INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIEDLINGUISTICS,

VOL. 8. NO. 2, 1998 215

Apologies: what do we know?

A.J. MEIER
University of Northern Iowa

This paper reviews research on apologies, considering research goals

and results in assessing the ‘maturity’ of apology research. It is argued
that such research needs to progress beyond a descriptive goal to an
explanatory goal in terms of the underlying cultural assumptions that
inform the perception of contextual factors which in turn inform apol-
ogy behavior.

Introduction

In his 1981 article ‘On apologizing’, Fraser concluded with the pronouncement
that research on the use of apologies was “still in its painful adolescence” (p.
70). Now, well more than a decade later, one may well ask whether this stage of
painful adolescence has progressed to a further stage of maturity. It is the pur-
pose of this paper1 to address this question and in so doing to consider two
aspects: research goals and the ‘facts’ about apology behavior these goals have
yielded.
These two considerations will be discussed on the basis of a review of
approximately twenty-five studies of English apologies.* These studies include
those done within the field of applied linguistics (including sociopragmatic stud-
ies) as well as those carried out in the field of social psychology, a field closely
tied to pragmatics (see Verschueren, Ostman & Blommaert 1995). Because apol-
ogies have received a great deal of attention within the latter area (for the most
part, with similar research goals), it should not be overlooked as a valuable
source of insights into understanding apologies.

Research goals

The research goals of apology studies in English are remarkably similar, namely
to describe apology strategies and identify the contextual factors (e.g. severity of
216 A.J. MEIER

offense, interlocutor relationship) that inform their choice, whether the study
be intra- or intercultural. This is true of studies in both applied linguistics and
social psychology, with the latter also contributing studies aimed at determining
the effects of particular apology strategies, generally of accounts3 (see e.g.
Gonzales 1992; Hale 1987; Riordan, Marlin & Kellogg 1983).
In 1983, Wolfson called for “specific information as to what the rules of
speaking are” (p. 63), and to that end saw a need for “systematic empirical anal-
ysis of the everyday speech behavior of native speakers so that patterns may be
uncovered, described and taught” (p. 64). Thus, at this relatively early stage, it
was ‘rules of apologizing’ that seemed to be sought. As the quest for rules lost its
appeal, the goal in applied linguistics was articulated instead in terms of deter-
mining a ‘speech act set’ of ‘the major semantic formulas’ of apologizing
(Olshtain & Cohen 1983) and later expanded to identifying a speech-act specific
‘sociopragmatic set’ of social and contextual factors (Olshtain 1989; Olshtain &
Weinbach 1987). In social psychology, not surprisingly, the idea of establishing
rules seems not to have been entertained; instead the focus has been on explain-
ing apology behavior in terms of social psychological and contextual factors.
Although interest in contextual factors also looms large in linguistic studies, and
context is acknowledged to be embedded in culture, especially in contrastive
studies, only rarely has an apology study explicitly set out to explain apology
behavior in terms of underlying cultural attitudes (e.g. Meier 1996). In other
words, the pragmatics of apologies, i.e. who says what to whom, when and why,
has generally been descriptive rather than explanatory, giving short shrift to the
‘why’ (Meier 1998). But before turning to the issue of ‘why’, let us look at what
we know about apologies in terms of research results.

What do we know?
The first part of this section presents research results in terms of the strategies
identified, their frequency of occurrence, and their distribution in relation to
selected variables. The second part discusses reasons for the inconsistencies and
incompleteness of these results.

RESULTS
Strategies
The most frequently occurring apology strategy has generally been found to be a
formulaic expression of apology (i.e. an expression containing apologize, sorry,
forgive, excuse, pardon). Of these, an expression containing sorry is the over-
whelming favorite (Holmes 1990; House 1989; Meier 1992), a predominance also
supported by Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984), Holtgraves (1989), and Owen
(1983). Trosborg (1987), however, found a surprisingly low occurrence of for-
mulaic expressions in her data, attributing this to the severity of the offenses in
her study (cf. Bergman & Kasper 1993). Schlenker & Darby (1981) similarly
determined that ritualized forms occurred only when the consequences of an
 APOLOGIES:
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 217

offense are low, whereas Holmes (1990) found social infractions and violations
of space most likely to evoke a routine formula.
Studies investigating the syntactic frames in which sorry occurs (Holmes
1990; Meier 1992; Owen 1983) found the following to be the most frequent: sor-
ry without a complement; sorry (that) S; and sorry + about. In Owen’s (1983)
British data, intensifiers with sorry, consisting chiefly of terribly and awfully,
occurred mainly after Z’m or Z a m . These British intensifiers contrast with real-
ly, which accounted for half of the intensifiers in Meier’s (1992) American
English data.
In contrast to expressions with sorry, those with apologize were infrequent
in four studies (Cohen & Olshtain 1981; Holmes 1990; Meier 1992; Owen 1983).
The only exception to this was a situation in Meier’s study in which an explicit
apology expression accounted for 38% of the routine formula use. This situation
involved an institutionalized status difference (professor to student), as did a
situation in House’s (1989) study which similarly exhibited a comparatively low
occurrence of sorry.
Claims have additionally been made that apologize is restricted to formal,
written, and professional interactions (Fraser 1981; Holmes 1990). The distri-
bution of the routine types of sorry and excuse me, on the other hand, was
determined by Borkin & Reinhart (1978) to be contingent on the nature of the
offense (i.e. whether it was related to a person’s rights o r feelings, or to a social
rule).
Excuses have also been found to be a popular apology strategy (e.g. ranking
second after routine formulae, accounting for one fourth of all strategy use
[Meier 19921). ‘Denial of intent’, a type of excuse, was found to be more mitigat-
ing and effective than other excuse types (Holtgraves 1989). Situations found
favorable for excuses were those in which the offender felt little responsibility
(Schlenker & Darby 1981) and those in which the interlocutors were not inti-
mate and the consequences of the offense were not long lasting (Cody &
McLaughlin 1985). No association was found, however, between excuse use and
perceived seriousness of the offense (Meier 1992).
Both apology expressions and excuses have been determined to be more mit-
igating than justifications (Cody & McLaughlin 1985; Holtgraves 1989;
McLaughlin, O’Hair & Cody 1983). Justifications have accordingly been viewed
as ‘confrontational’ (Holtgraves 1989), ‘aggravating’ (Cody I% McLaughlin
1990), and more threatening than excuses (McLaughlin, O’Hair & Cody 1983).
Cody & McLaughlin (1990) suggested this would be especially true in ‘interper-
sonal’ (as opposed to formal) settings. Kiordan, Marlin & Kellogg’s (1983)
respondents expected an offender’s future behavior to be more negative follow-
ing a justification than following an excuse. Hale (1987), however, found justifi-
cations to be more effective than excuses, confessions, or apology expressions.
Situations identified as favorable for justifications were those in which the
offender felt a great deal of responsibility, felt entitled to persuade the speaker,
or where instrumental goals were unimportant and where the interlocutors were
intimate (Cody & McLaughlin 1985). Meier (1992), however, found that the
218 A.J. MEIER

highest number of justifications in her data occurred in two situations with very
different degrees of intimacy among interlocutors: one involving friends, the
other involving strangers.
The effect of the seriousness of the offense and the offense type on justifica-
tion use also reveals equivocal conclusions. Trosborg (1987), for example, con-
cluded that serious offenses are difficult to justify, whereas Schlenker & Darby
(1981) and Meier (1992) found no relation between severity of the offense and
use of justifications. In fact, one of the two situations in which Meier found the
greatest occurrence of justifications was in the situation respondents judged to
be the most serious. McLaughlin, Cody & Rosenstein (1983) found neither
offense type nor reproach type to be associated with the use of justifications,
while Holmes (1990) found violations of inconvenience and time likely to evince
some sort of explanation (i.e. a justification or excuse).
The various apology strategies appear to be used more than once in an utter-
ance as well as in combinations with other strategies. This is the case in over half
the apology responses in three studies (Holtgraves 1989; Holmes 1990; Meier
1992). Single strategies, however, occurred much more frequently in Holmes’
study (45.5% of the responses) than in Meier’s (11% of the responses). Routine
formulae accounted for almost all of these in Holmes, but for only slightly over
half in Meier. While Owen disclaims the co-occurrence of apologies and justifi-
cations, others (Holmes 1990; Holtgraves 1989; Meier 1992) have found them to
occur in combination.
A study investigating sequences of strategies (Meier 1992) found that the
most likely strategies to occur first were ROUTINE FORMULAE (e.g. sorry) and EMO-
TIVES (e.g. oh no). Those most likely to occur last were NO HARM DONE (e.g. Z hope
nobody gets hurt), REDRESS (e.g. let me p a y f o r that), and FORBEARANCE (e.g. this
won’t happen again). In fact, both Holmes (1990) and Meier (1992) found that
FORBEARANCE never occurred first in a response sequence, nor did it ever occur
alone.

Supercategories
Groupings of strategies into broader categories have, to a limited extent, been
explored as well. Garcia (1989), for example, found a preference for negative
politeness strategies (expressing deference) over positive ones (expressing soli-
darity). House (1989) noted a tendency in her British respondents to use inter-
personal strategies which were ‘other-directed’. Meier (1992), however, did not
find a significant overall difference in the occurrence of three broad categories
representing ways of effecting ‘interlocutor convergence’.

Severity of the offense

Another area with mixed conclusions concerns the effect of severity of the
offense on strategy use. On the one hand, severe offenses have been claimed to
result in more elaborate apologies (Fraser 1981; Holmes 1990; Schlenker &
Darby 1981).4 However, McLaughlin, O’Hair & Cody (1983) found that a
severe offense might evoke no response at all, and Bergman & Kasper (1993)
 APOLOGIES:
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 219

found that a high severity offense gave rise to fewer routine formulae than did
less severe and medium offenses; however, they did not find severity to be relat-
ed to their strategy type RESPONSIBILITY. In other studies (McLaughlin, O’Hair &
Cody 1983; Meier 1992), neither the number of strategies nor their sequence
correlated with severity of the offense.

Gender
Only three studies (Gonzales, Pederson, Manning & Wetter 1990; Holmes 1989;
Rothman & Gandossy 1982, cited in Cody & McLaughlin 1990) of the few that
investigated gender differences identified significant differences in men’s and
women’s apology behavior. Gonzales et al., for example, found that women pro-
duced longer accounts and more excuses, justifications, and concessions than
men. Their female respondents also used more explicit I’m sorry’s and were
more likely to express chagrin (e.g. Ifeel terrible). Rothman & Bandossy, focus-
ing on court cases, found that women acknowledged responsibility more than
men did, more frequently provided justifications, and were more likely to apol-
ogize/express remorse for their conduct. Holmes found that women both gave
and received more apologies than did men and concluded that apologies may
function differently for men and women. Furthermore, the women in Holmes’
study apologized more for violations of space and speaking rights, whereas the
men apologized more for infractions involving possessions and time. Meier’s
(1992) male respondents, in support of Holmes’ findings regarding a male con-
cern for time, judged a time infraction to be significantly more serious than did
the female respondents. The males and females in this study, however, evi-
denced a high degree of agreement in their seriousness rankings of the other
eleven situations (including a second case involving a time infraction), and no
major differences in strategy use were revealed.
A minor gender difference identified by Meier (1992), however, involved
intensifier use, whereby the female respondents used the intensifier really twice
as often as the males did. The males, on the other hand, were responsible for
84% of the use of terribly.s In addition, the males in the same study accounted
for 78% of expressions with forgive and for all occurrences of pardon.
Studies of both children and college-age students in educational settings
have shown that males tend to attribute failure to external circumstances (e.g.
bad luck) and females to internal factors (e.g. lack of ability) (see Snyder,
Higgins & Stucky 1983). However, in testing for gender differences among
excuses classified according to external and internal attribution, Meier (1992)
found little support for such differences as identified in the educational settings.

Interlocutor relationship
Opposing claims have also been made about the effect of interlocutor relation-
ship (e.g. social distance) on apology behavior. One view holds that increased
familiarity results in less elaborate apologies (Fraser 1981). In seeming support
of this, friends received less intensified apologies than did strangers in a study
by Cohen, Olshtain & Rosenstein (1986). In a similar vein, greater relational
220 A.J. MEIER
intimacy was found more likely to evoke a less mitigating strategy (i.e. a justifi-
cation) and less intimacy to evoke a more mitigating strategy (i.e. an excuse)
(Cody & McLaughlin 1985). The opposing view, however, receives equal sup-
port in studies by Baxter (1984), Holmes (1990), Meier (1992), and Trosborg
(1987), who found increased negotiation (i.e. as indexed by more elaborate apol-
ogies) among friends, thereby supporting Wolfson’s (1988) ‘bulge’ theory.6 In
addition, Bergman & Kasper (1993) found that closer interlocutor relationships
resulted in a greater use of their strategy of TAKING RESPONSIBILITY.
Another aspect of interlocutor relationship involves social dominance or
power, which was not generally found to be a predictor of account strategies
(McLaughlin, O’Hair & Cody 1983) or of routine formula type (Trosborg 1987).
Trosborg did report, however, that authority figures (as opposed to friends or
strangers) received more apologies, with acknowledgement of responsibility
occurring more often than downplaying the severity of the offense. This is con-
sistent with Gonzales et al. (1990), whose low-status offenders produced length-
ier accounts when consequences were not severe. Evidence was also found that
emotives occur less frequently when the speaker is in a position of social author-
ity (House 1989; Meier 1992).

Obligations to apologize
Wolfson, Marmor & Jones (1989: 178-9) cite seven types of behavior Americans
feel obliged to apologize for, three of which were identified in the Cross-Cultural
Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP):7

a) not keeping a social or work-related commitment

b) not respecting property
c) causing damage or discomfort to others
d) making others responsible for one’s welfare
e) expecting another to be available at all times
f) confusing strangers with acquaintances
g) protecting another from sanctions from those in authority over them.

SUMMARY
The preceding overview produces a less than unified picture of ‘facts’ about
apology behavior. Opposing claims include the following major issues: distribu-
tion of strategies; degree of mitigation effected by account types; co-occurrence
of strategy types; effect of severity of the offense; effect of gender; and effect of
interlocutor relationship. Attempts to provide a summary description of apolo-
gy behavior in English based on such lack of consensus could only be arbitrary,
extremely vague, or disjointed in its specificity. The following section will
explore reasons for the inconsistent and fragmentary nature of these results as
found in differences in various aspects of these studies (e.g. methods, variables,
taxonomies and their operationalization).
 APOLOGIES:
WHAT DO WE L I O W ? 221

Differences among the studies

Since Fraser’s 1981 article, there has been a boom of sorts in studies focusing on
specific speech acts. Of these speech acts, apologies have probably received
more attention than any other, apart from requests. A parallel boom, likewise
spanning more than a decade, has also been evident in social psychology, where
the focus has been on attribution theory and the account types of excuse and
justification as differentiated by Scott & Lyman (1968). These studies, however,
lack a unifying theory and thus differ significantly in their views of apologies:
namely in the function of apologies and in the taxonomies employed to index
these functions. Views of apologies and the ensuing taxonomies and their opera-
tionalization will be discussed first below, followed by differences in variables,
respondents, scope, and data collection.

Views of apologies
Approaches to apologies a n d o r accounts generally adhere to one of two per-
spectives regarding their function: as being ‘speaker-supportive’ or ‘hearer-
supportive’. A speaker-supportive orientation views apologies as instruments of
impression management or image restoration (e.g. Cody & McLaughlin 1990),
whereas a hearer-supportive perspective holds that an apology functions to
address the injured party’s face wants (e.g. Holmes 1989; Trosborg 1987).
Generally speaking, the speaker-supportive perspective is found in studies in
social psychology, whereas the majority of studies in (socio)pragmatics view
apologies as face-redressive towards the hearer, claiming Brown & Levinson’s
politeness theory (1987) as their basis. House (1989), an example of the latter,
goes so far as to depict apologies as ‘self-demeaning’ for the speaker, although
she excludes routine formulae from this on the grounds that they are ‘highly
conventionalized’ and ‘the expected social norm’. Holmes (1990) notes that
apologies usually serve the interest of both speaker and hearer. Meier (1992)
differs markedly from other (socio)pragmatic studies, drawing on studies in
social psychology (e.g. Snyder et al. 1983), positing maintenance of the
speaker’s self-image as the major motivation behind apology strategies.
Furthermore, there are those (e.g. Meier 1992) who regard a ‘responsibility
link’8 to be a pre-condition for all apology behavior, whereas others (..a.
Olshtain & Cohen 1983) allocate an admission of responsibility to specific apolo-
gy strategies.
As Benoit states (1995: S O ) , “strategies are abstract representations of the
relationship between discourse and goals or effects”. Thus, whether an apology
is deemed to be hearer-supportive or speaker-supportive, and whether respon-
sibility is viewed to be a pre-condition rather than an assertion expressed by a
particular strategy are differences that, for the most part implicitly (due to
authors’ lack of basis for taxonomies), influence the taxonomies created to ana-
lyze the data and consequently affect the results and conclusions.
222 A.J. MEIER
Taxonomies
Taxonomies vary widely both in their number of categories and in category
types and operationalization thereof. Holtgraves’ (1989) taxonomy, for exam-
ple, includes only three categories, whereas Olshtain & Cohen’s (1983) contains
five, Trosborg’s (1987) seven and Meier’s (1992) seventeen. In considering cate-
gory types, two broad groups can be identified, depending on whether their lin-
eage can be traced to Fraser (1981) or to Scott & Lyman (1968). This also repre-
sents a parallel division between (socio)pragmatic studies and those in social
psychology, respe~tively.~ The difference is reflected in those studies which do
not distinguish between the account types of excuses and justifications, and
those which do.
However, whether a study adopts a previous taxonomy in toto or expands
and modifies it, one finds little basis for its make-up other than its previous exis-
tence. Reasons underlying the category distinctions made are rarely discussed,
which makes a principled evaluation of them difficult. The result is an array of
overlapping and inconsistent units of analysis across studies and sometimes even
within studies. For example, although most taxonomies that are designed to cov-
er a full range of apology strategies group routine formulae together under one
category, there are also those which do not. Garcia (1989), for example, regards
EXPRESSIONS OF REGRET + ACCOUNT as one composite category. Routine formulae
have also been conflated into one category with SELF CASTIGATION and OFFER OF
HELP (Schlenker & Darby 1981), as well as with FOKBEARANCE, RESTITUTION, and
RESPONSIBILITY (Holtgraves 1989). Results reporting on ‘routine formulae’ use
can therefore represent a very different range of strategies, which make con-
flicting results possible if not likely.
The least tidy aspect regarding taxonomies, however, is found in the studies
which neither distinguish between excuses and justifications nor define them.
These are generally also the studies which posit a hearer-supportive function
and do not specify a responsibility link as a pre-condition for apologies and thus
include a strategy category referring to responsibility, which often subsumes a
very broad and diverse range of substrategies.
TAKINC ON RESPONSIRIIJTY, for example, is one of the main strategy categories
in the CCSARP coding manual (see Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper 1989: 291ff.).
However, three of the substrategies subsumed under this are, to some extent, a
rejection of responsibility: refusal to acknowledge guilt; admission of facts but
not of responsibility; and lack of intent. Trosborg (1987), in contrast, divides
the CCSARP category of TAKING ON RESPONSIBILITY into two contrasting categories:
I)OESN’T TAKE ON RESPONSIBILITY and ACKNOWLEDGE RESPONSIBILITY. It would thus be
possible for two language varieties in a contrastive study to exhibit no apparent
differences concerning taking on responsibility and denying responsibility
under the CCSARP taxonomy, but to show major differences under Trosborg’s
classification of the same data.
Lack of intent presents a similar dilemma. In Trosborg’s study, for example,
lack of intent is an acknowledgement of responsibility. Bergman & Kasper
(1993) similarly place lack of intent under the same category as blaming oneself
 APOLOGIES:WHAT DO WE KNOW? 223
(i.e. UPGRADERS). In other studies (e.g. Holtgraves 1990; Meier 1992), lack of
intent appears to assume the opposite function in entailing a minimization of
responsibility, being subsumed under the category of EXCUSE. Minimization of
responsibility, however, qualifies neither as an excuse nor as a subcategory of
the category RESPONSIBILITY in Cohen, Olshtain & Rosenstein’s (1986) taxonomy
but assumes the rather different status of a modifier of apologies.
Justifications, too, receive varied treatment. Following Scott & Lyman
(1968), they are a main category, contrasting with EXCUSE (e.g. Holtgraves 1989).
While excuses seek to minimize responsibility, justifications entail an accep-
tance of responsibility and attempt to minimize the negativity of the offense. In
Trosborg’s (1987) study, however, justifications are not classified as a subcate-
gory of MINIMIZE DEGREE OF OFFENSE but of DOESN’T TAKE ON RESPONSIBILITY. And in
Olshtain & Cohen (1983), justifications would be grouped with strategies falling
under the rubric of EXPLANATION OR ACCOUNT, which would also include excuses.
In marked contrast to the above, Owen (1983) does not view justifications to be
apology strategies at all.
Another category, CONCERN FOR HEARER, also receives varied assignment: as a
main strategy (Trosborg 1987), as a substrategy of REDRESS (Bergman & Kasper
1993), and as an intensifier along with very and terribly (CCSARP). Intensifiers
in Bergman & Kasper are assigned to the main strategy of UPGRADERS along with
admitting an offense, claiming lack of intent, and blaming oneself.
It is Meier’s (1992) view of apologies as speaker-supportive that underlie her
results regarding three supercategories, which are posited in terms of the way in
which the speaker’s face restoration effects a convergence of speaker and hear-
er. Garcia (1989), on the other hand, makes claims regarding supercategories in
terms of the way in which strategies function to create distance (‘negative
politeness’) or solidarity (‘positive politeness’), thereby assuming a hearer-sup-
portive view following Brown & Levinson (1987). Thus, a strategy in Meier’s
study that is viewed as a device to bring about speaker-hearer convergence may
qualify as a distancing device in Garcia’s study (see also Olshtain & Blum-Kulka
1985).1°
The kaleidoscopic constellation of category membership produced by overlap
and contradiction in taxonomies as portrayed by the brief sampling above illus-
trates the lack of comparability of units of analysis, which leads to different
claims across studies. This is especially important given the similar research
goals. However, it is precisely such comparability that is necessary if generaliza-
tions made about apologizing are to be supported by studies of the same lan-
guage or meaningfully contrasted with studies of other 1anguages.ll
Although Brown & Levinson (1987) are often cited as providing the theoreti-
cal basis for empirical work, the operationalization and quantification of their
concepts are fraught with serious problems of interpretation (see e.g. Meier
1995). Indeed, Brown & Levinson themselves have cautioned against operation-
alizing their notions, stating that they “do not necessarily provide sensible cate-
gories for quantitative research” (1987: 2).l2
224 A.J. MEIER
Variables
The data in the apology studies were analyzed according to a variety of aspects,
the predominate interest, however, being the correlation of strategy type with
severity of offense, type of offense, and interlocutor relationship.
In considering the severity of an offense, we find it to be assessed differently
from study to study. Studies either seem to a prwri assign seriousness levels to
certain offenses (e.g. Cohen, Olshtain & Rosenstein 1986) or to carry out valid-
ity studies which ask the subjects to rank the seriousness of the offenses in the
study (e.g. McLaughlin, O’Hair & Cody 1983; Meier 1992). Severity has also
been found to be closely tied to a perceived obligation to apologize (Bergman &
Kasper 1993; Olshtain 1989). The complexity of adjudicating seriousness is
underscored by Snyder et al.’s enumeration of six factors that determine per-
ceived severity of an offense (1983: 40ff.).
Associated with the assessment of severity is offense type (e.g. time, space)
and interlocutor relationship. Offense type has been specifically addressed in
three studies (Holmes 1989; McLaughlin, Cody & Rosenstein 1983; Meier 1992),
but variation in the seriousness of situations belonging to the same respective
offense types was insufficient to gauge the relationship between strategy use and
offense types.
Interlocutor relationship is considered to some extent by almost all apology
studies. It is variously measured, however, in terms of social distance and social
power, or simply in terms of intimacy vs low intimacy, intimacy vs dominance,
and familiarity or lack thereof. These labels often represent unclear distinctions
and differing contrasts. Possible differences between social and psychological
distance, and between familiarity and intimacy, pose further problems. l3
Determining levels of social power meets with similar difficulties.
Such differences in the way the complexity of interlocutor relationships are
construed thus add another untidy dimension to an already murky picture.

Respondents
Although the respondents are the aspect evidencing greatest consistency across
studies (i.e. most were white male and female university students), the number
of respondents ranges from twelve (a control group in a much larger study,
Cohen & Olshtain 1981) to 278 (McLaughlin, O’Hair & Cody 1983), numbers
which influence the choice of statistical measurements and the degree of genera-
lizability of the findings.

Scope
There is a greater difference regarding the scope of the studies. Some studies,
for example, investigated the entire sequence of reproach-accountJapology-eval-
uation response (Cody & McLaughlin 1985, 1990; Owen 1983). Others consid-
ered only the apology and the response (McLaughlin, Cody & Rosenstein 1983),
whereas many were limited to apology strategies (e.g. CCSARP) or to the even
more narrow scope of account strategies (e.g. McLaughlin, O’Hair & Cody
1983). Some studies involved only one situation (Garcia 1989); others included
 APOLOGIES:WHAT DO WE KNOW? 225
as many as twelve (Meier 1992). These differences, along with differences in the
data collection methods discussed next, contribute to data differing in composi-
tion.

Data collection
Data resulting from eight different types of elicitation methods are represented
in the studies:

- intuition and informal observation (e.g. Borkin & Reinhart 1978)

- retrospective self-report (e.g. McLaughlin, O’Hair & Cody 1983)
- judgement test (e.g. Schlenker & Darby 1981)
- discourse-completion test (e.g. CCSARP)
- written or oral closed role-play (e.g. Cohen & Olshtain 1981; Meier 1992)
- role-play (e.g. Trosborg 1987)
- written and oral ethnographic observation (e.g. Holmes 1990)
- ‘natural’ conversation in a laboratory setting (e.g. Gonzales et al. 1990;
McLaughlin, Cody & Rosenstein 1983).

The advantages and disadvantages of data resulting from different elicita-

tion methods have received considerable attention (e.g. Cohen 1996a; Cohen &
Olshtain 1981; Eisenstein & Bodman 1986; Holmes 1990; Kasper & Dahl 1991,
Wolfson, Marmor & Jones 1989). Although naturalistic data are generally con-
ceded to be preferable, their limitations are recognized, especially in the case of
apologies (see Olshtain & Cohen 1983; Holmes 1990). In directly addressing the
issue of differences resulting from oral and written data, Rintell & Mitchell
(1989) found little difference for native speakers between the two response
modes in closed role-plays.

Discussion

In returning to the question posed in the title - what do we know? - the answer
might appear to be less than satisfactory. Rather than an elegant consolidation
of ‘facts’, research has yielded a somewhat fragmentary, inconclusive, and
inconsistent collection of ‘facts’. Establishing generalizations concerning strate-
gy use with regard to offense type, gender, seriousness of the offense, mitigation
power of a strategy, interlocutor relationships, etc. is rendered difficult b y the
inconsistent findings and the often vaguely defined notions they are based on.
Claims regarding the degree of routine in the use of strategies, for example,
will clearly be dependent on the taxonomy posited, with less differentiated tax-
onomies running the risk of obscuring the variability and creativity present in
apology behavior. l4 The (statistical) analytical value of fewer, more general cat-
egories is not to be denied, but this can only be of benefit if there exists some
principled basis for category assignment. The above review of taxonomies seems
to indicate, however, that this is not the case.
226 A.J. MEIER
In light of the previous section, one is led to concur with Holmes (1990) in
doubting that an attempt to determine a ‘speech act set’ of ‘the major semantic
formulas’ (Olshtain & Cohen 1983) of apologizing is a possible goal (cf. Fraser
1981). Similarly questionable is the goal of identifying a speech act specific ‘soci-
opragmatic set’ (Olshtain 1989; Olshtain & Weinbach 1987) of social and con-
textual factors.
This does not undermine the value of such research, but rather suggests that
its major value may not lie in uncovering set patterns or norms of linguistic
behavior. In fact, it may be unrealistic to expect that any study or group of
studies, no matter how numerous, will do so given the inevitable variation
among them. As Verschueren et al. (1995: 11)points out, a particular view of
language informs one’s approach, necessarily resulting in “methodological plu-
ralism which allows for various types of evidence”. This is not to say that repli-
cated and extended studies are not to be sought, but rather the goals thereof
need to be extended, at least if apology research is to achieve a coming of age. It
will be argued that this coming of age entails a direction that Richards &
Schmidt (1983: ix) argued for more than a decade ago, calling for an “explana-
tory pragmatics” that seeks to explain how people say what they do in terms of
“participant ideologies, systems of value and beliefs”.
This is not to discount the pragmalinguistic knowledge gleaned from such
studies - on the contrary; but a list of strategy types and their varied realiza-
tions, even when related to particular contextual variables, remains at a
descriptive level, doing little to elucidate the factors bearing on the causal sche-
mata (see Cody & McLaughlin 1990) informing the linguistic choices. As Clyne
(1983) observed, the difficulty in realizing speech acts lies not in specific rules
but rather in appropriately weighing such factors as power, trust, and solidar-
ity. Such an exploration of the valuation of contextual factors is especially valu-
able in cross-cultural studies (see e.g. Meier 1996).
It is therefore not merely an identification of the contextual factors that
influence linguistic choices but rather, at a deeper, explanatory level, the cultu-
rally-determined valuations of these factors, or in Saville-Troike’s words (1989:
258) the “culturally defined aspects of a communicative event” that need to be
explored in apology research (and in other speech act research). The specific sit-
uations (with their specific constellations of contextual factors) eliciting apolo-
gies in the various studies are unlikely to replicate themselves in actual encoun-
ters. What is replicated is the fact that culturally-informed perceptions of the
contextual factors (e.g. valuations of equality, space, time, distance, individual-
ism) significantly affect the choices made in apology behavior across situations,
both intra- and interculturally. Exploring how cultural beliefs and attitudes
inform contextual perceptions takes us to a more ‘mature’ level of investigation,
namely, to a level of explanation as called for by Richards & Schmidt (1983).
Generalizations made at this level may well extend their applicability from a
particular situation or speech act to a range of speech acts and situations.
As illustrated above, studies of apologies have produced a rich source of
descriptive data. Attempts to depict speech communities in terms of their
 APOLOGIES:WHAT DO WE LVOW? 227
respective value and belief systems are likewise not in short supply (see e.g.
Althen 1988; Hall & Hall 1990; Hofstede 1983; Stewart & Bennett 1991). But
although the link between culture and language has not been ignored (e.g.
Cohen & Olshtain 1981, 1985; Cohen, Olshtain & Rosenstein 1986; Garcia
1989), only rarely (see e.g. Meier 1996) have language and culture been brought
together as the explicit focus of a large-scale empirical study of a specific speech
act.15 An apt venue for such studies lies in the field of applied linguistics, for it
may be in the application that explanation is most valuable, given the seemingly
difficult goal of generalizing apology behavior from principled and consistent
research. Apologies, in their function to remedy behavior which falls below the
expected norm, provide an especially apt object of study for exploring the rela-
tionship between underlying cultural assumptions and linguistic behavior pro-
viding, for example, insights into the perceived rights and obligations of a par-
ticular speech community (Wolfson 1988).

Conclusion

The results of the apology research surveyed clearly point to the need for fur-
ther empirical studies, but studies with a view towards identifying underlying
cultural values and beliefs as they inform perceptions of linguistic appropriate-
ness. Such a research agenda should enhance an understanding of language
within a framework of social interaction.
In closing, the question regarding the maturational state of research in the
use of apologies must be addressed. Although perhaps no longer in a stage of
‘painful adolescence’, I would submit that a coming of age for apology studies
still remains for the future, a future with a readjusted focus, one that has its
sights set on a more explicit goal of explanation.

Notes
1. This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 1994 TESOL Conference,
Baltimore, MD.
2. The studies reviewed here are based on American English with the exception of four
authors, three investigating British English (House 1989; Owen 1983; Trosborg
1987) and one New Zealand English (Holmes 1989,1990).
3. Accounts, following Scott & Lyman (1968), consist of excuses, which reduce the
responsibility attribution, and justifications, which reduce the negativity of the
offense.
4. Holmes (1990) points out, however, that the interlocutors’ relationships must also
be considered when looking at strategy use as it relates to severity of offense.
5. This points to a possible need for qualification (along gender lines) of Olshtain &
Cohen’s (1991: 61) claim that “terribly and really are more common intensifiers
[than very] in colloquial American English”.
6. Wolfson’s ‘bulge’ theory posits less security in relationships with friends, which ren-
ders negotiations riskier, thus leading to more negotiation.
228 A.J. MEIER
7. See Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper (1989) for a detailed discussion of the project and
results.
8. A responsibility link is more universal perhaps than claiming direct responsibility in
accounting for cases in which cultural importance is also placed on group (vs indi-
vidual) responsibility.
9. Meier (1992), however, can be seen as representing a synthesis of the two fields.
10. Further problems ensue, for it is far from clear what constitutes positive or negative
politeness and the way they are to be operationalized (see Meier 1995).
11. This is especially true if generalizations are to be applied to areas such as language
pedagogy.
12. This is not the appropriate venue for an in-depth examination of approaches to
apologies; however, the reader is referred to Meier (1995) for a proposal for a func-
tional basis for apology classification.
13. Wierzbicka (1991) additionally points out the potential problems inherent in inter-
pretations of labels such as ‘intimacy’ in cross-cultural studies.
14. See Held (1992: 149) for a skeptical view regarding any framework of politeness
phenomena (which would subsume apologies)seen in terms of “a basic set of conven-
tional forms that recur stereotypically”.
15. Meier (1998) shows, in a survey of such studies, that although many authors claim to
show the connection between language and culture, they do not actually do so,
remaining at a descriptive (rather than explanatory) level.

References

Althen, G. (1988) American ways. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.

Baxter, L.A. (1984) An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. Human
Communication Research 10.3: 427-56.
Benoit, W.L. (1995) Accounts, excuses, and apologies: a theory of image restora-
tion strategies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bergman, M.L. & Kasper, G. (1993) Perception and performance in native and
nonnative apologies. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.) Interlanguage
pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. 82-107.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984) Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural
study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5.3:
196-213.
-,House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989) Cross-culturalpragmatics:Requests and apol-
ogies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Borkin, A. & Reinhart, S.M. (1978) Excuse me and I’m sorry. TESOL Quarterly
12.1: 57-69.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987) Universals in language usage: Politeness phe-
nomena. Cambridge University Press.
Clyne, M. (1983) Communicative competences in contact. In L.E. Smith (ed.)
Readings in English as an international language. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
147-61.
Cody, M.J. & McLaughhn, M.L. (1985) Models for sequential construction of
accounting episodes: situation and interactional constraints on message selec-
tion and evaluation. In R.L. Street Jr. & J.N. Cappella (eds.) Sequence and
 APOLOGIES:
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 229

pattern in communicative behaviour. London: Edward Arnold. 50-69,

- & McLaughh, M.L. (1990) Interpersonal accounting. In H. Giles & P.W.
Robinson (eds.) Handbook of language and social psychology. New York:
John Wiley & Sons. 227-55.
Cohen, A.D. (1996) Speech acts. In S. McKay & N. Hornberger (eds.) Socio-
linguistics and language teaching. Cambridge University Press. 383420.
- & Olshtain, E. (1981) Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: the
case of apology. Language Learning 31.1: 113-34.
- 8z Olshtain, E. (1985) Comparing apologies across languages. In K. Jankowsky
(ed.) Scientific and humanistic dimensions of language: Festschrift for Robert
Lado. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 51-74.
-, Olshtain, E. & Rosenstein, D.S. (1986) Advanced EFL apologies: what
remains to be learned? International Journal of the Sociology of Language 62:
51-74.
Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J.W. (1986) ‘‘I very appreciate”: expressions of grati-
tude by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied
Linguistics 7.2: 167-85.
Fraser, B. (1981) On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (ed.) Conversational routine. The
Hague: Mouton. 2.59-71.
Garcia, C. (1989) Apologizing in Enghsh. Politeness strategies used by native and
non-native speakers. Multilingua 8.1: 3-20.
Gonzales, M.H. (1992) A thousand pardons: the effectiveness of verbal remedial
tactics during account episodes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology
11.3: 133-51.
-,Pederson, J.H., Manning, D.J. & Wetter, D.W. (1990) Pardon my gaffe:
effects of sex, status, and consequence severity on accounts. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 58.4: 610-21.
Hale, C.L. (1987) A comparison of accounts: when is a failure not a failure?
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 6: 117-32.
Hall, E.T. & Hall, M.R. (1990) Understanding cultural diflerences. Yarmouth:
Intercultural Press.
Held, G. (1992) Politeness in linguistic research. In R. Watts, S. Ide & K. Ehlich
(eds.) Politeness in language. Berlin: Mouton. 131-53.
Hofstede, G. (1983) Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three
regions. In J.B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec & R.C. Annis (eds.) Expiscations
in cross-cultural psychology. Alblasserdam, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger
B.V. 335-55.
Holmes, J. (1989) Sex differences and apologies: one aspect of communicative com-
petence. Applied Linguistics 10.2: 194-213.
- (1990) Apologies in New Zealand Enghsh. Language in Society 19.2: 155-99.
Holtgraves, T. (1989) The form and function of remedial moves: reported use, psy-
chological reality and perceived effectiveness. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology 8.1: 1-16.
House, J. (1989) “Oh excuse me please...”: apologizing in a foreign language. In B.
Kettemann, P. Bierbaumer, A. Fill & A. Karpf (eds.) Enghch als Zweit-
230 A.J. MEIER

sprache. Tiibingen: Narr. 303-27.

Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991) Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics.
SSLA 13.2: 21547.
McLaughlin, M.I., Cody, M.J. & Rosenstein, N.E. (1983) Account sequences in
conversations between strangers. Communication Monographs 50: 102-25.
--,O’Hair, D.H. & Cody, M.J. (1983) The management of failure events: some
contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication
Research 9.3: 203-24.
Meier, A.J. (1992) A sociopragmatic contrastive study of repair work in Austrian
German and American English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Vienna,
Austria.
- (1995) Passages of politeness. Journalof Pragmatics 24: 381-92.
- (1996) Two cultures mirrored in repair work. Multilingua 15.2: 149-69.
- (1998) Identifying and teaching the underlying cultural themes of pragmatics.
Paper presented at the Twelfth Annual International Conference on
Pragmatics and Language Learning, Urbana, IL, February, 1998.
Olshtain, E. (1989) Apologies across languages. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G.
Kasper (eds.) Cross-cultural pragmatics. Requests and apologies. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex. 155-73.
& Blum-Kulka, S. (1985) Degree of approximation: nonnative reactions to
native speech act behavior. In S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden (eds.) Input in sec-
ond language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 303-25.
& Cohen, A. (1983) Apology: a speech-act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds.)
Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 18-
35.
& Cohen, A. (1991) Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative speakers. In M.
Celce-Murcia (ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language [2nd
edition]. New York: Newbury HouselHarper Collins. 154-65.
& Weinbach, L. (1987) Complaints: a study of speech act behavior among
native and nonnative speakers of Hebrew. In J. Verschueren & P. Bertalucci
(eds.) The pragmatic perspective. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 195-208.
Owen, M. (1983) Apologies and remedial exchanges. A study of language use in
social interaction. Berlin: Mouton.
Richards, J.C. & Schmidt, R.W. (1983) Language and communication. New
York: Longman.
Rintell, E.M. & Mitchell, C.J. (1989) Studying requests and apologies: an inquiry
into method. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds.) Cross-cultural
pragmatics. Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 248-72.
Riordan, C.A., Marlin, N. & Kellogg, R.T. (1983) The effectiveness of accounts
following transgression. Social Psychology Quarterly 46.3: 213-19.
Saville-Troike, M. (1989) The ethnography of communication [2nd edition].
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Schlenker, B.R. & Darby, B.W. (1981) The use of apologies in social predica-
ments. Social Psychology Quarterly 44.3: 271-78.
Scott, M.B. & Lyman, S.N. (1968) Accounts. American Sociological Review 33:
 APOLOGIES:
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 231

46-62.
Snyder, C.R., Higgins, R.L. & Stucky, R.J. (1983) Excuses: masquerades in
search of grace. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Stewart, E.C. & Bennett, M.J. (1991) American cultural patterns. Yarmouth:
Intercultural Press.
Thomas, J. (1983) Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4.2: 91-
112.
Trosborg, A. (1987) Apology strategies in nativesinon-natives. Journal of
Pragmatics 11: 147-67.
Verschueren, J. (1995) The pragmatic perspective. In J. Verschueren, J.-0.
Ostman & J. Blommaert (eds.) Handbook ofpragmatics manual. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins. 1-19.
-, Ostman, J.-0. & Blommaert, J. (eds.) (1995) Handbook ofpragmatics manu-
al. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-19.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991) Cross-culturalpragnatics: the semantics of human interac-
tion. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wolfson, N. (1983) Rules of speaking. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (eds.)
Language and communication. New York: Longman. 61-87.
- (1988) The bulge: a theory of speech behavior and social distance. In J. Fine
(ed.) Second language discourse: A textbook of current research. Nomood,
NJ: Ablex. 21-38.
-, Marmor, T. & Jones, S. (1989) Problems in the comparison of speech acts
across cultures. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds.) Cross-cultu-
ralpragmatics. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 174-96.

[Received 3/10/96; revised 30/5/98]

A. J. Meier
Dept. of Enghsh
Baker Hall
Univeristy of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, Iowa 50614-0502
USA
e-mail: AJ .MeierQuni.edu