Background and Motivation 1

Misunderstandings occur between people of different cultures. To avoid cross-cultural conflicts, cultural differences have attracted many researchers’ attention.. On one hand, cultural studies emphasize the differences in communication of different cultural groups (Gudykunst, 2003;

Hofstede, 1997). On the other hand, interlanguage researches study the differences in language used by language learners (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993). Second language users are usually the subjects in the studies of cross-cultural differences.

Cultural studies observed native language users’ cultural behaviors while interlanguage studies involved the performance of second language learners. Most cultural studies adopt ethnographic method that tries to clearly analyze interactions or breakdowns among cultures (Brown & Levinson, 1969; Coulmas, 1981; Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998; Goffman; 1956, 1969, 1971). Interlanguage studies adopt sociological methodologies and they systematically investigate and report second language users’ language behaviors (Bergman & Kasper, 1993;

Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Olshtain & Cohen, 1989; Scollon & Scollon, 1995; Takahashi &

Beebe, 1987; Trosborg, 1987, 1994, 1995; Yu, 1997). Numerous Cultural studies indicated different characteristics among cultural groups and interlanguage studies provided implications that are of significant help to language teaching and learning (Cobb, 2003). Cultural studies and interlanguage findings have made tremendous contributions to intra-cultural and inter-cultural understandings.

However, it is a pity that cultural studies usually report cultural “differences” which may lead to “stereotyping” that are usually the extreme performances of individual cultural group (Barron, 2003) or even misconceptions. On the other hand, interlanguage studies are mostly

limited to “visible” language productions that lead to less concern on non-verbal aspects of language (Barron, 2003).

According to previous studies on the speech act of apology, cultural studies observed that apology is an integral part of Northern Americans’ everyday talk and the speakers use it to everyone in social contexts, which is very hard for Chinese newcomers to the United States to understand (Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998). For an outsider to understand such observations from cultural studies, dialogues like the following are usually presented to characterize cultural differences. For example, to understand pragmalinguistic difference between cultures, there might be dialogues like the following:

Common Chinese greeting:

A: Have you eaten?

B: Yes, I am full.

Common American greeting:

A: What’s up?

B: Not much.

Learners usually try very hard, but can only capture a vague understanding of the differences in language performance and those who read such dialogues for cultural understanding and intercultural communications usually find the communication in reality to be very different from what they have understood (Barron, 2003). Interlanguage researches usually study language under the effect of different contextual factors (gender, power status, social distnace, age, etc.) and systematically report the appropriate strategies used in a certain context. However, as a post-event act that one must perform to maintain social harmony (Goffman, 1971), apology strategies do not differ much among cultures (Bergman &

Blum-Kulka, 1993; Ellis, 2003). The simple treatment of apology as an universal speech act

past and recent international political conflicts such as the South China Sea incident between the United States and Mainland China or the recent visit of Presidnet Chen of Taiwan to the United States are good examples of cultural clash (Gries & Peng, 2002). In order to capture a broader and more comprehensive view of cultural differences, more empirical studies should be conducted and more observations into speakers’ perception could be integrated into interlanguage studies.

Only two studies on the speech act of apology have attempted to incorporate cultural perception into their studies of second language learners. In Bergman & Kasper’s (1993) study, correlations of four context-internal questions (severity of offense, obligation to apologize, likelihood of the apology acceptance and offender’s face-loss) between American and Thai participants were examined and the results were used as explanations for positive and negative transfer of the speakers’ langauge production. The results showed that more than half of the differences between Thai-English and American-English in usage of apology strategies were due to negative pragmatic transfer. In the study of Maeshiba et al., an “Assessment Questionnaire” in which each apology scenario contains seven perceptual questions was used along with a “Dialog Construction Questionnaire” that requires an apology and an apology response for judgments of positive and negative transfer.

The assessment results showed an overall agreement on the perception of the contexts among the subjects in the study. However, they found that native Japanese learners of English at the intermediate level were three times more likely to apply their native apologetic behaviors to the target language than the more advanced learners.

Most of the previous empirical studies of speech acts mainly adopted the DCT (Discourse Completion Task) for data collection and analysis. However, only the above two studies slightly involved speakers’ perception of apology. Moreover, there have not been enough attention to the correlation of contextual factors and speakers’ perception while the effect of different contextual factors on language performance has been spotlighted in cross-cultural

studies. Although proficiency was a critical factor, these two studies did not probe into participants’ perception towards interlocutors of different ethnicity and task langauge in the questionnaires, which are vital elements to a culture (Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998). There are also no studies regarding the Chinese’s perception of apology. Thus, this study aimed to compare the Chinese L1 speakers’ and the English L1 speakers’ perception of apology of different impositions and to people of different backgrounds such as gender, social status and social distance. The influence of interlocutors’ ethicnicity and task languages were also topics in this study.

