factors and the patterns of the intercultural and intercultural variability observable in the selection of apology strategies. The dialog Construction (DC) Questionnaire they used showed that expressing an explicit apology (IFIDs) and taking on responsibility were the essential components, while verbal redress (concern for the hearer and promise of forbearance) was the least used strategy.
Eslami Rasekh (2004) carried out a comparative study between English and Persian in the area of speech acts and links them with different cultural values and norms .She compared the Persian speakers ‘ use of face -keeping strategies in reaction to complaints with those of American English speakers ‘ performance .
She analyzed in detail the use of the illocutionary force indicating device (IFID) strategies. The results revealed important different in communicative styles of the two groups. The Persian speakers were shown to be more sensitive to contextual factors and change their face keeping strategies accordingly whereas English speaker mostly used one apology strategy and intensified it based contextual factors.
Afghari (2007) carried out another study in Persian using the DCT to investigate the range of strategies used in performing the speech act of apologizing in Persian. The findings of his study indicated that in Persian as in other languages used in western societies (Olshtain and Cohen 1983: Blum -Kulka and Olshtain1984), apologies generally fit within the framework of the categories explored and discovered by such western studies. Also an explicit expression of apology and an acknowledgement of responsibility were shown to be the most frequent apology formulas offered across the majority of the apology situations. The findings also revealed that the most intensified apologies were offered to intimate friends with no dominance over the apologizer and the least intensified apologies were offered to strangers with no dominance over the apologizer. It is shown that the most intensified apologies are offered to strangers. Similarity, the addressee’s dominance over the speaker also seems to result in more intensified apology utterance.
In a series studies Olshtain and Cohen (1983, 1989), point out that apologies can be carried out by finite set of conventions of means, or strategies, all of which are related to the offensive act and serve as the speaker’s attempt to make it ‘go away’; either by conveying regret and proposing remedy, or by diminishing the offense or the speaker’s responsibility for it. The strategies, offering an explicit apology and assuming responsibility for the offense or speaker’s were found to be used in remedy in most offenses, upgrading apologetic face, down grading the service of the offense or speaker’s responsibility, offering repair, and placating the offended party by different kinds of verbal redress are clearly cross- culturally available, yet their use is highly sensitive to contextual condition, and subject to cross-cultural variation(Kasper et . al .,1996:158).
Apologizing speech act is determined by variety of factors. Some of these factors are context-internal, others are context-external. One of the context-internal factors is the nature of the offense. Borkin and Reinhart (1987:61) suggested that ” excuse me ” is used to remedy “a breach of etiquette o other light infraction of social rule “whereas” I’m sorry ” is used as an expression to dismay or regret about “a violation of another person’s right or damage to another person’s feelings”(cited in Kasper et al 1996:158) .
One of the most significant developments in speech acts studies is the cross-cultural speech acts realization patterns (CCSAP) which was aimed as investigating the realization patterns of speech acts- requests and apologies -across a range of languages and cultures in order to establish similarities and differences in these patterns cross linguistically and between native and non-native usage to the same social constraints. The languages investigated were English, Danish, French, German, Hebrew and Spanish. They assumed that the observed diversity of the speech acts in question stems from three different types of variability. There is (i) intercultural, situational variability; (ii) cross-cultural variability; and (iii) individual variability.
After this experiment research in the speech acts has been developed very fast. Researchers started too deeply in this area especially in request and apologies. Linguists classify the apology act according to various criteria. Divisions are primarily based on external factors such as the situations or object or regret (Nureddeen, 2008:281). For Goffman (1971:112), however at a certain level, apology is a class in itself within a broader category: what he calls remedial work. For him, the remediation can be carried out via one of three devices, accounts, requests, and apologies. The common usage for an account is an excuse or an explanation, in an attempt to transfer responsibility to a third party. Strategies used to so include not admitting commission of the act, claiming ignorance of the effects of the act and claiming impaired competence. Requests consist of “asking license of a potentially offended person to engage in what could be considered a violation of these rights”. An apology, similar to an account, is produced after the offense but it is different in that the offender is accepting responsibility for the offense and, by apologizing regret, which is not clear in accounts.
The factor that has been shown to have the strongest effect on apology realization is the severity of the infraction. Comparison of apology in Hebrew, Australian, English, Canadian, French and German with assessments with contextual factors in different offense contexts suggests that “severity of offense is the representative contextual factor in the socio- pragmatic set of the apology (Olshtain, 1989:160).
Apology research, both in western and eastern languages, has primarily addressed the production of apology, i. e. the strategies used to convey the illocutionary act and the contextual factors that influence the choice of these strategies. This is understandable since the other genus of research is dependent on the investigation of speech act perception. To investigation the reaction of the hearers to different apology strategies in a specific cultural setting requires a prior knowledge of the type of strategies used in apology in that cultural context; therefore, this pioneering study focuses on the production of apology strategies, namely the type and extent of apology strategies used (Hassan Ahmad Alfattah ,2010).
The impact of social distance on apology behavior varies across studies with few limited expectations. Olshtain (1989) did not establish any relationship between social distance and use of apology strategy. Bergman and Kasper (1993) found that the closer the interlocutor, the more likely the offender was to expressly assumed responsibility for the offensive act. This finding is contrary to that of Wolfson, Marmor and Jones (1989), in whose study most responsibility was expressed between acquaintances and equally little at the two opposite ends of the social distance continuum. This finding was interpreted as further evidence in support of Wolfson’s bulge hypothesis (1989). However, neither Wolfson et al (1989) nor Bergman and Kasper (1993) investigation include intimate interlocutor relationship. Hence neither of the two studies has demonstrated evidence for or against the bulge hypothesis (cited in Kasper, et al 1996:160).
Shariati and Chamani (2010) conducted a study to explore the realization of apology speech act and also to examine the frequency, combination, and sequential position of apology strategies in Persian to see how the universality of apologies should be considered in this language. The results demonstrated that explicit expression of apology with request for forgiveness was the most common apology strategy in Persian and that this strategy together with acknowledgment of responsibility formed the most frequent combination of apology strategies in Persian. The same apology strategies used on other investigated languages was common in Persian; however, preferences for using these strategies shown to be culture-specific.
Al-Zumor(2011) carried out an investigation on English apology strategies as employed in various social situations by Arab learners of English study in Indian. The strategies were compared and contrast against the strategies elicited in the same situations from Indian English speakers, American English speakers, and British English speakers. Pragmatic transfer from Arabic was also examined. The study findings revealed that the religious belief, concepts, and values were responsible for many deviations in the Arab learners’ language from that of the native speakers.
Jebahi (2011) examined the use of speech act of apology by Tunisian university students. A hundred students whose mother tongue was Tunisian Arabic were randomly selected for the study. Discourse completion task (DCT) was used to elicit apology strategies by the subjects. The findings suggested that Tunisian university student used statement of remorse most in three main situations where the offended is (i) a close friend , (ii) old in age and (iii) having the power to affect the offender’s future. A noticeable percentage of subjects denied responsibility for the offense and shifted responsibility to other sources using accounts. Other less used strategies were: self-castigation, offer of repair, blaming the victim,

این مطلب رو هم توصیه می کنم بخونین:   منابع پایان نامه درمورد Interaction، Technology، ACT
دسته‌ها: No category

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید