Apology Politness

Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL university students

Ruba Fahmi Bataineh a,*, Rula Fahmi Bataineh b

a Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordanb Department of English for Applied Studies, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

Received 5 July 2004; received in revised form 21 September 2005; accepted 5 November 2005

Abstract

This study is an investigation of Jordanian EFL university students’ apologies, using a 10-item

questionnaire based on Sugimoto’s (1997). The findings revealed that male and female respondents used

the primary strategies of statement of remorse, accounts, compensation, promise not to repeat offense, and

reparation. They also resorted to the use of non-apology strategies such as blaming victim and brushing off

the incident as unimportant to exonerate themselves from blame. The findings further revealed that male and

female respondents differed in the order of the primary strategies they used. In addition, female respondents

opted for non-apology strategies that veered towards avoiding the discussion of offense while male

respondents used those which veered towards blaming the victim.

This research is hoped to have implications for ESL/EFL pedagogy as well as the study of intercultural

communication. The researchers put forth a number of relevant recommendations for further research.

# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Apologies; Apology strategies in Arabic; Discourse completion task (DCT); Gender; EFL/ESL teaching;

Jordanian EFL students

1. Introduction and theoretical background

The present study is an investigation of Jordanian undergraduate students’ apologies. The

researchers tabulate and compare the strategies used by male and female respondents for the

purpose of uncovering whether or not sex differences exist. This research is hoped to have

implications for target language (henceforth, L2) pedagogy as well as the study of intercultural

communication.

There are relatively few studies discussing the use of apologies by speakers of different

dialects of Arabic (Al-Hami, 1993; El-Khalil, 1998; Hussein and Hammouri, 1998; Al-Zumor,

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 1901–1927

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +962 777 330820; fax: +962 272 11199.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Ruba F. Bataineh), [email protected] (Rula F. Bataineh).

0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.11.004

2003; Soliman, 2003). Originally spoken by the Arabs of the Hejaz and Nejd areas, Arabic is now

the prevailing speech of a wide region of southwestern Asia and northern Africa (Merriam-

Webster Online). Jordanian Arabic is the dialect spoken in all parts of Jordan.

This study aims to bridge this gap in the field of intercultural pragmatics as well as to provide

insights not only for researchers but also for Jordanian learners of English. It should be noted

from the onset that this study focuses only on the use of the speech act of apology by the speaker/

wrongdoer; so, whether or not the hearer/offended accepts the apology is beyond the scope of this

study. More specifically, the study attempts to answer the following questions:

1. What are the primary apology strategies used by Jordanian undergraduate students?

2. What are the secondary apology strategies used by Jordanian undergraduate students?

3. What are the differences, if any, between the apology strategies used by male and female

respondents?

Austin (1962) defines speech acts as acts performed by utterances such as giving orders or

making promises. They may be a direct or an indirect utterance (viz., a word, phrase, sentence,

number of sentences or gesture and body movement) that serves a function in communication

such as thanking and apologizing (Hatch, 1992). Speech acts include real-life interactions and

require not only the knowledge of the language but also the appropriate use of that language

within a given culture to minimize misunderstandings (Hatch, 1992; Cohen and Olshtain, 1981;

Fromkin and Rodman, 1988; Lindfors, 1999); this is in line with Celce-Murcia and Olshtain’s

(2000) claim that learners need to be aware of discourse differences between an L1 and an L2 to

insure the proper acquisition of pragmatic competence.

Speech Act theory, developed by Searle (1969) following Austin’s work, is based on the

premise that language is a form of rule-governed behavior. In How to Do Things with Words,

Austin (1962) introduces performative utterances, that is, utterances which require the

performance of an action and whose utterance brings about some result. Austin used felicity

conditions to refer to the conditions of success for performatives that range from the highly

formal (e.g. I now pronounce you husband and wife), to the informal conventions governing

expressions of gratitude or sympathy in the circumstances of everyday life.

Searle (1969) hypothesized that speech acts are characteristically performed by uttering

expressions in accordance with certain constitutive rules. He moved beyond Austin’s ‘cataloguing

stage’ and provided a theoretical framework within which the three dimensions of utterance,

meaning, and action involved in speech acts could be seen as a unified whole. He distinguished

between regulative rules (which regulate existing forms of behavior) and constitutive rules (which

not only merely regulate but also create or define new forms of behavior).

Searle identifies four basic categories of speech acts: utterances, propositional utterances,

illocutionary utterances, and perlocutionary utterances. He (1975:64) maintains that ordinary

conversational requirements of politeness normally make it awkward to issue flat imperative

sentences (e.g. leave the room) or explicit performatives (e.g. I order you to leave the room), so

people resort to indirect means to their illocutionary ends (e.g. I wonder if you would mind

leaving the room). Searle (1979) further claims that speech acts perform five general functions:

declarations (e.g. I now pronounce you husband and wife), representatives (e.g. it was a warm

sunny day), expressives (e.g. I’m really sorry), directives (e.g. don’t leave anything behind), and

commissives (e.g. we’ll not disturb you).

Goffman (1971) defines apologies as remedial interchanges used to reestablish social

harmony after a real or virtual offense. He further claims that a successful apology has several

R.F. Bataineh, R.F. Bataineh / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 1901–19271902

felicity conditions the most important of which are for the apologizer to acknowledge an offense

has taken place, to take responsibility for that offense, and, finally, to offer some compensation or

reparation. Olshtain (1989:156–157) defines an apology as ‘‘a speech act which is intended to

provide support for the hearer who was actually or potentially malaffected by a violation’’. When

one offers an apology, one shows willingness to humiliate oneself to an extent that makes an

apology a face-saving act for the hearer and a face-threatening act for the speaker. Marquez

Reiter (2000:44) further defines an apology as a ‘‘compensatory action for an offense committed

by S [the speaker] which has affected H [the hearer]’’.

Apologies fall under expressive speech acts in which speakers attempt to indicate their state or

attitude. In order for an apology to have an effect, it should reflect true feelings. One cannot

effectively apologize to another and truly reach him/her unless one portrays honest feelings of

sorrow and regret for whatever one has done. Gooder and Jacobs (2000:273–241) point out:

The proper apology acknowledges the fact of wrong doing, accepts ultimate responsibility,

expresses sincere sorrow and regret, and promises not to repeat the offense . . . Some of the

features of the proper apology are the admission of trespass, the implied acknowledgment

of responsibility, an expression of regret, and a promise of a future in which injury will not

recur.

An important aspect in resolving a conflict is the fact that it takes two parties to start an

interpersonal conflict and two parties to resolve it (Takaku et al., 2001). If the wrongdoer decides

to apologize and the offended person does not allow him/her to defend his/her position, the

apology will be useless. If the offended waits for an apology and the wrongdoer does not think

there is a need for one, the offended may end up waiting to no avail.

An apology must have the so-called three R’s: regret, responsibility, and remedy, all of which a

wrongdoer must show for the offended to take his/her apology as sincere. Engel (2001) claims

that in the absence of any of these, the apology will not be sincere, and, thus, will not have the

desired effect.

Fraser (1981:263) states that in order for an apology to be viewed as convincing, the offender

has to use a combination of two or more of the following strategies:

1. announcing that an apology is forthcoming through clauses such as I (hereby) apologize . . .;2. stating the offender’s obligation to apologize with words such as I must apologize;

3. offering to apologize to show the sincerity of the act with sentences such as Do you want me to

apologize?;

4. requesting the acceptance of the given apology with clauses such as Please accept my apology

for . . .;5. expressing regret for the offense through the use of intensifiers such as truly, terribly, very, and

so;

6. requesting forgiveness for the offense;

7. acknowledging responsibility for the act;

8. promising forbearance from a similar offending act with sentences such as I promise you that

will never happen again; and

9. offering redress to show that the offender really regrets the offense with offers such as Please

let me pay for the damage I have done.

Trosborg (1987:150–152) suggests that an offender has the following set of strategies from

which s/he may choose:

R.F. Bataineh, R.F. Bataineh / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 1901–1927 1903

1. minimizing the degree of offense either by discussing the preconditions of the offense or

blaming another person for it;

2. acknowledgment of responsibility for which s/he lists the substrategies of implicit

acknowledgment; explicit acknowledgment; expression of lack of intent; expression of

self-deficiency; expression of embarrassment; and explicit acceptance of the blame depending

on the degree the offender accepts the blame;

3. implicit or explicit explanation or account by the offender to mitigate his/her responsibility;

4. offer of repair which is carried out either by a literal offer in which the offender states that s/he

will pay for the damage or a compensation which might balance the offense;

5. promise of forbearance where the offender promises never to repeat the offense; and

6. expressing concern for the offended person in order to calm him/her.

Olshtain and Cohen (1983:22), who introduced the notion of ‘the speech act set of apology’,

identified the following five apology strategies:

1. an Illocutionary Force Indicating Device (henceforth, IFID; Levinson, 1983:238)) such as

sorry and excuse me,

2. an expression of the speaker’s responsibility for the offense,

3. a statement or account of the cause which brought about the violation,

4. an offer of repair, and

5. a promise of forbearance.

In addition to these strategies that make up the speech act set, wrongdoers can intensify or

downgrade their apologies. According to Olshtain (1989), among the most common intensifiers

are very and really, while an expression such as I’m sorry, but you really shouldn’t get insulted by

such remarks is a common manifestation of a speaker’s intention to downgrade an apology.

While Olshtain (1983:235) claims that the act of apologizing requires an action or an utterance

which is intended to ‘set things right’, Holmes (1995:364) considers an apology an example of a

‘face-supportive act’.

Brown and Attardo (2000) report that an apology consists of the following five components,

listed in order of importance:

a. an expression of apology, in which the wrongdoer vocalizes his/her feelings of regret;

b. an explanation of the situation, in which the wrongdoer tries to reconstruct the incident for the

offended to see that s/he deserves forgiveness;

c. an acknowledgment of responsibility, whereby the wrongdoer claims his/her responsibility for

what has happened as a part of his/her apology;

d. an offer of repair, in which the wrongdoer tries to present a way to undo the harm; and

e. a promise of non-recurrence, whereby the wrongdoer promises not to repeat the offense and,

thus, insures gaining the offended person’s sympathy for his/her awkward position.

The above do not seem to all and always be the case. For example, the word sorry is an

adequate apology to a close friend, a case in which the wrongdoer only uses the first component

and does without the other four.

Several studies have shown that the expression of apology may lead to more lenient

disciplining and punishment (Goffman, 1971; Darby and Schlenker, 1982, 1989; Ohbuchi et al.,

1989). Ohbuchi et al. (1989) examined the effects of apologies on aggression. They found that


when the offender apologized, the offended rated the offender as more sincere, more responsible,

more careful, and less unpleasant than an offender who did not apologize. Further, they found that

expressions of apology led to significantly less aggression by the offended toward the offender.

Likewise, Harrell (1980) found that offenders who were remorseful were considered more

sorrowful and keen on reparation than those who were nonremorseful against whom more

aggression was shown. Rosen and Adams (1974) found that when the offender expressed

remorse, s/he was perceived as less likely to repeat the violation.

The present researchers have chosen to use the strategies used by Sugimoto (1997) as the basis

of the data analysis (although other classifications have been kept in mind). The present study is

significant, probably because it explores an area of intercultural pragmatics that has not, to the

best of these researchers’ knowledge, been sufficiently explored for this topic and target group. It

is hoped that the study will bridge an existing gap in research and, thus, enrich the field of

intercultural pragmatics, and that its findings will lend verification to the findings of previous

research on apology strategies.

2. Related literature

The researchers have conducted an extensive review of previous literature on speech acts in

general and apologies in particular. This section is divided into subsections on research on

cross-cultural apologies, research on apologies in Arabic, and research on apologies and

gender.

To most scholars, politeness is used to avoid conflict. Lakoff (1975:45) defines it as forms of

behavior that have been ‘‘developed in societies in order to reduce friction in personal

interaction’’. Fraser and Nolan (1981) define it as a set of constraints of verbal behavior while

Leech (1983) sees it as forms of behavior aimed at creating and maintaining harmonious

interaction. According to Brown and Levinson (1978), politeness, as a form of behavior, allows

communication to take place between potentially aggressive partners.

Informed by social theories, many scholars (for example, Watts, 1989; Watts et al., 1992;

Eelen, 2001; Mills, 2003) have emphasized the contested nature of politeness norms across

cultures. Watts et al. (1992) reopened the question of defining ‘linguistic politeness’ by arguing

that one of the oddest things about politeness research is that the term has never been ‘explicitly’

defined but is often taken as the forms of language that allow people to achieve their goals. Watts

(1989) argues that the terminology must be reviewed and a more comprehensive notion

introduced to arrive at a consensus of what politeness is. In the introduction to their book,

Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory, and practice, Watts et al. (1992:2) explain

the book’s aim as being the following:

to deepen the research perspectives within this field by questioning more profoundly what

polite linguistic behavior actually is and what grounds there might be for claims of

universality . . . [and] to broaden research perspectives by demonstrating the need for more

interdisciplinary and cross-cultural approaches.

Watts (1989:5) proposes the term politic behavior which is defined as ‘‘socially-culturally

determined behavior directed towards the goal of establishing and/or maintaining a state of

equilibrium in the personal relationships among the individuals of a social group, whether open

or closed, during the ongoing process of interaction’’. He (1989:58) further claims that politic

behavior, which is culturally determined and is ‘generated’ from underlying universal principles,

is transformed into polite behavior under certain marked social conditions.


Eelen (2001) has critiqued the theoretical assumptions of Brown and Levinson and the

theorists influenced by their work. He has addressed issues concerning these scholars’ reliance on

Speech Act Theory, their heavy focus on the speaker (probably at the expense of the hearer), and

their assumption that all politeness is strategic.

Eelen discusses two perspectives on politeness which he claims are confounded by most

politeness theorists (probably because of the normative nature of most of the theories): politeness 1,

the common-sense notion of politeness, and politeness 2, the scientific conceptualization of

politeness. He argues that ‘‘politeness 2 concepts should not just be different from politeness 1

concepts, or given different names, but rather the relationship between both notions should be

carefully monitored throughout the entire analytical process-not only at the input stage’’ (2001:31).

Eelen further classifies politeness into two aspects: action-related, which refers to the way

politeness actually manifests itself in communicative behavior, and conceptual, which refers to

common-sense ideologies of politeness. Although he does not offer us a workable model of

analysis, Eelen provides suggestions for further discussion and research in the field and criticizes

existing theoretical frameworks for

� involving a conceptual bias towards the polite end of the polite–impolite distinction;

� conceptualizing politeness and impoliteness as opposites; and

� biasing their conceptualizations of politeness towards the production of behavior, or towards

the speaker in the interactional dyad.

Eelen supports the notion that politeness differs from culture to culture and that cultural norms

reflected in speech acts differ not only from one language to another but also from one regional

and social variety to another. He claims that

communicative success depends on the right amount and kind of politeness applied at the

right time to the right speech act, as determined by social norms that stipulate what is

appropriate for a specific interactional situation (2001:128).

2.1. Research on cross-cultural apologies

Research on cross-cultural comparative discourse (e.g. Gumperz and Tannen, 1979; Cohen

and Olshtain, 1981; Tannen, 1982; Olshtain, 1983; Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984) has revealed

that different cultures possess different rules of appropriateness. Borkin and Reinhart (1978)

suggest that acquiring appropriate formulas for ritualistic apologies is problematic for non-native

speakers; this is further supported by Olshtain (1983) who claims that events that require an

apology have been shown to vary cross-culturally.

In order to produce learners who can effectively communicate in an L2, training in the

structures of that language would not be adequate unless the learner is also trained in the rules of

appropriateness in that language. Thus, theories of second language teaching and learning have

experienced a major shift from the ‘structural’ approach to the ‘communicative’ approach at the

heart of which is the notion of ‘socio-cultural competence’ as an important component of

communicative competence. Within this paradigm, cross-cultural studies of speech acts have

gained more importance because of their potential to lend better understanding of the

interdependence of linguistic forms and socio-cultural context (Al-Zumor, 2003).

Numerous studies have recognized that a learner’s ability to use speech acts appropriately is a

major component of pragmatic competence. Rintell (1979), who defines pragmatics as the study


of speech acts, argues that the learner’s pragmatic ability in the target language is reflected in how

one produces utterances to communicate ‘specific intentions’ and how one interprets other

speakers’ intentions as conveyed by these utterances.

A good body of pragmatic research has examined apologies in different languages,

considering various variables such as the politeness strategies employed (e.g. Brown and

Levinson, 1978; Garcıa, 1989; Ruzickova, 1998; Marquez-Reiter, 2000), the cultural values

reflected in the realization of an apology (e.g. Cordella, 1990; Suszczynska, 1999), gender (e.g.

Cordella, 1990), the factors affecting the choice/use of a particular strategy (e.g. Cohen and

Olshtain, 1981; Fraser, 1981; Olshtain and Cohen, 1983) and the strategies used by native and

non-native speakers (Garcıa, 1989; Trosborg, 1987). Among the most cited of this type of

research is the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) in which requests and

apologies are analyzed across a number of languages (viz., Argentinean Spanish, Australian

English, Canadian French, German, and Israeli Hebrew) for the purpose of determining the

potential existence and characteristics of universal pragmatic principles in speech act realization

(Blum-Kulka et al., 1989).

Olshtain (1983) investigated how English and Russian learners of Hebrew apologized in L2

and their respective L1. Following the procedure of Cohen and Olshtain (1981), she examined

realization patterns of apologies by native speakers of Hebrew to compare native and nonnative

usage. She found that unlike the Russian group, who apologized more in Hebrew, the English

group apologized considerably less in Hebrew although they apologized more often in their L1.

Olshtain (1989) compared strategy preference of apologies by speakers of English, French,

German, and Hebrew and found considerable similarities in selection of IFIDs and expression of

responsibility. She concluded that ‘‘different languages will realize apologies in very similar ways’’

(1989:171). In a similar study, Vollmer and Olshtain (1989) investigated apology realization

preferences of 200 speakers of German to determine the potential relationship between realization

patterns of apology and social/situational parameters such as social status, social distance, the

offended person’s expectation of an apology, and severity of offense. The findings revealed that the

subjects used IFIDs and stressed responsibility in all situations in rather high percentages, and that

the use of intensification of apologies was strongly related to situational parameters.

To summarize, previous research on speech act realization has revealed the following:

1. There are many similarities of realization patterns of apologies across cultures and gender

although several differences are also detected.

2. The choice of apology strategies is often closely related to social/situational parameters that

affect one’s choice of these strategies.

3. L2 learners tend to transfer their native sociopragmatic strategies to apologies in L2.

4. L2 learners tend to apologize differently in L2 from L1.

Sugimoto (1997) compared the apology styles of 200 American (79 males and 121 females)

and 181 Japanese (82 males and 99 females) college students who responded to an open-ended

questionnaire on situations warranting an apology. Sugimoto (1997) reported the following

strategies:

I. Primary strategies are those frequently used by offenders when attempting to apologize. They

include:

1. statement of remorse in which the wrongdoer acknowledges that s/he has done something

wrong,


2. accounts in which the wrongdoer tells of what has happened (keeping in mind that this is

highly subjective, depending on the way one tells the story and the role s/he played in it),

3. description of damage in which the wrongdoer describes what changes have been inflicted

on the object in discussion or the repercussions of a certain deed on others, and

4. reparation in which the wrongdoer tries to repair the damage s/he has inflicted on others by

offering words that may cause the harm done to be forgotten.

II. Secondary strategies include:

1. compensation, which differs from reparation in that the wrongdoer offers to replace the

damaged object or pay for it, and

2. promise not to repeat offense in which the wrongdoer does his/her utmost to assure the

injured party that what has taken place will not occur in the future.

III. Seldom used strategies include:

1. explicit assessment of responsibility in which the wrongdoer attempts to describe his/her

role in and responsibility for what has happened,

2. contextualization in which the wrongdoer describes the context of the injury and what has

happened in order to make the injured party see the whole picture,

3. self-castigation in which the wrongdoer claims responsibility for what has happened and

is being hard on him-/herself, and

4. gratitude in which the wrongdoer is thankful that the offended is willing to give him/her a

chance to explain and be forgiven.

Sugimoto (1997) reported that the four most used strategies are statement of remorse,

accounts, description of damage, and reparation, and that, with the exception of accounts, the

Japanese respondents used these strategies more than their American counterparts did. She

further reported that compensation and promise not to repeat offense were secondary strategies

used mainly by the Japanese respondents.

2.2. Research on apologies in Arabic

Unlike the plethora of research on apologies in other languages, only a few studies have been

conducted on apologies by Arab learners of English. No research has been found on apologies in

Arabic as a native language. To the best of the present researchers’ knowledge, the research cited

in this section represents the only studies fully or partially dedicated to apologies in Arabic.

Certain elements that influence the effectiveness of an apology have been identified in the

literature. These comprise: familiarity with the offended; the intensity of the act warranting the

apology; the relative authority of the offender and the offended; the relative ages and sex of the

offender and offended; and the place of the exchange, all of which have been discussed by Jarbou

(2002) and Soliman (2003). Hussein (1995) claims that the formulas of any speech act are

determined by social distance, formality of the situation, age, level of education, and status of the

participants.

In his study of the apology strategies used by native speakers and Arab learners of English,

Al-Hami (1993) reported expression of apology, explanation of accounts, acknowledgment of

responsibility, repair, promise of forbearance, and expressing concern for hearers. He further

identified intensifiers (e.g. very), repetition (e.g. I am sorry, sorry, sorry), and a combination of

both (e.g. I am very very sorry) as devices used for apology intensification.

Rizk (1997) analyzed the apology strategies used by 110 Egyptian, Saudi, Jordanian,

Palestinian, Moroccan, Lebanese, Syrian, Tunisian, Yemeni and Libyan learners of English. His


results show similarities between the apology strategies used by native and nonnative

speakers of English in all situations but one. Unlike native speakers of English, Arabs do not

apologize to children but try to make the child forgive them through sentences such as do not

feel sad, baby. Furthermore, Arabs were found to express apology through offering food—a

practice which, although it may seem rude to native speakers of English, is culturally correct

since food in some cultures is an acceptable offering that has the power to wipe off a lot

of hurt.

In his study of Jordanian apology strategies, El-Khalil (1998:64) reports that in the process of

apologizing to friends, Jordanians ‘‘willingly opt for employing conventional apology

expressions (or explicit apologies) to mitigate the negative impact of the offense’’. They use

expressions such as sorry, I am sorry, I apologize, and please forgive me often coupled with an

account of the offense (e.g. sorry I wasn’t able to buy you a present). Jordanians further tend to

use justification strategies because they seem to believe that providing overwhelming excuses has

the power to justify the offense. Thus, statements like I could not come because I got unexpected

company are customary. The offender’s confession of committing the offense is also an important

strategy which, coupled with an expression of distress, results in utterances such as I had wanted

to come. The loss is mine, and I owe you one.

El-Khalil’s (1998) findings further reveal that the majority of the respondents used implicit

rather than explicit apology strategies. Unlike female respondents, male respondents preferred

explicit apology strategies. He reports that only a few female respondents promised never to

repeat the offense.

Hussein and Hammouri (1998) examined the apology strategies used by Americans and

Jordanian speakers of English. They found that Jordanians use more strategies to apologize than

Americans. While both groups resort to the expression of apology, offer of repair,

acknowledgment of responsibility, and promise of forbearance, only Jordanians use the

strategies of praising Allah (God) for what happened, attacking the offended, minimizing the

degree of offense and interjection. Hussein and Hammouri have attributed these differences to the

influence of culture, patterns of thought, and religious orientation.

Soliman (2003), in his comparison of Egyptian and American apology styles, has found the

following similarities and differences between the two cultures:

1. Intensifiers are used in both cultures to show sincerity.

2. Interjections, such as oh, are important to show that the offender really cares about what

happened.

3. People in both cultures tend to express embarrassment for the offending act.

4. Egyptians tend to attack the offended when the offender thinks the offended cannot justify his/

her position as in the incident where a headmaster blames a janitor he bumped into for the

incident instead of apologizing to him.

5. Egyptians praise Allah (God) for everything that happens, whether good or bad.

In a study similar to the present one, Al-Zumor (2003) investigated the difference in apology

realizations between Arab native speakers and learners of English and those of native speakers of

British English and American English for the purpose of exploring the inter-language pragmatics

of Arab learners of English when they produce the speech act of apology in L2. He suggests that

in the Arab culture, ‘‘admitting one’s deficiency in order to set the things right is not as

embarrassing as in the Anglo-Saxon culture’’ (2003:29). He claims that people are more

available to each other and, thus, care less about their own immunity.


2.3. Apologies and gender

Much sociolinguistic research has been conducted on gender differences in speech act

realization. Empirical findings seem to suggest that gender differences do exist in politeness—so

much so that women are considered to be more polite, less critical, and prone to using more

softening devices than are men (Lakoff, 1975; Tannen, 1990; Holmes, 1995). Holmes (1995:2)

argues that women are generally more polite than men. She points out that

most women enjoy talk and regard talking as an important means of keeping in touch,

especially with friends and intimates. They use language to establish, nurture and develop

personal relationships. Men tend to see language more as a tool for obtaining and

conveying information.

Much like the claims made by Lakoff (1975) and Tannen (1990) concerning co-operative and

competitive strategies, Holmes argues that women are more likely to use positive politeness than

men, which she considers ‘‘evidence of concern for the feelings of the people they are talking to’’

(1995:6).

Holmes (1995) offers a detailed analysis of linguistic politeness and gender drawing on her

own and other influential language and gender research such as that of Zimmerman and West

(1975), Fishman (1978, 1980) and Tannen (1984, 1990). Holmes investigated gender differences

in apologies and found both similarities and differences between males and females. She found

that women apologize significantly more than men and that women apologize most to hearers of

equal power while men apologize to women irrespective of status.

However, other researchers (for example, Cameron, 1995, 1996, 1997; Bergvall et al., 1996)

have questioned these assertions, arguing that viewing men and women in a dichotomized way

not only ignores the diversity of speech within groups of women and groups of men but also

ignores cultural differences and those that may result from other social variables such as class,

age, and ethnicity and, thus as Freed (1995:55) puts it, serves to perpetuate stereotypes about

male and female discourse.

3. Population, sample, and instrumentation

The present study emulates previous research which has examined the discourse of non-native

speakers in a second language (Blum-Kulka and Kasper, 1993), using controlled data elicitation

techniques such as questionnaires, surveys, role-plays, and discourse completion tasks which can

be readily submitted to statistical analysis. The findings reveal that although the speech acts

themselves are universal, their conceptualization and verbalization vary across cultures.

The population of the study consists of all Jordanian undergraduate EFL students at Yarmouk

University (YU) and Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST), both located in Irbid,

Jordan. The sample consisted of two randomly selected groups of one hundred Jordanian

undergraduate EFL students drawn from the Department of English at YU and the Department of

English for Applied Studies at JUST. The respondents are relatively homogeneous in terms of

their cultural background (Jordanian Arabs) and academic/linguistic experiences (19- to 22-year-

old undergraduates majoring in English at two universities in the northern region of Jordan). A

few students from other specializations (e.g. nursing and engineering) and nationalities (e.g.

Syrian and Saudi) responded to the questionnaire, but their responses were eliminated from the

sample pool. From their personal contact with the respondents, the researchers judge them to be

of intermediate to high-intermediate English proficiency.


Collecting data based on naturally occurring situations is usually difficult and time

consuming; besides, due to the fact that the subjects do not use English in social interaction

outside the classroom, even attempting the task would be virtually impossible. The researchers

designed a questionnaire based on Sugimoto’s (1997) to compare the apology strategies used by

American and Japanese students. One or both of the researchers visited classes at YU and JUST

to administer the questionnaire in the second semester of the academic year 2003/2004. Only

gender was examined as a variable.

Since the questionnaire had already been piloted and checked for reliability, the researchers

did not conduct a pilot study. However, they showed the questionnaire to seven professors in the

fields of English and Education at YU and JUST (Jordan) to assure its validity for the Jordanian

sample. The questionnaire consists of three parts:

1. an introduction of the study and instructions for answering the questions,

2. a section for collecting demographic information about the participants, and

3. 10 scenarios each of which involves a situation which requires an apology.

4. Data analysis

The researchers identified the strategies used by the respondents and then classified them

based on Sugimoto’s (1997) strategies. As noted above, these strategies were divided into

primary strategies, secondary strategies, and seldom used strategies.

The researchers started by tabulating the strategies used by the participants in order to identify

the apology strategies they used. The tabulation of the results made it possible for the researchers

to determine the strategies used and whether or not Sugimoto’s (1997) results apply to Jordanian

respondents. It further helped to clarify whether or not gender has an effect since previous

research had reported that females apologize more than males (cf., for example, Brown and

Attardo, 2000; Holmes, 1995).

In order to identify the apology strategies used, the researchers used two types of tables: One

to clarify the method used to show remorse (viz., the overt expression of apology), and another to

show the other apology strategies employed in each situation and their percentages. The overt

expression of apology came in various manifestations; these were one expression, two

expressions, one expression with one or more adverbials, and two expressions with one or more

adverbials. Of course, these manifestations were not used in all situations since the respondents

did not overtly apologize in a considerable percentage of the situations. The researchers

attempted to list all the apology strategies used by the respondents, including those which do not

imply an apology. One strategy that was not mentioned by Sugimoto (1997) or any other

researcher is that in which the wrongdoer exonerates him/herself and instead blames the victim

for what had happened. Although this strategy is not strictly within the realm of apologizing, it is

closely related to it.

Not only did the researchers tally the percentages of the apology strategies used, but they also

calculated and compared the percentages of those used by male and female respondents in order

to discover any potential differences which might be attributed to gender. Since the researchers

found that the respondents had used different types of the first strategy (viz., statement of

remorse), they tabulated those in separate tables, as they were interested in examining the

differences in the use of the various manifestations of the expression of remorse. It is worth

noting here that the respondents had used a combination of apology strategies, which may have


been part of their attempt to aptly express their remorse. However, in their tabulation of these

combinations, the researchers dealt with each strategy by itself and only mentioned the most

common combinations in the discussion.

5. Findings and discussion

Sugimoto’s (1997) strategies have been used as the basis of the analysis. Statement of remorse

was the strategy most frequently used by male and female respondents across the sample. Thus, it

is discussed separately prior to the collective discussion of the other strategies. Unlike Sugimoto,

these researchers have tabulated the different manifestations of this strategy in terms of the use of

expressions of apology and the various numbers of intensifiers.

5.1. Apology strategies used by male respondents

In their attempt to respond to the situations given in the questionnaire (see the Appendix A),

male respondents used the following apology strategies:

1. Statement of remorse: As shown in Table 1, male respondents used different manifestations

of the expression of remorse. They expressed remorse using either one or more expressions of

apology combined with one or more intensifiers. Some of the respondents did not seem to

think that one apology expression is enough, while others seemed to think that they did not

need to apologize at all. It should be noted here that 42.2% of the responses (n = 211) did not

contain any overt statement of remorse.

Male respondents used the following manifestations of stating remorse (in descending

order of frequency of occurrence):

a. Using one expression of apology: In 47% of the situations (n = 235), male respondents

used one expression of apology to show remorse. Expressions ranged from the word sorry

to clauses such as excuse me, forgive me, I apologize, or pardon me.

b. Using one expression of apology and one intensifier: In 8% of the situations (n = 40), male

respondents used the intensifiers so and very with the word sorry, yielding expressions

such as very sorry and so sorry.

c. Using one expression of apology and two intensifiers: In 1.2% of the situations (n = 6),

male respondents used two intensifiers to produce an expression of apology to show

remorse; this may be attributed to the respondents’ need to use more than the word sorry to


Table 1

Totals and percentages of the types of the statement of remorse used by male respondents

Type Item

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Percent

One expression of apology 33 24 26 19 22 23 21 16 22 29 235 47.0

Two expressions of apology 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0.4

One expression of apology + one intensifier 5 6 2 8 1 2 1 10 2 3 40 8

One expression of apology + two intensifiers 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 1.2

One expression of apology + three intensifiers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.2

Two expressions of apology + one intensifier 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 5 1.0

Nothing 11 19 22 18 27 24 28 19 26 17 211 42.2

express how bad they felt for whatever happened. The intensifiers used were either a

repetition of the words so and very in sentences such as I am very, very sorry or a

combination of the two in expressions such as so very sorry.

d. Using two expressions of apology and one intensifier: In 1% of the situations (n = 5), male

respondents used two expressions of apology with one intensifier to show remorse, which

seems to indicate the respondents’ need to express the graveness of the situation. This

resulted in the use of expressions such as excuse me. I am very sorry and so sorry; forgive me.

e. Using two expressions of apology: In 0.4% of the situations (n = 2), male respondents used

two expressions of apology resulting in responses such as sorry. Forgive me.

f. Using one expression of apology and three intensifiers: In 0.2% of the situations (n = 1),

a male respondent resorted to the use of one expression of apology with three intensifiers to

show how he feels about the offense. This was expressed in the use of I am so, so, so sorry.

Other apology strategies were used by male respondents in their responses to the 10 items

of the questionnaire. These are summarized in Table 2 and presented below according to their

frequency of use. Even though the researchers used Sugimoto’s (1997) apology strategies as

the basis of their analysis, they have come up with other strategies not mentioned in the

literature.

2. Accounts: In 27.4% of the situations (n = 137), Jordanians, in their attempt to apologize, used

accounts to explain what had happened. This resulted in responses like the following for each

of the items of the questionnaire, except Item 8 for which the respondents did not use

accounts:


Table 2

Apology strategies used by male respondents

Strategy Item

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Percent

Accounts 10 16 17 12 33 16 16 0 5 12 137 27.4

Reparation 0 0 1 11 0 1 3 19 1 3 39 7.8

Compensation 26 22 0 0 0 1 0 0 25 0 74 14.8

Promise not to repeat offense 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 1.2

Assessment of responsibility

Negative 11 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 23 4.6

Positive 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.4

Self-castigation 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 1 7 1.4

Thanking 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 1.2

Avoidance of discussion or person 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 0 0 7 1.4

Brushing off incident as not important 0 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 11 2.2

Promise of better times to come 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.4

Offending victim 0 2 1 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 9 1.8

Asking victim not to be angry 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 1.0

Showing lack of intent to do harm 8 1 6 3 1 1 0 4 2 0 26 5.2

Blaming victim 1 0 1 2 0 4 6 1 2 2 19 3.8

Denial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0.8

Invoking Allah’s (God’s) name 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0.6

Refusal to compensate 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.4

Proverbs and sayings (better late than never) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2

The wind was too strong it broke your umbrella (Item 1).

I have a family emergency and cannot go to the concert (Item 2).

3. Compensation: In 14.8% of the situations (n = 74), male respondents used compensation

where the wrongdoer tries to replace the damaged item or pay for it. The only items on the

questionnaire that elicited the use of compensation were items 1, 9, 2, and 6 yielding

responses such as:

Here is a new umbrella I got you to replace yours (Item 1).

I will pay for the ticket if you do not find anybody to go with you (Item 2).

4. Reparation: In 7.8% of the situations (n = 39), male respondents used reparation, a strategy

which allows them to repair the damage done to the item or the situation in question. All the

items, except 1, 2, and 5, got responses that displayed reparation as shown in the following

examples:

I did not mean to be late. Let us have juice on me (Item 3).

I will explain what happened to the teacher and get you an extension (Item 4).

5. Showing lack of intent to do harm: In 5.2% of the situations (n = 6), male respondents felt the

need to deny their intention to harm the offended. They attempted to show that whatever

happened was accidental and not at all premeditated. Responses to all the questionnaire items,

excluding 7 and 10, portrayed the use of this strategy as is evident in the following examples:

I did not mean to break your umbrella. I will buy you another (Item 1).

I did not mean to break our date (Item 2).

6. Assessment of responsibility: This category is divided into two types:

a. Positive assessment of responsibility which refers to the wrongdoer’s admission of having

committed the act in question. In only 0.4% of the situations (n = 2), male respondents

expressed their responsibility for what had happened. The only item warranting this was

item 4 where the wrongdoer had forgotten his classmate’s homework. It was my fault that

you are in this dilemma was given in response.

b. Negative assessment of responsibility which refers to the wrongdoer’s denial of being

responsible for the act in question. In 4.6% of the situations (n = 23), male respondents felt

the need to deny responsibility or to blame others for the deed. Responses to items 1, 3–7,

and 9 showed examples of this strategy as is evident from the following examples.

It was not my fault. The wind broke your old umbrella (Item 1).

I did not break your Walkman. It was old anyway (Item 9).

7. Self-castigation: In 1.4% of the situations (n = 7), male respondents used self-castigation

where the wrongdoer criticized his behavior, as in items 4, 6, 8, and 10.

I know that was mean of me. I might get you a bad grade (Item 4).

There are no words to describe how big a bastard I am (Item 10).


8. Promise not to repeat offense: Male respondents promised not to repeat the act they were

apologizing for in 1.2% of the situations (n = 6). Responses to items 2, 3, and 8 reflect the use

of this apology strategy, as shown in the examples below:

I will never play with things that do not concern me again (Item 8).

I promise to go with you next time (Item 2).

9. Thanking: In 1.2% of the situations (n = 6), male respondents thanked the offended as shown

in the following responses to items 2, 3, and 6:

Thanks for letting me borrow your CD (Item 6).

Thanks for waiting. I was held up in traffic (Item 3).

10. Asking victim not to be angry: Male respondents asked the offended not to be angry in 1% of

the situations (n = 5). This strategy was only used in items 1, 3 and 6 as shown in the

examples below:

I could not help it. I hope you are not angry (Item 2).

Don’t be angry. I will get you another umbrella (Item 1).

11. Invoking Allah’s (God’s) name: Male respondents mentioned Allah’s (God’s) name in 0.6%

of the situations (n = 3) in order to wish the offended better times, as shown in the following

responses to items 1, 4, and 8:

May Allah compensate you for your umbrella (Item 1).

May Allah help you write a new paper (Item 8).

12. Promise of better times to come: In 0.4% of the situations (n = 2), male respondents promised

the offended lovely times once s/he forgot the injury. This was apparent in responses to items

2 and 3 as is shown below:

I will go next time and we will have fun (Item 2).

We will enjoy the trip (Item 3).

In addition to these strategies, the respondents used others that are more for avoiding an

apology than overt apology strategies. The researchers believe that these strategies are worth

noting since, contrary to previous research findings (cf., for example, Eelen, 2001), they

demonstrate how some people tend to avoid apologies. The non-apology strategies used by

male respondents are:

a. Blaming victim: In lieu of apologizing to the offended for whatever injury the wrongdoer

had inflicted on him/her, the wrongdoer blamed the offended for what happened in 3.8% of

the situations (n = 19). In their responses to the items of the questionnaire (except items 2

and 5), male respondents gave responses such as:

You lent me a broken umbrella (Item 1).

You should apologize to me for the misunderstanding (Item 7).


b. Brushing off incident as non-important: In 2.2% of the situations (n = 11), the wrongdoer

asked the offended to forget the incident since whatever happened (with the exception of

items 1 and 6) was not worth the attention it was getting. So what? and forget it were

recurrent examples.

c. Offending victim: In 1.8% of the situations (n = 9), male respondents attempted to be rude

to the offended as a way of averting his/her attention from what had happened. This

resulted in examples such as:

Shut up. I will get you another (Item 9).

It serves you right. Maybe you will learn this time (Item 4).

d. Avoidance of subject or person: In 1.4% of the situations (n = 7), male respondents stated

they would avoid the offended for some time until s/he forgets the incident or, if they

happen to see him/her, they would avoid the discussion of the incident in question.

e. Denial: In their response to item 8, male respondents denied they had erased their friend’s

paper in 0.8% of the responses (n = 4), using the expression I did nothing.

f. Refusal to compensate victim: As the least used of these non-apology strategies, this

occurred in 0.4% of the situations (n = 2) and only as a response to item 2 where the

wrongdoer’s reaction to not going with his friends to a concert after they paid for the ticket

was manifested in I did not go to the concert. Why should I pay for the ticket?

5.2. Apology strategies used by female respondents

In their attempt to respond to the situations given in the questionnaire, female respondents

used the following apology strategies:

1. Statement of remorse: As shown in Table 3, the respondents used different types of

expression of remorse. They expressed their remorse using either one or more expressions of

apology combined with one or more intensifiers. Some of the respondents did not think they

need to overtly express apology, which resulted in the absence of any statement of remorse in

36% of the responses (n = 180).

Female respondents used five manifestations of the expression of remorse, which led to

the absence of the manifestation of two expressions of apology and one intensifier. Jordanian

females used the following types, listed from the most to the least frequently used:


Table 3

Totals and percentages of the types of the statement of remorse used by female respondents

Type Item

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Percent

One expression of apology 32 23 24 26 29 25 21 18 29 27 254 51

Two expressions of apology 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 6 1.2

One expression of apology + one intensifier 9 4 7 3 1 5 4 10 0 5 48 9.5

One expression of apology + two intensifiers 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 9 1.7

One expression of apology + three intensifiers 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0.6

Nothing 8 21 16 20 20 19 23 16 21 16 180 36

a. Using one expression of apology: In 51% of the situations (n = 254), the female

respondents used one expression of apology as a way to show remorse. Expressions

included sorry, excuse me, and I apologize.

b. Using one expression of apology and one intensifier: In 9.5% of the situations (n = 48),

female respondents used expressions such as very sorry and so sorry.

c. Using one expression of apology and two intensifiers: In 1.7% of the situations (n = 9),

female respondents used two intensifiers to describe the expression of apology to show

remorse. Examples of this include I am very, very sorry and I am so, so sorry.

d. Using two expressions of apology: In 1.2% of the situations (n = 6), female respondents

used two expressions of apology resulting in responses such as sorry, forgive me.

e. Using one expression of apology and three intensifiers: In 0.6% of the situations (n = 3),

female respondents used this manifestation of statement of remorse, which yielded

expressions such as I am so, so, so sorry.

Female respondents used a host of other apology strategies in their responses to the 10

items of the questionnaire. These are summarized in Table 4 and then discussed according to

their frequency of use.

2. Accounts: In 27.8% of the situations (n = 139), female respondents used accounts as a

response strategy to all the items, which resulted in utterances such as:

The wind broke your umbrella (Item 1).

I am too busy to go. I will go to the next concert (Item 2).

3. Promise not to repeat offense: Female respondents promised not to repeat the act they were

apologizing for in 20.6% of the situations (n = 103) in response to items 2–4, 6, 8, and 10, as

shown in the following examples:


Table 4

Apology strategies used by female respondents

Strategy Item

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Percent

Accounts 5 17 17 9 40 13 18 1 4 15 139 27.8

Reparation 0 0 1 14 0 7 1 28 5 12 68 13.6

Compensation 32 24 0 0 0 3 0 0 31 0 90 18.0

Promise not to repeat offense 0 2 4 1 0 3 0 2 0 1 103 20.6


Negative 15 3 6 0 4 3 2 2 9 1 45 9.0

Positive 1 0 1 6 0 1 1 1 1 0 12 2.4

Self-castigation 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 8 1.6

Thanking 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 0.6

Avoidance of discussion or person 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 4 4 0 13 2.6

Brushing off incident as not important 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 4 0 12 2.4

Promise of better times to come 0 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 10 2.0

Offending victim 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 1.0

Asking victim not to be angry 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 8 1.6

Showing lack of intent to do harm 2 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 2 1 20 4.0

Blaming victim 5 2 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 15 3.0

Denial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.2

Proverbs or sayings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.4

It was a mistake. I won’t play with your computer again (Item 8).

I explain why I was late and promise never to do it again (Item 3).

4. Compensation: In 18% of the situations (n = 90), female respondents resorted to the

use of compensation in responses to items 1, 2, 6, and 9, examples of which are given

below.

I did not mean to break your umbrella. I will buy you another one (Item 1).

I will pay for the ticket (Item 2).

5. Reparation: In 13.6 % of the situations (n = 68), specifically those in response to all items but

1, 2, and 5, the respondents used reparation. Examples of the use of this strategy include the

following:

I will make it up to you (Item 3).

I will tell the teacher what happened (Item 4).

6. Assessment of responsibility: The two types of this strategy were as follows:

a. Positive assessment of responsibility: In 2.4% of the situations (n = 12), female

respondents expressed their responsibility for what happened, which resulted in responses

such as:

It was my fault. I will buy you a new umbrella (Item 1).

I forgot to return it (Item 6).

b. Negative assessment of responsibility: In 9% of the situations (n = 45), female respondents

felt the need to deny responsibility or to blame others for the deed, which resulted in

responses such as the following for all items except item 4:

The wind broke your old umbrella (Item 1).

I did not break your Walkman. It was old anyway (Item 9).

7. Showing lack of intent to do harm: In 4% of the situations (n = 20), female respondents felt

they needed to deny their intention to harm the offended. Responses to all questionnaire items

portrayed the use of this strategy, as is evident in the following examples:

This happened against my will (Item 8).

It just fell and broke (Item 9).

8. Promise of better times to come: In 2% of the situations (n = 10), female respondents

promised the offended lovely times once s/he forget the injury. This was apparent in

responses to items 2, 3, 6, and 10, as shown below:

I will go next time and we will have fun (Item 2).

How about we have a trip instead of the next meeting? That would be fun (Item 10).


9. Self-castigation: In 1.6% of the situations (n = 8), female respondents used self-castigation

in items 3, 4, and 8 as shown in the examples below:

I am so embarrassed. I did not mean to hurt anybody (Item 3).

It was mean of me (Item 4).

10. Asking victim not to be angry: Female respondents asked the offended not to be angry in 1.6%

of the situations (n = 8). This strategy was used in all items except 1, 4, 5, and 7.

Don’t hate me. I overslept (Item 3).

I could not help it. I hope you are not angry (Item 10).

11. Thanking: In 0.6% of the situations (n = 3), female respondents thanked the offended using

the following utterances:

Thanks. I forgot about it (Item 6).

Return it and thank him for it (Item 6).

12. Proverbs and sayings: In 0.4% of the situations (n = 2), specifically in response to item 10,

the respondents used the proverb, A friend in need . . ., to avoid offering an apology.

In addition to the above strategies, female respondents used the following non-apology

strategies:

a. Blaming victim: The wrongdoer blamed the offended for what happened in 3% of the

situations (n = 15). In their responses to all questionnaire items, except 5 and 8, female

respondents produced utterances such as:

It was your fault. You bought a cheap umbrella (Item 1).

Not only was it broken, it also clashed with my clothes (Item 1).

b. Avoidance of subject or person: In 2.6% of the situations (n = 13), female respondents

stated they would avoid the offended for some time till s/he forgot the incident, or, if they

happened to see him/her, they would avoid discussing the incident in question. I will avoid

him totally (item 4) was a recurrent response.

c. Brushing off incident as non-important: In 2.4% of the situations (n = 12), the wrongdoer

asked the offended to forget the incident claiming that whatever happened, except in items

1–3, and 10, was not worth the attention it was getting.

So what? You can buy another (Item 9).

So what? You break my things too (Item 9).

d. Offending victim: In 1% of the situations (n = 5), female respondents attempted to be mean

to the offended to avert his/her attention from what had happened. This resulted in

responses such as:

You do not deserve an apology. You get on my nerves (Item 4).

I did it on purpose to spite you (Item 8).


e. Denial: In her response to item 8, a respondent denied having erased her friend’s paper in

0.2% of the responses (n = 1).

Tables 5 and 6 below present summaries of the number and percentages of the strategies

used by male and female respondents.


Table 6

A summary of the number and percentages of the types of the apology strategies used by male and female respondents

Strategy Group

Males Females Males and females

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Accounts 137 27.4 139 27.8 276 2.76

Reparation 39 7.8 68 13.6 107 10.7

Compensation 74 14.8 90 18.0 164 16.4

Promise not to repeat offense 6 1.2 103 20.6 109 10.9


Negative 23 4.6 9.0 9.0 68 6.8

Positive 2 0.4 2.4 2.4 14 1.4

Self-castigation 7 1.4 8 1.6 15 1.5

Thanking 6 1.2 3 0.6 9 0.9

Avoidance of discussion or person 7 1.4 13 2.6 20 2.0

Brushing off incident as not important 11 2.2 12 2.4 23 2.3

Promise of better times to come 2 0.4 10 2.0 12 1.2

Offending victim 9 1.8 5 1.0 14 1.4

Asking victim not to be angry 5 1.0 8 1.6 13 1.3

Showing lack of intent to do harm 26 5.2 20 4.0 46 4.6

Blaming victim 19 3.8 15 3.0 34 3.4

Denial 4 0.8 1 0.2 5 0.5

Invoking Allah’s (God’s) name 3 0.6 0 0 3 0.3

Refusal to compensate 2 0.4 0 0 2 0.2

Proverbs and sayings 1 0.2 2 0.4 3 0.6

Table 5

A summary of the number and percentages of the types of the statement of remorse used by male and female respondents

Type Group

Males Females Males and females

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

One expression of apology 235 47.0 254 51 489 48.9

Two expressions of apology 2 0.4 6 1.2 8 0.8

One expression of apology + one intensifier 40 8 48 9.5 88 8.8

One expression of apology + two intensifiers 6 1.2 9 1.7 15 1.5

One expression of apology + three intensifiers 1 0.2 3 0.6 4 0.4

Two expressions of apology + one intensifier 5 1.0 0 0 5 0.5

Nothing 211 42.2 180 36 391 39.1

5.3. Differences in apologies between male and female respondents

As seen from the figures in Tables 5 and 6 above, Jordanian male and female respondents

differed in their use of apology strategies; this coincides with the findings of studies that present

gender as an important factor in people’s use of speech acts in general, and apologies in particular

(cf. Lukasik, 2000).

Although male and female respondents used the various manifestations of the statement of

remorse, it was obvious that female respondents tended to use this strategy more, opting for the

various manifestations of the expression of remorse in 65.4% of the situations compared to the

male respondents’ 60.6%. This is consistent with the claims that females are trained from

childhood to apologize more for their mistakes not only to females but also to males (cf., for

example, Brown and Attardo, 2000; Holmes, 1995).

The five primary strategies used by the male respondents were accounts, compensation,

reparation, showing lack of intent to do harm, and promising not to repeat offense (27.4%, 14.8%,

7.8%, 5.2%, and 1.2%, respectively), while those used by female respondents were accounts,

promise not to repeat offense, compensation, reparation, and showing lack of intent to do harm

(27.8%, 20.6%, 18%, 13.6%, and 4%, respectively). These strategies accounted for 56.4% of the

strategies used by the male respondents and 84% of those used by their female counterparts,

which shows that female respondents tended to use more primary strategies than their male

counterparts. This is consistent with the findings of previous research (cf., for example, Holmes,

1995).

Female respondents tended to assign responsibility to themselves or others more than their

male counterparts (11.4% and 5%, respectively). This may be because female respondents

wanted to clarify the situation more than male respondents in order to ensure the offended’s

understanding of the situation for which they are apologizing.

Only male respondents invoked Allah’s name when they apologized. The researchers had

expected the female respondents to also use this strategy since this is an integral part of

Jordanians’ everyday speech. It is worth noting here that such expressions have become

formulaic for some people who have come to use them out of habit instead of genuinely meaning

them. Unlike their male counterparts, the female respondents did not use the apology strategy of

invoking Allah’s (God’s) name.

Female respondents used more non-apology strategies than their male counterparts (13.2% for

the former and 10.4% for the latter). However, while females concentrated more on brushing off

incident as not important and avoiding the discussion or person, male respondents veered more

towards offending or blaming victim. This showed that although both males and females had the

audacity not to apologize, females were less audacious than their male counterparts, for while the

former avoided the discussion or person to avoid a clash the latter attacked the offended to put

him/her in a defensive rather than an offensive.

6. Limitations, implications, and suggestions for further research

The conclusions drawn in this research are preliminary and need to be supported by further

research to arrive at more definite conclusions about apology realizations by Arab L2 learners.

The generalizability of findings may be constrained by the following considerations:

1. Collecting natural data would be more reliable, for what one claims one will do in a given

situation is not necessarily what one actually does in a real life situation;


2. The fact that data collection was done through one instrument, i.e. the discourse completion

task (DCT), raises the issue of task effect. A number of studies have reported task-induced

interlanguage variation on empirical research findings (cf., for example, Hinkel, 1997;

Brown, 2001; Hudson, 2001; Rintell and Mitchell, 1989). Hinkel (1997) reported that

Chinese learners of English favored less direct advice on the DCT than they did on

multiple-choice questionnaires whereas Rintell and Mitchell (1989) reported that their

respondents provided shorter responses to the DCT than to oral role-plays in English

requests and apologies.

3. Gender was the only variable examined. Variables relating to how the participants perceived

context-external factors such as differences in power, social distance, perception of

seriousness, and type of social contract have not been controlled.

4. Neither the pragmatic nor the grammatical appropriateness of the respondents’ utterances was

addressed in this study, something which the researchers intend to rectify in future research.

Since apologies is an area of language that causes problems for speakers of English as a

second/foreign language, the following recommendations are put forth:

1. Further pragmatic research is still needed in order to achieve a better understanding of cultures

and to avoid stereotypes.

2. Having learned English as an L2, the researchers believe that school curricula should focus not

only on structure and vocabulary but also on language functions such as apologizing and

making requests.

3. Since speech acts are cultural in essence, ESL/EFL learners must be made familiar with the

culture driving the speech acts, which would go a long way in facilitating successful

communication.

4. It is important for L2 learners to understand that speech act realizations vary because

social relationships in L1 may not apply to L2 and, thus, may not be understood by the

addressed.

In spite of the researchers’ belief that this study has thoroughly examined the questions at

hand, they still feel that apologies, like other types of speech acts, need further investigation. The

fact that the use of speech acts may create major problems in communication between people

from different cultures renders it imperative that further research be done in closely related

matters such as:

1. comparing and contrasting the apology strategies used by participants from different age

groups of the same culture to determine the potential differences between the strategies used

by various social groups;

2. comparing and contrasting the apology strategies used by other cultures for the purpose of

eliminating misunderstandings caused by the misuse of the speech act of apology among

people from different cultures;

3. addressing other variables such as gender, age, education, and status of the offended to find out

their potential effect on the use of an apology; and

4. examining how effective the different apology strategies are in softening the offended persons’

reactions and their acceptance of the apology.


Appendix A. The questionnaire


References

Al-Hami, Fida, 1993. Forms of apology used by Jordanian speakers of EFL: a cross-cultural study. Unpublished Master’s

Thesis. University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.

Al-Zumor, Abdul Wahid, 2003. Apologies in Arabic and English: an inter-language and cross-cultural study. Retrieved

May 13th, 2003. From http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ea/politeness/apologiesinarabicandenglish.htm.

Austin, John Langshaw, 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bergvall, Victoria, Bing, Janet, Freed, Alice (Eds.), 1996. Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and

Practice. Longman, New York.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Kasper, Gabriele, 1993. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Olshtain, Elite, 1984. Requests and apologies: a crosscultural study of speech act realization

patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5, 196–213.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and

Apologies. Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey.

Borkin, Ann, Reinhart, Susan M., 1978. ‘‘Excuse me’’ and ‘‘I’m sorry’’. TESOL Quarterly 12, 57–70.

Brown, J.D., 2001. Pragmatics tests: different purposes, different tests. In: Rose, Kenneth R., Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.),

Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 301–325.

Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., 1978. Politeness: Some Universals of Language Use. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Brown, Steven, Attardo, Salvatore, 2000. Understanding Language Structure, Interaction, and Variation: An Introduction

to Applied Linguistics and Sociolinguistics for Nonspecialists. Michigan University Press, Michigan.

Cameron, Deborah, 1995. Rethinking language and gender studies: some issues for the 1990s. In: Mills, Sarah (Ed.),

Language and Gender: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Longman, New York, pp. 31–44.

Cameron, Deborah, 1996. The language-gender interface: challenging co-optation. In: Bergvall, Victoria, Bing, Janet,

Freed, Alice (Eds.), Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice. Longman, New York, pp. 31–

53.

Cameron, Deborah, 1997. Performing gender identity: young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity.

In: Johnson, Sally, Meinhof, Ulrike Hanna (Eds.), Language and Masculinity. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 47–64.

Celce-Murcia, Marianne, Olshtain, Elite, 2000. Discourse and Context in Language Teaching: A Guide for Language

Teachers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cohen, Andrew D., Olshtain, Elite, 1981. Developing a measure of socio-cultural competence: the case of apology.

Language Learning 31, 113–134.

Cordella, Marisa, 1990. Apologizing in Chilean Spanish and Australian English: a cross-cultural perspective. ARAL

Series 5, 66–92.

Darby, Bruce W., Schlenker, Barry R., 1982. Children’s reactions to apologies. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 43, 742–753.

Darby, Bruce W., Schlenker, Barry R., 1989. Children’s reactions to transgressions: effects of the actor’s apology,

reputation and remorse. British Journal of Social Psychology 28, 353–364.

Eelen, Gino, 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. St. Jerome’s Press, Manchester.

El-Khalil, Hasan Mohammad Hussein, 1998. Variation in apology strategies among friends and acquaintances in

Jordanian Arabic. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.

Engel, Beverly, 2001. The Power of Apology. Wiley, New York.

Fishman, Pamela, 1978. Interaction: the work women do. Social Problems 25, 397–406.

Fishman, Pamela, 1980. Conversational insecurity. In: Giles, Howard, Robinson, W. Peter, Smith, Philip M. (Eds.),

Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 127–132.

Fraser, Bruce, 1981. On apologizing. In: Coulmas, Florian (Ed.), Conversational Routine: Exploration in Standardized

Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 259–273.

Fraser, Bruce, Nolan, William, 1981. The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of Sociology

of Language 27, 93–109.

Freed, Alice F., 1995. Language and gender. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15, 3–22.

Fromkin, Victoria, Rodman, Robert, 1988. An Introduction to Language. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Garcıa, Carmen, 1989. Apologizing in English: politeness strategies used by native and non-native speakers. Multilingua

8, 3–20.

Goffman, Erving, 1971. Remedial work. In: Goffman, Erving (Ed.), Relations in Public: The Micro Politics of Public

Order. Allen Lane, London.


http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ea/politeness/apologiesinarabicandenglish.htm

Gooder, Haydie, Jacobs, Jane M., 2000. On the border of the unsayable: the apology in postcolonizing Australia.

Interventions 2, 229–247.

Gumperz, John J., Tannen, Deborah, 1979. Individual and social differences in language use. In: Fillmore, Charles J.,

Kempler, Daniel, Wang, William S.-Y. (Eds.), Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior.

Academic Press, New York, pp. 305–327.

Harrell, W. Andrew, 1980. Retaliatory aggression by high and low Machiavellians against remorseful and nonremorseful

wrongdoers. Social Behavior and Personality 8, 217–220.

Hatch, Evelyn, Swan, Michael, 1992. Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hinkel, Eli, 1997. Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied Linguistics 18, 1–26.

Holmes, Janet, 1995. Sex differences and apologies: one aspect of communicative competence. In: Brown, H. Douglas,

Gonzo, Susan (Eds.), Readings on Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall Regents, Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey, pp. 362–385.

Hudson, Thorn, 2001. Indicators for pragmatic instruction: some quantitative tools. In: Rose, Kenneth R., Kasper,

Gabriele (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 301–325.

Hussein, Anwar S., 1995. The sociolinguistic patterns of native Arabic speakers: implications for teaching Arabic as a

foreign language. Applied Language Learning 6, 65–87.

Hussein, Riyad F., Hammouri, Mamoun T., 1998. Strategies of apology in Jordanian Arabic and American English.

Grazer Linguistische Studien 49, 37–51.

Jarbou, Samer Omar, 2002. Speech act stylistics: a cross-linguistic, cross-cultural study of directive speech acts in selected

Shakespearean plays and their Arabic translations. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsyl-

vania, Indiana, Pennsylvania.

Lakoff, Robin T., 1975. Language and Women’s Place. Harper and Row, New York.

Leech, Geoffrey N., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.

Levinson, Stephen C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lindfors, Judith Wells, 1999. Children’s Inquiry: Using Language to Make Sense of the World. Teachers College,

Columbia University, New York.

Lukasik, Valerie J., 2000. Predictors of the willingness to use forgiveness as a coping strategy in adolescent friendships.

Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.

Marquez-Reiter, Rosina, 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A Contrastive Study of Requests and

Apologies. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Retrieved May 13th, 2003. From http://www.m-w.com/.

Mills, Sarah, 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ohbuchi, Ken-ichi, Kameda, Masoyo, Agarie, Nariyuki, 1989. Apology as aggression control: its role in mediating

appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56, 219–227.

Olshtain, Elite, 1983. Sociocultural competence and language transfer: the case of apology. In: Gass, Susan M., Selinker,

Larry (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning. Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp. 232–249.

Olshtain, Elite, 1989. Apologies across cultures. In: Blum-Kulka, Shoshana,House, Juliane,Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.),Cross-

Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey, pp. 155–173.

Olshtain, Elite, Cohen, Andrew, 1983. Apology: a speech act set. In: Wolfson, Nessa, Judd, Elliot (Eds.), Sociolinguistics

and Language Acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp. 18–35.

Rintell, Ellen M., 1979. Getting your speech act together: the pragmatic ability of second language learners. Working

Papers on Bilingualism 17, 98–106.

Rintell, Ellen M., Mitchell, Candace J., 1989. Studying requests and apologies: an inquiry into method. In: Blum-Kulka,

Shoshana, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex Publishing, Norwood,

NJ, pp. 248–272.

Rizk, Shaker, 1997. Apology in English among Arab nonnative speakers of English. Journal of the Faculty of Education 3,

1–27 (Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt).

Rosen, B., Adams, J.S., 1974. Organizational coverups: factors influencing the discipline of information gatekeepers.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 4, 375–384.

Ruzickova, Elena, 1998. Apologies in Cuban Spanish. Paper presented at the First Hispanic Linguistics Colloquium.

Columbus, Ohio.

Searle, John R., 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Searle, John R., 1975. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In: Searle, John R. (Ed.), Experience and Meaning: Studies in the

Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–29.

Searle, John, 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.


http://www.m-w.com/

Soliman, Abdelmeneim, 2003. Apology in American English and Egyptian Arabic. Paper presented at TESOL 3rd Annual

Graduate Student Forum, Baltimore, Maryland.

Sugimoto, Naomi, 1997. A Japan–U.S. comparison of apology styles. Communication Research 24, 349–370.

Suszczynska, Malgorzata, 1999. Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian: different languages, different strategies.

Journal of Pragmatics 31, 1053–1065.

Takaku, Seiji, Weiner, Bernard, Ohbuchi, Ken-ichi, 2001. A cross-cultural examination of the effects of apology and

perspective taking on forgiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 20, 144–167.

Tannen, Deborah, 1982. The oral/literate continuum in discourse. In: Tannen, Deborah (Ed.), Spoken and Written

Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 1–16.

Tannen, Deborah, 1984. Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.

Tannen, Deborah, 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. William Morrow, New York.

Trosborg, Anna, 1987. Apology strategies in native/non-native English. Journal of Pragmatics 11, 147–167.

Vollmer, Helmut J., Olshtain, Elite, 1989. The language of apologies in German. In: Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House,

Juliane, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Newbury House, Rowley, MA,

pp. 197–218.

Watts, Richard, 1989. Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8, 131–166.

Watts, Richard, Ide, Sachiko, Ehlich, Konrad, 1992. Introduction. In: Watts, Richard, Ide, Sachiko, Ehlich, Konrad

(Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp.

1–17.

Zimmerman, Don, West, Candace, 1975. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In: Thorne, Barrie,

Kramarae, Cheris, Henley, Nancy (Eds.), Language, Gender and Society. Newbury House, Rowley, Massachusetts,

pp. 105–129.


Apology Politness

Documents

Transcript of Apology Politness