Journal of Pragmatics 164 (2020) 27e39

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Sociopragmatic competence in American and Chinese

children’s realization of apology and refusal
Yuh-Fang Chang a, *, Wei Ren b
a
National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan
b
Beihang University, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study explores the cross-cultural difference in the change of sociopragmatic compe-
Received 25 February 2019 tence by collecting perception and production data from native English-speaking children
Received in revised form 8 March 2020 and native Mandarin Chinese-speaking children. The study focused on the development of
Accepted 10 April 2020
interlocutor sensitivity in the realization of speech acts of apology and refusal. The par-
Available online 2 June 2020
ticipants consisted of four groups: American 1st-grade, American 8th-grade, Chinese 1st-
grade and Chinese 8th-grade students. The children’s interlocutor sensitivity was examined
Keywords:
through the following aspects: (1) their perception of severity of the offense, (2) their
Sociopragmatic
competence
perception of the “need to be more polite” when apologizing to or refusing a familiar
Speech act of refusal, cross-cultural interlocutor or an interlocutor with higher social status, and (3) the use of apology and
difference refusal strategies. The results showed that cross-cultural differences exist in the change
Speech act of apology pattern of interlocutor variation.
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The development of linguistic politeness is an essential part of the language socialization process. At a very young age,
children are taught to use language politely when interacting with people in order to achieve communication goals and
maintain good relationships. Using language politely and appropriately involves both pragmalinguistic competence and
sociopragmatic competence. The development of pragmalinguistic competence includes children acquiring knowledge that
concerns “the mapping of linguistic forms, meaning, force, and context” (Rose and Kasper, 2001, p.51) and the ability to use
linguistic forms to perform a certain function. Sociopragmatic development, in contrast, requires children to learn to be
sensitive to social variables, such as age, familiarity, and power difference between speakers and interlocutors, and acquire
the ability to vary linguistic elements based on the contextual or social variables in the act of communication.
Despite the rich literature on the development of L1 sociopragmatic competence, most studies have explored children's
realization of the speech act of request (e.g., Baroni and Axia, 1989; Ervin-Tripp, 1977; James, 1978; Ninio and Snow, 1996;
Nguyen and Nguyen, 2016). Children's development of sociopragmatic competence in the realization of speech acts of
apology and refusal has garnered less interest from researchers. In addition, no sufficient research has yet been undertaken to
explore non-western children's development of sociopragmatic competence. Whether the developmental pattern of non-
Western children resembles that of Western ones remains unexplored. Evidence from different L1 groups concerning the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yfchang@dragon.nchu.edu.tw (Y.-F. Chang), weiren@buaa.edu.cn (W. Ren).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.04.013
0378-2166/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
28 Y.-F. Chang, W. Ren / Journal of Pragmatics 164 (2020) 27e39

development of sociopragmatic competence is essential because it could expand our understanding of the pragmatic
development and provide baseline data for the field of second language pragmatic development.
This study explores the cross-cultural difference in sociopragmatic competence by collecting perception and production
data from native English-speaking children and native Mandarin Chinese-speaking children. The study focused on the effect
of interlocutor sensitivity in the realization of speech acts of apology and refusal, since the characteristics of the interlocutors,
such as social status and social distance, are the most frequently discussed factors in theories proposed to explain politeness
across numerous sociolinguistic rules of language use [e.g., Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory; Wolfson's (1988)
bulge theory]. Several studies have showed that social status and social distance are important dimensions where cross-
cultural differences can occur (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Spencer-Oatey, 1993, 1996).

2. Literature review

2.1. The development of sociopragmatic competence in the realization of speech act

Existing research has demonstrated that children consider the interlocutor's characteristics, such as familiarity and social
status, in the realization of speech acts. James (1978) observed 22 children aged 4;6 to 5;2 addressing request to dolls that
represented three different age statuses: an adult, a same-sex peer and a younger child. The effect of listener's age was found
significant, with the adult doll obtaining the politest directives, followed by the peer, and then the younger child doll. Baroni
and Axia (1989) examined whether social distance has an impact on the selection of request strategies of five- and seven-
year-old children. The results indicated that participants attributed impolite strategies to more familiar speakers and
polite request strategies to less-familiar ones.
Wilkinson et al. (1984) reported that school-aged children between six and eight years can use different types of indirect
requests. For example, children used requests like “Do you know how to do this one?” when seeking information from a peer.
When the listener was a teacher, the children only used requests like “I don't know how to do this one” instead of the one used
with peers. Becker and Smenner (1986) explored how preschoolers employed “thank you.” The participants were asked to
play games with the teacher, wherein they would receive a reward from either an unfamiliar adult or peer. The findings
indicated that the frequency of the spontaneous use of “thank you” was higher when the interlocutor was an adult than when
s/he was a peer. Becker (1986) investigated children's metapragmatic knowledge about requests. She designed pairs of bossy
and nice requests that contrasted in syntactic directness, semantic markers, or tone. The results revealed that preschoolers
(aged four to six years) were able to differentiate bossy requests, such as those used by higher-status speakers, from nice
requests.
The review of existing research on children's interlocutor sensitivity suggests that most studies have examined children's
pragmatic development in the speech act of request. Children's development of interlocutor sensitivity in the realization of
speech acts of apology and refusal remains understudied.

2.2. Children's use of apology strategy

An apology, an expressive act based on Searle's (1976) classification, is defined as “a speech act which is intended to
provide support for H (hearer) who was actually or potentially malaffected by a violation X” (Olshtain, 1989, p.156). Apologies
are effective in lessening resentful feelings and repairing damaged interpersonal relationships when conflict is encountered.
Research has suggested that apologizing is the most common form of post-conflict behavior (Fujisawa et al., 2005). Studies
have revealed that approximately 30% of observed apologies by toddlers are prompted by parents, and spontaneous apol-
ogizing increased as the children grew older (Ely and Gleason, 2006; Schleien et al., 2009). Empirical research exploring
children's reactions to apologies reveal that transgressors who provided more elaborate apologies were evaluated as more
favorable (Darby and Schlenker, 1982; Ohbuchi and Sato, 1994; Smith et al., 2010; Smith and Harris, 2012; Vaish et al., 2011).
Studies on children's pragmatic development in the speech act of apology have showed that the complexity level of
children's apologies increases as they get older. Lin (2009) investigated the developmental pattern of apologies among
Chinese children aged four to eight. The results indicated that the degree of elaboration in younger children's apologies
(under seven years old) was lower than that of older children. Parallel findings were reported by Chang (2016), who examined
the developmental pattern of Chinese participants in third, sixth, and tenth grades and in college. The findings revealed that
majority of younger participants (nine years old) primarily employed a single apology strategy (38.5%) or a two-strategy
combination (42.7%), whereas older participants used more three-, four-, five-, and six-strategy combinations in their
apology production. Kamph and Blum-Kulka (2009) reported that the range of adults' apology strategies was wider than that
of children. Several strategies (e.g., “promise of forbearance,” “repair,” “minimization” and “intensifiers”) were found to occur
only in adults' apologies. While considerable research has explored children's pragmalinguistic development of the speech
act of apology, studies examining children's development of the sociopragmatic competence to vary apology strategies ac-
cording to their interlocutors are sparse.
 Y.-F. Chang, W. Ren / Journal of Pragmatics 164 (2020) 27e39 29

