A Contrastive Pragmatic Study Of Product-Harm-Related Crisis Management Via Corporate Apology In Chinese And American Companies

Recent years have witnessed a growing number of reports about product harm crises,which not only caused the concern of consumers and the public but also tarnished the images of companies.Corporate apology is therefore employed by the accused companies to handle negative issues and rebuild their images.However,despite the unidisciplinary studies conducted by scholars from various perspectives,few of them have ever noticed the interdisciplinary issues shown in corporate apology,especially the pragmatic-related issues.Studies on cultural differences in corporate apologies are also inadequate.For that reason,an interdisciplinary research was conducted to explore how companies in question manage crises through apology strategies as well as the pragmatic functions to be realized,and to discuss the cultural factors that are possibly related to the differences shown in corporate apologies.A total of 100 apology statements issued by Chinese and American companies were collected and analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methods.Apology strategies and pragmatic functions to be realized were analyzed under the tentative theoretical framework adapted from Hearit’s Corporate Apologia Theory and BlumKulka & Olshtain’s Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Patterns,followed by a discussion on the differences from the perspective of Cultural Dimensions Theory.Three major findings were obtained in the current study.First,seven apology strategies,each of which is realized by specific pragmatic devices,were identified in the current study:(1)Denial,principally realized by formulaic expressions for denying existence and denying intent;(2)Bifurcation,generally accompanied by vague references,downtoners,and formulaic expressions for the offense caused by others;(3)Bolstering,composed of formulaic expressions for mentioning previous performance and emphasizing corporate philosophy;(4)Confession,demonstrated by formulaic expressions for explaining account and taking responsibility;(5)Concession,reflected by formulaic expressions for offering repair,making promise,and inviting further attention;(6)Expressing Apologetic Feelings,featured by IFIDs,intensifiers as well as self-referring terms and other-referring terms,and(7)Emphasizing Legality,characterized by formulaic expressions for taking legal actions and referring to national laws/departments.Second,four pragmatic functions were realized by these seven apology strategies to help companies manage crises successfully,namely(1)to deny responsibility,(2)to reduce offensiveness,(3)to express mortification,and(4)to prevent potential rumors.Third,independent samples t-tests revealed that statistically significant differences only existed in the use of three apology strategies of Confession,Expressing Apologetic Feelings and Emphasizing Legality among the seven apology strategies between Chinese corporate apologies and English ones.The differences detected are possibly related to the differences in such cultural dimensions as power distance,individualism/collectivism,and short-/long-term orientation between Chinese and American companies.The current study is believed to be implicative both theoretically and practically.It can provide reference for future studies concerning corporate apology as an interdisciplinary research bridging management and pragmatics,and meanwhile can shed light on the apology strategies and pragmatic devices for the accused companies in reality,in particular multinational companies,to extend apologies to manage crises.