Post on 28-Jan-2023
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
Differences between Male and Female Arabic Speakers
in Apology Strategies
Abstract
Apology strategies stand for the types of verbal or non-verbal
maneuvers that offenders resort to in order to express their
regret for a violation of a norm or an offense to another person.
Apology is a speech act intended to perform the act of
regretting. It is well-known that male and female speakers differ
in the degree of politeness and directness in the way they
express different language functions. It is the goal of this
study to investigate the differences between male and female
Arabic speakers’ strategies of apology. In so doing, 10 male and
10 female Arabic speakers’ responses to 10-item written
completion task will be analyzed. Such a task required the
respondents to respond to 10 different situations using apology
strategies they would use in similar, real life situations.
Although some similarities did emerge, obvious differences
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
between the two genders were observed in the use of apology
strategies. These gender-related differences are discussed in
relation to the previous research findings.
Introduction
As more research being conducted, we are becoming more
enlightened about the kind of disparity and similarity that
exists among cultures as regards intercultural pragmatics. It is
quite interesting to see how some cultures assimilate to one
another; whereas, others distinguish themselves using their
culture-specific language functions or speech acts. Incidentally,
the proper use of speech acts calls for the knowledge of both the
language form and the appropriate use of a given speech act
within a given culture so as to lessen any potential
miscommunication (Cohen & Olshtain, 1981; Hatch & Swan, 1992).
Apology is one speech act that has been studied more extensively
in some cultures than others. In fact, apology remains an area
worth more research in more languages than what has been done so
far in order that we can establish a more universal view of how
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
apology manifests itself across cultures and communities. This
is, however, not to understate the fact that apologies are
“always culturally specific” (p. 175), as noted by Trouillot
(2000). One specific example is Arabic where apology has not been
researched as thoroughly as in other languages such as English
and Japanese. Such a fact has been the real motive to pursue this
study which aims to particularly investigate the differences
between male and female Arabic speakers in the use of apology
strategies.
Literature review
Definitions and descriptions
In his definition, Goffman mentions that apologies are “remedial
interchanges used to reestablish social harmony after a real or
virtual offense” (as cited in Bataineh and Bataineh, 2006, p.
1902). From another perspective, Olshtain (1989) 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” (pp. 156-157). In order for an apology to be
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
successful, Goffman suggests that three felicity conditions must be
met: the apologizer acknowledges that an offense has occurred,
the apologizer claims responsible for the offense, and the
apologizer offers the offended some reparation or compensation.
In view of that, Gooder and Jacobs (2000) suggest that “[t]he
proper apology acknowledges the fact of wrong doing, accepts
ultimate responsibility, expresses sincere sorrow and regret, and
promises not to repeat the offense” (pp. 273-241). Therefore, an
act of apology is both “a face-saving act for the hearer and a
face-threatening act for the speaker” (Bataineh & Bataineh, 2006,
p. 1903). Based on their research, Brown and Attardo (2000) note
that an apology has the following five components: an expression
of apology, an explanation of the situation, an acknowledgment of
responsibility, an offer of repair, and a promise of non-
recurrence.
Apology strategies
Earlier in this paper, I define apology strategies as the types of
verbal or non-verbal maneuvers that offenders resort to in order
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
to express their regret for a violation of a norm or an offense
to another person. This is, in my view, a more encompassing
definition than other definitions that have limited these
strategies to the verbal ones. Though informal, one example of a
non-verbal or bodily apology strategy is raising one’s hand and
lowering his or her head. Worthily, scholars have devised a
number of taxonomies or classifications to demonstrate how
apology strategies are realized from either their theoretical
perspectives or empirical work, or both. One of the most
comprehensive taxonomies of apology strategies is that developed
by Sugimoto (1997). In her taxonomy, Sugimoto offers a variety of
apology strategies, classifying them into three main categories
according to their frequency of usage: primary strategies,
secondary strategies, and seldom used strategies. The primary
strategies are those that are frequently used by offenders when
wanting to apologize, which include: a statement of remorse (saying
you have done something wrong), accounts (telling what has
happened), a description of damage (describing what has resulted),
and reparation (repairing the damage). Secondary strategies are
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
those that are used less frequently than the primary strategies,
which include: compensation (offering to compensate for the
damage), a promise not to repeat offense (assuring the offense will not
recur). And, the seldom used strategies are those used less
frequently than the secondary strategies, which include: explicit
assessment of responsibility (describing one’s role in what has
happened), negative assessment of responsibility (claiming that another
person or thing was the causer), positive assessment of responsibility
(admitting one’s role in what has happened), contextualization
(describing the whole context of the offense), self-castigation
(claiming one’s responsibility for the offense and being critical
of own behavior), gratitude (expressing gratefulness for being given
the chance to apologize), and showing lack of intent on harm doing
(convincing the offended that the offense was not intentional).
Besides their considering the apology strategies offered by
Sugimoto (1997), Bataineh and Bataineh (2005) point out that
offenders may use non-apology strategies to deny their responsibility
for the offense committed against the offended party. Such
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
strategies include brushing off incident as unimportant (convincing the
offended that the offense is overinflated), avoidance of person or
subject (avoiding the offended or mentioning the offense to the
offended), offending victim (attacking the victim to marginalize the
offense), and blaming victim (blaming the victim for the offense).
What distinguishes the classification by Olshtain and Cohen
(1983) from Sugimoto’s is that former has used an Illocutionary Force
Indicating Device (IFID) as the first strategy, which has the same
referent as statement of remorse; for example, the use of such
expressions as sorry and excuse me. According to Olshtain,
apologizers can either intensify or downgrade the apology they
are making. In so doing, an apologizer may intensify his or her
apology using intensifiers such as very, so, really, etc., or downgrade
it using one of the non-apology strategies; for example, saying I’m sorry,
but you shouldn’t really get this upset. As part of the approach she used in
the classification of Sudanese Arabic apology strategies,
Nureddeen (2008) refers to strategies such as final IFIDs (using an
IFID at the end of the apology) concern for the hearer (showing
sympathy or fellow feeling for the victim), intensification (either
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
using intensifiers with IFIDs or repetition of IFIDs), and humor
(using humorous expressions to minimize the effect of the offence
on the victim or make him or her feel relieved).
Apology and politeness
From the way scholars define politeness, it becomes obvious that
it constitutes an inseparable element of any discussion on
apology. For example, Lakoff (1975) defines politeness as a form
of behavior “developed in societies in order to reduce friction
in personal interaction” (p. 45). In this sense, politeness is
important in that it reduces the amount of tension and so, as
Ellen (2001) implies, determines the success of communication
between the interlocutors. Hence, an apology should have the
extent of politeness that qualifies it to be appropriate and
acceptable. Similar to some other language aspects, politeness
varies from one culture to another and from one language or
variety to another (Bataineh & Bataineh, 2006).
Apology and gender
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
The literature on gender, e.g., Tannen (1990) and (Holmes, 1995),
suggests that males and females are socialized differently in
their childhood which influences their language behavior as they
grow up and cause them to behave differently. In fact, research
findings (e.g., Lakoff, 1975, Tannen, 1990) do indicate that
gender differences are apparent in politeness and that women tend
to use more polite and less critical language than men; they are
also more tending to rapport or cooperative talk than men who
prefer competitive talk. Because women are more caring for their
interlocutor’s feeling than men, they use more positive
strategies than men (Holmes, 1995). Brown and Attardo (2000) have
observed that females are socialized in a manner that inculcates
in them the tendency to apologize to both sexes. In Basow and
Rubenfeld’s (2003) study of 58 men and 107 women, women used
speech style that is more characterized by emotional reactions
and responses in advice and sympathy situations. From her
research on gender differences in apology, Holmes (1995) found
that although males and females exhibited some similarities in
their apologies, they differed in that women apologized more than
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
men, and that women showed this tendency more with interlocutors
of equal status e.g., female friends, whereas men apologized to
women regardless of status.
Reporting on his study findings in which he focused on the
differences in apology strategies among friends and acquaintances
in Jordanian Arabic, El-Khalil (1998) notes that males used more
explicit apology strategies than females who rarely promised not
to repeat the offense. Bataineh and Bataineh (2005) studied
gender differences in apology strategies among American
university students and found that both sexes used four primary
apology strategies which are statement of remorse, accounts,
compensation, and reparation; as well as two non-apology strategies
which are blaming the victim and brushing off the incident as not important.
However, the female participants used more explicit apology
strategies and fewer non-apology strategies than males. In
another study, Bataineh and Bataineh (2006) investigated
Jordanian EFL university students’ use of apology strategies and
found that although both sexes showed similarities in the use of
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
primary apology strategies, they differ in that female
participants preferred the non-apology strategy of avoiding the talk
about the offense, while males preferred the strategy of blaming the
victim.
Apology in Arabic
There are specific elements that have been identified as
influencing the efficacy of an apology which are: the offender’s
familiarity with the offended and the severity of the offense
committed, the social power of the participants in the apologetic
context, the social distance factors such as age and gender of
the participants, and the apologetic context itself (Jarbou,
2002; Soliman, 2003). Similarly, Hussein (1995) notes 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” (as cited in Bataineh and Bataineh, 2006, p.
1908). In his analysis of apology strategies used by 110 Arab
learners of English, Rizk (1997) observed that the subjects did
not express explicit apologies to children; rather, they used
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
non-apology strategies e.g., don’t feel sad, baby. The subjects
also offered food to express apology. In El-Khalil’s study, the
participants who were Jordanians used explicit apologies such as
statements of remorse (e.g., I’m sorry) and accounts (e.g., Sorry, I
wasn’t able to buy you a present). They also used more
justification strategies along with explicit assessment of responsibility
and self-castigation strategies (e.g., The loss is mine, and I owe
you one).
In another study of the apology strategies used by American
and Jordanian speakers of English, Hussain and Hammouri (1998)
noticed that Jordanians used more apology strategies, including
such strategy as praising Allah (God) for whatever happened, blaming the
victim, brushing off the incident as not important, and interjection. In a
comparative study of Egyptian and American styles of apology,
Soliman (2003) found that while both groups of subjects used
intensifiers and interjections and expressed embarrassment for
the offense, Egyptians were more inclined to blame the victim and
praise Allah (God) for what happened. Based on his study which looked
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
into the interlanguage pragmatics of Arab learners of English,
Al-Zumor (2003) concluded that among Arabs “admitting one’s
deficiency in order to set the things right is not as
embarrassing as in the Anglo-Saxon culture” (p. 29). In a cross-
cultural comparison of apologies by native speakers of American
English and Jordanian Arabic, Bataineh and Bataineh (2008) found
that Jordanians used more varied apologies in the forms of two to
three expressions of apology plus one to two intensifiers, which
they attribute to the Jordanians’ tendency to overdo their regret
so as to win the offended person’s fellow feeling. They also
found that Jordanians tended more to use proverbs and sayings to
mitigate the offence committed and relieve the offended person,
in addition to non-apology strategies. Jordanians also used equal
instances of positive and negative assessment of responsibility strategies,
whereas Americans used only negative assessment of responsibility
strategies. In a more recent study, Nureddeen (2008) studied the
use of apology strategies in Sudanese Arabic among 110 college
educated adults in Khartoum, Sudan, using a Discourse Completion
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
Task (DCT). Nureddeen found that the respondents made more use of
explanations or accounts as well as IFID strategies.
Research on apology in diverse contexts
This section is intended to offer research findings as regards
apology strategies in a variety of linguistic and cultural
contexts in such a way pertinent to the purpose of the current
study. Of particular interest is what Sugimoto (1999) suggests as
potential factors affecting the choice of apology strategies,
used by her sample of Japanese and American respondents, which
include: the type of the offence, the relationship between the
apologizer and the offended person, and the latter’s reaction to
the offence. In an earlier study of apology strategies as used by
200 American and 181 Japanese college students in an open-ended
questionnaire, Sugimoto (1997) reported the respondents’ most
frequent use of four strategies: statement of remorse, accounts,
description of damage, and reparation. In an attempt to see what
apology strategies EFL Jordanian students use in English,
Bataineh and Bataineh (2006) found statement of remorse to be the
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
most frequent strategy used by both males and females across
their sample. They also found that both males and females often
used account and compensation strategies; however, females
demonstrated more frequent use of promise not to repeat offense
strategy. The Bataineh (2006) summarize the previous research
findings as that although many similarities of patterns of
apology realization exist across cultures and gender, several
differences do also exist and that the choice of apology
strategies is often determined by social and situational
parameters. The Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization
Patterns (CCSARP) focused on how requests and apologies are
realized by speakers of eight varieties and languages through a
DCT, including Australian English, American English, British
English, Canadian-French, Danish, German, Hebrew, and Russian
(Blum-Kulka & Olshtain,1984). Such a large-scale project led to
the conclusion that although there are noticeable cultural
preferences, the respondents generally preferred the use of
explicit apologies and accounts.
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
To restate, the purpose of the current study is to
investigate what differences exist between male and female Arabic
L1 speakers in the preference and use of apology strategies. In
other words, this study seeks to answer the question: What are
the differences between male and female Arabic L1 speakers in the
preference and use of apology strategies? Accordingly, this study
represents a unique attempt to find out about how Arabic L1 male
and female speakers express apology in Arabic across an
assortment of Arabic varieties or dialects.
Method
Target population
The target population in this study is eight male and eight
female Arabic L1 speakers whose ages range from 25 to 42 years.
The subjects were selected so as to represent different Arab
nationalities comprising Egyptian, Emirati, Jordanian, Iraqi,
Libyan, Saudi, and Yemeni. The male subjects were four Saudis,
two Libyans, one Iraqi, and one Yemeni. The female subjects were
three Egyptians, three Libyans, one Emirati, and one Saudi.
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
Almost all of the participants are living in the US temporarily
for three to seven years except for one Egyptian female
participant who has been in the states more than seven years.
Instrument
A written completion task, specifically an open-ended
questionnaire, consisting of ten items was used to collect the
data (See Appendix A). Each item represents a situation involving
an offense or infraction for which the respondent had to
apologize. In so doing, he or she had to express in writing what
he or she perceived as the most appropriate strategy of apology
to use in that particular situation. The situations were chosen
and formulated so as to vary in terms of factors such as social
power and distance, level of formality, and the severity of
offense or infraction. First, the questionnaire was first devised
in English, and then was translated into two Arabic versions to
attend to the dual marking of gender in Arabic. That is, one
version was used with the male respondents and the other was used
with the females. The rationale behind using this instrument as a
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
data collection technique in this study was that, as Cohen (1996)
suggests based on Beebe and Cummings’ (1996) study results, it
allows for the elicitation of unrestricted quality and quantity
of response within a brief period of time. Besides, it is the
best alternative after role-plays used in researching
intercultural pragmatics. Another advantage is that the
respondents to this type of data elicitation can even find it
more comforting and less tense in comparison to role-plays.
Data collection procedure
One portion of the questionnaires was administered by the male
researcher to the male participants either by email or in person
and the other portion was administered by a female assistant to
the female participants in person. The participants were
instructed to respond personally to each situation so that
whatever response he or she provides would reflect his or her
actual reaction or dealing with that particular situation.
Data analysis
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
The data were analyzed following the model set forth by
Sugimoto’s (1997) taxonomy of apology strategies. The reason is
that Sugimoto’s taxonomy is the most comprehensive one of its
kind up to the date when this report was written. Other
strategies such as non-apology strategies and those found to be
typical of Arabic, as identified by Bataineh and Bataineh (2006)
and Nureddeen (2008) were also considered in the data analysis.
It was postulated that this would prove helpful in capturing a
potential multitude of apology strategies used by the
participants. Besides, a number of strategies were identified
that are not part of the apology strategy taxonomies used in the
previous studies. These strategies are the last four ones as
shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Such strategies are asking or requesting the
victim to forgive (e.g. aarju unn tusamihani Please forgive me), asking the
offended person for permission (e.g. akhi lo fi imkaniyah aagdar aaghayer aattalab
My brother, is there a possibility I can change the order?). As
such, this strategy can be perceived as a non-apology strategy.
Other strategies added include offering the victim something (e.g. food,
a gift, a drink, etc.) and showing kindness to the victim (e.g. the use
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
of aakhi meaning brother in yaa akhi ana aasif Oh, my brother, I’m
sorry). The reason why these strategies were added was that, as
shown in Tables 1-3, they constituted an important portion of the
total strategies used by the respondents. They also account for
some gender differences that were shown to exist between male and
female respondents.
Table 1: Apology strategies used by
male respondents
Strategy Item
#
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tota
l
Percen
t
1 Statement of remorse 8 4 9 7 7 8 9 4 5 6 67 29.78%
2 Intensification 2 3 5 5 2 1 1 19 8.44%
3 Final IFIDs 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2.67%
4 Accounts 2 1 1 5 5 3 5 1 6 29 12.89%
5 Reparation 1 2 4 1 1 1 10 4.44%
6 Compensation 4 3 5 2 14 6.22%
7 Description of damage 1 3 4 1.78%
8 Promise not to repeat 2 1 3 1.33%
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
offense
9
Positive assessment of
responsibility2 2 1 1 1 3 3 13 5.78%
1
0
Negative assessment of
responsibility2 1 3 1.33%
1
1
Self-castigation1 1 1 3 6 2.67%
1
2 Concern for the hearer 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 3.11%
1
3
Showing lack of intent to
do harm2 4 4 1 3 14 6.22%
1
4
Asking or requesting
victim to forgive1 1 1 1 1 5 2.22%
1
5
Asking offended for
permission7 7 3.11%
1
6 Offering victim something1 1 0.44%
1
7
Showing kindness to the
victim1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 4 17 7.56%
Tota 225 100.00
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
Table 2: Apology strategies used by
female respondents
Strategy Item
#
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tota
l
Percen
t
1 Statement of remorse 7 4 8 8 8 7 8 7 7 6 70 30.30%
2 Intensification 4 5 5 4 4 2 3 2 2 31 13.42%
3 Final IFIDs 1 1 2 0.87%
4 Accounts 2 4 2 7 3 6 3 2 5 34 14.72%
5 Reparation 5 5 1 7 4 1 23 9.96%
6 Compensation 1 3 5 5 14 6.06%
7 Description of damage 1 1 2 0.87%
8
Promise not to repeat
offense2 1 1 4 1.73%
9
Positive assessment of
responsibility1 2 1 1 3 5 2 15 6.49%
1
0
Negative assessment of
responsibility0 0.00%
1
1
Self-castigation0 0.00%
1
2 Concern for the hearer 1 1 1 3 1.30%
1
3
Showing lack of intent to
do harm1 2 1 4 8 3.46%
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
Following the methods of apology strategy classification
used in the above-mentioned studies as well as the coding and
identification of other strategies provided the results shown in
Tables 1- 3. (Note: the strategies that constitute small
percentages of the total percentage of the strategy usage, and so
were not significant in this study, were discarded.)
Tables 1 and 2 show the strategies used, the frequencies of
using such strategies in different situation items (1-10), the
total of frequencies for each strategy, and the percentage of
using each strategy in relation to the total strategy usage. As
can be seen in these tables, Arab male and female respondents
exhibited similarities as well as gender-related differences in
their use of apology strategies. Among the similarities is that
males and females used almost the same number of statement of
remorse, compensation, and asking the offended person for permission
strategies.
Examples: (Situation or item number, strategy, Arabic, English
gloss)
Table 2: Apology strategies used by
female respondents
Strategy Item
#
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tota
l
Percen
t
1 Statement of remorse 7 4 8 8 8 7 8 7 7 6 70 30.30%
2 Intensification 4 5 5 4 4 2 3 2 2 31 13.42%
3 Final IFIDs 1 1 2 0.87%
4 Accounts 2 4 2 7 3 6 3 2 5 34 14.72%
5 Reparation 5 5 1 7 4 1 23 9.96%
6 Compensation 1 3 5 5 14 6.06%
7 Description of damage 1 1 2 0.87%
8
Promise not to repeat
offense2 1 1 4 1.73%
9
Positive assessment of
responsibility1 2 1 1 3 5 2 15 6.49%
1
0
Negative assessment of
responsibility0 0.00%
1
1
Self-castigation0 0.00%
1
2 Concern for the hearer 1 1 1 3 1.30%
1
3
Showing lack of intent to
do harm1 2 1 4 8 3.46%
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
i. 1. Statement of remorse: ana aasif (I’m sorry.)
ii. 9. Compensation: bashtree lak badaluh (I’ll buy you
another.)
iii. 2. Asking the offended person for permission: hall mumkin
taghyeeruh lu samaht (Can it be changed, if you allow me?)
Table 3 sums up the data in Tables 1 and 2 in a comparison layout by showing
the strategies used, the total of frequencies for each strategy, and the percentage of
using each strategy in relation to the total strategy usage. Noticeably, the differences
between the two sexes become more evident if we consider the other strategies as
shown in Table 3. For example, males made more use of such strategies as Final IFIDs,
description of damage, negative assessment of responsibility, self-castigation, concern
for the hearer, showing lack of intent to do harm, and showing kindness to the victim;
whereas females made more use of such strategies as intensification, accounts,
reparation, promise not to repeat an offence, positive assessment of responsibility,
asking or requesting the victim to forgive, and offering the victim something.
Table 3: Apology strategies used by both male and
female respondents
Strategy Male Female
# Tota Percen Tota Percen
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
l t l t
1 Statement of remorse 67 29.78% 70 30.30%
2 Intensification 19 8.44% 31 13.42%
3 Final IFIDs 6 2.67% 2 0.87%
4 Accounts 29 12.89% 34 14.72%
5 Reparation 10 4.44% 23 9.96%
6 Compensation 14 6.22% 14 6.06%
7 Description of damage 4 1.78% 2 0.87%
8
Promise not to repeat
offense 3 1.33% 4 1.73%
9
Positive assessment of
responsibility 13 5.78% 15 6.49%
1
0
Negative assessment of
responsibility 3 1.33% 0 0.00%
1
1 Self-castigation 6 2.67% 0 0.00%
1
2 Concern for the hearer 7 3.11% 3 1.30%
1
3
Showing lack of intent
to do harm 14 6.22% 8 3.46%
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
1
4
Asking or requesting
victim to forgive 5 2.22% 7 3.03%
1
5
Asking offended for
permission 7 3.11% 7 3.03%
1
6
Offering victim
something 1 0.44% 3 1.30%
1
7
Showing kindness to the
victim 17 7.56% 8 3.46%
Total 225
100.00
% 231
100.00
%
Examples: (Situation or item number, strategy, Arabic, English
gloss)
i. 9. Final IFIDs (underlined): laa wallah ma’arif shloun inkssar
aasif (No, I swear to God, I don’t know how it was broken.
Sorry!)
ii. 9. Description of damage: laqad kasart jihaz tashgheel asseedee
(I’ve broken the CD player.)
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
iii. 9. Negative assessment of responsibility: laa wallah ma’arif
shloun inkssar (No, I swear to God, I don’t know how it was
broken.)
iv. 2. Self-castigation: anaa akhttat fi attalab (I made a mistake
in the order.)
v. 8. Concern for the hearer: atamanna annla takoun bihaajah lah
ttwal haathih almuddah (I hope you didn’t need to use it
during this period.)
vi. 4. Showing lack of intent to do harm: aasif bass maa a’aqssid
thaalik (Sorry, but I didn’t mean it.)
vii. 10. Showing kindness to the victim: aasif habeebati indi a’amal
muhimm bukkrah (Sorry, my sweetheart, I’m having
important work to do tomorrow.)
viii. 1. Intensification: ana aasifah jidan (I’m so sorry.)
ix. 5. Accounts: lam yuse’funi alwaqt litassheeh waraqatuki
(I didn’t have the time to mark your paper.)
x. 3. Reparation: sawfa uhdhir laki mindeelan litunadhifi qameessaki
(I’ll bring you some tissues so that you can clean your
dress.)
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
xi. 8. Promise not to repeat an offence: lan awttawil haathih
almuddah almarrah alqaadimah (I won’t keep it this long
next time.)
xii. 8. Positive assessment of responsibility: aa’alam annahu
khatta’ee linissiyan istrja’a haatha asseedee (I know it’s my
mistake not to return this CD.)
xiii. 1. Asking or requesting the victim to forgive: min fadhlik
taqabbali i’itithaari (Please accept my apology!)
xiv. 1. Offering the victim something: halla tafadhalti bi adukhool
wa shurb finjan min alqahwah (Please come in and let’s have a
cup of coffee!)
Taken collectively, the obvious difference in the apology
strategies used by the two genders of the respondents is that the
strategies used by females convey more politeness than those used
by males. For example, asking or requesting the victim to forgive is
sociopragmatically more polite than using final IFIDs.
Discussion
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
Since the focus in this study was on the differences between male
and female speakers of Arabic in their use and expression of
apology strategies, this section will elaborate on these
differences and relate them to the previous research findings. In
this study, male and female have exhibited more gender-related
differences than similarities. Both sexes used three apology
strategies almost equally, including statement of remorse,
compensation, and asking the offended person for permission; of which the first
two were also found to be used by both sexes in Bataineh and
Bataineh (2005).
That there are gender-related differences is in line with
what Tannen (1990) and Holmes (1995) suggest; that is, men and
women are likely to demonstrate language behavior differently
from each other according to the manner in which they were
socialized and brought up since they were born. Similarly, it has
been noticed that females used more polite and positive
expressions than did males, offering support to Lakoff’s (1975)
and Tannen’s (1990) research findings and Holmes’s (1995)
proposition. Women’s tendency to establish and maintain
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
friendship through language, as Tannen (1990) suggests, can be
seen in the females’ promise not to repeat offense and offer of reparation
especially in situations where they were involved with a neighbor
No.1 or a friend No. 8. This becomes obvious in the situation
where the severity of offense and so its effect is high on the
victim, which provides positive evidence as regarding females’
caring for the victim’s feeling and emotion, as Holmes (1995)
maintains. In such situations where the offense is severe,
females used strategies that are also more emotional and caring
than those used by males; a similar conclusion was made in Basow
and Rubenfeld’s (2003) study. Similar to Holmes’s (1995) finding,
females apologized, yet contrary to El-Khalil’s (1998), used
explicit strategies more than males. Similar findings were
reached in Bataineh and Bataineh (2005).
On the other hand, males clearly expressed their apologies
in a manner less apologetic than that of females as demonstrated
by their use of strategies such as final IFIDs, description of damage, and
negative assessment of responsibility. This can be seen as evidence for
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
the type of competitive language behavior used by men in that
because apologizing represents a face-threatening act for the
offender, men may find it self-downgrading to apologize and so
refrain from direct or explicit apologies. However, males did not
consider self-castigation to be as self-downgrading as direct apology
especially in situations where they found themselves having to
apologize to a friend or for a severe offense. Notably, Arab men
are markedly concerned about maintaining a sense of brotherhood
(solidarity) among themselves as can be seen from the males’ use
of strategies such as concern for the hearer, showing lack of intent to do harm,
and showing kindness to the victim. In other words, these strategies are
means of showing sympathy to the victim and minimizing the
emotional effect of the offense on the victim.
Most of the typical aspects of Apology in Arabic, as
manifested in previous studies, have become more apparent
especially if we consider food offering, positive assessment of responsibility,
self-castigation, accounts, and final IFIDs; therefore, offering some
confirmation to previous findings by Rizk (1997), El-Khalil’s
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
(1998), Al-Zumor (2003), Bataineh and Bataineh (2008), and
Nureddeen (2008) respectively. Such confirmation to previous
research findings can attest to the validity of this study and
the reliability of its findings.
Conclusions
Although male and female respondents in this study showed some
similarities in their use of apology strategies, the differences
between them in this respect are far more than the similarities.
This, in effect, conforms to previous thought and research as
regards gender-related difference and how they manifest
themselves in apology in specific and language behavior in
general. Gender differences are, therefore, not culture-specific;
they are more universal. Speech acts is one language field where
gender differences can become more evident as illustrated by this
study through the use of apology strategies. One important
implication is that gender-related differences in apology as well
as in other speech acts need to be appreciated through mutual
understanding to minimize any possibilities of miscommunication,
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
especially when knowing that speech acts themselves are culture-
specific. Such mutual understanding, therefore, calls for more
awareness among interlocutors of such differences so as to
promote successful communication.
However, this is a small-scale study and so generalizations
or conclusive findings based on the evidence from this study is
far from being possible. Undoubtedly, this is a major limiting
factor that can be overcome in future studies. Also, it is more
likely that when this study is replicated on a large scale, some
other gender-related differences in apologies will emerge and the
findings reached in this study will gain more support.
Acknowledgements
The researcher is grateful for the encouragements and suggestions
he received from Dr. Gene Halleck and Dr. Rebecca Damron. The
researcher is also thankful for his wife, Fatimah, who helped
administer the questionnaires to the female respondents.
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
References
Al-Zumor, A. (2003). Apologies in Arabic and English: an inter-
language and cross-cultural study. Retrieved March 13, 2008,
from
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ea/politeness/apologiesin
arabicandenglish.htm.
Basow, S. A., & Rubenfeld, K. (2003). Troubles talk: effects of
gender and gender-typing. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 48, 183–
187.
Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2005). Apology strategies of
American university students. Journal of Intercultural Communication,
9. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from
http://www.immi.se/intercultural.
Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2006). Apology strategies of
Jordanian EFL university students. Journal of Pragmatics 38,
1901–1927.
Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2008). A cross-cultural
comparison of apologies by native speakers of American
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
English and Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(4), 792-
821.
Beebe, L. M. & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data
versus written questionnaire data: How data collection
method affects speech act performance. In S. Gass and J. Neu
(Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 65-86). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: a
cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns
(CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196–213.
Brown, S., & Attardo, S. (2000). Understanding language structure,
interaction, and variation: An introduction to applied linguistics and
sociolinguistics for non-specialists. Michigan University Press,
Michigan.
Cohen, A. (1996). Investigating the production of speech act
sets. In S. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures
(pp. 21-43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
Cohen, A., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of socio-
cultural competence: the case of apology. Language Learning,
31, 113–134.
Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St.
Jerome’s Press.
El-Khalil, H. (1998). Variation in apology strategies among friends and
acquaintances in Jordanian Arabic. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Irbid, Jordan, Yarmouk University.
Gooder, H., & Jacobs, J. M. (2000). On the border of the
unsayable: the apology in postcolonizing Australia.
Interventions, 2, 229–247.
Hatch, E., & Swan, M. (1992). Discourse and language education.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Holmes, J. (1995). Sex differences and apologies: one aspect of
communicative competence. In H. D. Brown and S. Gonzo
(Eds.), Readings on second language acquisition (pp. 362–385).
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
Hussein, A. (1995). The sociolinguistic patterns of native Arabic
speakers: implications for teaching Arabic as a foreign
language. Applied Language Learning, 6, 65–87.
Hussein, R., & Hammouri, M. (1998). Strategies of apology in
Jordanian Arabic and American English. Grazer Linguistische
Studien, 49, 37–51.
Jarbou, S. (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,
Pennsylvania, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and women’s place. New York: Harper
and Row.
Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., & Gabriele, K. (1996). Transfer and
proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. Gass and J.
Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 155-187). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Nureddeen, F. A. (2008). Cross cultural pragmatics: Apology
strategies in Sudanese Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2), 279-
306.
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across cultures. In S. Blum-Kulka,
J. House, and G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests
and Apologies (pp. 155–173). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1983). Apology: a speech act set. In
N. Wolfson and E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language
Acquisition (pp. 18–35). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Rizk, S. (1997). Apology in English among Arab nonnative speakers
of English. Journal of the Faculty of Education, 3, 1–27 (Cairo,
Egypt, Ain Shams University).
Soliman, A. (2003). Apology in American English and Egyptian Arabic. Paper
presented at TESOL 3rd Annual Graduate Student Forum,
Baltimore, Maryland.
Sugimoto, N. (1997). A Japan–U.S. comparison of apology styles.
Communication Research, 24, 349–370.
Sugimoto, N. (1999). Japanese Apology across Disciplines. Commack, New
York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation.
New York: William Morrow.
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
Trouillot, M. (2000). Abortive rituals: historical apologies in
the global era. Interventions, 2 (2), 171–186.
Appendix A
The Questionnaire
Dear Respondent,
The researcher is conducting a study to find out what strategies
Arabic speakers use when they want to apologize. You are kindly
requested to respond to the items in this questionnaire carefully
and accurately. Be assured that the information you provide in
your responses will be kept confidential and used only for the
purposes of academic research.
I. General information
Gender: Male Female
Age: ____
Nationality: ___________
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
II. Please respond to the following items as realistically and
honestly as possible. How would you apologize or what would you
say in the following situations?
1. (Nasser/Nadiyah) and you are neighbors. You are watching TV
and the volume is too loud. (Nasser/Nadiyah) knocks on the
door to complain.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………
2. At Yamal Isham restaurant, you changed your mind after your
order was made ready for you.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………
3. You are a waiter at Yamal Isham restaurant. You spilled food
on a customer’s clothes.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………
4. You are a customs official. While searching a traveler’s
suitcase, you broke a gift the traveler wants to give it to
one of his or her relatives.
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………
5. You are a professor. You have not yet graded a term paper
which a student is supposed to pick up. The student comes to
see his paper.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………
6. You forgot to return a book you borrowed from your
professor.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………
7. You showed up an hour late for a group trip on spring break.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………
8. You borrowed a CD from your friend and did not return it for
two months.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………
Papers in Linguistics May 5, 2008
9. You used your brother’s CD player, and it fell of your hand
and broke.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………
10.You promised your spouse to go an outing on a weekend, but
you broke your promise when you found later that you had some
important work to do.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………
Thank you for your participation,
The researcher
[Sources: situations 2-6 were adapted from Maeshiba et al.
(1996), and situations 7-9 were adapted from Bataineh and
Bataineh (2006)]