Professional Documents
Culture Documents
North-Holland
Anna TROSBORG*
offended another person, and for which he can be held responsible, he needs to
apologize. The act of apologizing requires an action or an utterance which is
intended to ‘set things right’. The culpable person must let the offended person
know that he is sorry for what he has done, so the act is highly hearer-
supportive and often self-demeaning (Edmondson and House (1981: 45)).
However, as pointed out by Olshtain and Cohen (1983: 21), the person who
has caused the infraction may not perceive himself as guilty, he may not feel
the need to apologize, or he may choose to deny his responsibility. A number
of factors are likely to influence his behaviour. His own perception of the
degree of the severity of the offence is often decisive, but he may also take into
consideration the recipient’s point of view, his perception of the degree of
offence, the extent of the expected reprimand, etc. Other influential factors are
the age, familiarity, and social status of the two participants (cf. Olshtain and
Cohen (1983: 21)).
In a complaint-apology situation, three ‘Roles’ are involve, referred to as
‘complainer’, ‘complainee’ or ‘apologizer’, and ‘complainable’ (i.e. the offence
in question). The potential apologizer may find himself in a position of ‘inner
conflict’ (Edmondson and House (1981: 145)). In receiving a complaint, he
sees his social competence challenged. At the same time he must accept that his
behaviour indicates a denial of the social standing of the complainer. His
response has, therefore, a twofold aim: He must placate the complainer to
restore social harmony, and he must restore his own social status. A conflict
between these two aims is likely to arise. Consequently, a complaint is not
always followed by an apology. In turn, the recipient of an apology may or
may not have been complaining. If a speaker feels he has given offence and/or
anticipates negative reactions, he may try to ‘soften his interlocutor’s feelings’
by ‘getting in first’ (Edmondson and House (1981: 153)). Thus, although the
acts complaint/apology resemble an adjacent pair, one may occur without the
other. In the following, I attempt to describe the major response categories
likely to follow a complaint. Most of these, but not all, are included in the
speech act set of apo1ogies.l
Although an apology is the act by means of which a complainee can restore his
own social standing, he may refrain from performing this act. If he apologizes,
he accepts the complainer’s criticism to the effect that he is a non-responsible
social member, which is implied if not explicitly stated in all complaints.
1 The descriptions of the categories in the apology speech act set are built on Olshtain and Cohen
(1983), who in turn build their categories on Fraser (1981), and on the coding manual from The
Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (cf. Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984)), as well as on
the data obtained in the present study.
A. Trosborg / Apology strategies 149
Instead, he may choose to deny responsibility. His denial can take on various
forms, from blunt refusals to evasive responses.
In the data obtained in my experiment, I found the categories displayed in
figure 1 below to be of major relevance. The complainee either denies that the
complainable has occurred (0.1) and (0.2), or he denies that he himself can be
held responsible, either by justifying his behaviour (0.3), or by blaming
someone else (0.4) and (0.5). The 5 categories can be described as follows:
An apology may be performed directly by the use of one of the verbs directly
signalling apology (apologize, be sorry, excuse, etc.) or it can be done indirectly
by taking on responsibility, minimizing the degree of offence, or giving
explanations. An offer of repair is often required in cases in which a verbal
apology is felt to be insufficient to restore social harmony. A promise of
forbearance relates to future behaviour, and the strategy of expressing concern
for the hearer serves as an additional attempt to placate the complainer. These
strategies are presented below in order of increasing directness and with an
increase in the potential ability to satisfy the complainer.
1.1. Minimizing:
e.g. ‘Oh what does that matter, that’s nothing’; ‘What about it, it’s not
the end of the world’.
1.2. Querying preconditions:
e.g. ‘Well, everybody does that’; ‘What is love then?’ (in response to the
complainable ‘You don’t love me’).
1.3. Blaming someone else:
The offence committed by the complainee can be partly excused by an
offence committed by a third party.
Strategy 1.3 is distinguishable from strategy 0.3 on the grounds that in 1.3 the
complainee admits responsibility.
2. Ackowledgement of responsibility
When a complainee chooses to take on responsibility he can do so implicitly or
explicitly and with varying degrees of self-blame. The sub-categories outlined
below are all hearer-supportive and self-demeaning, and they are ordered with
respect to the degree of recognition with which the complainee accepts the
blame (from low to high intensity):
A. Trosborg / Apology strategies 151
3. Explanation or account
A complainee may try to mitigate his guilt by giving an explanation or account
of the situation. Various kinds of mitigating circumstances serve as indirect
apologies and may be put forward on their own or in addition to a direct
expression of apology (cf. strategy 4 below). A distinction is made between an
implicit and an explicit explanation or account:
Strategy 3 differs from strategy 0.2 with respect to the speaker’s acknowledge-
ment of responsibility. In an explanation or account, a complainee admits that
what he has done was undesirable, but he tries to lessen the blame which can
be attached to him by referring to mitigating circumstances that may excuse his
behaviour. Thus an explanation or an account serves as an ‘excuse’ for a
committed offence, whereas in a ‘justification’ the complainee does not
acknowledge that an offence has occurred.
4. Expression of apology
An apologizer may choose to express his apology explicitly. A small number of
verbs apply and the expression is a routine formula generally accepted to
express apology. The semantic content may be an expression of regret, an offer
of apology, or a request for forgiveness, as in the examples below:3
3 I am aware that the categories 4.2 and 4.3 are oversimplified, but they are sufficient for the
present analysis, as these strategies were rarely obtained in my data. For an elaborate categoriza-
tion, see Fraser (1981) and Owen (1983).
152 A. Trosborg / Apology strategies
The routine formula ‘I’m sorry’ is by far the most commonly used form of
expression and is often extended by means of adverbial intensifiers (e.g. ‘I’m
really/terribly/most dreadfully sorry’).
5. Offer of repair
An apologizer may offer to ‘repair’ the damage which has resulted from his
infraction. Repair may be offered in its literal sense or as an offer to pay for
the damage. In situations in which actual repair is not possible (not wanted,
etc.), the apologizer may offer some kind of ‘compensatory’ action or ‘tribute’
to the complainer.
5.1. Repair:
e.g. ‘I’ll pay for the cleaning’.
5.2. Compensation :
e.g. ‘You can borrow my dress instead’.
6. Promise of forbearance
With respect to future behaviour, an apologizer can promise either never to
perform the offence in question again, or to improve his behaviour in a
number of ways. His utterance is often signalled by the performative verb
promise.
3. The experiment
The data are part of a corpus (300 conversations) elicited in a variety of social
situations in order to provide knowledge of the sociolinguistic competence of
A. Trosborg 1 Apology strategies 153
It was hypothesized that the addition of the two parametres would result in
situations demanding different levels of politeness.
The aim of the research was to obtain dialogues which were as spontaneous
and natural as possible. Therefore, the distinction between (a) role playing and
(b) role enactment (McDonough (1981: SO)) was kept in mind when the role
play material was constructed. The two types are characterized as follows: (a)
‘pretending to react as if one were someone else in a different situation’ and (b)
‘performing a role that is part of one’s normal life or personality’. The role
enactment approach was considered the most advantageous, which meant that
the role plays had to be tailor-made to the participants or, at least, contain
problems and characters which were known beforehand to be familiar to those
involved. This would facilitate the process for the foreign-language learners
considerably, especially if they were unused to performing in this kind of
situation. Twelve concrete situations from everyday life (private life, at work,
at public places, etc.) were chosen and role descriptions were constructed.
Typically, these descriptions involved some interactional complexity in the
form of some kind of conflict or social difficulty that was not easily handled in
4 The elicitation material consists partly of role plays taken over from Edmonson, House, Kasper
and Stemmer (1984), and partly of new role plays constructed for the present study.
5 A fourth possibility of the combination of the features + dominance and - social distance was
not included, as the addition of the feature + dominance might be outweighed by the inclusion of
the feature - social distance.
154 A. Trosborg 1 Apology strategies
For Groups I, II, III, and NS-E, the complainer was always a native speaker
of English.
The roles were distributed so that twelve subjects from each of the five
groups were video-recorded in two different role constellations (a + b, or b + c,
or a + c), viz. 24 situations, eight in each of the three different role constella-
tions, for each of the five groups, yielding a total sample of 120 conversations.
All conversations were transcribed and analysed with regard to the
occurrence of apology strategies. Furthermore, utterances classified within this
framework were also analysed for the inclusion of ‘modality markers’ (see
below). This analysis was conducted to gain some insight into the subjects’ use
of politeness markers added to the main strategies, e.g. in order to create
mitigating circumstances, convey tentativeness, etc.
4. Results
6 Group I learners come from secondary school, grade 9, and from business school, level 2,
Group II learners from gymnasium, 2.g, and from business school, level 3, and Group III learners
are from Aarhus University, 4th semester, and from the Aarhus Graduate School of Management
and Modern Languages, HA, 4th semester.
A. Trosborg / Apology strategies 155
Table 1
Distribution of Strategies 1-7 according to learner group (I, II, III), native speaker of English
(NS-E), and native speaker of Danish (NS-D).
Strategy 0
(Reject) 23.7 29.0 18.1 7.6 13.1
Strategy 1
(Minimize) 11.3 14.3 13.5 20.9 24.8
Strategy 2
(Acknowledge) 20.6 12.3 18.9 16.3 20.1
Strategy 3
(Explain) 10.5 13.3 13.9 21.7 17.5
Strategy 4
(Apologize) 13.2 8.2 16.0 7.2 6.4
Strategy 5
(Offer repair) 16.3 20.8 14.6 21.7 12.4
Strategy 6
(Promise forbearance) 4.3 1.4 3.6 2.3 4.7
Strategy 7
(Show concern) 0 0.7 1.4 2.3 1.0
cussed, and, finally, the influence on performance of the two variables ‘domi-
nance’ and ‘social distance’ will be considered.
After a long and aggressive ‘defence’, L finally complains about the service at
the library and threatens to speak to the manager about it.
When looking at the use of the various substrategies in this response
category, differences between the groups become enlarged. While Group I
mainly used simple denials (0.1) and attacks (OS), the three remaining groups
also used justifications (0.3). The substrategy of attacking the complainer (0.5)
was used about three times as often by the three groups of learners as
compared to NS, and most frequently by Group III learners. Consider the
following interchange:
Ext. 2 (Situation: A lodger comes home late at night and leaves the bathroom
in a mess. His landlady complains.)
C: Well, it’s not very nice for me to be woken up at night by you coming
home late.
L: Just once and why are you so mad?
C: Because it’s irritating.
L: Oh, crazy old lady.
c: and I do think you should have a little respect.
L: A little respect for you?
c: Yes for me.
L: You aren’t my mother, you know.
C: No, but this is my house~and you live here.
L: Yes, and I pay for it.
C: I do have certain rules and another thing is that when you moved in you
agreed to clean the bathroom and I don’t know why but you took a bath
when you came home because I could see that there was a black ring
around the bathtub and that’s still there this morning and I refuse to clean
it.
L: Oh, it was terrible.
C: Certainly was, yeah.
L: You’re crazy.
.. .
C: Why are you being so difficult, I thought we agreed when you moved in
that you were going to do these things.
L: Yes, you thought.
C: Look, there are hundreds of other people I could get to stay here.
Li Do you think?
Ext. 3 (Situation: Complainee has taken another student’s seat at the library.
The student complains.)
NS: Well, if it was your chair, why did you leave it?
It must be mentioned that these attacks only occur after a direct apology,
several explanations, after an expression of lack of intent (2.3), an expression
of self-deficiency (2.4), and an expression of embarrassment (‘I mean, it really
pisses me off that I didn’t hand it in’ (2.5)).
Ext. 5 (Situation: Two friends share a flat and have agreed on a mutual
cleaning arrangement. Complainee fails to do her share.)
L: Oh, it’s nothing, it will take only five minutes.. . I just don’t care,’ it’s
nothing, just takes ten minutes, help me.
As it appears, the two extracts stem from different situations. The distribution
of the strategies often differed, in that learners tended to minimize in situations
in which NSs were likely to acknowledge responsibility. Compare Ext. 7 to
Ext. 5 above:
158 A. Trosborg / Apology strategies
Ext. 7
C: Hi, at last it’s you. I’m sick and tired of all this mess.
NS: Yeah, ahm look, yeah, I’m sorry, I know I should have been doing that
cleaning.
The substrategy ‘blaming someone else’ (1.3) was not used frequently by any
group.
3. Acknowledgement of responsibility
What distinguished learner performance from NS on this strategy was not the
frequency with which the strategy was used (no statistically significant differen-
ces were obtained), but rather the combinations in which the strategy occurred.
One might hypothesize that if a group had a high number of ‘denials’, they
would have a relatively low number of acknowledgements, and vice versa. This
was indeed the case for Group II learners whose performance demonstrated
the highest number of denials and the lowest number of acknowledgements as
compared to the other groups. This was not so, though, for Groups I and III,
who had> high number of responses in both categories. This may be explained
A. Trosborg / Apology strategies 159
For NSs, a fairly high number of acknowledgements were consistent with the
low number of cases in which responsibility was denied.
For all four groups, ‘explicit acknowledgement’ (2.2) was the most frequent-
ly used of the six substrategies outlined above.
4. Explanation or account
The ability to account adequately for a complainable is likely to require
linguistic strength and, as anticipated, learners provided less explanations than
NSs. For Group I, this difference was statistically significant (F7.6661, df 1,
p = 0.008). Not only did NSs provide explanations in all 24 apology situations,
but attention must also be directed to the nature of these explanations.
Sometimes explanations provided by NSs were very lengthy indeed. Consider
Ext. 10 below:
5. Expression of apology
Both native and non-native speakers of English used ‘expression of regret’ (4.1)
to the exclusion of the other strategies of direct apology. ‘Offer of apology’
(4.2) was employed only a few times by NSs, while none of the learners used it.
The third substrategy ‘request for forgiveness’ (4.3) was not used at all. Group
III learners had the highest number of direct apologies (45 against 19 for NS-E
and NS-D). Group I had more direct apologies than NSs too, but the
differences were not significant. The two groups of learners also intensified
their routinized formulae more than NSs did. Furthermore, the apology
formulae were sometimes used inappropriately, not so much because the
apology itself was out of place, but rather because of the combination of
strategies in which it occurred. The routinized formulae were observed in
interactions in which it was obvious that the apologizer was not sorry at all. As
an example, it can be mentioned that Ext. 2 above was preceded by an
expression of regret (‘I’m sorry’), which is not in agreement with the very direct
attacks that follow.
6. Offer of repair
Offer of repair was negotiated by all three groups of learners. Group I and
Group III tended to repair less than NS-E and Group II learners, but
differences in frequency of use were not significant. NS-D had the lowest
number of repairs.
Response patterns also differed in that NSs volunteered repair more will-
ingly. Repair was elicited twice as often by the complainer in Groups I and II
as compared to NS-E. A request for repair was rejected most often by Group I
learners, but it was not a strategy frequently used by any of the groups.
Sometimes the sincerity of a learner’s offer of repair was doubtful. Consider
Ext. 11:
C: ..... .but will you promise that you turn the music down because I really need
to get some sleep.
L: I promise, maybe you should get some earplugs.
Request for repair was rejected most often by Group I learners, but it was
not a strategy frequently used by any of the groups.
7. Promise of forbearance
This strategy was not frequent in any of the groups. It was observed only in
A. Trosborg / Apology strategies 161
specific situations and occurred most often in Group I (4.3 percent of the total
number of responses).
(1) Downtoners: Adverbial sentence modifiers, such as just, simply, etc. and
adverbials expressing tentativeness, e.g. perhaps, maybe, possibly (‘I just left
for five minutes’).
(2) Understaters: Phrases that underrepresent the state of affairs denoted in the
complainable, e.g. a little bit, a second, not very much, etc. (‘I only went out
for a second’).
(3) Hedges: Adverbials by means of which the complainee avoids a precise
propositional specification, e.g. kind oJ sort 05 somehow, etc. (‘Somehow,
it all happened very quickly, I kind of didn’t notice before it was too late’).
(4) Subjectivizers: Modifiers that characterize the proposition as the speaker’s
personal opinion, or indicates his attitude towards the proposition, e.g. I
think, Z suppose, I’m afraid, in my opinion, etc.
(5) Intensifiers: Adverbials intensifying part of the proposition, e.g. intensi-
fying a lack of intention, an expression of regret or embarrassment (‘I’m
terribly sorry, I really didn’t mean any harm’),
(6) Commitment upgraders: Sentence modifiers expressing ar special com-
mitment towards the proposition (‘I was sure/certain/positive that you
wouldn’t mind.. .‘).
(7) Cajolers: Gambits functioning at the interpersonal level of discourse with
8 For an extensive description of modality markers, see House and Kasper (1981: 16670) on
which my outline is built.
162 A, Trosborg 1 Apology strategies
Table 2
Distribution of Modality markers according to learner group (Group I, II, III), native speaker of
English (NS-E) and native speaker of Danish (NS-D).
Ext. 12
Yea, you see I hate to do this but.. .
Ext. 13
I would have told you but you weren’t there.
9 See Edmondson and House (1981: 155-157) for a description of apologies as strategic
disarmers.
A. Trosborg / Apology strategies 163
Ext. 14
I’d like to assure you that I’m not in the habit of normally coming home
intoxicated.
5. Concluding remarks
frequency with which the seven main strategies were selected reveals a devia-
tion from NS-E norms for a number of strategies. When the performance of
NS-E was compared to the performance of NS-D, no significant differences
were found on the main strategies, This finding was not altogether unexpected,
as the two nations share similar cultures, and it implies that Ll interference is
not the most likely cause of deviations. in the choice of strategy between
learners of English and native speakers of English. However, as mentioned
earlier, an inclination in NS-D to use some strategies more/less often than NS-
E may have been reinforced in the learners’ performance. NS-D used more
rejections than NS-E, while they repaired less than NS-E, which findings point
in the direction of the obtained learner deviations. In the case of rejections (0),
the aversiveness of having to take the blame coupled with inadequacy to give
explanations is in itself a likely explanation for the high number of rejections.
The higher number of direct apologies used by learners, which reached
statistical significance for Group III learners, cannot be traced back to Ll
influence. It is likely, though, that the formula has been ‘overlearned’ by these
advanced speakers.
Lack of minimizing (1) in learners can by no means be traced back to Ll
influence, as NS-D had the highest number of responses in this category, but in
particular the strategy of querying preconditions (1.2) which was used fairly
often by NSs, demands linguistic as well as cognitive skill, and may well
increase with increasing competence in the foreign language. Likewise, we may
account for the low number of explanations in learners.
The increase in the use of modality markers relative to an increase in
linguistic competence is in agreement with language acquisition in children.
The relatively low number of direct apologies expressed through a routinized
formulae (7.2 percent of the total number of responses for NS-E) was
unexpected and needs to be discussed. An intuitive assumption to the effect
that direct apologies are used more frequently in English than in Danish was
not confirmed either, as the two samples contained exactly the same number of
apologies. The low number of direct apologies may be explained with reference
to the severity of the offence. It is suggested that beyond a certain degree of
severity, a routinized formula used on its own is not an adequate response to a
complaint. Regardless of intensification (‘I’m terribly/awfully/most dreadfully
sorry’), it is insufficient to make amends for the afflicted offence and thus
restore harmony between two participants. Other strategies are needed, such as
explanations and offers of repair. The following native-speaker utterances
support this point:
Ext. 15 (Situation: A young fellow has stolen a cassette in the music depart-
ment of a store. The shop-assistent complains.)
NS: Do you think ‘sorry”s going to pay our bills?
A. Trosborg / Apology stratepiw 165
The situations chosen for the role plays were of a kind that could not be easily
treated as routines. Furthermore, as an effect of the elicitation method, an
offence committed would nearly always be treated by the complainer as
something very unpleasant and serious, even in situations where this was not
explicitly stated in the role description. For example, with reference to the
‘library situation’, the comments in the margin were ‘all written in ink’,
‘obscenities’, etc., and ‘the whole book was ruined:.
The low number of explanations used by learners is a likely outcome of
insufficient linguistic knowledge. In order to provide a convincing explanation
or give an adequate account, you need the relevant linguistic means. Likewise,
a high degree of proficiency is demanded to query the preconditions on which
an accusation is built. Therefore, it was not unexpected that students would be
found deficient in this respect and would have to resort to the use of other
strategies instead. If you find yourself unable to explain your own behaviour
adequately, or do not manage to query the relevance of a complainable, an
‘easy way out’ is to resort to ritual language use - hence the higher number of
direct apologies in learner speech as compared to NS - or to deny responsib-
ility altogether. Fearing the potential damage to their self-esteem, some
learners, especially in Group I, resorted to the strategy of denying responsibi-
lity. Obviously, some learners failed to consider the even greater loss of face
they risked, viz. that of having to admit their failure when faced with
counterfactual evidence. Combinations of strategy (0) and e.g. strategies (2)
(3) and (4) reveal inconsistent behaviour. In cases in which learners went to the
extreme of attacking the complainer, their utterances reveal their inability to
express themselves in a subtle and polite manner.
The degree of the severity of the offence committed may also throw light on
the high number of cases in which the learners at all three levels of competence
failed to take on responsibility. If the offence is very serious, it is not easily
justified. Therefore, for want of an adequate explanation, learners resorted to
the strategy of denying their responsibility. Native speakers, on the other hand,
with a better command of the language were able to explain and somewhat
justify their behaviour, or they found reasons for querying the preconditions
on which the accusation was built. Explaining, justifying and questioning an
accusation is both linguistically and cognitively more difficult than denying or
responding with a routine formula of expression of regret. In addition, the
possibility that learners were unaware that apology strategies could be success-
fully transferred from Danish to English with much the same frequency of use
cannot be excluded. For example, faulty expectations to the effect that
166 A. Trosborg / Apology strategies
speakers of English make use of direct apologies more often than Danes, may
have caused this formula (4.1) to be ‘over-learned’.
The ‘over-use’ of strategy 0.1 in learners can be compared to the findings of
Olshtain and Cohen (1983). They found that children tended to deny responsi-
bility when apologizing at a high degree of severity, since they expected a
strong reaction (e.g. a reprimand) from the recipient of the apology (p. 27).
This finding points to the use of similar strategies in children and foreign
language learners. A similarity between child language and learner language, in
particular at lower levels, has also been observed in other studies (cf. Trosborg
(1983, 1985)).
Concerning the frequency of use of modality markers, one would expect
‘over-use’ rather than ‘under-use’ when judging from the learners’ performance
in their native language. The fact that modality markers are under-used by
learners of English as compared to native speakers cannot be attached to Ll
interference as NS-D used these markers significantly more often than NS-E.
On the contrary, a likely transfer from mother tongue to target language did
not take place. This finding supports the hypothesis that the use of modality
markers is indeed a difficult ‘area’ for foreign language learners, a problem to
which the foreign language teacher must devote his attention.
References
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, 1982. Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the
speech act performance in learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics 3: 29-
59.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Elite Olshtain, 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of
speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5: 196-213.
Edmondson, Willis and Juliane House, 1981. Let’s talk and talk about it. Munchen: Urban and
Schwarzenberg.
Edmondson, Willis, Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper, and Brigitta Stemmer, 1984. Learning the
pragmatics of discourse. A project report. Applied Linguistics 5: 113-127.
Eisenstein, Miriam and Jean W. Bodman, 1984. I very appreciate: Expressions of gratitude by
native and non-native speakers of English. NY: NYU. (MS)
Fraser, Bruce, 1981. ‘On apologizing’. In: Florian Coulmas, ed., Conversational routine. The
Hague: Mouton. pp. 259-273.
Goffman, Erving, 1972. ‘On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction’. In:
John Laver and Sundy Hytcheson, eds., Communication in face-to-face-interaction.
Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp. 319-346.
House, Juliane and Gabriele Kasper, 1981. ‘Politeness markers in English and German’. In: Florian
Coulmas, ed. Conversational routine. The Hague: Mouton. pp. 157-186.
Lakoff, Robin, 1975. Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row.
Leech, Geoffrey N., 1977. Language and tact. Trier: L.A.U.T. paper 46.
McDonough, Steven H., 1981. Psychology in foreign language teaching. London: George Allen
and Unwin.
Olshtain, Elite and Andrew D. Cohen, 1983. ‘Apology: A speech-act set’. In: Nessa Wolfson and
Elliot Judd, eds., Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
pp. 18-36.
A. Trosborg / Apology strategies 167