Speech acts as intercultural danger zones: A cross-cultural comparison of the speech act of apologising in Irish and Chilean soap operas
Abstract
Intercultural communication presents many challenges and one of them refers to the need to create awareness about the importance of understanding speech acts cross-culturally. Speech acts are what the writer or speaker is doing in uttering a particular form of words, and their focus is on meaning (speaker's intention). The recognition of the meaning of a particular speech act in a given cultural setting is at the heart of successful intercultural communication. Speech acts are considered universal, nevertheless research shows that they can manifest differently across languages and cultures. This cross-cultural difference in language use is indicative of broader socio-cultural differences that underline language in use internationally and certainly it is at this level that much inter-cultural misunderstanding has its origin. This paper focuses on the speech act of apologising, and it draws on two linguistic datasets or corpora for its analysis: one comprising two hours from an Irish soap opera Fair City and the other comprising two hours of comparable data from Amores de Mercado, a Chilean soap opera. These data are transcribed to form an electronic corpus for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Extracts of data containing the speech act of apologising in both sets of data are compared and the socio-pragmatic implications for meaning and intercultural communication are discussed.
Full text article
References
Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational Routines in English. London: Longman.
Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bach, K., Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universal in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cicourel, A. (1987). 'Oh John R. Searle's intentionality'. Journal of Pragmatics 11: 641-660.
Cohen, A. D. and Olshtain, E. (1981). 'Developing a measure of sociocultural competence. The case of apology'. Language Learning 31(1): 113-134.
Croft, W. (1994). Speech act classification, language typology and cognition. In S. Tsohatzidis (ed.) Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge, 460-477.
Edmondson, W. J. (1981). On saying you're sorry. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mounton, 273-88.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to Face Behaviour. New York: Anchor Books.
Golato, A. (2003). 'Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk'. Applied Linguistics 21(1): 90-121.
Holmes, J. (1990). ‘Apologies in New Zealand English’. Language in Society, 19 (2): 155-99.
Horn, L. (1998). Pragmatic theory. In F. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Vol.1 Linguistic Theory: Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113-145.
Jaworski, A. and D. Galasiński, 2000. ‘Vocative address forms and ideological legitimisation in political debates’. Discourse Studies 2(1): 65-83.
Koyama, W. (1997). 'Desemanticizing pragmatics'. Journal of Pragmatics 28:1-28.
Lakoff, R. (2001). Nine ways of looking at apologies: the necessity for interdisciplinary theory and method in discourse analysis. In Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. and H. E. Hamilton (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lipson, M. (1994). ‘Apologizing in Italian and English’. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 32 (1): 19-39.
Márquez, R., R.. (2000). Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McCarthy M. and O'Keeffe A., (2003). "What's in a name?": Vocatives in casual conversations and Radio Phone-in Calls. In Leistyna P. and Meyer Ch. (eds.) Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Meier, A. J. (1998). 'Apologies: What do we know?' International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8 (2): 215-231.
Mey, J. (1993). Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across languages. In Blum-Kulka, S., J. house, G. Kasper and R. Freedle (eds.). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, IX: 155-173.
Olshtain, E. and Cohen, A. (1989). Speech act behaviour across languages. In Dechert, H. and R. Manfred (eds.). Transfer in Language Production. Norwood, NJ : Ablex, XVII: 53-67.
Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and Remedial Interchanges. A study of Language Use in Social Interaction. Berlin: Mouton.
Searle, J. (1969). An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stenström, A-B. (1994). An introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis. The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Suszczyńska, M. (1999). ‘Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian: different languages, different strategies’. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 1053-1065.
Trosborg, A. (1987). ‘Apology strategies in natives/non-natives.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 11 (1): 147-167.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). 'Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 9, 145-178.
Authors
Copyright (c) 2005 María Palma Fahey
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This journal provides immediate and free open access to all its content and is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This means readers are permitted to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as proper attribution is given. This policy is consistent with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.