Location of Repository

The speech act of apology : a linguistic exploration of politeness orientation in British and Jordanian culture

By Bilal Abdal Majeed Al-Adaileh

Abstract

Through an investigation of the realisation patterns of apologies in British English and Jordanian Arabic, this study presents an account of politeness phenomena in\ud Jordanian culture as compared to British culture. A comparison is thus made between the British conceptualisation of the pragmatic notions of face and politeness and their Jordanian equivalents. In order to arrive at better understanding of how politeness\ud operates in each of the cultures under study, it was decided to linguistically examine the act of apologising within the theoretical framework of Brown & Levinson's (1978,1987) model of politeness in which a distinction is made between two main constituents of face: negative face and positive face. The adoption of Brown & Levinson's theory of politeness also meets the need to study this particular speech act in connection with explanatory variables, such as social power, social distance, and\ud the absolute ranking of imposition, which all provide more insights into how politeness is conceived of in the two cultures. The intercultural and intracultural analyses carried out in this study uncover the similarities and differences in the two cultures' linguistic behaviour, as exhibited in the performance of this act. The study\ud argues that Brown & Levinson's claim for the universality of their theory, in which apologies and deference are viewed as being intrinsically negative politeness\ud strategies, is not supported on the ground that Jordanian apologies are found to be positive politeness strategies. The study's main contribution to the field of politeness\ud research is to reinforce the findings of previous researchers (Locher & Watts 2005; Spencer-Oatey 2005; Arundale 2006) who argue that Brown & Levinson's (1987)\ud model of politeness can still be valid if politeness strategies they have proposed are viewed as possible realisations of relational work. The study also reaffirms the findings of Davies et al (2007) and Koutsantoni (2007) in which apologies are found to be of benefit for both the apologiser and the apologisee and likely to maintain\ud "equity" between them. Seen in this way, apologies could be viewed as "relational" and "interactional" phenomena

Publisher: Linguistics & Phonetics (Leeds)
Year: 2007
OAI identifier: oai:etheses.whiterose.ac.uk:202

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (1986). (ed). Culture Bound. Bridging the cultural gap in language teaching. Cambridge: doi
  2. (1990). (eds). New Zealand ways of speaking English. doi
  3. (2005). (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpacking their bases and interrelationships. doi
  4. (2007). 1 can now apologize to you twice from the bottom of my heart": Apologies in Greek reality TV. doi
  5. (2003). 4pologising in British English. UmeA: Institutionen fdr modema spr&k.
  6. (1959). 71c Presentation ofSetfin Everyday Life.
  7. (1986). 77iought and language, edited and newly revised version of the original
  8. (1986). 77zat is Not what I Meant: How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks your Relations with Others. doi
  9. (2001). 77ze Power ofApology: Healing Steps to Transform All Your Relationships.
  10. (1999). 77ze semantics-pragmatics interface from different points of view. doi
  11. (1987). A comparison of accounts: When is a failure not a failure? doi
  12. (2002). A critical response to John Gray's Mars and Venus portrayals of men and women. doi
  13. (2001). A Critique ofPoliteness Theories.
  14. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In doi
  15. (2000). A linguistic and sociopragmatic and cultural study of swearing in doi
  16. (1986). Advanced EFL apologies: What remains to be leamed? doi
  17. (2006). An Intoduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburghl Edinburgh
  18. (1985). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis (2 nd edn). doi
  19. (1984). An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. doi
  20. (1989). Apologies across languages. In
  21. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. doi
  22. (2001). Apologies: Genuine admissions of blameworthiness or scripted, sympathetic responses? Psychological Reports, doi
  23. (1999). Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian: Different languages, different strategies. doi
  24. (1989). Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native and nonnative speakers. doi
  25. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. doi
  26. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. doi
  27. (1983). Apology: A Speech Act Set. In
  28. (1975). Aspects of testing the oral proficiency of adult immigrants to Canada.
