ABE Hitomi

阿部 瞳

application/pdfAA11551704-20170331-71博士論文要旨departmental bulletin pape

阿部, 瞳

1969

アベ, ヒトミ

9000006169295

ABE, Hitomi

1634

DWCLA Academic Repository

要 旨The Realization of the Apology Speech Actin English by Japanese Speakers :Cross-Cultural Differences, Pragmatic Transfer,and Pedagogical Implications阿部 瞳The notion of “communicative competence” was first introduced by Hymes (1972). Hemaintained that speaker’s knowledge of grammar is not sufficient for communicating appro-priately in different situations with different interlocutors. His concept of communicativecompetence included not only the concept of usage and grammaticality but also the bothgrammar and sociocultural knowledge.One of the important aspect of communicative competence is pragmatic competence. Ac-cording to Wolfson (1989), pragmatic competence involves the ability to comprehend andproduce socially appropriate language functions in discourse as well as linguistic or gram-matical knowledge. Pragmatics is the study of communicative action in its socioculturalcontext. Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983) divided pragmatics into two components : prag-malinguistics and sociopragmatics. Specifically, pragmalinguistics involves the study of lin-guistic means that convey illocutionary force and politeness values. Sociopragmatics, inturn, is related to socially appropriate linguistic behavior in relation to different local, cul-tural and social conditions. Interlanguage pragmatics is the study of non-native speakers’use and acquisition of linguistic action patterns in a second language. Previous studies in in-terlanguage pragmatics (Kasper & Rose, 1999 ; Cohen, 1996 ; Eliss, 1994 ; Kasper &Blum-Kulka, 1993) have shown that differences and similarities exist in how to carry outcommunicative actions between language learners and native speakers of target languages.Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990) defined “pragmatic transfer” as transfer of first71language (L1) sociocultural communicative competence in performing L2 speech acts or anyother aspect of L2 conversation, where the speaker is trying to achieve a particular functionof language. Pragmatic transfer can be either positive, which is considered evidence of so-ciocultural and pragmatic universality among languages, or negative, which shows inappro-priate transfer of L1 linguistic norms into L2.Thomas (1983) defined the term “pragmatic failure”, which occurs where speech actstrategies are in appropriately transferred from the L1 to L2. She identified two kinds ofpragmatic failure : pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure. She pointed out that“pragmalinguistic failure occurs when the pragmatic force mapped by the speaker onto agiven utterance is systematically different from most frequently assigned to it by nativespeakers of the target language, or when conversational strategies are inappropriately trans-ferred from the speaker’s mother tongue to the target language” (p. 99). Sociopragmaticfailure results from different cultural norms and pragmatic principles that govern linguisticbehaviors in different cultures. Since speakers with different cultural backgrounds have dif-ferent understandings of the appropriateness of linguistic behavior, there may be barriers toeffective communication. As she pointed out, different cultures have different ways ofthinking, rules of speaking, social values and place different relative weights on the prag-matic principles, and these cross-culturally different assessments of social parameters havenegatively affected language users’ linguistic choices, which finally result in sociopragmaticfailure.Speech acts are one of the key areas of linguistic pragmatics. Although the existence ofspeech acts is universal, the frequency and contents are culture-specific. Speech acts reflectthe fundamental cultural values and social norms of a target language and demonstrate therules of language use in a speech community. This study focused on the speech act of apol-ogy. An apology is the speech act that is insulting someone, or physically hurting anotherperson unintentionally, seem to be universally accepted situations which call for an apology,yet different degrees of severity of the action, or different circumstances related to the be-havior which results in the need to apologize, might call for different types of apologies anddifferent intensities of such apologies in different cultures (Olshtain, 1983). The function ofapology is to restore and maintain harmony between a speaker and hearer. People expect to72apologize when they think that they have violated social norms (Olshtain & Cohen, 1983).Apologizing is not an easy matter in one’s own language, and having to do it in a secondor foreign language is even more complicated. That is why studying the way people apolo-gize in different languages is important in order to understand the complexities of language.Various apology pragmatic studies in many different languages in comparison with Eng-lish have been carried out : Hebrew (Olshtain & Cohen, 1983 ; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka,1985), Japanese (Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990 ; Sugimoto, 1995), Jordanian Arabic(Bataineh & Bataineh, 2006), Korean (Jung, 2004 ; Yang, 2002), and Venezuelan Spanish(Garcia, 1989). These studies showed learners’ L2 proficiency and their native language’ssocio-cultural norms affect their use of apology strategies. Comparing American and Japa-nese styles of apology, Barnlund and Yoshioka (1990) found that “saying directly ‘I’m sor-ry’ was the most popular form of apology in both Japan and the U. S. In American apol-ogy, explaining the situation was the second most common choice, while doing somethingfor the other person was the second most popular strategy used in Japanese apology. Sugi-moto (1995) found that Japanese generated messages with more strategies than did Ameri-cans in their apology. More Americans than Japanese included accounts in their apology,while Japanese were more likely than Americans to employ strategies such as statement ofremorse, reparation, compensation, promise not to repeat the same offense, and request forforgiveness.In addition, findings of those studies showed contextual factors such as severity of of-fense, social status and social distance, and formal or private relationships influence speak-ers’ choice of apology strategies. The more severe the offense, the more types of strategieswere included in apology messages. Moreover, while both Americans and Japanese adjustedtheir apologies to the severity of offense, they seemed to differ in their preferred forms fordifferent levels of severity (Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990).Despite these findings, more studies are needed to investigate cross-cultural and linguisticunderstanding of speech act of apologies. The investigation of the Japanese speech act ofapology is important. When socio-cultural rules in the native language (L1) differ fromthose in the second language (L2), the learners’ transferring of their cultural norms to thetarget culture of the L2 often causes misunderstanding or offense, resulting in communica-73tion breakdown (Wolfson, 1989). For language learners, mastering the correct use of L2speech acts is important in acquiring L2 pragmatic competence.The aims of this study were to investigate the differences and similarities between nativeand non-native realization of apology strategies in English and the existence of pragmatictransfer by Japanese EFL learners when making apologies. Specifically, the following re-search objectives were developed : 1) what apology strategies are frequently used by Japa-nese speakers in English and in Japanese, and by Americans in English ; 2) how Japanesejunior high and high school English textbooks teach Japanese students to make apologies inEnglish ; 3) how Americans evaluate Japanese apologies in English.Study 1 indicated the apology strategies which used by Japanese in English and in Japa-nese, and Americans in English. The data were collected by means of a discourse comple-tion test (DCT) which was scenarios that call for specific speech acts are presented to par-ticipants in written form. Participants responded in writing what they think they would actu-ally say under the situations described in the scenarios. DCT would have weakness in termsof naturalistic way of gathering data, however it is still useful method in the field because itallows the collection of a large amount of data which reduces bias. Participants of this studywere Doshisha Women’s College students, 76 in English and 62 in Japanese, and 45 native-English speaking Americans. An English version and a Japanese version of a DiscourseCompletion Test were used to collect data from three groups. By comparing them, the re-sults showed the differences and similarities between native and non-native realization ofapology strategies in English and the existence of pragmatic transfer by Japanese EFL learn-ers when making apologies.The findings showed that the most often used strategies were direct expression of apolo-gies both Japanese participants and American participants in English. Japanese speakers ofEnglish used the most formulaic expressions, for example, “sorry” or “I’m sorry”. Ameri-cans used intensified expression of apology more frequently than Japanese. Japanese EFLlearners need to understand that a very severe offense will require intensifiers and theyshould be appropriate for the situation. Japanese tended to use expressions of requesting for-giveness much more frequently than Americans, which sounded more formal for the situ-ations when a speaker communicate with a close friend. They also used expressions such as74“Excuse me,” and “I beg your pardon” in order to make it appropriately as in “I’m sorry.”Language proficiency was an important factor in pragmatic transfer. In addition, Americanparticipants more frequently used acknowledgment of responsibility as indirect expression ofapologies than Japanese participant did. It is obvious that acquiring native English speakers’preferred indirect expression of apology strategies helps Japanese English learners to smoothcommunication in English.Americans used a wide variety of combinations for apology strategies in comparison withJapanese. Japanese 685 responses included 276 patterns of apology combinations. On theother hand, American 439 responses included 244 patterns of apology combinations. Themore severe the offense was perceived to be by the speaker, the more number of categoriesused in combinations of apology in both groups. The use of the explicit expression of apol-ogy and intensified expression of apology were more observed as well. The frequency of in-tensified expression of apologies was higher than in other situations of not-severe.Both Japanese participants and American participants responded similarly using offer ofrepair in the case of the situations in which the speakers considered that they needed to