Cover not available
Article published In:
Concentric
Vol. 48:2 (2022) ► pp.174–211

Universality? Cross-linguistic influence?

Evidence from Chinese and English apology response strategy use

| National Taiwan Normal University
| National Taiwan Normal University

The present study investigated the use of apology response (AR) strategies by L1-Chinese L2-English learners and L1-English L2-Chinese learners from a cross-linguistic perspective. A total of 18 Taiwanese college students who were learning English as a foreign language and 18 foreigners in Taiwan who were learning Chinese as a second language were recruited to complete an oral discourse completion task both in Chinese and English. The major findings are as follows: First, the two groups showed no significant difference in their choice of AR strategies, both favoring Acceptance and Minimization, two face-preserving types, to show politeness. Second, cross-linguistic influence was found to affect our participants’ AR performances. Both positive and negative influences occurred. Finally, regarding the use of multiple strategies, both groups of participants tended to combine Acceptance with other strategies to maintain social relationships. The results showed both language universal and language-specific features in the AR realizations in Chinese and English. The dominant use of positive response strategies, namely Acceptance and Minimization, highlights the profound influence of politeness principles.

Keywords: apology response, cross-linguistic influence, universality, strategy use
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous empirical studies of apology responses
  • 3.Types of apology responses in Chinese and English
    • Type 1. Direct acceptance
    • Type 2. Minimization
    • Type 3. Direct rejection
    • Type 4. Focusing on the offense
    • Type 5. Evasion
  • 4.Research design
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Methods and materials
    • 4.3Procedures
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Single strategies of ARs: NCC vs. NEE
    • 5.2Single strategies of ARs: L1 vs. L2
    • 5.3Multiple AR strategies
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 29 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/consl.22014.che
References
Adrefiza, and Jeremy F. Jones
2013 Investigating apology response strategies in Australian English and Bahasa Indonesia: Gender and cultural perspectives. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 361:71–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Amoudi, Khadija A.
2013 Closing techniques for face-to-face conversation in Saudi educational institutes. Arab World English Journal 4.2:137–151.Google Scholar
Austin, John L.
1962 How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, and Rex A. Sprouse
2017 Negative versus positive transfer. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, ed. by John I. Liontas, 1–6. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bataineh, Rula F., and Ruba F. Bataineh
2008 A cross-cultural comparison of apologies by native speakers of American English and Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics 40.4:792–821. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Mark, and Deborah Earwaker
1994 Victims’ responses to apologies: The effects of offender responsibility and offense severity. The Journal of Social Psychology 134.4:457–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933 Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain
1984 Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5.3:196–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Yuh-fang
2016 Apologizing in Mandarin Chinese: A study on developmental patterns. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 42.1:73–101.Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian J.
2002 Background to the L2 user. Portraits of the L2 User, ed. by Vivian Cook, 1–28. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fu, Bei, Sheng-fang Jiang, and Fei Liao
2012 A study of strategies for apologizing and responding to apologies between English and Chinese interlocutors in discourse. Journal of Zhejiang University of Technology (Social Science) 11.1:87–92.Google Scholar
Gass, Susan M., and Larry Selinker
(eds.) 1992 Language Transfer in Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
1955 On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 181:213–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert P.
1975 Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guan, Xiaowen, Hee S. Park, and Hye E. Lee
2009 Cross-cultural differences in apology. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33.1:32–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet
1989 Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics 10.2:194–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele
1992 Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8.3:203–231.Google Scholar
Kitao, Kathleen S., and Kenji Kitao
2014 A corpus-based study of responses to apologies in US English. Journal of Culture and Information Science 9.2:1–13.Google Scholar
Kong, Lei, and Hongwu Qin
2017 The development of manner of speaking markers in English and Chinese: Pragmaticalization, grammaticalization and lexicalization. Journal of Pragmatics 1071:16–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, Patsy M. and Nina Spada
2013 How Languages are Learned (4th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lin, Yu-Chun
2012 An Investigation on College Students’ Verbal and Nonverbal Responses to Apology. MA thesis, Tamkang University, Taipei.
Nurani, Lusia M.
2009 Methodological issue in pragmatic research: Is discourse completion test a reliable data collection instrument?. Jurnal Sosioteknologi 8.17: 667–678.Google Scholar
Ohbuchi, Ken-ichi, Emi Atsumi, and Seiji Takaku
2008 A cross-cultural study on victim’s responses to apology in interpersonal and intergroup conflicts. Tohoku Psychologica Folia 671:55–62.Google Scholar
Owen, Marion
1983 Apologies and Remedial Interchanges: A Study of Language Use in Social Interaction. Berlin, New York: Mouton Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, Aneta, and Scott Jarvis
2002 Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics 23.2:190–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringbom, Hakan
1980 On the distinction between second-language acquisition and foreign-language learning, Papers in Language Learning and Language Acquisition, AFinLA Yearbook 1980 ( Suomen soveltavan kielitieteen yhdistyksen julkaisuja 28), 36–44.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D.
2004 The sequential organization of “explicit” apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37.3:291–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saleem, Tahir, and Uzma Anjum
2018 Positive and negative politeness: A cross-cultural study of responding to apologies by British and Pakistani speakers. International Journal of English Linguistics 8.5:71–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L.
1969 Language transfer. General Linguistics 91:67–92.Google Scholar
Selinker, Larry
1972 Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10.3:209–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shishavan, Homa B., and Farzad Sharifian
2013 Refusal strategies in L1 and L2: A study of Persian-speaking learners of English. Multilingua 32.6:801–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Su, I-ru
2012 Bi-directional transfer in Chinese EFL learners’ apologizing behavior. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 38.2:237–266.Google Scholar
Thomas, Jenny
1983 Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4.2:91–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, William
2001 An appraisal of pragmatic elicitation techniques for the social psychological study of talk: The case of request refusals. Pragmatics 11.1:31–61.Google Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar, Ingo Feldhausen, and Lluisa Astruc
2018 The discourse completion task in Romance prosody research: Status quo and outlook. Methods in Prosody: A Romance Language Perspective, ed. by Maria del Mar Vanrell, 191–227. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Waluyo, Sri
2017 Apology response strategies performed by EFL learners. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching 1.2:94–109.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel
1953 Languages in Contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wu, Jue, and Wei Wang
2016 “Apology accepted”: A cross-cultural study of responses to apologies by native speakers of English and Chinese. International Journal of English Linguistics 6.2:63–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Yi
2001 An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33.2:271–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar