A Contrastive Study of Apology Strategies between English and Chinese 本科毕业论文.docx

A Contrastive Study of Apology Strategies between English and Chinese 本科毕业论文.docx

《A Contrastive Study of Apology Strategies between English and Chinese 本科毕业论文.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《A Contrastive Study of Apology Strategies between English and Chinese 本科毕业论文.docx（13页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

AContrastiveStudyofApologyStrategiesbetweenEnglishandChinese本科毕业论文

ChapterOne

Introduction

1.1Researchbackground

Asanemotionalspeechact,apologylanguagehasbecomeoneoftheimportanttopicsinthefieldofpragmaticsandsociallanguagesinrecentyears.Apologystrategywhichisthemostimportantintermediaryforapologizingisalsoattractedmanyscholars’attention.

TheBritishphilosopherJohnAustin（1962）referredthetheoryofspeechactsinthefirsttime.Hedefinedthe“apologize”asonekindofappliedlanguage.Inanalyzingthevariousstrategiesusedinapology,Fraser（1981）suggestedthat“incaseswheresocialnormsarebroken,peopleoftenfollowtheirformulaicapologieswithsomeaccountwhichsoughttoprovideanexplanationorexcuseforwhytheinfractionhappenedinthefirstplace”and“themoreformalthesituation,thelongerandmoreelaboratetheapology”.OlshtainandCohen（1983）findthedetailedexplanationontheremedialtheory.BrownandLevison（1987）referredthefacetheorywhichshowsthatthespeaker’sapologybehavioradmitshisoutofdateandharmofface,isFTA（thefacethreateningacts）damagedthepositiveface.Manyscholars,suchasWierzbicka（1985）maderesearchesaboutcross-culturalcomparativediscoursewhichrevealedthatdifferentculturerelatetodifferentstrategies.TwoChineseresearchersLiuRunqingandLiuSi（2005）madecomparisonbetweennativespeakersofChinese（NSC）andnativespeakersofEnglish（NSE）whichcomparestheuseof“Iamsorry”“Excuseme”withtheuseoftheChineseequivalents“Duibuqi”“Qingyuanliang”

Despiteoftheachievementsthepreviousscholarshavemade,theresearchaboutthedifferencesofapologystrategiesinEnglishandChineseisfarfromenough.Apologystrategiescanbedividedintomanyaspectswhichshouldbecontrastedonebyoneandanalyzedreasonsfromculturalandsocialfactors.

1.2Significanceofthestudy

Asthemostimportantintermediary,apologystrategiesshouldbeadoptedappropriatelywhichcanhelpusmaintaintheinterpersonalharmoniousrelations,setupgoodindividualimageandrestoreone’ssocialposition.Differentcountrieshavedifferentculturalandsocialvalueswhichmaybecausedifferentstrategies’selectionunderasamesituation.

ThoughmanyinternationalandChinesescholarshavemadestudiesaboutapologyandapologystrategies,thereareverylittleresearchesaboutthecontrastivestudyofapologystrategiesbetweenEnglishandChineseandthereasonsofthedifferences.

Inreviewoftheabove,thepresentthesisattemptstomakeabriefcontrastivestudyofapologystrategiesbetweenEnglishandChineseandcauseanalysisfromculturalandsocialfactors.

1.3Layoutofthepaper

ThepresentpaperattemptstomakeacontrastivestudyofapologystrategiesbetweenEnglishandChineseandcauseanalysis.Itconsistsofthefollowingfivechapters.

Chapteronepresentsanintroductiontothewholethesisincludingresearchbackground,significanceofthestudyandlayoutofthepaper.Chaptertwointroducessomebasicknowledgeaboutapologyandapologystrategiesanddescribestheresearchesstudiedbylinguistics.ChapterthreemakesacontrastivestudyofapologystrategiesbetweenEnglishandChinesefromsixaspects.Chapterfouranalysesthereasonsofthedifferencesfromculturalandsocialfactors.Chapterfiveconcludesthewholethesisandmakesaconclusionincludingthemainfindingsandlimitations.

ChapterTwo

Theoreticalprerequisites

2.1Thedefinitionofapology

Owen（1983）regardsthetermapologyastheexpressionssuchassorryandIapologize.Goffman（1971）referreditasremedy,oneoftheessentialelementsinremedialinterchange.HenceabroaddefinitionofanapologydevelopedbyHolmes,asisusedinthispaper,“anapologyisaspeechactaddressedtoB’sface-needsandintendedtoremedyanoffenseforwhichAtakesresponsibility,andthustorestoreequilibriumbetweenAandB（Aistheapologizer,andBisthepersonoffended）.”（Holmes,1990）

2.2Ageneralintroductionofapologystrategies

Manyscholarsmadedeepanalysistotheapologystrategies（Blum-KulkaandOlshtain,1984;Fraster,1981;OlshtainandCohen,1983;Owen,1983）.Muchoftheseresearcheshavemadedefinitionandclassificationofapologystrategies.InthisthesisthemodelusedisbasedonOlshtainandCohen（1983:

22-23）

（A）IFIDs（IllocutionaryForceIndicatingDevices）

a.Anexpressionofanapology,e.g.I’msorry

b.Anofferofanapologywithintensifier,e.g.I’mvery/terrible/reallysorry

c.Arequestforforgiveness,e.g.Excuseme/Forgiveme/Pardonme

（B）Explanation

Externalmitigatingcircumstances,e.g.Thetrafficwasterrible

（C）Takingonresponsibility

a.Explicitself-blame,e.g.itisveryfaultymymistake

b.Lakeofintent,e.g.Ididn’tmeanit

c.Expressionofself-deficiency,e.g.Iwasconfused!

/Ididn’tseeyou!

d.Expressionofembarrassment,e.g.Ifeelawfulaboutit.

e.Self-dispraise,e.g.I’msuchadimwit!

f.Justifyhearer,e.g.youarerighttobeangry

（D）Offeringofrepair,e.g.I’llpayforthedamage

（E）Promiseofforbearance,e.g.itwon’thappenagain

（F）Refusaltoacknowledgeguilt,e.g.itisn’tmyfault.（OlshtainandCohen,1983）

Themodelshowsthatspeakershabituallyusealimitednumberofapologystrategieswhenapologizing.WecanmakeacontrastivestudyabouttheselectionofapologystrategiesbetweenEnglishandChineseaccordingtothisclassification.

2.3Researchonapology-makingbylinguists

ItisobservedfirstlybyErvingGoffmanthattheselinguisticformulasservetocreateandmaintainwhathecalls“thepublicorder”（Goffman,1971）whichmeans“theremedialinterchange”.Speakerstrytoselectonekindofapologystrategiestoofferanapologyinordertoremedypotentiallyunpleasantsocialsituationsinthissituation.Soapologystrategiesaredefinedasamethodtoremedysocialrelationship.BorkinandReinhare（1978）havedoneaveryusefulanalysisoftwoformulaicexpressionsaboutapologies,suchas“Excuseme”“Iamsorry”.Owen（1983）regardGoffman’sworkas“richinthesuggestionsitoffersforfurtherresearch,butisinneedofmoreexplicitempiricalsupportthanthatprovidedbyCoffmanhimself”.AnumberofresearchersworkingonalargeinternationalresearchprogramhaveusedmanyofOwen’ssuggestionsinacross-linguisticstudyofapologies,thecross-culturespeechactrealizationproject（CCSARP）.OlshtainandCohen（1983）alsomadeseveralimportantcross-culturecomparisonsfromtwogroupsofnativespeakers.Fraser（1981）madeaninvestigationaboutthechoiceofapologyfromwork.Hefoundthat“themoreformalthesituation,thelongerandmoreelaboratetheapology.”InChina,therearealsosomescholarsstudythistopic,suchasJiaYuxin（1997）,HuZhuanglinandLiuRunqing（2002）.

Thesestudiesnotonlyexplainhowagivengroupusesapologystrategies,butprovideinformationabouthowspecifictypesofapologiesareappropriatelyusedinnativespeakers.

ChapterThree

ContrastbetweenEnglishandChineseapologystrategies

3.1AdescriptionofDCTsurvey

ToanalysesthedifferencesofapologystrategiesbetweenEnglishandChinese,thechapterusesaDCT（DiscourseCompletionTest）whichincludingfivetypesofsituationswhichhappenbetweenpeopleofdiverserelationsandinvariouscircumstances.

3.1.1Subjects

Onehundredsubjectsparticipatedinthestudywhichinclude50nativespeakersofChinese（NSCs）and50nativespeakersofEnglish（NSEs）.Intermsofage,halfofthesubjectsbetween15and25,therestareolder.Intermsofgender,bothNSCsandNSEssubjectscontain30malesand20females.（JiaYuxin,1997）

3.1.2Questionnaire

Inordertoachievediversityinthisstudy,fivesituationsarelistedwhichinvolvevariousrelationsbetweenpeople,suchastwostrangers,classmates,bossandstaff,parentandchild,twoclosefriends.

Table1TheQuestionnaireoftheDCTSurvey

Situation

People

Place

Case

One

Twostrangers

Inastreet

Onestepsanother’sfoot

Two

Classmates

Inclass

Onedon’tansweranother’squestion

Three

Bossandstaff

Incompany

Employeedon’tfinishthetaskintime

Four

Parentandchild

Athome

Parentdon’tkeephisorherpromise

Five

Twoclosefriends

Inanoffice

Onebreakanother’spreciouspen

3.1.3Procedure

ThequestionnaireincludesChineseversionwhichisgiventoNSCsandEnglishversionwhichisgiventoNSEs.Theparticipantsshouldfollowthesenotesbeforetheywritethequestionnaire,suchastheyshouldreadeachsituationcarefullyandwritetheirresponsesasrealisticallyaspossibleaccordingtohowtheywouldactuallydointhegivensituations.

DataanalysisthroughawrittenquestionnaireintheformofDCT（discoursecompletiontest）isthemostfrequentmethodincross-culturallanguagestudieswhichiswidelyusedanddevelopedbyBlum-Kulka.Wolfson（1989）suggestedthattheprimaryaimofusingDCTtocollectdataisforthecomparisonofcross-linguisticstudyandtheinvestigationofL2learners’sociolinguisticproblems.However,therearemanylimitationswhenuseDCTdateanalysis,thatis,“collectingnaturaldatawouldbemorereliable,forwhatoneclaimsonewilldoinagivensituationisnotnecessarilywhatoneactuallydoesinareallifesituation.”（RubeandRula,2006）Althoughithastheselimitations,DCTisaneffectivemethodtoanalysescomparativelyworthydata.

3.2ContrastoftheuseofapologystrategiesinEnglishandChinese

Table2presentstheoverallproportionsofallapologystrategiesforthetwolanguages.Thedataintable2showstheusedsituationsofapologystrategiesinEnglishandChineseandit’shelpfulformakingcontras