2.3. Children's use of refusal strategy

A refusal is defined as a speech act by which a speaker “denies to engage in an action proposed by the interlocutor” (Chen
et al., 1995, p.121). It is a face-threatening act and can be classified as a commissive act (Searle, 1976). Thus far, most refusal
studies to date have investigated adults' refusal behavior, focusing on cross-cultural comparisons or language-transfer issues
(e.g., Bella, 2011; Chang, 2009, 2011; Felix-Brasdefer, 2003, 2004; 2008; Liao and Bresnahan, 1996; Nelson et al., 2002; Ren,
2013, 2014; Takahashi, 1996; Takahashi and Beebe, 1987). Few studies have explored the development of the speech act of L1
refusal. Guo (2001) conducted a longitudinal study to observe the development of a child's refusal for 10 months. She re-
ported that the participant expressed unwillingness by shaking his head or producing a one-word refusal, “No.”
Yang and Chang (2008) examined the development of the speech act of refusal produced by Mandarin-speaking children
(K-grade 6). The results indicated that older children used more refusal strategies and produced longer refusal responses. In
addition, older children employed more indirect refusal strategies, whereas younger children used more direct refusal
strategies. Comparing the refusal responses of kindergarten children, third-graders, and college students, Reeder (1989)
found that the number of refusal strategies used increased with age. The review of the preceding literature reveals that
the number of studies conducted to explore the pragmalinguistic development of children's refusal is limited, and no existing
research has examined children's sociopragmatic development to vary refusal strategies according to their interlocutors.

2.4. Differences between American and Chinese cultures

American and Chinese cultures differ in communication styles. American culture is regarded as low-context culture, which
values linear logic and direct verbal interaction. In contrast, Chinese culture is categorized as high-context culture, which
prefers spiral logic and indirect verbal interaction (Gao and Ting-Toomey, 1998). Furthermore, American culture is individ-
ualistic, one which emphasizes self-autonomy, whereas Chinese culture is collectivistic, which places great emphasis on
ingroup relation (Triandis, 1995). American culture values equality in social relationships and believes that people should
treat each other equally when they interact in social environments. In contrast, Chinese culture, which is influenced by
Confucianism, is traditionally hierarchical in nature. People in the lower social class respect and obey those in the higher
social class (Li, 2009). L1 pragmatics studies in Chinese are still lacking, particularly with children. Given that these cultures
differ distinctively, social distance and social status could be expected to have different effects on the realization of apology
and refusal strategies between American and Chinese children differently.
Although many studies have examined children's sensitivity to the interlocutor in the realization of speech acts, most
attention has been devoted to the development of the speech act of request (e.g., Baroni and Axia, 1989; Becker and Smenner,
1986; James, 1978; Axia and Baroni, 1985; Wilkinson et al., 1984). Children's development of interlocutor sensitivity in the
realization of speech acts of apology and refusal has drawn less interest from researchers. In addition, most research exploring
this issue has been conducted with Western children. Moreover, most of the previous studies collected only production data,
and its results did not provide a complete picture of the development of sociopragmatic competence. Spencer-Oatey (2012)
has emphasized the importance of including the assessment of sociopragmatic competence.
Several researchers have pointed out that people's perception of the social variables, such as social status and social
distance varies across culture (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Spencer-Oatey, 1996). Given that aspects, such as values related to
politeness and the linguistic forms that are used in the speech act of apology and refusal are culture specific, it is reasonable to
hypothesize that the development of apologetic and refusal behavior may also vary across language and culture. Hence, it is
important to examine the changes in the participants from different cultures to obtain a comprehensive picture of children's
development in this area. This study attempts to shed light on the cross-cultural differences in the change of interlocutor
sensitivity to realize the speech acts of apology and refusal.
The research questions include the following:

(1) How does the ability to reveal interlocutor sensitivity in realizing the speech acts of apology and refusal differ across
age groups in Chinese and American children, respectively?
(2) How does the change of interlocutor variation across age groups differ between Chinese and American children?

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

The present study adopted a cross-sectional approach to examine cross-cultural differences in children's pragmatic
development. The participants consisted of four groups: American 1st-grade, American 8th-grade, Chinese 1st-grade and
Chinese 8th-grade students. American students were from elementary schools and junior high schools in Boston area. Chinese
students were from elementary schools and junior high schools in southern Taiwan. The average age for each group was 7
years old for 1st-grade students and 14 years old for 8th-grade students. Each group comprised 30 participants.
30 Y.-F. Chang, W. Ren / Journal of Pragmatics 164 (2020) 27e39

3.2. Data collection

This study explored how participants with different age and ethnic groups differ in terms of their ability to vary apology
and refusal strategies when apologizing to or refusing interlocutors with different social statuses and social distances. The
elicitation instrument selected for this study was a cartoon oral production task (COPT) devised by Rose (2000). While oral
production task, also called closed role play or oral DCT (Discourse Completion Task) has been criticized for its inability to
capture the full range of negotiation that are found in real-life conversations (Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig, 1992; Cohen, 1996;
Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford, 2005), it “provides a general impression of the respondents' ability to produce speech acts”
(Cohen, 2019, p.7), “accurately reflect(s) the content expressed in natural speech” (Beebe and Cummings, 1996, p.75), and
allows for controlling over a series of contextual variables such as age, social status and social distance (Beebe and Cummings,
1996). Likewise, the use of DCT was deemed acceptable if studies aimed to describe the range of speech-act strategies
(Taguchi and Roever, 2017) or to establish general, culture-specific patterns of language use (Ogiermann, 2018). In addition,
lix-Brasdefer and Hasler-Barker (2017) considered COPT has “the advantage of eliciting oral data within a particular visual
Fe
context by means of picture representing different social situations” (p.30). Since this study examined participants' offline
knowledge of sociopragmatics rather than online performance of what children would actually say, the COPT was considered
to be an appropriate instrument to attain the study's aim.
Four scenarios were selected for the present study, including being late, spilling juice on a borrowed book, refusing an
invitation to a pizza party, and refusing a request to lend a favorite book. The purpose of including two different speech acts
was to determine whether the development of interlocutor sensitivity varies across speech acts. To explore the children's
ability to vary strategies when encountering interlocutors of different social statuses and social distances, each scenario was
repeated three times with a different interlocutor: a best friend, a classmate, and a teacher. Hence, there were twelve sce-
narios in total. For each scenario, a cartoon and a description of the context were provided to the respondents. Each
participant was interviewed separately. During the interview, the investigator directed the participant's attention to the
cartoon depicting the scenario, read aloud the description of the scenario, and then asked the participant to rate the severity
of the offense in the scenario by choosing a number from one to five.
Given that the difference in participants' rating of the severity between the scenarios involving a teacher and a classmate
does not mean that they believe they have to apologize or refuse differently in the two cases, two perception questions were
designed to assess participants’ perceptions of the role of social distance and social status. After they provided the rating for
severity of the offenses, the interviewee was asked to respond to perception questions such as, “In your opinion, should you
more politely apologize to a classmate you are not close with than you would to your best friend? Why/why not?” or “In your
opinion, should you more politely apologize to your teacher than to a classmate? Why/why not?”.
Finally, participants were asked to state what they thought that the character in the scenario should say to apologize or
refuse appropriately for each situation. To ensure all participants had been on an equal footing, perception questions were
asked before eliciting apology or refusal responses, wherein they had considered the severity of the offenses and social status
or social distance of the interlocutors, thereby allowing their apology and refusal responses to manifest their interlocutor
sensitivity.
The participants were told that the best friend and the classmate in each scenario were of the same age and same gender as
themselves. They were also informed that the teacher was around 40 years old and was of the same gender as the participant.
The classmate and the teacher were characterized as acquaintances rather than strangers. The COPT and the interview were
conducted in English for American participants and in Mandarin Chinese for Chinese participants, and these were audio-
recorded and later transcribed.

3.3. Data analysis

The children's interlocutor sensitivity was examined through the following aspects: (1) their perception of severity of the
offense, (2) their perception of the “need to be more polite” when apologizing to or refusing a familiar interlocutor or an
interlocutor with higher social status, and (3) the use of apology and refusal strategies. First, we examined, within each group,
whether participants' perception of severity of the offense differed significantly in situations where the interlocutor was a
best friend or a classmate (i.e., the effect of social distance) and in situations where the interlocutor was a classmate or a
teacher (i.e., the effect of social status). As a result of space constraint, differences in perception of severity of offense for each
scenario across different age or ethnic groups were not examined. To investigate the effect of social distance in the perception
of the severity of an offense across different age groups of Mandarin and English native speakers (research question 1), the
mean rating of the severity of the offense from each group was calculated, and a paired t-test was conducted in each group to
investigate whether the mean rating of severity of the offense differed significantly in situations where the interlocutor was a
best friend or a classmate. To examine the effect of social status on the rating of severity of the offense, a paired t-test was
performed to investigate whether the mean rating of severity of the offense differed significantly in situations where the
interlocutor was a teacher or a classmate.
To investigate the possible age and cultural differences in the perception of the need to more politely apologize or refuse to
a classmate than to a best friend or a teacher, the number of participants who answered “yes” to the questions “In your
opinion, should you more politely apologize to your teacher than to a classmate?” and “In your opinion, should you more
 Y.-F. Chang, W. Ren / Journal of Pragmatics 164 (2020) 27e39 31

politely apologize to a classmate you are not close with than you would to your best friend?” was calculated and compared.
The reasons provided by the participants for their responses to the questions were analyzed qualitatively.
To investigate the possible difference in the participants' ability to vary apology and refusal strategies when apologizing or
refusing to interlocutors with different social statuses or social distances, the coding schemes developed by Chang (2011) and
Beebe et al. (1990) were adopted to analyze the apology and refusal responses, respectively (please see Tables 1 and 2). The
apology and refusal responses that the participants produced were analyzed as consisting of a sequence of strategy/semantic
formulas. For example, if a respondent refused an invitation to the party, saying “I'm sorry. I can't go to your party because I
have a piano lesson,” this was coded as follows: [expression of regret] [negative ability] [excuse]. The researcher and a trained
research assistant coded the data. Intercoder reliability was 90%. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion.
The production data were further analyzed from the following aspects: (1) the degree of elaboration and (2) the use of
apology or refusal strategies. To analyze the degree of elaboration, the differences in the mean number of apology strategies
used in situations involving interlocutors of different social statuses and social distances were examined. The analysis of the
use of apology or refusal strategies involved a comparison of the frequency of each type of strategy used in situations
involving interlocutors of different social statuses and social distances. A chi-square test was conducted to examine whether
the difference was statistically significant.

Table 1
The coding scheme of apology strategies.

I. Illocutionary force indicating device (IFID)

1. expression of regret or offer of apology, e.g., “I'm sorry” or “I apologize.”
2. request for forgiveness, e.g., “Excuse me,” “Please forgive me” or “Pardon me.”
II. Adjunct
1. alerter, e.g., “Teacher…”
2. explanation or account of the cause which brought about the violation, e.g., because I overslept.
3. expression of the speaker's responsibility for the offense:
a. explicit self-blame, e.g., “It's my fault/my mistake.”
b. expressing lack of intent, e.g., “I didn't mean to upset you.”
c. acknowledgement, e.g., “I shouldn't have done it.”
d. admission of fact, e.g., “I'm late.”
4. intensifier, e.g., “really, very”
5. justification, e.g., “Your teaching is really boring.”
6. minimize the degree of offense, e.g., “It's not the end of the world.
7. offer of repair, e.g., “I'll buy you a new one.”
8. promise of forbearance, e.g., “It won't happen again.”
9. speaker showing concern for offended party, e.g., “I hope you weren't offended.”

Table 2
The coding scheme of refusal strategies.

I. Direct refusal
1. No
2. Negative willingness/ability, e.g., “I can't/I won't/I don't think so.”
II. Indirect
1. Statement of regret, e.g., “I'm sorry.” or “I feel terrible.”
2. Wish, e.g., “I wish I could help you…”
3. Excuse, reason, explanation, e.g., “I have a headache.”
4. Statement of alternative, e.g., “why don't you ask someone else?”
5. Set condition for acceptance, e.g., “If you had asked me earlier, I would have…”
6. Criticism/preach, e.g., “As a student, you should come to class…”
7. Postponement, e.g., I'll think about it later.
8. Topic switch (Avoidance)
9. Repetition of part of request, e.g., “this weekend?”
III. Adjuncts to Refusals
1. Gratitude, e.g., “Thank you”
2. Pause filler
3. Statement of positive opinion/feeling or agreement, e.g., “I'd love to…”

4. Results

4.1. Sociopragmatic change across age groups

This section examines whether the Chinese and American children's ability to reveal interlocutor sensitivity in realizing
the speech acts of apology and refusal differ across age groups respectively through the perception of severity of the offense
and the perception of the politeness concerning the interlocutors.
32 Y.-F. Chang, W. Ren / Journal of Pragmatics 164 (2020) 27e39

4.1.1. Perception of the severity of the offense

Tables 3 and 4 present the mean and standard deviation for the perceived severity of the offense across age and ethnic
groups. As shown in Table 3, Chinese participants from first and eighth grades agreed in their perception that the offense was
more serious when the offended party was a classmate as opposed to a best friend for two paired “apology” situations (i.e.,
spilling juice on the borrowed book and being 1 h late). The differences in ratings between the situations involving a
classmate and a best friend were statistically significant (“spilling juice:” Grade 1: t ¼ 2.283, p ¼ .030; Grade 8: t ¼ 5.214,
p ¼ .000; “1 h late:” Grade 1: t ¼ 5.835, p ¼ .000; Grade 8: t ¼ 2.037, p ¼ .05). Among American participants, only eighth-
graders perceived the offense as significantly more serious when the offended party was a classmate as opposed to a best
friend for both apology situations (“spilling juice:” Grade 8: t ¼ 4.065, p ¼ .000; “1 h late:” Grade 8: t ¼ 2.408, p ¼ .02).
Based on a paired t-test, the ratings of American first-graders for the situations involving a classmate and a best friend did not
differ significantly on the basis of a paired t-test.