Furthermore, apology is the speech act under study for it is considered to generate the least variations across culutres and groups of people (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Ellis, 2003), on the assumption that apology is not a pre-event but a post-event act imposed on the speaker and he or she does not have much choice on how or what to say (Austin, 1975; Bergman &

Kasper, 1993; Ellis, 2003). The speech act of apology refers to the situation when one has offended someone during social interactions and some form of apolgoy must be performed to be excused or to be accepted in the society (Seale, 1969). For example, when breaking other’s property, a speaker would apologize or even offer a repair instead of choosing not to do anything. No apology in such an offending situation would break a relationship or even people’s respect and dignity in a soceity (Searle, 1969; Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998).

It is suggested that more speech act studies on apology could be conducted, especially those on cross-linguistic differences, which may well reveal the notions of offense and obligation that are cultural specific and must become an object of study in themselves to prevent misunderstandings (Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Barron, 2003). Barron (2003) echoed Wolfson et al.’s (1989) previous claim that most textbooks are organized based on the writers’

intuition rather than implications from empirical studies, even so nowadays. Therefore, more empirical studies are required for better cross-cultural understanding in order to prevent

“intuitive correctness” in intercultural communicaitons which may be stereotypes or individual perceptions (Barron, 2003; Gao &Ting-Toomey, 1998).

1.2 Purpose of the Study

In order to understand and learn more about how people of different cultures think and whether their perceptions vary when encountering people of different social backgrounds and ethnic identities and when using different task languages. This study attempts to address the following research questions:

1. Are there differences between Chinese and English speakers’ responses to the apology generating situations with regard to

a. Severity of the offense b. Likelihood to apologize c. Difficulty of the apology d. Acceptability of the apology

2. Are there differences between how the contextual factors such as gender, status and distance affect Chinese speakers’and English speakers’perceptions of the apology?

3. Does the ethnicity of the interlocutor affect speakers’ perception of the apology situations?

4. Could task language variation (Chinese and English versions of questionniare) be a factor affecting Chinese EFL learners’responses to the apology generating situations?

5. How does exposure to the target language influence Chinese EFL speakers’ responses to the apology generating situations?

1.3 Organization of the Thesis

This study attempts to examine Chinese L1 speakers’ (eastern) perceptions compared with English L1 speakers’ (western). Chapter two presents a brief introduction to the two different politeness frameworks- western and eatern politeness. In addition, the concepts of speech act and the speech act of apology, including the definition of apology and previous studies on apology, are reviewed. Chapter three describes the design of the study, including the participants, instruments, procedure, and data analysis. Chapter four demonstrates the geneal results and findings. Chapter five gives answers to the research questions, the limitations and suggestions for further research.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter two introduces the basic concepts of politeness, the theoretical background of speech act, the definition of the speech act of apology and previous studies on apology. Politeness is the foundation of interpersonal interactions as well as a crucial theoretical framework of cultural and cross-cultural studies (Brown & Levinson, 1969; Leech, 1983; Scollon & Scollon, 1995; Searle, 1975). According to Brown & Levinson (1987), the politeness system explains the appropriate communicative styles in any given context. This claim was universally accepted until recently when some non-western scholars proposed that not all of the politeness theories are applicable to non-western contexts, such as the Chinese society and the Japanese culture (Gu, 1990, 1992; Mao, 1994; Matsumoto, 1988). Thus, eastern politeness was proposed and has posed challenge to the universal view of Brown & Levinson’s (1987) politeness.

Human behavior is governed by their perceptions about what is appropriate and polite in a certain context. The concept is especially useful and important in studying a speech act.

Researches in various areas have noticed the importance of the effects a speech act may bring.

One important field is the second language acquisition (SLA).

The study of second language users’ language of speech acts is called “interlanguage pragmatics (ILP)”. ILP is the “study of nonnative speakers’ use and acquisition of linguistic action patterns in a second language (L2)” (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993: 3). Interlanguage was first defined by Selinker (1972) and Corder (1981) from observing the similar patterns of learner errors and learner progresses from overcoming one kind of error to another. They, along with other researchers, found that learners’ error is a sort of hybrid between the L1 and L2 (Corder, 1981) which may be the natural process of langauge learning. Learners undergo

constant change along an interlanguage continuum. Such priceless value and inspiring claim have encouraged plenty followers.

Most ILP studies are based on the project of Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) led by Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper (1989), which is the first study that investigated the speech acts of request and apology cross-culturally. Till today, researchers have been dedicated to the field of interlanguage pragmatics for over thirty years. However, most of the studies focus on the learners’ “linguistic” output. The linguistic output are usually categorized into strategies adopted to perform speech acts. For apology studies, the complete strategy list, a speech act set, is quite comprehensive and complete (Olshtain, Elite &

Cohen,1983; Trosborg, 1987, 1995) but only two studies on apology (Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Maeshiba et al., 1996) concern the non-linguistic aspects such as the speakers’

perceptions. The factors of ethnicity of and task language for interaction with the interlocutors, which may carry very distintive cultural triats, was neglected. Therefore, the following sections will review politeness theories, interlangauge pragmatics and the speech act of apology.