On the culture-specificity of linguistic gender differences: The case of English and Russian apologies

Abstract

The present paper analyzes the influence of gender and culture on speech act performance. Although culture as a factor shaping gender roles can be regarded as being implicitly addressed by the growing number of speech act studies analyzing gender differences in various languages, results from such studies are difficult to compare. This study examines responses to offensive situations produced under identical contextual conditions by English and Russian women and men, thus ensuring comparability across groups and allowing for statements on the culture-specificity of linguistic gender differences. The first part of the paper offers a contrastive analysis of English and Russian responses to offensive situations, sketching some culture-specific differences in dealing with them. The second part is devoted to an investigation of gender-based differences in English and Russian, their comparison and interpretation. Apart from apology strategies and intensifying devices, the study also examines the use of downgrading strategies and the effect of strategy combinations on the illocutionary force of the responses.

Productions and Perceptions of Apologies: Intercultural Comparisons

“…Interestingly, the British participants used routinized formulae as frequently as their Russian counterparts (i.e., 33 occurrences for each group of participants) (Ogiermann, 2008). However, the American participants in Bataineh & Bataineh's study (2008) were more inclined to appeal to formulaic expressions than their Jordanian counterparts since Jordanian participants used 18 times fewer of routinized phrases and expressions in Arabic to express their forbearance than their American counterparts in English.…”

“…To effectively repair a potentially harmed relationship, a speaker needs to adjust his or her apology strategies by using different linguistic forms. Basically, apology strategies fall into three categories: explicit or direct apology strategies, less explicit or indirect apology strategies, and strategy combinations (Bataineh & Bataineh 2008;Ogiermann, 2008). As for explicit or direct apology strategies, their linguistic forms can be realized by using "one expression of apology" with and without certain intensifier(s).…”

“…A speaker can offer a variety of accounts in different linguistic forms to explain an offense and to express his or her willingness to take on responsibility (as cited in Ogiermann, 2008). These accounts are related to assessment of responsibility by the apologizer.…”

“…For the indirect apology strategy of "concern for hearer", the Russian undergraduates formulated individually different expressions aimed at ascertaining that the victim was really okay and asking how the victim felt, which might indicate that Russians are more attentive to the contextual features of the offense proper (Ogiermann, 2008). Similarly, the Jordanian respondents more frequently used such unified expression as "Don't be angry" in Arabic to appease the victim (Bataineh & Bataineh, 2008).…”

“…For example, "one expression of apology" is often used before indirect apology strategies, which helps express their willingness to take on responsibility, or to make up for the loss, or to promise forbearance. In the study by Ogiermann (2008), the utterances of "one expression of apology", "acceptance of responsibility" and "offer of repair" in a sequential order were used more often in Russian (i.e., 656 occurrences out of 800) than in English (i.e., 588 occurrences out of 800). The Russians preferred "one expression of apology" without any intensifier(s) which was followed by "expression of responsibility", whereas their British counterparts drew heavily on "one expression of apology" coupled with some intensifier(s) but without readiness to assume their responsibility.…”