Apology speech act realization in Sarawani Balochi: a case study of male university students/Atos de discurso conotando desculpas no dialeto Sarawani Balochi: um estudo de caso em estudantes universitarios masculinos.
Ahangar, Abbas Ali ; Sarani, Abdullah ; Dastuyi, Seddigheh Zeynali 等
Introduction
"A speech act [...]", as Fahmi Bataineh and Fahmi
Bataineh (2008, p. 793) assert, "[...] is an utterance that serves
a function in communication (e.g., apology, request or greeting)".
How this 'function' is perceived in different societies, has
been an important concern for many researchers. Blum-Kulka et al. (1989,
p. 5, emphasis added) believe that:
Speech communities share detectable patterns of speech, and that
such 'cultural ways of speaking' (cf. KATRIEL, 1985) provide an
important domain for the exploration of speech as a cultural
phenomenon.
Specific studies of speech acts from this perspective show how
clashes between different interactional styles can lead to
intercultural miscommunication.
It was due to the examination of 'speech as a cultural
phenomenon' that they (BLUM-KULKA et al., 1989) launched CCSARP to
investigate the speech acts of requests and apologies in 7 different
languages and cultures. As Blum-Kulka et al. (1989, p. 12) affirm,
[...] the general goal of the CCSARP investigation is to establish
patterns of request and apology realizations under different social
constraints across a number of languages and cultures, including
both native and nonnative varieties.
Their main belief is that besides underlying universal principles
in applying different speech acts, there are some cultural variations.
They (BLUM-KULKA et al., 1989), further, state that social distance and
power (social dominance) between participants may interact with other
situational factors and lead to cultural variations. Gender is another
factor which its possible effect on employing different speech acts has
been ideally examined by some researchers (FAHMI BATAINEH; FAHMI
BATAINEH, 2006, 2008; WOUK, 2006).
Following the goals of CCSARP such as determining the fundamental
universalities in addition to the culture-specificity of applying speech
act sets, the authors of this study attempt to extract and categorize
apology strategies in Sarawani Balochi, a dialect of Balochi which has
not been studied yet in the case of its speech acts. Furthermore, the
effects of power and gender of the addressees on the type and number of
apology strategies used by these participants are also tested.
Balochi is a language mostly spoken in southwestern Pakistan (the
province of Baluchestan), Karachi and Punjab and Sind. In Iran, it is
used in the province of Sistan and Balochestan, and also by Baloch who
live in the north-eastern province of Khorasan and Golestan. Balochi is
also spoken by small groups in Afghanistan, the Gulf state, the Marw/
Marie (in Turkmenistan), India, East Africa and today by a significant
number of Baloch in North America, Europe and Australia (JAHANI; KORN,
2009). Barjasteh Delforooz (2010, p. 22) maintains that "[...] in
each of the above mentioned countries, Balochi is under the influence of
local languages and the national language of that country". Jahani
and Korn (2009) attribute this to the fact that Balochi lacks a standard
written system.
The present research investigates apology speech act in Sarawani
Balochi dialect spoken in Sarawan city located in the province of Sistan
and Balochestan in Iran. The standard and official language of Iran is
Persian which dominates other languages used in this country, including
Balochi.
As to the assessment of the meaningful relationship between type
and number of the apology strategies employed and power and gender of
the addressees, the research null hypotheses are given as:
1. There is not a meaningful relationship between power of the
addressees and the type of the apology strategies employed by SBMUS.
2. There is not a meaningful relationship between gender of the
addressees and the type of the apology strategies employed by SBMUS.
3. There is not a meaningful relationship between power of the
addressees and the number of the apology strategies employed by SBMUS.
4. There is not a meaningful relationship between gender of the
addressees and the number of the apology strategies employed by SBMUS.
Review of literature
Many studies in the area of speech acts follow the principle that
besides a number of universalities in applying speech acts, there exist
some cross-cultural variations.
Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, (1984) find a number of similarities and
differences between realization patterns of native and nonnative
speakers of the investigated languages within their project, that is,
Australian English, American English, British English, Canadian French,
Danish, German, Hebrew and Russian. Soon after, Wierzbicka (1985)
discusses some of the differences between English and Polish in the area
of their speech acts, and links these differences with various cultural
norms and assumptions. Later, Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) carry out a
project on two speech acts of request and apology which becomes one of
the fundamental theories in the field of speech acts. Their study comes
across with the fact that each of the languages studied follows a number
of universalities in applying speech acts whereas there are some
culture-specificities, as well.
Wouk (2006) looks at the type of apology expression and upgrading
applied by Indonesians in Lombok. Comparing the results of his study
"[...] with results of choice of apology expressions and upgrading
in other cultures [...]", he (WOUK, 2006, p. 1457) concludes that
[...] patterns in the use of upgrading sometimes paralleled those
found in other studies: deference [different] strategies were used
with higher status addressees, while solidarity strategies were
used with social intimates.
His findings also reveal there is little difference between males
and females, regarding applying apology strategies.
Fahmi Bataineh and Fahmi Bataineh (2006) find that gender is an
important factor in applying primary apology strategies by Jordanian
Arabic speakers. However, two years later, they (FAHMI BATAINEH, FAHMI
BATAINEH, 2008) come to the result that male and female American English
speakers employ apology strategies with a few differences.
Afghari (2007) investigates the influence of social distance and
social dominance (power) on the frequency of the apology intensifiers in
Persian.
He states that the given values to the two context-external factors
are found to have considerable effect on the frequency of the
intensifiers in various situations. Nureddeen (2008) also attempts to
outline the type and extent of apology strategies used in Sudanese
Arabic considering factors such as strength of social relationship and
power between hypothetical speakers and hearers. Furthermore, her
results confirm earlier findings proposing the universality of apology
strategies as well as the culture-specificity aspect of language use.
Afterwards, Ogiermann (2009) performs a cross-cultural investigation of
the speech act of apology in British English, Polish and Russian with
regard to social distance and power of participants. Apart from
revealing the effect of these factors on employing apology speech act in
the languages studied, her comparison allows for the examination of
Brown and Levinson's (1978) claims to universality and contributes
to the debate on universality vs. culture-specificity. She (OGIERMANN,
2009) believes that detailed reinterpretation of some of their ideas
show that "[...] their framework can be applied to the analysis of
an inherently polite speech act [...]", besides "[...]
analyzing culture-specific features of politeness [...]"