of-fer a way to make up for. In those situations, both Japanese and Americans provided similarspecific offer, such as paying for the damage. Participants of both groups considered thatthey needed to offer a way to make up for such consequences in order to maintain their re-lationships.Study 1 also compared the apology strategies by Japanese speakers in English and inJapanese to find transfer from Japanese into English. Especially, the tendency to use thestrategy of expression of apology, concern for the interlocutor, and specific offer of repairmight indicate transfer of sociocultural norms when communicating in a second language.In terms of specific offer of repair and concern for the interlocutor, the findings showed thatexpressions which Japanese English speakers used in Japanese and in English were verysimilar. It was obvious that Japanese EFL learners’ choice of apology strategies in Englishare influenced by their L1. It is necessary for Japanese EFL learners to acquire the linguisticand pragmatic knowledge to make appropriate apologies in English.Study 2 investigated how junior high school and high school English textbooks teachmaking apologies in English to Japanese speakers. More apologies were found in the main75conversational sentences than in the book notes of the junior high school English textbooks.Same numbers of apologies were found in the main conversational sentences and booknotes of the high school English textbooks.There were limited variation of apology strategy in both junior high school and highschool English textbooks. “Expression of apology ＋ explanation”, “Expression of apology＋ statement of the situation”, and “Expression of apology” were commonly used in thosetextbooks. The use of intensifiers were rarely taught in Japanese EFL textbooks. These setpatterns may be influential to students’ knowledge about apologies. The responses of theDCT provided evidence that Japanese participants in English included a small repertoire ofapology patterns in comparison with those of Americans.The results of this study indicated the need for the Japanese junior high school and highschool English textbooks to include more apology expressions in the conversational sen-tences. More various patterns of apology expressions help students to get knowledge ofapology speech act in English. To communicate effectively, second language learners mustacquire the sociocultural strategies used by native speakers of a target language as well astheir vocabulary.Study 3 presented the result of qualitative data analysis. This study investigated hownative-English speaking Americans regard apologies with their socio-cultural norms andhow they evaluate Japanese apologies in English. Participants of this study were 7 Ameri-can native English speakers who were students in the Japanese Studies Program (JSP) atDoshisha Women’s College.Apology was also important for American English speakers and they viewed Englishapology and Japanese apology as social speech acts which serve a function in communica-tion. They valued an apology in maintaining harmony and repair of offenses.For the two sociolinguistic variables ; social distance and severity of offense, the findingsfrom the data supported the findings from previous studies and the DCT data. Most of theAmerican participants agreed that different relationship types have an effect on the apolo-gies they produce. They varied apology strategies to match with the relationship, such asdistant, neutral, and close. In addition, Americans used different apology patterns in relationto severity of offense : The more severe the offense was, the more possible expression of76apology would be accompanied by other indirect apology strategies such as acknowledg-ment of responsibility and offer of repair. These results demonstrated that the choice ofapology strategies of American English speakers is determined by social variation such associal distance and also type of offense.American participants evaluated Japanese apologies in English as appropriate on thewhole. However, some were judged as too much, and others were judged as not sufficientaccording to the situations. It seemed better to adjust apology strategy to the situation ac-companying the strategy such as explanation or offer of repair to make an apology. Theseresults indicated that Japanese EFL learners need to understand clearly in selecting apologystrategies appropriately for different contexts.Comparing the similarities and differences of Japanese apologies in English and in Japa-nese and American apologies in English can improve Japanese EFL learners’ communica-tion skills in English. The findings of this study provide insight into the functions of apolo-gies produced by Japanese and Americans and which promote better understanding of cross-cultural speech act of apology. In addition, it is my hope that the results will be useful toteachers and materials developers by providing insight into the problems that Japanese stu-dents have in their realization of apologies.77

The Realization of the Apology Speech Act in English by Japanese Speakers : Cross-Cultural Differences, Pragmatic Transfer, and Pedagogical Implications : 要旨

https://dwcla.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=1547&item_no=1&attribute_id=22&file_no=1

The Realization of the Apology Speech Act in English by Japanese Speakers : Cross-Cultural Differences, Pragmatic Transfer, and Pedagogical Implications : 要旨

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DWCLA Academic Repository