  29. (2003). Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. doi
  30. (1976). Beyond Culture. doi
  31. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: "face" revisited and renewed. doi
  32. (1996). Black feminist theory and African American women's linguistic practice.
  33. (2001). Children's gender indexing in language: From the separate worlds hypothesis to considerations of culture, context, and power. doi
  34. (1971). Class, Codes and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. doi
  35. (1970). Clause types and structural functions. In
  36. (2005). Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Inquiry. In
  37. (2005). Communication 7lieories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts.
  38. (1985). Comparing apologies across languages.
  39. (1996). Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. doi
  40. (1984). Conversational style: Analysing talk amongfriends.
  41. (2001). Cooperating with Grice: A cross-disciplinary metaperspective on uses of Grice's cooperative principle. doi
  42. (2007). Cross-cultural linguistic realisation of politeness: A study of apologies in English and Setswana. doi
  43. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. doi
  44. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. doi
  45. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests andApologies. doi
  46. (2002). Designing and Reporting Experiments in Psychology.
  47. (1981). Developing a measure of soci-cultural competence: The case of apology. doi
  48. (2004). Developing awareness of crosscultural pragmatics: The case of American/German sociable interaction. doi
  49. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. doi
  50. (1996). Differing perceptions of face in British and Japanese academic settings. doi
  51. (1997). Dinner Talk., Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialization in Family Discourse. New Jersey: Lawrence ErIbaurn Associates. doi
  52. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: doi
  53. (2002). Discourse issues in cross-cultural pragmatics. doi
  54. (1986). Discourse: Scope without depth. doi
  55. (2007). Do children apologize to each other? Apology events in young Israeli peer discourse. doi
  56. (1995). Do women apologise more than men?
  57. (1998). Doing ethnography. In Seale,
  58. (2000). Doing Pragmatics, doi
  59. (1998). Effect of Rejoinders in Production Questionnaires. doi
  60. (2003). Effects of helper and recipient sex on the experience and outcomes of comforting messages: An experimental investigation. Sex Roles,
  61. (2005). Elementary quantitative methods. In
  62. (1978). Excuse me and I'm sorry. doi
  63. (1992). Experimental and observational data in the study of the interlanguage pragmatics.
  64. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: Moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SlPs). doi
  65. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Amold.
  66. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: doi
  67. (2003). Face and politeness: ýNew (insights) for old (concepts). doi
  68. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. doi
  69. (1983). Face in interethnic communication. doi
  70. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. doi
  71. (1995). Gender and Discourse. doi
  72. (2005). Gender and impoliteness. doi
  73. (2000). Gender and Language: Towards a Feminist Pragmatics,
  74. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: doi
  75. (1997). Gender differences in self-reported response to troubles talk. Sex Roles:
  76. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in School. doi
  77. (1995). Go ahead, say you're sorry.
  78. (2000). Grice's Cooperative Principle: Getting the meaning across. Leeds Morking Papers in
  79. (1962). How to Do Things with Mords. Oxford:
  80. (1973). Ibc logic of politeness; or, minding your p's and q's. doi
  81. (2006). Illocutionary Acts -Austin's Account and What Searle Made Out offt, Tuebingen: Tuebingen University.
  82. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. doi
  83. (1975). Indirect speech acts. doi
  84. (2007). Institutional apologies in UK higher education: Getting back into the black before going into the red. doi
  85. (1995). IntcrIanguagc Pragmatics: Rcqucsts, Complaints and Apologics.
  86. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour. doi
  87. (2004). Interviewing in Social Research. In Seale,
  88. (2000). Introduction to Research Methods.
  89. (2005). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and qualitative Approaches. doi
  90. (2005). Introduction to SPSS in Psychology.
  91. (1964). Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. doi
  92. (1985). Jordanian Arabic between Diglossia and Bilingualism: Linguistic Analysis. doi
  93. (1995). Judgment ofResponsibility.
  94. (1986). Kinesics and cross-cultural understanding. In
  95. (1983). Language and Communication. doi
  96. (1975). Language and Moman's Place.
  97. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. doi
  98. (1981). Let's Talk And Talk About It: A pedagogic interactional grammar ofEnglish. Munchen: Urban &
  99. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. doi
  100. (2005). Linguistic politeness and politic behaviour: Reconsidering claims for CP universality. doi
  101. (1988). Linguistic Politeness Il (Special Issue).
  102. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. doi
  103. (1975). Logic and conversation. doi
  104. (1980). Man Made Language. doi
  105. (1987). Mcaning and Form The Pragmatics of Performativc Uttcranccs. Cambridge:
  106. (1991). Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation. Califomia: doi
  107. (1992). Men arefrom Mars, Momen arefrom Venus.
  108. (2004). Mixing Methods in Psychology The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice. East Sussex: doi
  109. (2000). Momen Circling the Earth: A Guide to Fostering Community, Healing and Empowerment. Florida: Health Communications,
  110. (1995). Momen, Men and Politeness. doi
  111. (1981). Narrative Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication. doi
  112. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act perfonnance. doi
  113. (1988). On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture. Social Problem, doi
  114. (1981). On apologizing. doi
  115. (1972). On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction.
  116. (2007). On historical Chinese apology and its strategic application. doi
  117. (1981). On saying you're sorry. doi
  118. (1989). On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behaviour. England versus Greece. doi
  119. (2004). Open coding. In Seale,
  120. (1990). Pardon my gaffe: effects of sex, status, and consequence severity on accounts. doi
  121. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. doi
  122. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. doi
  123. (1981). Poison to your soul. Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. doi
  124. (2005). Politeness in Britain: "It's only a suggestion... ". In:
  125. (1988). Politeness in written persuasion. doi
  126. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. doi
  127. (1992). Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. A Cross-Cultural Pcrspcctivc.
  128. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modem Chinese. doi
  129. (1990). Politeness strategies in New Zealand women's speech. In:
  130. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. doi
  131. (1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies. doi
  132. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: negotiating nonns and identifying contestation. doi
  133. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: doi
  134. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: doi
  135. (1985). Politericss rcvisited: cross-modal supportivc strategies.
  136. (2004). Power and Politeness in action: disagreements in oral communication. doi
  137. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. doi
  138. (1984). Pragmatic knowledge: Rules and procedures. doi
  139. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge:
  140. (1993). Preface: The search for integrated universals in linguistic politeness. doi
  141. (1983). Principles ofPragmatics.
  142. (1989). Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures.
  143. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: doi
  144. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks,
  145. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. California: Sage Publication. doi
  146. (2002). Qualitative Re-search & Evaluation Methods. California: Sage Publication.
  147. (2002). Qualitative Researching. doi
  148. (2003). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. doi
  149. (2004). Questionnaires. In Scale,
  150. (2003). Re-cxamining politeness, face and the Japanese language. doi
  151. (1998). Reading Ethnographic Research: A Critical Guide (2nd ed).
  152. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese. doi
  153. (1993). Refining the DCT: Comparing open questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks.
  154. (1989). Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behaviour. doi
  155. (2007). Relevance theory and politeness. doi
  156. (1996). Reprimanding and responding to a reprimand: A case study of Peruvian Spanish Speakers. doi
  157. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). doi
  158. (2000). Requests and Culture. Bem: Peter Lang. doi
  159. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. doi
  160. (1989). Research Methods and Organisation Studies. doi
  161. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. doi
  162. (2000). Research Methods in the Social Sciences.
  163. (1998). Researching Society and Culture.
  164. (1996). Rethinking Language and Gender Research: 71cory and Practicc.