(OGIERMANN, 2009, p. 21).
Shariati and Chamani's (2010) study into the frequency,
combination, and order of apology strategies in Persian shows some
underlying universalities besides culture-specificity aspect of using
the speech act of apology in Persian. In the same year, Alfattah (2010)
performs an investigation on apology strategies of Yemeni EFL university
students regarding Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness
(1978). His primary findings show that the participants tend to use
IFIDs as the most employed strategy in the data.
Al-Zumor (2011) compares apology strategies employed by Arab
learners of English studying in India with the strategies used by Indian
English, American English, and British English speakers. Al-Zumor's
study findings (2011, p. 19) show that "[...] religious beliefs,
concepts and values cause many deviations in the Arab learners'
language from that of the native speakers". In addition, he finds
considerable similarities in the selection of arrangement patterns of
the main apology strategies by Arab learners and Indian English speakers
which he interprets "[...] as a result of some aspects of cultural
similarities" (Al-Zumor, 2011, p. 19).
Jebahi (2011) investigates the use of apology speech act by
Tunisian university students whose mother tongue is Tunisian Arabic, as
far as the social distance and power of the interlocutors are concerned.
Most of the participants of his research use 'statement of
remorse' in almost all the situations provided by him. Moreover, a
significant percentage of the participants deny 'blame for the
offence', and using 'explanations', shift the
responsibility to other sources.
Hatfield and Hahn (2011) study a corpus of Korean apologies
regarding Brown and Levinson's (1978) model. They claim their
theory accurately predicts the effect of power, social distance, and the
severity of the offense in the selection of form in Korean. But Hatfield
and Hahn (2011, p. 1303) believes "[...] the model itself is not an
appropriate model for Korean even in high abstraction".
Methodology
Participants
The participants of this study were 50 male university students
educating in the first to the fourth semester of different academic
fields at Azad University of Sarawan. They were chosen randomly by the
researchers. The participants were native speakers of Sarawani Balochi
dialect from Sarawan city and its suburb. Their ages ranged from 20 to
30 years and their mean age was 26 years. They mostly spoke two
languages in their daily lives: one, Sarawani Balochi which is their
native language, and the other, Persian, as their second language. The
participants typically lived in families with their parents having low
and/or no education. Most of their fathers were farmers, drivers, and
workers. Mothers were almost all housekeepers.
Instrument and procedure
The data for the present research was collected through applying a
modified version of Discourse Completion Test/Task (DCT). DCTs, some
kind of open-ended questionnaires, were firstly innovated and used by
Blum-Kulka in 1982. This questionnaire consisted of the description of
some speech acts situations, indicating the setting, the social distance
between the interlocutors, and their social status related to each
other, followed by an incomplete dialogue as well. The respondents then
were asked to fill the dialogue with their normal reactions in the
situations provided. One of the most noteworthy advantages of DCTs is
that they well fit the studies in which gathering a large number of data
in a short period of time is required (WOLFSON et al., 1989). On the
other hand, some critics have questioned the unnatural basis of
collecting data in such a way. In spite of their limitations, DCTs can
be a practical means of presenting a preliminary examination at cultural
variations in the performance of different speech acts (PHUONG, 2006).
In this study, DCT was prepared with some adjustments. The main
body of the original DCT offered by Blum-Kulka (1982) tried to be kept
intact, i.e., the description of the situations. Given that the
addressees were supposed to be distinguished in 6 cases of higher (a
male and a female professor), equal (a male and a female classmate) and
lower (a male and a female library servant) social status, some
modifications have been done by the researchers. As a result, after
describing apology situations, the participants were asked a question
concerning the way they would apologize to the 6 hypothetical
addressees. The questionnaire consisted of 5 situations. It was written
in Sarawani Balochi using Persian script (as Balochi does not have a
standard orthography). The participants were also asked to write down
their normal language reactions in each situation in Sarawani Balochi
using Persian script.
Coding scheme and data analysis
As for apology speech acts, different classifications have already
been suggested. The following taxonomies can be referred to as some
instances: Fraser (1981), Olshtain and Cohen (1983), Owen (1983),
Trosborg (1987), Sugimoto (1997), and Brown and Attardo (2000).
Nevertheless, in this research, apologies are categorized applying
the classification system suggested by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989). Results
of this categorization will be given in the results section. This
signifies the type of apology strategies found in the data based on the
power and gender of the addressees. The data also revealed that the
participants' answers, in each situation, mostly consisted of more
than one strategy. Consequently, the authors decided to examine the
possible effect of power and gender of the addressees on the number of
apology strategies used by the participants, as well (i.e., they
considered the question that how many apology strategies each of the
participants uses dealing with each of the addresses in each situation,
e.g., 1 strategy or a combination of 2, 3 or more strategies). More
analysis of the data was done by applying the Statistical Package for
the Social Science (SPSS), version 16. For all analyses the alpha level
was set at 0.05. Pearson's Chi Square test ([chi square]) was used
to evaluate whether there was a meaningful relationship between power
and gender of the addressees and the type and number of apology
strategies employed by SBMUS. Furthermore, Spearman's Correlation
test was employed to indicate whether the existing relationship was
reverse. In the [chi square] test, when the Asymptotic Significance (P)
displays a numeral less than 0.05 (p < 0.05), there is a meaningful
relationship between the two variables of the study. Besides, when the
results show a numeral less than 0.05 (p < 0.05), the reliability
level of the test would be 95%, and even if it is less than 0.01 (p <
0.01), the reliability level of the test would be 99%. If [chi square]
test indicates that there is a meaningful relationship between the two
variables of the study, we can apply correlation test for the two last
hypotheses of our research. This test will show a numeral named
'value': if 'value' is negative, the relationship
between these two variables will be a reverse one. For example, when
there is a meaningful relationship between power of the addressees and
the number of apology strategies in situation 1, and correlation test
results show a negative 'value', it can be concluded that the
relationship between power of the addressees and number of apology
strategies in situation 1 is reverse. Hence, as the power of the
addressees increases, the addressors tend to employ more complex
strategies rather than simple ones, and vice versa.
Results
As Blum-Kulka et al. (1989, p. 289) claim:
[...] apologies can be performed by any one of the following
strategies, or combination or sequence thereof:
--Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFID)
--Taking on responsibility
--Explanation or account
--Offer of repair
--Promise of forbearance
They (BLUM-KULKA et al., 1989, p. 290) assert that "[...] the
import of these five major strategies is fairly transparent; when we
remark that IFIDs explicitly clarify that an apology is being carried
out". After classifying the apology strategies found in this study
following Blum-Kulka et al.'s (1989) coding scheme, the researchers
observed some new strategies which have not been found in that scheme.
Below, is a list of apology strategies found in Sarawani Balochi. New
strategies have either been shown with stars.
I. Alerters
(1) wAdZ[THETA]
mr
'Mr/Sir!'
II. Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFID). Considering
Blum-Kulka and Olshtain's classification (1984), the participants
here, select performative verbs including: paehel kaen (forgive), [TEXT
NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (I apologize), [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII] (excuse me), and foermoendoe-on (I'm ashamed)
(2) [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
apology-V.EL want.PRES-lSG
'I apologize to you.'
III. Intensifiers of the apology
IFID internal:
1. Intensifying adverbials
(3) baz poehel
Very halal
kaen
IMPER.do.PRES.2SG
'Forgive me so much!'
2. Emotional expressions/ exclamations
(4) oh
oh
'oh!'
3. Double intensifier or repetition of intensifying adverbials
(5) mon-oe baz baz
I-OM very very
poehel koen
halal IMPER.do.PRES.2SG
'Forgive me very very much!'
4. Please
(6) lotpaen
please
'Please!'
6. Concern for the hearer
(7) so:ht-ej?
burn.PAST-2SG
'Did you burn?'
* Swearing. It should be mentioned that the expression 'God
willing' was not used by the participants as an independent
strategy; rather, it was used together with other strategies such as:
'promise of forbearance' and 'offer of repair'.
However, regarding the importance of the factor of religion in the
respondents' answers, the authors decided to consider this
expression separately in order to highlight such an effect.
(8) hoek -an-e woet-e(t)
right-PL-GEN self-PRO.CLIT.2SG
'I swear ...' (LIT.: By your own right ...)
IV. Taking on responsibility
1. Explicit self blame
(9) [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] poe woefi
book-PRO.CLIT.2PL-OM with goodness
noe-daft
NEG-have.PAST.3SG
'I didn't keep your book well.'
2. Lack of intent
(10) mon nae-pajes
I NEG-want.PRES.3SG
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] be-bu
such SUBJ-become.PRES.3SG
'I meant no harm. (Lit. I didn't want to cause any
damage.)'
3. Expression of embarrassment
(11) noe-twan-an ez
NEG-can.PRES-1SG from
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
ASCII]
shame-PRO.CLIT.2SG SUBJ-look.PRES-1SG
'I 'm too embarrassed. (Lit. I can't look at you,
I'm embarrassed.)'
4. Admissions of facts but not of responsibility
(12) mon toe-roe be:-hoejal
I you-OM without-thought
kort-ae
do.PAST.3SG-PP
'I've forgotten you.'
5. Refusal to acknowledge guilt
a. Denial of responsibility
(13) toeksi:r-e mon noe-hoet
fault-GEN I NEG-be.PAST.3SG
'It wasn't my fault.'
b. Blame the hearer
(14) raeh-t-ae
way-PRO.CLIT.2SG-OM
pe-tfar
IMPER-look.PRES.2SG
'Watch out!'
V. Explanation or account
(15) [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
ASCII]
problem-INDEF forth
joeht
come.PAST.3SG
'There was a problem.'
VI. Offer of repair
(16) roe-w-a poer toew
IMP.go.PRES-EP-1S G for you
degoer-e jar-a
another-INDEF IMP.bring.PRES-1SG
'I go and bring another for you.'
VII. Promise of forbearance
(17) dege poede tfofo
another time such
noe-bu
NEG-IMP.become.PAST.3SG
'It won't happen again.'
VIII. Distracting from the offence (downgrading)
1. Act innocently/ pretend not to notice the offence
(18) de:r joeht-on?
late come.PRES-lSG
'Am I late?'
2. Appeaser
(19) [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] poe aji
something-INDEF for him/her
ger-a
IMP.take.PRES-1SG
'I'll buy something for him/ her.'
3. * God willing
(20) [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
God willing
'God willing!'
4. * Not to apologize
(21) poeda ja-j-a~
later IMP.come.PRES-EP-lSG
'I come later.'
The above-mentioned examples were some instances representing the
type of apology strategies used. Below, some instances related to the
number of such strategies are illustrated. These instances comprise 1
(simple) and combinations of 2, 3, 4, and 5 strategies (where each
strategy has been given an identification letter):
1. An example for 1 (simple) strategy is 'I' which shows
the strategy 'offer of repair':
(22) goda poer toew
later for you
degoer-e ger-a~
I
another-INDEF IMP.take.PRES-1SG
'Later, I take another for you.'
2. An example for the combination of 2 strategies is 'BQ'
which shows the strategies 'illocutionary force indicating
devices' and 'admission of facts but no responsibility':
(23) [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] ke
B Q
IMPER-forgive.PRES-2SG CL.LINK
mon tae-rae be:-haeial_
I you-OM without-thought
kort-ae
do.PAST.3SG-PP
'Excuse me that I've forgotten you.'
3. 'BAC' is an instance for the combination of 3
strategies which comprises strategies 'illocutionary force
indicating devices ', 'alerters' and 'lack of
intent':
(24) [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] ostad
B A
IMPER -forgive.PRES-2SG professor
mon noe-dant edan
C
I NEG-IMP.know.PAST.3SG here
ioek-e hoe
one-INDEF COP.PRES.3SG
'Excuse me professor, I didn't know that someone is
here.'
4. 'AAB(I)B' can be mentioned as a case for the
combination of 4 strategies which consists of two strategies
'alerters', one 'intensifying adverbials', and one
'illocutionary force indicating devices':
(25) odey bras
A A
hey brother
baz be-boekf-ej
B(I)
very IMPER-forgive.PRES-2SG
mon-oe poehel koen
B
I-OM halal IMPER.do.PRES.2SG
'Hey, brother! Excuse me very much. Forgive me.'
5. An example for a combination of 6 strategies is
'SACPL' which includes the strategies 'emotional
expressions, exclamations', 'alerters', 'lack of
intent' 'blame the hearer', and 'concern for the
hearer':
(26) oh/S odei/A nae-dis-on-et
oh hey NEG-see.PAST-1SG
PRO.CLIT.2SG
roeh-t-oe
P
way-PRO.CLIT.2SG-OM
pe-tfar hetf-e
IMPER-look.PRES.2SG nothing-INDEF
noe-bu
L
NEG-become.PRES.3SG
'Hey. I didn't see you. Watch out! Are you ok?'
Analysis of data
This section includes two further parts: one is related to the
analysis of type and the other one concerns the analysis of number of
apology strategies. In this regard, Tables 1, 2, 3 and 5 and 6 represent
frequency and total percentage of apology strategies employed by SBMUS
regarding power and gender of the addresses (illustrating type of
apology strategies). Moreover, Tables 8 and 10 show frequency and total
percentage of simple and complex apology strategies used by
participants, due to power and gender of the addresses (exemplifying
number of apology strategies). Besides, Tables 4, 7, 9 and 11 indicate
Chi Square test results for type and number of apology strategies
pertaining to power and gender of the addressees in 5 situations under
research.
Type of apology strategies
As Tables 1, 2 and 3 indicates, and it is also exemplified through
the instances in the results section, besides employing a good number of
apology strategies in Blum-Kulka et al.'s (1989) coding scheme,
SBMUS used some new strategies not predicted in that categorization.
These new strategies are 'swearing', 'evoking the name of
God (God willing)', and using special 'alerters' like
gohar 'sister' and bras 'brother' (regarding the
effect of their religion). In some cases, however, SBMUS preferred not
to offer apologies to the addressees and used other terms which could
not be grouped within apology categorizations.
Tables 1, 2 and 3 display frequency and total percentage of apology
strategies used by the participants, with regard to power of the
addressees in 5 situations under research. In these tables, the
strategies are arranged, from the one with highest frequency and total
percentage to the one with lowest frequency and total percentage of use
in all data. As to the data presented in these tables, the students
employed more strategies dealing with the addressees with higher social
power. This number sums up to make us of (1479) strategies dealing with
the addressees with higher power (professors), (1288) strategies dealing
with the addressees with equal power (classmates), and (1259) strategies
dealing with the addressees with lower power (library servants).
Moreover, based on these tables, the most frequent strategy used by
SBMUS dealing with the addressees with higher, equal and lower power is
the strategy 'illocutionary force indicating devices (IFIDS)'
with (527), (414) and (447) times of occurrence in all data,
respectively. Furthermore, the next three ranks of the strategies
dealing with the aforementioned addressees belong to the strategy
'alerters' with (322), (287) and (229); 'lack of
intent' with (218), (188), and (193); and 'explicit self
blame' with (92), (99) and (92) frequency of use in all data
collected. Other similarities and differences pertaining to the use of
apology strategies by SBMUS dealing with professors, classmates and
library servants, can also be observed in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
Table 1 shows apology strategies used by the participants, their
frequencies and percentage in all the data in response to professors. As
this table shows the participants' responses here, include 36.78%
0f total apology strategies.
Table 2 signifies apology strategies used by the participants,
their frequencies and percentage in all the data in response to
classmates. As this table shows, the participants' responses here
include 31.96% of total refusal strategies.
Table 3 illustrates apology strategies used by the participants,
their frequencies and percentage in all the data in response to library
servants. As this table shows the participants' responses here,
include 31.24% of total refusal strategies.
As Table 4 displays, Chi-Square test results show that in situation
1 (p = 0.117 > 0.05), in situation 2 (p = 0.450 > 0.05), in
situation 4 (p = 251 > 0.05) and in situation 5 (p = 0.501 >
0.05); so, since p is more than 0.05, there is not a meaningful
relationship between addressees' power and the type of apology
strategies employed by SBMUS in these situations. Therefore, the first
null hypothesis: "the relationship between power of the addressees
and type of apology strategies employed by SBMUS is not meaningful"
is confirmed. However, since p for situation 3 is less than 0.05 (p =
0.005 < 0.05), Chi-Square test results indicate that there is a
meaningful relationship between power of the addressees and the type of
apology strategies employed by SBMUS. Hence, the first null hypothesis
is rejected.
The most frequent apology strategy employed by SBMUS in reply to
both male and female addressees, according to Table 5, is
'illocutionary force indicating devices (IFIDS)' with (708)
and (680) times of occurrence in all data, correspondingly. This table
shows that differences in the number and frequency of the employment of
other apology strategies, dealing with male and female addressees appear
to be too trifling to be considered. However, there are minor
differences regarding employing the strategy 'please' and
'appeaser' in reply to females which are not applied dealing
with males.
Table 5 represents refusal strategies used by the participants,
their frequencies and percentage in all the data in response to male
addresses. As this table shows the participants' responses here,
include 51.74% 0f total refusal strategies.
Table 6 shows apology strategies used by the participants, their
frequencies and percentage in all the data in response to female
addresses. According to this table, the participants' responses
here, include 48.29% 0f total refusal strategies.
Moreover, Chi Square test results represented in Table 7 indicate
that: in situation 1 (p = 0.866 > 0.05), in situation 2 (p = 0.679
> 0.05), in situation 3 (p = 719 > 0.05), in situation 4 (p = 710
> 0.05) and in situation 5 (p = 0.385 > 0.05); thus, as p is more
than 0.05, there is not a meaningful relationship between
addressees' gender and type of apology strategies employed by
SBMUS. As a result, the second null hypothesis: 'the relationship
between gender of the addressees and the type of apology strategies
employed by SBMUS is not meaningful', is confirmed.
Number of apology strategies
According to Table 8, the most complex apology strategy combination
used by SBMUS dealing with the addressees with higher and equal power is
combination of 3 strategies with (194) and (179) frequency of use in all
data. However, for library servants, the first rank of complex
strategies belongs to the combination of 2 strategies with (185)
frequency of use. Although the next rank of complex strategies for
professors and classmates is dedicated to combination of 2 strategies
with (152) and (168), for those of lower social power, the second rank
belongs to combination of 3 strategies with (152) times of occurrence.
Besides, even though for professors, the third rank belongs to the
combination of 4 strategies with (109) times of occurrence, for
classmates and library servants this rank belongs to the simple strategy
with (51) and (77) frequency of use, respectively. Simple strategy with
(15) times of occurrence for professors is located in the fourth rank;
and combination of 4 strategies fills this rank for classmates and
library servants with (79) and (68) frequency of use. The participants
employed combination of 5 and 6 strategies dealing with all the
addressees in a similar order. Besides, they used combination of 8 and 9
strategies just in reply to those with higher power. The exact frequency
and total percentage of applying these strategy combinations are
illustrated in Table 8.
Concerning Table 9, Chi-Square test results indicate that: in
situation 2 (p = 0.191 > 0.05), in situation 4(p = 283 > 0.05) and
in situation 5 (p = 085 > 0.05); therefore, for p is more than 0.05,
there is not a meaningful relationship between addressees' power
and type of apology strategies employed by SBMUS. Thus, the first null
hypothesis: 'the relationship between power of the addressees and
type of apology strategies employed by SBMUS is not meaningful',
for these situations, is confirmed. However, Chi-Square test results for
situation 1 (p = 0 < 0.05) and situation 3 (p = 0.007 < 0.05)
suggest that there is a meaningful relationship between power of the
addressees and type of apology strategies employed by SBMUS, because p
in these situations is less than 0.05. So, the first null hypothesis for
these situations is rejected.
As the data in table 10 illustrates, the most complex strategy
combination dealing with male addressees is combination of 3 strategies
with (270) frequency of use in all data. However, for females,
combination of 2 strategies is the most frequent complex strategy with
(270) times of occurrence. Although the second rank of applying complex
strategies dealing with male addressees belongs to combination of 2
strategies (235), for females, this rank is dedicated to combination of
3 strategies (255). The next ranks of complex strategies for male and
female addressees, as specified in the table 10, are arranged in a
similar order.
Furthermore, regarding Table 11, Chi Square and correlation test
results specify that in situation 1 (p = 0218 > 0.05), in situation 2
(p = 0.601 > 0.05), in situation 3 (p = 0.170 > 0.05), in
situation 4 (p = 0.992 > 0.05) and in situation 5 (p = 0.579 >
0.05); therefore, since p is more than 0.05, there is not a meaningful
relationship between addressees' gender and number of apology
strategies employed by SBMUS. Accordingly, the fourth null hypothesis:
'the relationship between gender of the addressees and number of
apology strategies employed by SBMUS is not meaningful', is
confirmed.
Discussion
As the examples in the results section highlight, findings disclose
the fact that, in addition to most of the apology strategies referred to
in Blum-Kulka et al.'s (1989) classification, SBMUS employed some
new strategies not predicted in this taxonomy. These are 'evoking
the name of God (God willing)', 'swearing', and applying
special terms of address like 'gohar' and 'bras'
which mean 'sister' and 'brother', correspondingly.
However, in some cases, SBMUS preferred not to apologize to the
addressees and employ other terms which could not be set within apology
classifications (the example is given in the results section).
In view of the fact that in Islam, God is the One who governs the
universe, reliance on His ruling power in managing everything has a
central role in Muslims' lives. Therefore, it can be alleged that
employing the strategies like 'evoking the name of God (God
willing)' by SBMUS is a manifestation of this belief. Using
'alerters' like 'gohar' and 'bras' can
also represent the fact that Islam considers all Muslims religious
brethren and sisters. Moreover, as it was shown in the results section,
the speakers employed special expression 'paehel kaen' as an
IFID strategy. 'paehel' equals 'Halal' which
"[...] is an Arabic term meaning 'permissible' ... In the
Arabic language, it refers to anything that is permissible under
Islam" (REFERENCE, 2008). However, in this context, Halal is used
as an explicit expression of apology meaning forgiveness. These results
corresponds to Al-Zumor's study findings (2011) which demonstrate
the effect of religious beliefs and values on the choice of apology
strategies by Arab learners of English studying in India.
Using strategies like 'swearing', additionally, might
also be another way of strengthening of apologies which can be tied to
the cultural factors dominating Baloch society of Sarawan.
The participants of this study, employed more apology strategies
dealing with addressees with higher social power than those with equal
or lower power. In Persian, Afghari's study (2007) on apology
strategies confirms this result.
'Illocutionary force indicating devices (IFIDS)' with
(1388) times of occurrence in all data was the most frequent apology
strategy employed by SBMUS, as indicated in the previous section (see
analysis of the data: type of apology strategies). This result
corresponds to other apology studies like those carried out by Shariati
and Chamani (2010) in Persian, Alfattah (2010) on Yemeni EFL university
students, and Jebahi (2011) on Tunisian university students.
Nevertheless, this result is not in line with the findings of the
research done by Nureddeen (2008) in Sudanese Arabic, in the respect
that the most frequent apology strategy used by the participants in this
linguistic corpus was the strategy 'explanation/ account'; and
'illocutionary force indicating devices' is arranged at the
second rank of apology strategies. Besides, the result is not similar to
findings of Afghari (2007) on Persian students. Afghari (2007) concluded
that the most frequent apology strategy used by Persian students was the
strategy 'an acknowledgement of responsibility'.
Furthermore, as the examples given in the previous section (see
analysis of the data: type of apology strategies) and the data
illustrated in the Tables 1, 2 and 3 indicate that the effect of social
power on employing apology strategies used by SBMUS is not significant.
The effect is limited to situation 3, as Chi square test results in
Table 4 show. In fact, the differences are too trifling to cause major
effects on the results of the study.
Employing apology strategies by SBMUS in response to male and
female addressees, as can be seen in Tables 5 and 6, is mostly similar
and the differences in the frequency of applying these strategies are
not significant to be considered. Besides, this finding also corresponds
to Chi Square test results which indicate that gender of the addressees
doesn't affect the type of apology strategies used by SBMUS.
In addition, as it was previously said, the most frequent complex
strategy dealing with professors and classmates was combination of 3
strategies; however, combination of 2 strategies in reply to library
servants was the most frequent complex strategy employed by SBMUS. Other
differences and similarities in applying complex strategies dealing with
addresses with higher, equal and lower power were described in previous
section (see analysis of the data: number of apology strategies). These
findings can justify Chi Square test results in Table 9 which designate
that power of the addressees affects number of apology strategies
employed by SBMUS just in two situations (situations 1 and 3). It seems
that the situations and the context in which an apology happens play an
important role in the choice of apology strategies.
According to Table 10, SBMUS applied combination of 3 strategies as
the most frequent complex strategy dealing with male addressees, and
combination of 2 strategies is the most frequent complex strategy in
reply to females. Other differences in the number of apology strategies
in reply to male and female addressees were not significant. This is
also validated by Chi Square test results in Table 11. Therefore, it can
be concluded that gender of the addressees does not affect the number of
apology strategies used by SBMUS.
According to what have been said, power of the addresses mostly
does not have an effect on the type and number of apology strategies
employed by SBMUS. This result does not correspond the findings of some
other apology studies carried out in other cultures like Lombok by Wouk
(2006), Persian by Afghari (2007), Sudanese Arabic by Nureddeen (2008),
British English, Polish and Russian by Ogiermann (2009), Tunis by Jebahi
(2011), and Korea by Hatfield and Hahn (2011) in the respect that social
power was an effective factor in using apology strategies by the
participants of their studies.
It was observed that gender doesn't have any effect on the
type and number of apology strategies employed by the participants. This
result is similar to the findings of Wouk (2006) in Lombok of Indonesia.
In addition, this finding corresponds to results of the research
performed by Fahmi Bataineh and Fahmi Bataineh (2008) in the case of
American male and female respondents. Nevertheless, in the case of
Jordanian male and female respondents, in their research, Fahmi Bataineh
and Fahmi Bataineh (2008) state that there were more differences between
Jordanian male and female respondents in the applying apology strategies
than American ones.
As it seems, the results of the present study highlight the idea
represented by Olshtain (1989) that maintains the recognition of
universal manifestations of strategy selection at a worldwide level of
analysis. The fact that there are more similarities than differences in
apology strategies found in this study with those found in Blum-Kulka et
al.'s (1989) study and other apology studies (Lombok by WOUK, 2006;
Persian by AFGHARI, 2007; Jordan by FAHMI BATAINEH; FAHMI BATAINEH,
2008; SHARIATI; CHAMANI, 2010 etc.) also support this idea. Moreover,
this result may also manifest Ochs' (1996) Universal Culture
Principle which, as Hassani, Mardani and Dastjerdi (2011) emphasize,
specifies that there are certain commonalities in the linguistic means
applied to come across certain situation meanings, across world's
languages and communities of practice. Hassani et al. (2011: 43) also
believe that this principle suggests that people employ "[...]
certain similar linguistic means to achieve certain similar social
ends". However, in this study, a number of different apology
strategies in Sarawani Balochi were found which were not predicted in
Blum-Kulka et al.'s (1989) taxonomy. As Wierzbicka (1985) claims
the differences in applying the speech acts in different societies may
be linked with various cultural norms and assumptions.
Conclusion
The present study examined the effect of power and gender of the
addressees on type and number of apology strategies employed by SBMUS.
The similarity between most of the strategies applied by SBMUS and those
employed by the participants in Blum-Kulka's (1989) project
signifies universality of apology strategies. However, this study came
across applying some new strategies in the expression of apology
formulas not predicted in the given scheme. Some of these new strategies
and expressions like 'swearing' and 'evoking the name of
God (God willing)' might reflect the influence of cultural and
religious factors governing Baloch society of Sarawan. As it seems,
culture, religion, context and the situations in which an apology
occurs, have significant effect on type and number of apology strategies
employed by these participants. Power and gender of the addressees
mostly does not have any effect on the type and number of apology
strategies employed by SBMUS. The strategy 'illocutionary force
indicating devices' was the most frequent strategy regarding the
type of apology strategies. Concerning the number of apology strategies,
the first rank belongs to combination of 3 strategies.
APPENDICES
A. List of Abbreviations
1 1st person
2 2nd person
3 3rd person
CLM classmate
CL.LINK complementizer link
COP copula
DIM diminutive
EP epenthesis
EXCLUS exclusive
F female
GEN genitive
IMP imperfect tense
IMPER imperative
INDEF indefinite
LIT literally
M male
NEG negative
OBL oblique
OM object marker
PAST past stem
PP past participle
PL plural
PRES present stem
PRO.CLIT pronominal clitic
PROF professor
RED reduplication
SERV servant
SG singular
SUBJ subjunctive
V.EL verbal element
B. Apology Situations
1. You have borrowed a book from one of the following addressees,
but you have already noticed that some of the papers are torn. How do
you offer apologies to him/ her?
a. male professor
b. male professor
c. male classmate
d. male classmate
e. male servant
f. male servant
2. You go to the workplace or class of one of the following
addressees, but he/ she is talking about his/her personal affairs with
someone else. How do you offer apologies to him/ her?
3. You are speaking with one of the following addressees, but
suddenly you pour his/ her cup of tea. How do you offer apologies to
him/ her?
4. You have an appointment with one of the following addressees but
you arrive late. How do you offer apologies to him/ her?
5. You are passing the university's corridor, but suddenly you
bump into one of the following addressees and throw his/ her stuffs. How
do you offer apologies to him/ her?
Doi: 10.4025/actascilangcult.v37i2.22465
References
AFGHARI, A. A sociopragmatic study of apology speech act
realization patterns in Persian. Speech communication, v. 49, n. 3, p.
177-185, 2007.
ALFATTAH, M. H. A. Apology strategies of Yemeni EFL University
Students. MJAL, v. 2, n. 3, p. 223-249, 2010.
AL-ZUMOR, A. W. Q. G. Apologies in Arabic and English: an
inter-language and cross-cultural study. Journal of King Saud
University--Languages and Translation, v. 23, n. 1, p. 19-28, 2011.
BARJASTEH DELFOROOZ, B. Discourse Features in Balochi of Sistan.
Sweden: Uppsala Universitet, 2010.
BLUM-KULKA, S. Learning how to say what you mean in a second
language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as
a second language. Applied Linguistics, v. 3, n. 1, p. 29-59, 1982.
BLUM-KULKA, S.; OLSHTAIN, E. Requests and apologies: a
cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP).
Applied Linguistics, v. 5, n. 3, p. 196-213, 1984.
BLUM-KULKA, S.; HOUSE, J.; KASPER, G. Cross-cultural pragmatics:
requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex, 1989.
BROWN, P.; LEVINSON, S. Politeness: some universals in language
usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
BROWN, S.; ATTARDO, S. Understanding language structure,
interaction and variation: an introduction to applied linguistics and
sociolinguistics for non-specialists. Michigan: Michigan University
Press, 2000.
FAHMI BATAINEH, R.; FAHMI BATAINEH, R. Apology strategies of
Jordanian EFL university students. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 38, n. 11,
p. 792-821, 2006.
FAHMI BATAINEH, R.; FAHMI BATAINEH, R. A cross-cultural comparison
of apologies by native speakers of American English and Jordanian
Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 40, n. 4, p. 792-821, 2008.
FRASER, B. On apologizing. In: COULMAS, F. (Ed.). Conversational
routines. Mouton de gruyter: the hague, 1981. p. 259-271.
HASSANI, R.; MARDANI, M.; DASTJERDI, H. V. A comparative study of
refusals: Gender distinction and social status in focus. Language
Society and Culture, Issue 32, p. 37-46, 2011.
HATFIELD, H.; HAHN, J. W. What Korean apologies require of
politeness theory. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 43, n. 5, 1303-1317. 2011.
JAHANI, C.; KORN, A. Balochi. In: JAHANI, C.; KORN, A. (Ed.). The
Iranian languages. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. p. 634-692.
JEBAHI, K. H. Tunisian university students' choice of apology
strategies in a discourse completion task. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 43,
n. 2, p. 648-662, 2011.
KATRIEL, T. Speech in context: Moving towards an integrative
perspective. Informatologia Yugoslavica, v. 17, n. 1-2, p. 171-176,
1985.
NUREDDEEN, F. A. Cross cultural pragmatics: apology strategies in
Sudanese Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 40, n. 2, p. 279-306, 2008.
OCHS, E. Linguistic-resources for socializing humanity. In:
GUMPERZ, J.; LEVINSON, S. (Ed.). Rethinking linguistic relativity.
Cambridge: C.U.P., 1996. p. 401-431.
OGIERMANN, E. On apologising in negative and positive politeness
cultures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,
2009.
OLSHTAIN, E. Apologies across languages. In: BLUMKULKA, S.; HOUSE,
J.; KASPER, G. (Ed.). Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies.
Norwood: Ablex, 1989. p. 155-174.
OLSHTAIN, E.; COHEN, A. D. Apology: a speech act set. In: WOLFSON,
N.; JUDD, E. (Ed.). Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley:
Newbury House, 1983. p. 18-35.
OWEN, M. Apologies and remedial exchanges. A study of language use
in social interaction. Berlin: Mouton, 1983.
REFERENCE. 2008. Available from: <http://www.
reference.com/browse/halal?s=t>. Access on: May 5, 2012.
PHUONG, T. M. Cross-cultural pragmatics: refusals of requests by
Australian native speakers of English and Vietnamese learners of
English. 2006. 108p.
Thesis (Degree of Master of Arts in TESOL Studies)-The University
of Queensland, the faculty of arts, the school of languages and
comparative cultural studies, Queensland, 2006.
SHARIATI, M.; CHAMANI, F. Apology strategies in Persian. Journal of
Pragmatics, v. 42, n. 6, p. 1689-1699, 2010.
SUGIMOTO, N. A Japan-U.S. comparison of apology styles.
Communication Research, v. 24, n. 4, p. 349-370, 1997.
TROSBORG, A. Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of
Pragmatics, v. 11, n. 2, p. 147-167, 1987.
WIERZBICKA, A. Different cultures, different languages, different
speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 9, n. 2, p. 145-178, 1985.
WOLFSON, N.; MARMOR, T. H.; JONES, S. In: BLUM-KULKA, S.; HOUSE,
J.; KASPER, G. (Ed.). Problems in the comparison of speech acts across
cultures. Norwood: Ablex, 1989. p. 174-197.
WOUK, F. The language of apologizing in Lombok, Indonesia. Journal
of Pragmatics, v. 38, n. 9, p. 1457-1486, 2006.
Received on November 22, 2014.
Accepted on January 22, 2015.
License information: This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Abbas Ali Ahangar *, Abdullah Sarani and Seddigheh Zeynali Dastuyi
University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Republica Islamica do Ira,
Ira. * Author for correspondence. E-mail: ahangar@english.usb.ac.ir
Table 1. Frequency and total percentage of the apology
strategies employed by SBMUS dealing with professors
in 5 situations under study.
Type of strategies (PROF) FR % of total
Illocutionary force indicating 527 13.08
devices (IFIDS)
Alerters 322 7.99
Lack of intent 218 2.28
Explicit self blame 92 2.28
Admissions of facts but not of 68 1.68
responsibility
Explanation or account 61 1.51
Offer of repair 55 1.36
Intensifying adverbials 51 1.26
Double intensifier or repetition 32 0.79
of intensifying adverbials
Emotional expressions, exclamations 21 0.52
Swearing 14 0.34
Concern for hearer 9 0.22
Denial of responsibility 4 0.09
Not to apologize 3 0.07
God willing 3 0.07
Blame the hearer 1 0.02
Total 1,482 36.78
Table 2. Frequency and total percentage of the apology
strategies employed by SBMUS dealing with classmates in
5 situations under study.