4.1.2. Perception of the politeness concerning the interlocutors

Concerning the effect of social status in the “apology” situations, a significant difference was found only in Chinese eighth-
graders’ ratings of severity in the “spilling juice” situations involving a teacher and a classmate (t ¼ 4.605, p ¼ .000) and
American eighth-graders’ ratings in the “1 h late” situation, as shown in Table 3 (t ¼ 2.449, p ¼ .02). Chinese eighth-graders
rated severity involving a teacher significantly lower than that involving a classmate in the “spilling juice” situation, whereas
American eighth-graders rated severity involving a teacher significantly higher than that involving a classmate in the “1 h
late” situation.

Table 3
Means and standard deviations for the rating of the severity of the offense in apology situations.

Interlocutor Apology Situation

“spill juice” “1-h late”

American (n ¼ 30) Chinese (n ¼ 30) American (n ¼ 30) Chinese (n ¼ 30)

Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8

Best friend 3.93 (1.39) 3.30 (.99) 3.13 (1.36) 3.13 (1.07) 3.23 (1.52) 3.53 (.86) 2.27 (1.05) 3.57 (1.10)
Classmate 3.93 (1.39) 3.77 (1.04) 3.67 (1.30) 4.13 (.86) 3.17 (1.66) 3.87 (.86) 3.47 (1.20) 4.00 (.74)
Teacher 3.97 (1.45) 3.63 (1.03) 3.30 (1.34) 3.10 (1.27) 3.60 (1.36) 4.27 (.87) 3.67 (1.35) 4.07 (1.10)

Social distance: t .000 4.065 2.283 5.214 .494 2.408 5.835 2.037
Best friend vs. Classmate p 1.000 .000** .030* .000** .625 .023* .000** .05*

Social status: t -.197 .750 1.385 4.650 1.659 2.449 -.682 -.304
Classmate vs. teacher p .845 .459 .177 .000** .108 .021* .501 .763

Note: * p<.05; **p<.01.

Regarding the effect of social distance in “refusal” situations, both Chinese and American participants, young and old alike,
agreed in perception that the offense was more serious in the situation wherein they had to refuse a party invitation involving
a best friend as opposed to a classmate, as reflected in Table 4 (Chinese groups: Grade 1: t ¼ 2.628, p ¼ .014; Grade 8:
t ¼ 5.582, p ¼ .000; American groups: Grade 1: t ¼ 3.247, p ¼ .003; Grade 8: t ¼ 5.869, p ¼ .000). In the situation where
they had to refuse to lend a book, significant cross-interlocutor variation was found only in the ratings from Chinese eighth-

Table 4
Means and standard deviations for the rating of the severity of the offense in refusal situations.

Interlocutor Refusal Situation

“refusing to go to the party” “refusing to lend the book”

American (n ¼ 30) Chinese (n ¼ 30) American (n ¼ 30) Chinese (n ¼ 30)

Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8

Best friend 3.80 (1.67) 3.20 (1.06) 3.77 (1.22) 3.70 (1.24) 3.57 (1.57) 2.67 (1.06) 3.63 (1.43) 3.77 (1.31)
Classmate 3.13 (1.57) 2.17 (.65) 3.27 (1.20) 2.27 (1.05) 3.50 (1.43) 2.50 (.73) 3.60 (1.19) 2.87 (1.11)
Teacher 2.57 (1.52) 1.70 (.65) 3.47 (1.20) 2.20 (1.16) 3.30 (1.58) 2.23 (.86) 3.30 (1.34) 2.33 (1.03)

Social distance t 3.247 5.869 2.628 5.582 -.348 1.153 -.138 3.157
Best friend vs. Classmate p .003** .000** .014* .000** .730 .258 .891 .004**

Social status t 1.831 3.120 -.828 .348 .844 1.582 .911 2.570
Classmate vs. teacher p .077 .004** .415 .730 .405 .103 .370 .016*

Note: * p<.05; **p<.01.

 Y.-F. Chang, W. Ren / Journal of Pragmatics 164 (2020) 27e39 33

graders. They perceived the offense as more serious in the situation involving a best friend than a classmate (t ¼ 3.157,
p ¼ .004).
Regarding the effect of social status in “refusal” situations, cross-interlocutor variation occurred only in the ratings of
Chinese eighth-graders for the situation wherein they had to refuse to lend a book and in the ratings of American eighth-
graders for the situation where they had to refuse a party invitation. Both groups perceived that the offense was more
serious in the situation involving a classmate as opposed to a teacher (Chinese eighth-graders: t ¼ 2.570, p ¼ .016; American
eighth-graders: t ¼ 3.120, p ¼ .004).

4.2. Cross-cultural differences in Chinese and American children's sociopragmatic change

Table 5 presents the participants’ perspectives on whether one should apologize more politely to a teacher, a classmate, or
a best friend for the apology situations. As reflected in Table 5, all Chinese participants, young and old alike, believed that it
was necessary to apologize more politely to a classmate with whom the student was not close than to their best friend and
that they should apologize more politely to a teacher than to their classmate in both situations. In contrast, only 40% of
American first-graders thought that it was necessary to apologize more politely to a classmate with whom they were not close
than to their best friend in the “spilling juice” situation, and 30% agreed that they should apologize more politely to a
classmate with whom they were not close than to their best friend in the “1 h late” situation. The percentage of American
eighth-graders who provided a “yes” response to the question “Should you more politely apologize to a classmate you are not

Table 5
The number of participants who thought they should apologize more politely across different social status or social distance N (%).

Questions Apology Situation

“spill juice” “1-h late”

American (n ¼ 30) Chinese (n ¼ 30) American (n ¼ 30) Chinese (n ¼ 30)

Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8

In your opinion, should you more 13 (43％) 19 (63%) 30 (100％) 30 (100％) 12 (30％) 19 (63%) 30 (100％) 30 (100％)
politely apologize to a classmate
you are not close with than you
would to your best friend?
In your opinion, should you more 20 (67％) 20 (67%) 30 (100％) 30 (100％) 19 (63％) 22 (73%) 30 (100％) 30 (100％)
politely apologize to your
teacher than to a classmate?

close with than you would to your best friend?” increased to 63%. From the American respondents, young and old alike, more
than 60% felt that it was necessary to apologize more politely to a teacher than to a classmate in both situations.
Table 6 presents the participants’ perceptions of whether one should more politely refuse a teacher, a classmate, or a best
friend for the refusal situations. Only 7% of Chinese first-graders believed that they should refuse more politely to a classmate
than a best friend, as reflected in Table 6. The percentage of older Chinese participants (eighth-graders) who shared the same

Table 6
The number of participants who thought they should refuse more politely across different social status or social distance N (%).

Questions Refusal Situation

“refusing to go to the party” “refusing to lend the book”

American (n ¼ 30) Chinese (n ¼ 30) American (n ¼ 30) Chinese (n ¼ 30)

Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8

In your opinion, should you more 17 (57％) 19 (63%) 2 (7％) 9 (30％) 23 (77％) 20 (67%) 1 (3％) 8 (27％)
politely refuse a classmate you are
not close with than your best friend?
In your opinion, should you more 13 (43％) 16 (53%) 30 (100％) 27 (90％) 20 (67％) 23 (77%) 29 (97％) 29 (97％)
politely refuse your teacher than
your classmate?

view as the first-graders, however, increased to 30%. The percentage of American participants who agreed that one should
refuse more politely to a classmate than a best friend ranged from 57% to 77% in both refusal situations.
Regarding the effect of social status, nearly 100% of Chinese participants believed that it was necessary to refuse more
politely to a teacher than a classmate in both refusal situations. American participants’ responses, however, varied between
34 Y.-F. Chang, W. Ren / Journal of Pragmatics 164 (2020) 27e39

the two refusal scenarios. In the situation wherein they had to refuse a party invitation, approximately half of the American
participants (Grade 1: 43%; Grade 8: 53%) felt that they should refuse more politely to a teacher than a classmate. The per-
centage of American participants who agreed that it was necessary to refuse more politely to a teacher than a classmate
increased to approximately 70%, in the situation where they had to refuse to lend a book (Grade 1: 63%; Grade 8: 77%).
The reasons provided by most of the participants who agreed that a more polite apology or refusal was necessary for a
classmate than a best friend included the following: “a best friend will understand,” “you don't know a classmate as well as a
best friend,” “a best friend will give you another chance,” and “a classmate will be less flexible.” Those who disagreed with the
statement mainly claimed, “one needs to treat everyone with equal respect” and “they are still people; the apology should be
just as polite.”
Participants who gave a “yes” response to the statement that they should apologize to or refuse their teacher more politely
than their classmate explained that this was because the “teacher is a grown-up. One should treat adults more politely,”
“grown-ups can get you in more trouble,” “one needs to respect authorities,” “a teacher helps you the most,” and “because
they have more authority over you and you probably made them very angry.” Those who disagreed with the statement mainly
claimed, “nobody needs to be treated better than someone else,” “you should treat people equally,” and “everyone is equal.”
Table 7 illustrates the mean and standard deviation for the number of strategies used in each apology situation. On
average, the eighth-graders from the Chinese group used a higher number of strategies when apologizing to a classmate than
to a best friend in both situations (“spilling juice:” Grade 8: t ¼ 2.289, p ¼ .030; “1 h late”: Grade 8: t ¼ 2.163, p ¼ .039). In
addition, Chinese participants, young and old alike, employed significantly more strategies when apologizing to a teacher as
opposed to a classmate in both apology situations (“spilling juice:” Grade 1: t ¼ 2.283, p ¼ .030; Grade 8: t ¼ 3.084,
p ¼ .000; “1 h late”: Grade 1: t ¼ 3.844, p ¼ .030; Grade 8: t ¼ 5.174, p ¼ .000). No cross-interlocutor variation was found in
the mean number of apology strategies used by American participants. Regarding the refusal situations, the results of a paired

Table 7
Means and standard deviations for the strategies in each apology situation.

Interlocutor Apology Situation

“spill juice” “1-h late”

American (n ¼ 30) Chinese (n ¼ 30) American (n ¼ 30) Chinese (n ¼ 30)

Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8

Best friend 2.37 (1.00) 3.07 (.87) 1.97 (.62) 3.10 (.89) 2.33 (.76) 2.67 (.76) 1.77 (.63) 2.90 (.71)
Classmate 2.43 (1.17) 3.33 (1.16) 1.87 (.73) 3.60 (1.00) 2.10 (.92) 2.90 (.92) 1.77 (.50) 3.23 (.57)
Teacher 2.37 (.93) 3.40 (1.22) 2.23 (.63) 4.27 (.94) 2.30 (.92) 2.93 (.98) 2.37 (.89) 4.03 (.89)

Social distance t .421 1.682 .769 2.289 1.756 1.489 .000 2.163
Best friend vs. Classmate p .677 .103 .448 .030* .090 .147 1.000 .039*

Social status t .360 -.528 2.283 3.084 1.000 -.171 3.844 5.174
Classmate vs. teacher p .722 .601 .030* .000** .326 .865 .001** .000**

Note: * p<.05; **p<.01.

Table 8
Means and standard deviations for the strategies in each refusal situation.

Interlocutor Refusal Situation

“refusing to go to the party” “refusing to lend the book”

American (n ¼ 30) Chinese (n ¼ 30) American (n ¼ 30) Chinese (n ¼ 30)

Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8

Best friend 1.73 (.69) 2.10 (.55) 1.60 (.62) 2.27 (.74) 1.97 (1.00) 1.80 (.55) 1.70 (.54) 2.20 (.81)
Classmate 1.97 (.85) 2.17 (.83) 1.77 (.73) 2.20 (.66) 2.20 (.93) 1.73 (.45) 1.57 (.63) 2.17 (.59)
Teacher 2.00 (.83) 2.10 (.71) 1.90 (.71) 2.30 (.84) 1.93 (1.02) 1.83 (.60) 1.83 (.79) 2.17 (.70)

Social distance t 1.489 .421 1.720 -.465 1.366 -.626 1.278 -.197
Best friend vs. Classmate p .147 .677 .096 .645 .186 .536 .211 .845

Social status t -.197 .360 1.000 -.682 1.975 1.140 1.861 .000
Classmate vs. teacher p .845 .722 .326 .501 .058 .624 .073 1.000

t-test revealed that none of the groups demonstrated cross-interlocutor variation in the mean number of refusal strategies, as
reflected in Table 8.
The examination of the effect of social distance on each apology strategy revealed that Chinese participants from first
grade employed more “request for forgiveness” strategies (c2 ¼ 7.954, p ¼ .005), whereas Chinese eighth-graders employed
more “intensifier” strategies (c2 ¼ 10.417, p ¼ .001) when apologizing to a classmate as opposed to a best friend in the “1 h
 Y.-F. Chang, W. Ren / Journal of Pragmatics 164 (2020) 27e39 35

late” situation, as shown in examples 1 and 2. In addition, Chinese eighth-graders used more “repair” strategies when
apologizing to a classmate as opposed to a best friend in the “spilling juice” situation (c2 ¼ 21.600, p ¼ .000). American
eighth-graders, in contrast, used more “expressions of regret” (c2 ¼ 6.667, p ¼ .010) when apologizing to a best friend as
opposed to a classmate in the “spilling juice” situation, as shown in examples 3 and 4.
Concerning the effect of social distance on the use of refusal strategy, it was found that Chinese eighth-graders used more
“postponement” strategies when refusing a party invitation from a best friend as opposed to a classmate. American first-

Example (1) “Late” situation (Grade 1; Chinese participant #4)

to classmate: “對不起，你 你可以原諒我嗎?”
“I am sorry. Can you forgive me?”
to best friend: “對不起，我遲到了。”
“I am sorry. I am late.”
Example (2) “Late” situation (Grade 8; Chinese participant #12)
to classmate: “真真的很對不起，耽誤了這麼久，不好意思”
“I am really sorry letting you wait for so long. Excuse me.”
to best friend: “對不起啦！沒注意到時間，對不起歐”
“I am sorry. I did not notice the time. I am sorry.
Example (3) “Spilling juice” situation (Grade 8; Chinese participant #9)
to classmate: “對不起，我不小心把你的書弄髒了，我 我已經
買了一本新的要還你了，真的很抱歉”
“I am sorry that I carelessly soiled your book.
I’ve bought you a new one. I am really sorry.”
to best friend: “對不起，把你的書弄髒了”
“I am sorry that I soiled your book.”
Example (4) “Spilling juice” situation (Grade 8; American participant #15)
to classmate: “I clumsily spilled juice over your book, but I
can get you a new one.”
to best friend: “I clumsily spilled juice over your book.
Sorry!”
Example (5) “Party invitation” situation (Grade 8; Chinese participant #3)
to classmate: “抱歉，這禮拜天沒空。”
“I am sorry. I am busy this Sunday.”
to best friend: “抱歉，這禮拜可能不行喔~下 下次吧！”
“I am sorry. I cannot this Sunday. Maybe next time.”
Example (6) “Borrow book” situation (Grade 1; American participant #6)
to classmate: “I am sorry. I cannot. That's my favorite book”
to best friend: “I am sorry.”

graders, in contrast, used more “reason” strategies (c2 ¼ 4.320, p ¼ .038) when refusing a party invitation from a class-
mate as opposed to a best friend; examples 5 and 6 illustrate this.
Regarding the effect of social status, it was found that Chinese first-graders used more “intensifier” strategies (c2 ¼ 12.273,
p ¼ .000) and more “alerter” strategies (c2 ¼ 6.667, p ¼ .010) when apologizing to a teacher as opposed to a classmate, as
shown in example 7. Likewise, Chinese eighth-graders used more “alerter” strategies (c2 ¼ 56.129, p ¼ .000) when apolo-
gizing to a teacher as opposed to a classmate. American eighth-graders, in contrast, used more “lack of intention” strategies

Example (7) “Late” situation (Grade 1; Chinese participant #4)

to classmate: “對不起，你 你可以原諒我嗎?”
“I am sorry. Can you forgive me?”
to teacher: “真的很對不起，老師，你 你可以原諒我嗎？”
“I’m really sorry, teacher. Can you forgive me?”
Example (8) “Late” situation (Grade 8; Chinese participant #9)
to classmate: “對不起，我不小心把你的書弄髒了，我已經買了
一本新的要還你了，真的很抱歉。”
“I am sorry. I accidentally soiled your book. I’ve
bought you a new one. I am really sorry.”
to teacher: “老師，對不起，我把你的的書弄髒了，對不起。”
“Teacher, I am sorry. I soiled your book. I am sorry.”
Example (9) “Spilling juice ” situation (Grade 8; American participant #6)
to classmate: “I’m so sorry. I promise I did not mean to. I feel terrible!”
to teacher: “I accidentally spilled stuff on your book. I’m so sorry!
Next time I’ll be more careful.”

(c2 ¼ 6.944, p ¼ .028) when apologizing to a classmate as opposed to a teacher, as shown in examples 8 and 9. No cross-
interlocutor variation was found in American and Chinese participants’ use of refusal strategies.
36 Y.-F. Chang, W. Ren / Journal of Pragmatics 164 (2020) 27e39

Table 9 presents the previously mentioned interlocutor variation in the use of apology and refusal strategies in terms of
age group. As reflected in Table 9, American first-graders revealed interlocutor sensitivity in the use of the “reason” strategy,

Table 9
Differences in the use of apology and refusal strategies to reveal interlocutor sensitivity.

Group American Chinese

Grade 1 Grade 8 Grade 1 Grade 8

Strategy reason regret alerter alerter

lack of intention intensifier intensifier
forgive repair
postponement
Number of strategy variation 1 2 3 4

whereas older participants used “regret” and “lack of intention” strategies. Chinese first-graders revealed interlocutor
sensitivity using “alerter,” “intensifier,” and “forgive” strategies, whereas the eighth-graders varied in the use of “alerter,”
“intensifier,” “repair,” and “postponement” strategies.

5. Discussion

The present study investigated how children of different age groups differ in their ability to manifest interlocutor
sensitivity when apologizing to or refusing interlocutors with different social statuses or social distances and whether there
are cross-cultural differences in the developmental patterns of interlocutor variation among Chinese and American children.
The results showed that children's interlocutor sensitivity in the realization of speech acts of apology and refusal emerges at
young age and is developed persistently throughout adolescence, which resembles that in the realization of speech act of
request (Baroni and Axia, 1989; Becker, 1986). The findings that cross-cultural differences exist in the change of interlocutor
variation also echo the research findings by Brown and Levinson (1987) and Spencer-Oatey, 1996.
Concerning the perception of the severity of the offense, the majority of Chinese and American participants gave higher
ratings for the severity of an offense in the situation wherein they had to apologize to a classmate than to a best friend. Both
groups considered the severity of the offense to be higher when they had to refuse a best friend than to a classmate. One
surprising finding about the effect of social status on the perception of the severity of an offense is that the Chinese and
American eighth-graders perceived that the offense was more serious in the situation involving a classmate as opposed to a
teacher (Chinese group's situation: refusing to lend a book; American group's situation: refusing a party invitation). The
Chinese and American participants provided explanations in the interviews. Many American participants perceived that the
offense of refusing a teacher's party invitation was not serious because the teacher was inviting the entire class and the
participant was not as close to the teacher as to the classmates. Chinese participants, in contrast, considered the offense of
refusing to lend the book to the teacher to be less serious because the teacher could find one in the library.
The results showed that Chinese and American differ in their perception regarding whether one should more politely
apologize to or refuse a best friend, a classmate, or a teacher. Chinese participants, young and old alike, felt that one should
apologize more politely to a classmate to whom they were not close than to their best friend. In addition, the Chinese first-
and eighth-graders agreed in their perception that it is necessary to apologize more politely to a teacher than to a classmate.
Similar patterns were found in the refusal situations. The consistency in their perception among the Chinese first- and eighth-
graders indicates that the pragmatic rule of the subtle difference in social distance between a best friend and a classmate and
in social status between a classmate and a teacher was acquired as early as age 7 (first grade).
American children's change of perception, however, is not as straightforward as that of Chinese children. Unlike Chinese
participants, whose change in perceptions about whether one should more politely apologize to or refuse a close friend, or a
classmate were consistent from first graders to eighth graders, the number of Americans' positive responses to the question
“Should you more politely apologize to a classmate you are not close with than you would to your best friend?” increased from
Grade 1 to Grade 8 in both apology situations. This age effect, however, was not found in the American children's performance
in the refusal situations, which may indicate that the developmental pace of the pragmatic rule of the social distance between
a friend and a classmate differs across speech acts. Regarding the effect of social status, while the number of “yes” responses
provided by American first graders and eighth graders participants was similar for four situations, the percentage of par-
ticipants who agreed that one should more politely apologize to and refuse a teacher than a classmate was lower than that of
Chinese.
Chinese and American children also differ in their change of manifesting sensitivity to interlocutors of different social
distance and social status. The findings revealed that all of the Chinese first- and eighth-graders resembled in their perception
that it was necessary to apologize more politely to a teacher than to a classmate and they were able to use more apology
strategies in the situation in which the offended party was a teacher. Although the Chinese first- and eighth-graders agreed
that they should apologize more politely to a classmate with whom they were not close than to their best friend, only eighth-
graders used a higher number of strategies when apologizing to a classmate than to a best friend in both situations. Similar
 Y.-F. Chang, W. Ren / Journal of Pragmatics 164 (2020) 27e39 37

patterns were found in the refusal situations. These findings may indicate that Chinese children's ability to manifest sensi-
tivity to interlocutors of different social status may develop earlier than that of different social distance. In contrast, Amer-
icans were more divergent in their perception regarding whether they should more politely apologize to or refuse an
interlocutor of different social status or social distance. Americans did not manifest interlocutor variation in terms of the
mean number of strategies. Contrarily, they employed different strategies depending on the differences in social distances and
social statuses. For instance, American 1st-graders used more “reason” strategies when refusing a party invitation from a
classmate than a best friend.
The differences in the change patterns of perception between the American and Chinese children may result from the
diversity of the value systems between two cultures. Chinese culture is traditionally hierarchical in nature, and relationships
are asymmetrical. Teachers have a high status in the Chinese society. Teachers are viewed as role models. According to 2013
Global Teacher Status Index, China ranked first among 21 surveyed countries; in China, teachers are respected the most. The
high status that the teachers hold in the society is reflected in an old Chinese saying, “one should be regarded as a father-
figure, even if one only teach you for a day (一日為師，終身為父).” In addition, Chinese parenting style is more authori-
tarian than the American parenting style. Chinese children usually obey their parents' teaching. Therefore, children acquire
the pragmatic convention of differentiating ways to treat teachers and classmates at a young age. American culture, in
contrast, values individualism and equality. American parents often encourage independent thinking and allow children to
explore and decide for themselves. Therefore, American children's judgments about whether one should more politely
apologize to or refuse a teacher or a classmate are more diverse (Nisbett, 2003).
Evidence from the present study lent support to Chang's (2011) observation that “the acquisition of sociopragmatic
competence involves at least two levels: knowing the social convention and demonstrating it with words” (p.796). The
findings that the American and Chinese children were able to express their views about whether they should apologize to or
refuse more politely to a certain interlocutor manifest in that the first graders and eighth graders have grasped the social
convention. Not all of them, however, were able to vary their apology or refusal strategies according to their views, which
supports the need to distinguish two levels of sociopragmatic competence. As Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1993) stated,
“Knowing that one needs to do something is logically prior to knowing how to do that same thing” (p. 298).

6. Conclusion

This study explored the development of children's ability to reveal interlocutor sensitivity in realizing the speech acts of
apology and refusal and whether the developmental patterns of interlocutor variation differ between American and Chinese
children. The findings revealed that the ability to manifest sensitivity to interlocutors with varying degrees of familiarity
develops earlier (social distance) than sensitivity to interlocutors of varying different social statuses. The results also showed
that cross-cultural differences exist in the developmental pattern of interlocutor variation. The present study adopted a cross-
sectional approach. A longitudinal study of the developments in this area is needed to complement the findings of the present
study. In addition, since the use of apology and refusal strategies is context specific, future studies using different offense
contexts to elicit apologies and refusals are necessary to compare whether the observed developmental patterns are similar.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank The Ministry of Education in Taiwan for the financial support it provided for this research
(USA-HAR-104-V06).
38 Y.-F. Chang, W. Ren / Journal of Pragmatics 164 (2020) 27e39

Appendix

Sample cartoon for cartoon oral production task.

Scenario 1. Jessica borrowed a storybook from her best friend. When Jessica was reading the book, she accidentally
knocked over a cup on the desk. Juice spilled all over the book.

References

Axis, Giovanna, Baroni, Maria Rosa, 1985. Linguistic politeness at different age levels. Child Dev. 54, 918e927.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Hartford, Beverly, 2005. Institutional discourse and interlanguage pragmatics research. In: Bardovi-Harlig, Hartford (Eds.),
Intercultural pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Hartford, Beverly, 1993. Learning the rules of academic talk: a longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Stud. Sec. Lang. Acquis. 15,
279e304.
Baroni, Maria Rosa, Axia, Giovanna, 1989. Children's meta-pragmatic abilities and the identification of polite and impolite requests. First Lang. 9, 285e297.
Becker, Judith, 1986. Bossy and nice requests: children's production and interpretation. Merrill-Palmer Q. 32 (4), 393e413.
Becker, Judith, Smenner, Patricia, 1986. The spontaneous use of thank you by preschoolers as a function of sex, socioeconomic status, and listener status.
Lang. Soc. 15 (4), 537e545.
Beebe, Leslie, Cummings, 1996. Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In:
Gass, Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 65e86.
Beebe, Leslie, Takahashi, Tomoko, Uliss-Weltz, Robin, 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In: Scarcella, et al. (Eds.), Developing Communicative
Competence in a Second Language. Newbury House, New York, pp. 55e73.
Bella, S., 2011. Mitigation and politeness in Greek invitation refusals: effects of length of residence in the target community and intensity of interaction on
non-native speakers' performance. J. Pragmat. 43, 1718e1740.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chang, Yuh-Fang, 2009. How to say no: an analysis of cross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer. Lang. Sci. 31, 477e493.
Chang, Yuh-Fang, 2011. Refusing in a Foreign Language: an investigation of problems encountered by Chinese learners of English. Multilingua 30, 71e98.
Chang, Yuh-Fang, 2016. Apologizing in Mandarin Chinese: a study on developmental pattern. Concentric: Stud. Ling. 42 (1), 73e101.
Chen, Ye, Zhang, 1995. Refusing in Chinese. In: Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language (Technical Report #5). University of Hawaii
Press, Manoa, H, pp. 119e163.
Cohen, Andrew, 1996. Speech acts. In: Mckay, Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp.
383e420.
Cohen, Andrew, 2019. Considerations in assessing pragmatic appropriateness in spoken language. Lang. Teach. 1e20.
Darby, Bruce, Schlenker, Barry, 1982. Children's reactions to apologies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43 (4), 742e753.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan, 1977. Wait for me, roller skate! In: Ervin-Tripp, S., Kernan, C.M. (Eds.), Child Discourse. Academic Press, New York, pp. 165e188.
Ely, Richard, Gleason, Jean Berko, 2006. I'm sorry I said that: apologies in young children's discourse. J. Child Lang. 33 (3), 599e620.
Felix-Brasdefer, Cesar, 2003. Declining an invitation: a cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in Latin American Spanish and American English.
Multilingua 22, 225e255.
Felix-Brasdefer, Cesar, 2004. Interlanguage refusals: linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Lang. Learn. 54 (4), 587e653.
Felix-Brasdefer, Cesar, 2008. Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A Contrastive Study of the Realization and Perception of Refusals. John Benjamins
Publishing, Amsterdam.
lix-Brasdefer, Cesar, Hasler-Barker, Maria, 2017. Elicited data. In: Barron, A. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Mouton De Gruyter, Germany,
Fe
pp. 27e40.
Fujisawa, Keiko, Nobuyuki, Kutsukake, Toshikazu, Hasegawa, 2005. Reconciliation pattern after aggression among Japanese preschool children. Aggress.
Behav. 31, 2138e2152.
Gao, Ge, Ting-Toomey, Stella, 1998. Communicating Effectively with the Chinese. Sage, London.
Guo, Yi-Feng, 2001. A Case Study on South-Min Pragmatic Characteristics and Development of a 2-Year-Old Child. Unpublished master thesis. National Hsin-
Chu Teachers College.
Hartford, Beverly, Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, 1992. Closing the conversation: Evidence from the academic advising session. Discourse Process. 15, 93e116.
Hofstede, Geert, 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
James, Sharon, 1978. Effect of listeners' age and situation on the politeness of children's directive. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 7 (4), 307e317.
Kamph, Zohar, Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, 2009. Do children apologize to each other? Apology events in young Israeli peer discourse. J. Politeness Res. 3 (1),
11e37.
Li, Wei, 2009. Different interpersonal relationships underlying English and Chinese greetings. Asian Soc. Stud. 5 (8), 67e72.
Liao, Chao-chih, Bresnahan, Mary, 1996. A contrastive pragmatic study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Lang. Sci. 18, 703e727.
 Y.-F. Chang, W. Ren / Journal of Pragmatics 164 (2020) 27e39 39

Lin, Ting-chuo, 2009. A Study of the Developmental Patterns of Apologies by Chinese Children. Unpublished MA Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University,
Taiwan.
Nelson, Gayle, Carson, Joan, Al Batal, Mahmoud, El Bakary, Waguida, 2002. Cross-cultural pragmatics: strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English
refusals. Appl. Linguist. 23 (2), 163e189.
Nguyen, Hanh, Nguyen, Minh, 2016. “But please can I play with the iPad?”: the development of request negotiation practices by a four-year-old child. J.
Pragmat. 101, 66e82.
Ninio, Anato, Snow, Catherine, 1996. Pragmatic Development. Westview, Boulder, CO.
Nisbett, Richard, 2003. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently and Why. The Free Press, New York.
Ogiermann, Eva, 2018. Discourse completion tasks. In: Jucker, Andreas H., Schneider, Klaus P., Bublitz, Wolfram (Eds.), Methods in Pragmatics (Handbooks of
Pragmatics 10). de Gruyter Mouton.
Ohbuchi, Ken-ichi, Kobun, Sato, 1994. Children's reactions to mitigating accounts: apologies, excuses, and intentionality of harm. J. Soc. Psychol. 134 (1),
5e17.
Olshtain, Elaine, 1989. Apology across languages. In: Blum-Kulka, House, Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Newbury House,
Norwood, MA, pp. 155e173.
Reeder, Steve, 1989. How Children of Different Ages Refuse to Comply with Requests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of South Florida.
Ren, Wei, 2013. The effect of study abroad on the pragmatic development of the internal modification of refusals. Pragmatics 23 (4), 715e741.
Ren, Wei, 2014. A longitudinal investigation into L2 learners' cognitive processes during study abroad. Appl. Linguist. 35, 575e594.
Rose, Keith, 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Stud. Sec. Lang. Acquis. 22, 27e67.
Rose, Keith, Kasper, Gabriele, 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Schleien, Sara, Ross, Hildy, Ross, Michael, 2009. Young children's apologies to their siblings. Soc. Dev. 19 (1), 170e186.
Smith, Craig, Harris, Paul, 2012. He didn't want me to feel sad: children's reactions to disappointment and apology. Soc. Dev. 21 (2), 215e228.
Searle, John, 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Lang. Soc. 5 (1), 1e23.
Smith, Craig, Chen, Diyu, Harris, Paul, 2010. When the happy victimizer says sorry: children's understanding of apology and emotion. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 28
(4), 727e746.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 1993. Conceptions of social relations and pragmatics research. J. Pragmat. 20 (1), 27e47.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 1996. Reconsidering power and distance. J. Pragmat. 26 (1), 1e24.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 2012. What Is Culture? A Compilation of Quotations. University of Warwick.
Taguchi, Naoko, Roever, Carsten, 2017. Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Takahashi, Satomi, 1996. Pragmatic transferability. Stud. Sec. Lang. Acquis. 18, 189e223.
Takahashi, Tomoko, Beebe, Leslie, 1987. The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT J. 8, 131e155.
Triandis, Harry, 1995. Individualism & Collectivism. Westview Press, UK.
Vaish, Amrisha, Carpenter, Malinda, Tomasello, Michael, 2011. Young children's responses to guilt displays. Dev. Psychol. 47 (5), 1248e1262.
Wilkinson, Louise, Wilkinson, Alex, Spinelli, Francesca, Chiang, Chi Pang, 1984. Metalinguistic knowledge of pragmatic rules in school-age children. Child
Dev. 55 (6), 2130e2140.
Wolfson, Nancy, 1988. The bulge: a theory of speech behavior and social distance. In: Fine, J. (Ed.), Second Language Discourse: A Textbook of Current
Research. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, pp. 21e38.
Yang, Li-chin, Chang, Yuh-Fang, 2008. Young Children's Refusal in Mandarin Chinese. VDM Publisher, Germany.

Yuh-Fang Chang is professor in the Department of Foreign languages and literatures at the National Chung Hsing University. Her research emphasis has been
on pragmatic development and bilingual education. She has published articles in Language Testing, Language Sciences, Reading and Writing: An Interdisci-
plinary Journal, Multilingua: Journal of cross-cultural and interlanguage communication and JALT Journal.

Wei Ren is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the School of Foreign Languages, Beihang University, China. His research interests include Second Language
Pragmatics, Pragmatics and Second Language Acquisition. His recent publications include an edited special issue “Exploring Chinese Digital Communication”
in Discourse, Context and Media and articles in Applied Linguistics, Assessing Writing, Critical Discourse Studies, Discourse Context and Media, ELT Journal, Foreign
Language Annals, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Journal of Pragmatics, Pragmatics, and System.