  165. (1985). Review article (Discourse Analysis. By Gillian Brown and George Yule. doi
  166. (1982). Sad tales: The accounts of white-collar defendants and the decision to sanction. doi
  167. (1989). Scx differences and apologies: one aspect of communicative competence. doi
  168. (2001). Self-politeness: A proposal. doi
  169. (1991). Selling the apolitical. In doi
  170. (1987). Semantics. In doi
  171. (1981). Sex and politeness: factors in first-and second-language use. doi
  172. (2004). Social Rcscarch Mahods A rcadcr.
  173. (2004). Social Research Methodology: a critical introduction. doi
  174. (2003). Social Research Methods Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. doi
  175. (2004). Social Research Methods: A reader.
  176. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousands Oaks, CaliE ; London:
  177. (2001). Social Research: Issues, methods and process.
  178. (1983). Sociocultural competence and language transfer: The case of apology. doi
  179. (1981). Sociolinguistic variation and pragmatic ability: A look at learners. doi
  180. (1971). Sociolinguistics and the ethnography of speaking. doi
  181. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. doi
  182. (2004). Some Reflections on Ethnography and Validity. In doi
  183. (2000). Speaking Culturally: Language Diversity in the United States. Thousand Oaks, doi
  184. (2007). Special Issue: Apologies: Introduction. doi
  185. (1992). Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. doi
  186. (1980). Speech acts and second language learning. doi
  187. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: doi
  188. (1976). Speech event and natural speech: Some implications for sociolinguistic methodology. doi
  189. (1996). Status and Power in Verbal interaction: A study of Discourse in a Close-knit Social Network. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: doi
  190. (2006). Strategies of apologising in Lombok Indonesia. doi
  191. (1989). Studies in the May of Words. Massachusetts:
  192. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into method.
  193. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: How Momen's and Men's Conversational Styles Affed Who Gets Heard, no Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Mork. doi
  194. (1990). Talking Power. ý The Politics ofLanguage in Our Lives,
  195. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. doi
  196. (1988). The Bulge: A theory of speech behaviour and social distance.
  197. (1976). The classification of illocutionary acts. doi
  198. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal forgiveness: A dissonance-attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness. doi
  199. (2002). The Interpersonal Communication Reader.
  200. (1989). The language of apologies
  201. (1989). The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. doi
  202. (2000). The moral functions of an apology. doi
  203. (2004). The myth of gender cultures: Similarities outweigh differences in men's and women's provision of and responses to supportive communication. Sex Roles: doi
  204. (1956). The nature of deference and demeanor. doi
  205. (1996). The principal principles of pragmatic inference: politeness. doi
  206. (1999). The semantics-pragmatics distinction: what it is and why it matters. doi
  207. (2004). The sequential organization of "explicit" apologies in naturally occurring English. doi
  208. (1988). The Social pragmatics of politeness forms. In
  209. (1981). The sociolinguistics of deference and politeness.
  210. (1981). The use of apologies in social predicaments. doi
  211. (1977). Therapeutic Discourse, doi
  212. (2003). Third Wave Feminist Linguistics and the Analysis of Sexism. Discourse Analysis Online.
  213. (1977). Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning.
  214. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impolitencss.
  215. (1992). Traditional and model view: the social constitution of the power of politeness. doi
  216. (2003). Troubles talk: Effects of gender and gender-typing. Sex Roles: A Journal ofResearch,
  217. (1998). Understanding Syntax.
  218. (1992). Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics. doi
  219. (1993). Universality and relativity in cross-cultural politeness research: a historical perspective. doi
  220. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. doi
  221. (1986). Universals of linguistic politeness. Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. doi
  222. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: doi
  223. (1992). What's Wrong With Ethnography? Methodological explorations. doi
  224. (1976). Women and politeness: a new perspective on language and society. Reviews in Anthropology. doi
  225. (1997). Women, language and identity. doi
  226. (1994). Workplace reasons for saying you're sorry: Discourse task management and apology in telephone interviews. doi
  227. (1998). Yhe Argument Culture: Moving ftom Debate to Dialogue.
  228. (1991). You Just don't Understand., Women and Men in conversation. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.