp. 288–296). Washington, DC:

TESOL.

Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

Watts, R. J. (2005). Linguistic politeness research. Quo

vadis? In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Polite-

ness in language: Studies in its history, theory and prac-

tice (pp. xi–xvii). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (1992). Introduction. In

R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in

language: Studies in its history, theory and practice

(pp. 1–17). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different lan-

guages, different speech acts: Polish vs. English. Journal

of Pragmatics, 9(2), 145–178.

Yung, E., & Chan, A. (2001). Business traveler satisfaction

with hotel service encounters. Journal of Travel and

Tourism Marketing, 11(4), 29–41.

Zeithaml V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990).

Delivering quality service. New York: The Free Press.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

Spanish Travellers' Expectations of Service Encounters in Domestic and International Settings

Documents

Transcript of Spanish Travellers' Expectations of Service Encounters in Domestic and International Settings