Study on the Pragmatic TransferBetween Chinese and American Apology―making

【Abstract】This paper aims to analyze the selection of apology strategies by Chinese students at different levels of linguistic proficiency， as compared with that of the native American speakers， finally revealing the similarities and differences among all the groups as far as the strategy selections are concerned.

【Key words】pragmatic transfer， similarities， differences， apology-making

1 Introduction

The categorization of apologies develops in linguistic history， which constitutes a significant part of apology speech act and is available to speakers across languages. There do exist some similarities and differences between Chinese and American apology-making.

2 Similarities

First and foremost， apologies are realized as stereotyped， formulaic social and linguistic routines in both cultures， that is， they are formulaic in structure. Each category consists of instances of patterned forms used by most speakers on most occasions. The expected linguistic form of the speech acts of apologizing is what， in fact， makes them routines in both cultures. The second similarity is the main function of apology in social interaction. To one degree or another， in both cultures making apologies aims to maintain or reestablish rapport between participants. Apology serves to reinforce a feeling of solidarity between speakers. A third common trait is in selecting apology strategies， especially the situation-specific strategies. For example， the belief that offers of repair are appropriate responses to damaged goods is common cross-culturally. Finally， the things that require an apology are quite universal， for example， they all apologize for possession offenses， inconvenience to others， time offenses， space offenses and etc.

3 Differences

Speech acts of apologizing differ cross-culturally along a number of dimensions. First of all， their frequency of occurrence and distribution are different. In American English， apologies occur in a wide variety of situations. For example， the formula “excuse me” are offered as territory invasion signals when addressing strangers （e.g.， prior to asking direction）， as announcements of temporary absence from ongoing interaction （e.g.， in order to answer the phone）， or upon virtual or real intrusion of another person’s physical space （e.g.， passing somebody in a narrow hallway）. Comments are often heard from non-native speakers that Americans are too ready to give apologies， but sometimes they lack sincerity. Chinese， however， don’t make so many ritualistic apologies. In their mind， coughing and sneezing don’t call for an apology， or does the interruption of the talk. That is because they think this kind of apologies is superfluous and they are more likely to apologize on formal occasions and follow rigid patterns， which can show their formality and seriousness.

Not only are there differences in frequency and distribution of apologies， but also the way they are realized or the preference of apology strategies varies a great deal from native speakers of American English and native speakers of Chinese. Chinese are more inclined to employ explicit apologies， intensifiers， multiple apologies and concerns for hearers， whereas Americans are more likely to provide a rationale-more excuses， justifications and downgrading of the severity of the transgression.

Another difference is the perception of social and situational parameters. In this current data， the Chinese informants utilized stronger apology， such as using more address terms， intensifiers， and concerns for hearers， to those older and high-status people. This is not so obvious in the American English. In the US， social status doesn’t influence people’s choice of making apology. For example， in Situation 1， when the student forgot to bring the book he borrowed from the professor， most of the native speakers of Chinese responded like this：

（1）“老师，真对不起。借您的书我忘带了。明天一定给您带来。”（Group 1： NSC in Situation 1）

（2）“Sir， Oh， no， I’m sorry that I forgot.” （Group 3： NSEA in Situation 1）

Take another example in Situation 4， when the president of a university kept a student for half an hour for a job interview because of an unexpected meeting， one student in Group 1 responded：

（1）“我们现在开始吧，想必各位趁我刚才不在那会儿应该准备得更充分吧！” （Group 1： NSC in Situation 4）

（2）“I’m terribly sorry for my being late. There’s something urgent to do.” （Subgroup 3： EFL 1 in Situation 4）

（3）“Oh， I’m so sorry for making you wait for me for such a long time. I am very sorry.” （Group 3： NSEA in Situation 4）

In the above example， it can be found that， when most of the native speakers of Chinese make apologies， they pay attention to the social status. To be specific， the interviewer―president of the university， when he was late for the interview， he preferred to say other things such as “Maybe， you have enough time to make a full preparation during my absence rather than apologize directly to the interviewees―job applicants. So this example can explain why apologies occur mostly upwards not downwards. However， for the native speakers of America， when they make apologies， they don’t pay much attention to the social status.

Sometimes the context in which Chinese and Americans issue apologies is at polar opposites. For example， an American hostess， complimented for her cooking skills， is likely to say， “Oh， I’m so glad that you liked it. I cooked it especially for you”， while a Chinese hostess will most probably apologize for giving the guests “nothing” even slightly edible and for not showing them enough honor by providing proper dishes. Likewise， when leaving a friend’s home， Americans will say “Thank you so much for a wonderful evening” to show their politeness， whereas Chinese people show their solidarity by saying “Sorry to have given you so much trouble”.

【References】

[1]罗锦生. （2002）. 浅谈中美跨文化交际中道歉语的使用问题[J]. 龙岩师专学报.（4）.

[2]卢仁顺，夏桂兰. （2005）. 语用迁移研究述略[J]. 华东理工学院学报. （1）.

[3]钱乐奕， 郑玲. （2004）. 汉语道歉言语行为之分析[J]. 安徽广播电视大学学报.（4）.

[4]钱乐奕. （2003）. 中英道歉言语行为之比较[J]. 合肥工业大学学报.（10）.