Article published In:
Applied PragmaticsVol. 5:1 (2023) ► pp.64–85
Chinese EFL learners’ apology strategies
A multimodal perspective
This paper presents a multimodal analysis of apologies performed by Chinese EFL learners at two proficiency levels by considering their use of both verbal and nonverbal (i.e., gestures and gaze) strategies. The results showed that both groups used IFID (illocutionary force indicating device, which, in this study, refers to explicit apology strategies such as Sorry or Forgive me), explanation, and acknowledgment of responsibility strategies frequently, but the high proficiency participants tended to use more diverse IFID sub-strategies. Analysis of gestures also revealed significant between-group differences in the duration and frequency of the use of gestures, with the high proficiency group using more ideographic gestures (gestures which indicate specific meaning or help to express certain meaning, such as emblems, illustrators, and regulators) than their lower proficiency counterparts. Finally, the two groups differed significantly in gaze duration, but not in gaze frequency. These findings suggest that although both groups used nonverbal cues to supplement linguistic strategies of apology, they differed in how they used them. Furthermore, the results highlight the importance of employing a multimodal approach when attempting to gain a more comprehensive understanding of EFL speakers’ use of speech acts.
Keywords: L2 pragmatics, multimodal perspective, apology strategies, gestures, gaze
Article outline
- 1.Introduction: Speech act of apology
- 2.Literature review: Overview of nonverbal resources
- 3.Method
- 3.1Participants
- 3.2Instrument: Role-play
- 3.3Data collection
- 3.4Data analysis
- 4.Results
- 4.1Linguistic strategies of apology
- 4.2Nonverbal resources
- 4.2.1Gestures
- 4.2.2Gaze
- 4.3Discussion
- 5.Conclusion and implications of the study
- Acknowledgments
-
References
References
Afghari, A.
(2007) A sociopragmatic study of apology speech act realization patterns in Persian. Speech Communication,
49
(3), 177–185. 
Argyle, M., Ingham, R., Alkema, F., & McCallin, M.
(1973) The different functions of gaze. Semiotica,
7
(1), 19–32.
Beltrán-Palanques, V.
(2016a) The distinctive multimodal nature of pragmatic competence: Bridging the gap between modes. In V. Bonsignori & B. Crawford (Eds.), Multimodality across communicative settings, discourse domains and genres (pp. 93–115). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
(2016b) Complaint sequences across proficiency levels: The contribution of pragmatics and multimodality. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, Spain.
Beltrán-Palanques, V., & Querol-Julián, M.
(2018) English language learners’ spoken interaction: What a multimodal perspective reveals about pragmatic competence. System,
77
1, 80–90.
Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M.
(2000) Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tasks. Applied Linguistics,
21
(4), 517–552.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E.
(1984) Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics,
5
(3), 196–213.
Calbris, G.
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved from [URL]
Dalmau, M., & Gotor, H.
(2007) From “sorry very much” to “I’m every so sorry”: Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English. Intercultural Pragmatics,
4
(2), 287–315.
Drew, P., Hepburn, A., Margutti, P., & Galatolo, R.
(2016) Introduction to the special issue on apologies in discourse. Discourse Process,
53
(1–2), 1–4.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V.
(1969) The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotica,
1
(1), 49–97.
(1972) Hand movements. Journal of Communication,
22
(4), 353–374.
Exline, R., & Fehr, B.
(1982) The assessment of gaze and mutual gaze. In K. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp. 91–135). Cambridge University Press.
Grootenboer, H.
(2006) Treasuring the gaze: Eye miniature portraits and the intimacy of vision. Art Bulletin,
88
(3), 496–507.
Harrigan, J.
(2005) Proxemics, kinesics, and gaze. In J. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, & K. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp. 137–198). Oxford University Press.
Holmes, J.
(1990) Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society,
19
(2), 155–199.
Houck, N., & Gass, S.
(1999) Interlanguage refusals: A cross-cultural study of Japanese-English. Mouton de Gruyter.
Iizuka, Y.
(1992) Extraversion, introversion and visual interaction. Perceptual & Motor Skills,
74
(1), 43–50.
Intachakra, S.
(2004) Contrastive pragmatics and language teaching: Apologies and thanks in English and Thai. RELC Journal,
35
(1), 37–62.
Jewitt, C.
(2009) The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. Routledge.
Jungheim, N.
(1995) Assessing the unsaid: The development of tests of nonverbal ability. In J. Brown & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Language testing in Japan (pp. 149–165). JALT.
Kalma, A.
(1992) Gazing in triads: A powerful signal in floor apportionment. British Journal of Social Psychology,
31
(1), 21–39.
Kendon, A.
(1986) Current issues in the study of gesture. In J. Nespoulous, P. Perron, & A. Lecours (Eds.), The biological foundations of gestures: Motor and semiotic aspects (pp. 24–45). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Khorshidi, S., Mobini, F., & Nasiri, M.
(2016) Iranian English teaching applicants’ request and apology speech acts: Special focus on language proficiency. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
7
(3), 534–541.
Leathers, D., & Eaves, M.
(2008) Successful nonverbal communication: Principles and applications (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
Liu, F. G., Deng, Y. C., & Zhao, Y. R.
(2016) A contrastive study of the Chinese and American political apology speech acts. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching,
6
1, 42–55.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M.
(2016) Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Masaeed, K., Waugh, L. R., & Burns, K. E.
(2018) The development of interlanguage pragmatics in L2 Arabic: The production of apology strategies. System,
74
1, 98–108.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A.
(1983) Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18–35). Newbury House.
Pan, M. W.
(2011) Reconceptualising and exploring oral communicative competence: A multimodal perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, China.
Rose, H., McKinley, J., & Briggs Baffoe-Djan, J.
(2020) Data collection research methods in applied linguistics. Bloomsbury.
Scott, M.
(2008) WordSmith tools (Version 5.0). Lexical Analysis Software.
Shardakova, M.
(2005) Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2 learners of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics,
2
1, 423–451.
Taguchi, N.
(2018) Advanced pragmatic competence. In P. A. Malovrh & A. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 505–526). Wiley-Blackwell.
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.
(2017) Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Tajeddin, Z., & Pirhoseinloo, M.
(2012) Production of apologies in English: Variation by L2 proficiency and apology situations. TELL,
6
(2), 129–160.
Trosborg, A.
(1987) Apology strategies in natives/nonnatives. Journal of Pragmatics,
11
(2), 147–167.
Vagias, W.
(2006) Likert-type scale response anchors. Clemson International Institute for Tourism & Research Development, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University.
Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A., & Sloetjes, H.
(2006) ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 1556–1559.