A Discussion of the Art of Apology From the Perspective of Speech Act Theory

Weihua YU

Abstract


In our communication, apology is an important part of politeness in many speech communities. Starting from the general review of basic theories, the paper here explains the definition and functions of apology speech act, analyzes strategies taken by speakers when they make an apology, including directive apologetic speech act and indirect apologetic speech act. It explores influential factors for apology speech and highlights that the degree of offense determines different measures of apology. Finally it examines the pragmatic failure in receiving apology, pointing out that knowing when and how to make a proper apology is critical for our harmonious interpersonal communication.


Keywords


Apology; Offensive; Remedy; Pragmatic

Full Text:

PDF

References


Amy, B. M. (2000). English conversation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals of language usage: Pooiteness phenomena. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Eeveloping a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31.

Goffinan, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Anchor.

Holmes, J. (1989). Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, 10.

Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English, language in society. VOL 15( 2), 155-199.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Owen, M. (1980). Apologies and remedial interchanges. The Hague: Mouton.

Rosina, M. R., & Benjamins, J. (2000). A contrastive study of requests and apologies. Publishing Company.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2).

Wang, D. X. (1998). English discourse analysis and intercultural communication. Beijing Language and Cultural University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/n

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2015 Studies in Literature and Language



Share us to:   

 

Online Submission: http://cscanada.org/index.php/sll/submission/wizard

Please send your manuscripts to sll@cscanada.net，or  sll@cscanada.org  for consideration. We look forward to receiving your work.


We only use three mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases: caooc@hotmail.com; sll@cscanada.net; sll@cscanada.org

 Articles published in Studies in Literature and Language are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).

 STUDIES IN LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE Editorial Office

Address: 1055 Rue Lucien-L'Allier, Unit #772, Montreal, QC H3G 3C4, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138 
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org 
E-mail: office@cscanada.net; office@cscanada.org; caooc@hotmail.com

Copyright © 2010 Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture