1887
image of Chinese EFL learners’ apology strategies
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper presents a multimodal analysis of apologies performed by Chinese EFL learners at two proficiency levels by considering their use of both verbal and nonverbal (i.e., gestures and gaze) strategies. The results showed that both groups used IFID (illocutionary force indicating device, which, in this study, refers to explicit apology strategies such as or ), explanation, and acknowledgment of responsibility strategies frequently, but the high proficiency participants tended to use more diverse IFID sub-strategies. Analysis of gestures also revealed significant between-group differences in the duration and frequency of the use of gestures, with the high proficiency group using more ideographic gestures (gestures which indicate specific meaning or help to express certain meaning, such as emblems, illustrators, and regulators) than their lower proficiency counterparts. Finally, the two groups differed significantly in gaze duration, but not in gaze frequency. These findings suggest that although both groups used nonverbal cues to supplement linguistic strategies of apology, they differed in how they used them. Furthermore, the results highlight the importance of employing a multimodal approach when attempting to gain a more comprehensive understanding of EFL speakers’ use of speech acts.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ap.20021.pei
2022-03-11
2022-05-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Afghari, A.
    (2007) A sociopragmatic study of apology speech act realization patterns in Persian. Speech Communication, 49(3), 177–185. 10.1016/j.specom.2007.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  2. Argyle, M., Ingham, R., Alkema, F., & McCallin, M.
    (1973) The different functions of gaze. Semiotica, 7(1), 19–32. 10.1515/semi.1973.7.1.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.7.1.19 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beltrán-Palanques, V.
    (2016a) The distinctive multimodal nature of pragmatic competence: Bridging the gap between modes. InV. Bonsignori & B. Crawford (Eds.), Multimodality across communicative settings, discourse domains and genres (pp.93–115). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2016b) Complaint sequences across proficiency levels: The contribution of pragmatics and multimodality. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, Spain.
  5. Beltrán-Palanques, V., & Querol-Julián, M.
    (2018) English language learners’ spoken interaction: What a multimodal perspective reveals about pragmatic competence. System, 77, 80–90. 10.1016/j.system.2018.01.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  6. Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M.
    (2000) Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tasks. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 517–552. 10.1093/applin/21.4.517
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.4.517 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E.
    (1984) Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196–213. 10.1093/applin/5.3.196
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196 [Google Scholar]
  8. Calbris, G.
    (2011) Elements of meaning in gesture. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/gs.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.5 [Google Scholar]
  9. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved fromwww.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dalmau, M., & Gotor, H.
    (2007) From “sorry very much” to “I’m every so sorry”: Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 287–315. 10.1515/IP.2007.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.014 [Google Scholar]
  11. Drew, P., Hepburn, A., Margutti, P., & Galatolo, R.
    (2016) Introduction to the special issue on apologies in discourse. Discourse Process, 53(1–2), 1–4. 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056689
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056689 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V.
    (1969) The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotica, 1(1), 49–97. 10.1515/semi.1969.1.1.49
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1969.1.1.49 [Google Scholar]
  13. (1972) Hand movements. Journal of Communication, 22(4), 353–374. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1972.tb00163.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1972.tb00163.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Exline, R., & Fehr, B.
    (1982) The assessment of gaze and mutual gaze. InK. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp.91–135). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Grootenboer, H.
    (2006) Treasuring the gaze: Eye miniature portraits and the intimacy of vision. Art Bulletin, 88 (3), 496–507. 10.1080/00043079.2006.10786302
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00043079.2006.10786302 [Google Scholar]
  16. Harrigan, J.
    (2005) Proxemics, kinesics, and gaze. InJ. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, & K. Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp.137–198). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Holmes, J.
    (1990) Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19(2), 155–199. 10.1017/S0047404500014366
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500014366 [Google Scholar]
  18. Houck, N., & Gass, S.
    (1999) Interlanguage refusals: A cross-cultural study of Japanese-English. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110809879
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110809879 [Google Scholar]
  19. Iizuka, Y.
    (1992) Extraversion, introversion and visual interaction. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 74(1), 43–50. 10.2466/pms.1992.74.1.43
    https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1992.74.1.43 [Google Scholar]
  20. Intachakra, S.
    (2004) Contrastive pragmatics and language teaching: Apologies and thanks in English and Thai. RELC Journal, 35(1), 37–62. 10.1177/003368820403500105
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820403500105 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jewitt, C.
    (2009) The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jungheim, N.
    (1995) Assessing the unsaid: The development of tests of nonverbal ability. InJ. Brown & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Language testing in Japan (pp.149–165). JALT.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kalma, A.
    (1992) Gazing in triads: A powerful signal in floor apportionment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 21–39. 10.1111/j.2044‑8309.1992.tb00953.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00953.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Kendon, A.
    (1986) Current issues in the study of gesture. InJ. Nespoulous, P. Perron, & A. Lecours (Eds.), The biological foundations of gestures: Motor and semiotic aspects (pp.24–45). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Khorshidi, S., Mobini, F., & Nasiri, M.
    (2016) Iranian English teaching applicants’ request and apology speech acts: Special focus on language proficiency. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(3), 534–541. 10.17507/jltr.0703.14
    https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0703.14 [Google Scholar]
  26. Leathers, D., & Eaves, M.
    (2008) Successful nonverbal communication: Principles and applications (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Liu, F. G., Deng, Y. C., & Zhao, Y. R.
    (2016) A contrastive study of the Chinese and American political apology speech acts. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 6, 42–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M.
    (2016) Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Masaeed, K., Waugh, L. R., & Burns, K. E.
    (2018) The development of interlanguage pragmatics in L2 Arabic: The production of apology strategies. System, 74, 98–108. 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A.
    (1983) Apology: A speech act set. InN. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp.18–35). Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Pan, M. W.
    (2011) Reconceptualising and exploring oral communicative competence: A multimodal perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, China.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rose, H., McKinley, J., & Briggs Baffoe-Djan, J.
    (2020) Data collection research methods in applied linguistics. Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Scott, M.
    (2008) WordSmith tools (Version 5.0). Lexical Analysis Software.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Shardakova, M.
    (2005) Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2 learners of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2, 423–451. 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.423
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.423 [Google Scholar]
  35. Taguchi, N.
    (2018) Advanced pragmatic competence. InP. A. Malovrh & A. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp.505–526). Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119261650.ch26
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119261650.ch26 [Google Scholar]
  36. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.
    (2017) Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Tajeddin, Z., & Pirhoseinloo, M.
    (2012) Production of apologies in English: Variation by L2 proficiency and apology situations. TELL, 6(2), 129–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Trosborg, A.
    (1987) Apology strategies in natives/nonnatives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 147–167. 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90193‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90193-7 [Google Scholar]
  39. Vagias, W.
    (2006) Likert-type scale response anchors. Clemson International Institute for Tourism & Research Development, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A., & Sloetjes, H.
    (2006) ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 1556–1559.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ap.20021.pei
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.20021.pei
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: gestures ; gaze ; apology strategies ; L2 pragmatics ; multimodal perspective
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error