摘要

随着全球化程度的加深，跨文化交际的现象越来越普遍。然而，具备了第二语言知识的语言学习者在进行跨文化交际时，仍然经常出现交际失误。作为日常生活中运用频繁的道歉语，在跨文化交际中也常出现失误。本文目的在于运用跨文化的基本理论，对中美道歉策略进行对比研究，从而有利于人们更好地进行跨文化交际。
本研究根据Olshtain1989年对道歉策略的分类，设计调查问卷，通过调查问卷的方式对中美道歉策略进行对比研究，并探讨中美道歉策略的选择使用上存在的差异及相似性。本文主要通过跨文化理论解释这些差异，而由于该理论主要用于衡量各文化间的差异，因此在本文中中美道歉策略选择的相似之处将通过礼貌理论加以阐释。
通过对调查数据统计和分析对比，本研究得出以下结论：中美都将直接道歉作为道歉的最主要策略；然而根据文化维度理论分析，中国具有集体主义的特征，中国人更注重在谈话中维持和谐的关系，因此更倾向于采用补偿手段与承诺不再犯错的道歉策略，而因为美国文化个人主义的原因，美国人更注重自身利益，则更多的使用解释说明和减轻责任的策略；而根据霍尔的理论分析，美国属于低语境文化，美国人习惯于利用语言本身来表达，则较之中国人更多地使用加强道歉语气的标识词和表达对受害者的关心的道歉策略。研究还表明，美国人较多使用承担责任的策略，根据文化维度理论分析，这是由于美国文化的短期倾向特质使国民勇于承担社会责任。虽然这似乎与美国人较多使用解释说明和减轻责任的策略相矛盾，但是作者分析相比于美国文化强烈的个人主义倾向，其短期倾向的影响并不是很明显。因此，中美在运用承担责任策略的区别要比解释说明和减轻责任策略的区别要小的多。

关键词：道歉，道歉策略，跨文化理论，礼貌理论
 
ABSTRACT

Nowadays, people from different cultures need to communicate cross-culturally. However，it is often found that second language learners who have acquired linguistic knowledge often come across communication breakdowns when speaking with native speakers. As a speech act, apology happens frequently in our daily lives. Hence it is necessary to research on apology strategies in different cultures, in order to achieve successful cross-cultural communication.
The aim of this present study is to find out the similarities and differences of apology strategies between Chinese and American through conducting a comparative study. The data is collected by the questionnaire, which is made on the basis of Olshtain’s classification of apology strategies in 1989. In this paper, differences are analyzed in terms of cross-cultural theories, however, since cross-cultural theories are mainly used to analyze each culture’s characteristic, the similarities in this study are explained from the perspective of politeness theory.
The results of this study show that both Chinese and Americans tended to use the strategy of illocutionary force indicating devices as a vital apology strategy. However, Chinese were more likely to use strategies of offer of repair and promise of forbearance. This is because Chinese culture is typically a collectivism one according to Hofstede’s dimensions, in which Chinese are willing to maintain a harmonious relationship during the communication. While because of the highly individualism culture, Americans, who are concerned about their own interests, used more explanation or account strategy and strategy of minimizing to maintain their own independence. It is also found in this paper that Americans were more likely to use strategies of intensifiers of the apology and concern for the hearer, compared with Chinese. The author provides explanations from the perspective of Hall’s theory. American culture is low-context, that is to say, Americans need to speak explicitly. Another result shows that Americans used more taking-on-responsibility strategy because of the short-term orientated culture. It seems contradictory to the result that Americans used more explanation or account strategy and strategy of minimizing, however, it indicates the greater influence of individualism dimension than that of short-term orientation dimension.

Key words: apology, apology strategies, cross-cultural theories, politeness theory