S UMMARY

The study compares the results elicited from DCT data and role plays. Similarities as well as distinctions between approaches are revealed in the present study. The first part of the study examines the use of apology strategies on DCTs and in role plays.

First, as for the overall number and frequency of the apology strategies, the data shows that role play induced more strategies per situation than DCT did because of the interactions involved in open role plays (Sasaki, 1998). Second, similarties and differences between groups were also compared with respect to the preference order and frequencies of eight main apology strategies. The result shows that for both NS-C and EFL, the preference order of apology strategy is almost the same on the DCT data;

however, in the role play, the preference order among the four groups (NS-C-EM, NS-C-NEM, EFL-H and EFL-L) is different. This might be due to the fact that role play involves more interactions and negotiations which may affect the subjects’

selection of apology strategies. Therefore, the apologizer’s selection of apology strategies in the role play may largely depend on the interlocutor’s responses (Kasper 2000).

In terms of the selection of apology strategies, the results indicate that while participants of all groups employ Direct Expression of Apology, Acknowledge Responsibility and Offer of Repair more often than the other strategies in both approaches, there are still some differences between oral and written tasks.

Participants of the four groups employ Direct Apology the most in DCT data whereas Offer of Repair is the most preferred strategy for NS-C in role plays. Also, the frequencies of the use of the top three strategies in role plays are almost the same for

EFL learners. Some strategies like Opt Out and Evasive Strategy are more likely to occur in face-to-face interactions and are rarely used on DCT. Bescuse subjects were allowed to take multiple turns in role plays, negotiations were common during the conversation. And in order to restore social harmony, subjects might employ a variety of strategies. They may first deny the responsibility of the offence or minimize the offence; however, in order to pacify the offended party, apologizers may then choose to use strategies like Offer of Repair and Provide Explanation. Thus, the negotiations between subjects in the role plays result in higher frequency of the use of apology strategies and more varieties of strategies used by apologizers.

In the second part of the study, the use of modality markers on DCT and role-play data was compared. The findings show that role plays induce higher frequency of modality markers than DCT do. And some modality markers like hesitators and hedges only appear in face-to-face interactions. The preference order of the use of modality markers on DCT is different from those in role play. For the use of MAXIMIZERs, subjects prefer Intensifiers the most on DCT, whereas in role play, they prefer Emotional Expressions the most. In terms of the use of MINIMIZERs, Understaters is the most common markers on DCT whereas in role play, Hesitators is used most frequently. As for Chinese particles, BA is used most frequently on DCT whereas in role plays, participants exploit A the most. Also, the distribution of MAXIMIZERs and MINIMIZERs is different in DCT and role play data. The selection of different types of modality markers on DCT is sensitive to the severity of the offence. That is, participants are more likely to maximize their apologies for high severity offence. On the other hand, they are more likely to minimize their guilt in less severe situations. However, the distribution of these two types of modality markers is more scattered in role play. Finally, as for MINIMIZING Upgraders, this marker is used more frequently in role plays than on DCT. And since so far, no study has paid

attention to the functions of upgraders as MINIMIZER and MAXIMIZER, the results confirm Lin and Ho’s (2006) suggestion that some linguistic patterns only can be revealed when the lexical and functional form of the modality markers are distinguished.

The present study also addresses the issue of in-group differences and effect of L2 proficiency. In-group differences are revealed when native speakers of Chinese were divided into separate groups: English majors and non-English majors. Results show that educational background tends to influence subjects’ performance to some extents in that our NS-C-EM and NS-C-NEM appear to perform differently both on DCT and in role plays. For instance, the frequencies of the use of apology strategies are different for NS-C-EM and NS-C-NEM. Also, our NS-C-EM subjects tend to exploit more Chinese particles at the end of utterances than NS-C-NEM do. The result confirms Hymes’s (1972) and Wolfson (1989) suggestion that rules of speaking may vary based on several social factors, like age, gender and social background. Also, speakers of a specific language might form different speech communities based on rules of speaking. As far as the effect of language proficiency is concerned, our EFL-H and EFL-L appear to perform differently on both approaches. EFL-L learners tend to show a greater task effect than do EFL-H due to lack of English proficiency as suggested by Bardovi-Harlig and Harford (1993). EFL-L subjects use more Direct Apology and less Offer of Repair and Provide Explanation as well as more modality markers when they respond in English. Those are mainly due to the fact that the expression of Offer of Repair and Provide Explanation are more difficult for EFL-L and their lack of linguistic knowledge disallows them to employ those strategies adequately. In addition, because of the feeling of insecurity in face-to-face interactions, EFL-L learners exploit more ‘playing-it-safe’ strategies (Faerch and Kasper, 1989;

Trosborg, 1987) by using more MAXIMIZERs than MINIMIZERs in order to

modulate their tone across four situations. Finally, in terms of pragmalinguistic transfer, on both DCT and role-play data, EFL-L exhibit more negative transfers than do EFL-H, which is influenced by their L1. And role plays induce higher frequency of negative transfers than DCTs do.

Finally, the present study also reveals the importance of revision of apology internal modification. Based on the results in Lin and Ho’s (2006) study, the finding show that NS-E exhibit more modality markers than NS-C do. However, based on the proposed coding system in the present study, re-examination of the number of the modality markers shows that our NS-C subjects exploit more markers than their NS-E counterparts. This implies that Chinese particles function as a very important role for native speakers of Chinese to convey their attitude. Therefore, the study suggests that in order to fully capture the Chinese natives’ use of modality markers, it is necessary to include Chinese final particles in the categorization of internal modification.