Cover not available

Article published In: Concentric
Vol. 48:2 (2022) ► pp.174–211

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Universality? Cross-linguistic influence?

Evidence from Chinese and English apology response strategy use

 | National Taiwan Normal University
 | National Taiwan Normal University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 29 November 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/consl.22014.che
Abstract
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.
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
References (41)
References
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, Yuh-fang. 2016. Apologizing in Mandarin Chinese: A study on developmental patterns. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 42.1:73–101.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Gass, Susan M., and Larry Selinker (eds.) 1992. Language Transfer in Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1989. Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics 10.2:194–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele. 1992. Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8.3:203–231.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lightbown, Patsy M. and Nina Spada. 2013. How Languages are Learned (4th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Owen, Marion. 1983. Apologies and Remedial Interchanges: A Study of Language Use in Social Interaction. Berlin, New York: Mouton Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavlenko, Aneta, and Scott Jarvis. 2002. Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics 23.2:190–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selinker, L. 1969. Language transfer. General Linguistics 91:67–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selinker, Larry. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10.3:209–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Su, I-ru. 2012. Bi-directional transfer in Chinese EFL learners’ apologizing behavior. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 38.2:237–266.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4.2:91–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Saleem, Aisha & Musarat Yasmin
2024. Celebratory expressions and linguistic diversity: investigating congratulation patterns among Pakistani Facebook users commenting in English and Urdu. Cogent Arts & Humanities 11:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue