Gender Differences in Arabic Apology

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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%


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


l %



female respondents

Strategy Item

#

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tota

l

Percen

t


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%


8

Promise not to repeat

offense2 1 1 4 1.73%

9


responsibility1 2 1 1 3 5 2 15 6.49%

1

0


responsibility0 0.00%

1

1

Self-castigation0 0.00%

1

2 Concern for the hearer 1 1 1 3 1.30%

1

3


do harm1 2 1 4 8 3.46%


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)


female respondents

Strategy Item

#

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tota

l

Percen

t


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%


8


offense2 1 1 4 1.73%

9


responsibility1 2 1 1 3 5 2 15 6.49%

1

0


responsibility0 0.00%

1

1

Self-castigation0 0.00%

1

2 Concern for the hearer 1 1 1 3 1.30%

1

3


do harm1 2 1 4 8 3.46%


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


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


offense 3 1.33% 4 1.73%

9


responsibility 13 5.78% 15 6.49%

1

0


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%


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.)


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.)


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


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


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


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


(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,


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.


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

http://www.immi.se/intercultural

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

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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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: ___________


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.


…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………

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.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………


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)]

Gender Differences in Arabic Apology

Documents

Transcript of Gender Differences in Arabic Apology