Type of strategies (CLM) FR % of total
Illocutionary force 414 10.27
indicating devices (IFIDS)
Alerters 287 7.12
Lack of intent 188 4.66
Explicit self blame 99 2.45
Admissions of facts but not 72 1.78
of responsibility
Offer of repair 50 1.24
Intensifying adverbials 40 0.99
Explanation or account 36 0.89
Emotional expressions, exclamations 22 0.46
Not to apologize 18 0.44
Concern for hearer 16 0.39
Swearing 13 0.32
Blame the hearer 9 0.22
Double intensifier or 8 0.19
repetition of intensifying
adverbials
Denial of responsibility 6 0.14
Act innocently, pretend not 3 0.07
to notice the offence
Promise of forbearance 2 0.04
God willing 2 0.04
Please 1 0.02
Expression of embarrassment 1 0.02
Appeaser 1 0.02
Total 1,288 31.96
Table 3. Frequency and total percentage of the apology
strategies employed by SBMUS dealing with servants in 5
situations under study.
Type of strategies (SERV) FR % of total
Illocutionary force indicating 447 11.09
devices (IFIDS)
Alerters 229 5.68
Lack of intent 193 4.79
Explicit self blame 92 2.28
Admissions of facts but not 79 1.96
of responsibility
Offer of repair 45 1.11
Intensifying adverbials 35 0.86
Explanation or account 34 0.84
Not to apologize 28 0.69
Emotional expressions, 17 0.42
exclamations
Double intensifier or 17 0.42
repetition of intensifying
adverbials
Swearing 11 0.27
Concern for hearer 9 0.22
Denial of responsibility 6 0.14
Promise of forbearance 5 0.12
Blame the hearer 4 0.09
Expression of embarrassment 4 0.09
God willing 3 0.07
Act innocently, pretend not 1 0.02
to notice the offence
Total 1,259 31.24
Table 4. Chi Square test results for apology
strategies employed by SBMUS in 5 apology
situations related to the first research
hypothesis.
Situations Chi square test
P Reliability
1 0.117 --
2 0.450 --
3 0.005 99%
4 0.251 --
5 0.501 --
Table 5. Frequency and total percentage of apology
strategies employed by SBMUS dealing with male
addressees in 5 situations under study.
Type of strategies (M) FR % of total
Illocutionary force 708 17.57
indicating devices (IFIDS)
Alerters 466 11.56
Lack of intent 298 7.39
Explicit self blame 144 3.57
Admissions of facts but not 107 2.56
of responsibility
Offer of repair 81 2.01
Explanation or account 69 1.71
Intensifying adverbials 68 1.68
Not to apologize 33 0.81
Emotional expressions, 28 0.57
exclamations
Double intensifier or 23 0.57
repetition of intensifying
adverbials
Swearing 19 0.47
Concern for hearer 12 0.29
Blame the hearer 10 0.24
Denial of responsibility 7 0.17
God willing 5 0.12
Promise of forbearance 3 0.07
Expression of embarrassment 2 0.04
Act innocently, pretend not 2 0.04
to notice the offence
Total 2,085 51.74
Table 6. Frequency and total percentage of apology
strategies employed by SBMUS dealing with female
addressees in 5 situations under study.
Type of strategies (F) FR % of total
Illocutionary force indicating 680 16.87
devices (IFIDS)
Alerters 372 9.23
Lack of intent 301 7.47
Explicit self blame 139 3.44
Admissions of facts but not of 112 2.77
responsibility
Offer of repair 69 1.71
Explanation or account 62 1.53
Intensifying adverbials 58 1.43
Double intensifier or 34 0.84
repetition of intensifying
adverbials
Emotional expressions, 32 0.79
exclamations
Concern for hearer 22 0.54
Swearing 19 0.47
Not to apologize 16 0.39
Denial of responsibility 9 0.22
Blame the hearer 4 0.09
Expression of embarrassment 4 0.09
Promise of forbearance 4 0.09
God willing 3 0.07
Act innocently, pretend not 2 0.04
to notice the offence
Please 1 0.02
Appeaser 1 0.02
Total 1,944 48.29
Table 7. Chi Square test results for apology
strategies employed by SBMUS in 5 apology
situations related to the second research
hypothesis.
Situations Chi square test
P Reliability
1 0.866 --
2 0.679 --
3 0.719 --
4 0.710 --
5 0.385 --
Table 8. Frequency and total percentage of the simple and
complex apology strategies employed by SBMUS according to
power of the addressees in 5 situations.
Number of Power Total
apology strategies
PROF CLM SERV
1 strategie Count 15 51 77 143
% of total 1 3.4 5.13 9.53
2 strategies Count 152 168 185 505
% of total 10.13 11.2 12.33 33.66
3 strategies Count 194 179 152 525
% of total 12.93 11.93 10.13 35
4 strategies Count 109 79 68 256
% of total 7.26 5.26 4.53 17.06
5 strategies Count 25 21 14 60
% of total 1.66 1.4 0.93 4
6 strategies Count 2 2 4 8
% of total 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.53
8 strategies Count 1 0 0 1
% of total 0.06 0 0
9 strategies Count 2 0 0 0.06
% of total 0.13 0 0
Total Count 500 500 500 1500
% of total 33.33 33.33 33.33 100
Table 9. Chi Square and correlation test results for apology
strategies employed by SBMUS in 5 apology situations related
to the third research hypothesis.
Situations Chi square test Correlation
test
P Reliability Value
1 0.000 99% -0.282
2 0.191 -- -0.150
3 0.007 99% -0.205
4 0.283 -- -0.119
5 0.085 -- -0.176
Table 10. Frequency and the total percentage of the simple
and complex apology strategies employed by SBMUS according
to the gender of the addressees in 5 situations.
Number of apology Gender Total
strategies
M F
1 strategie Count 65 78 143
% of total 4.33 5.2 9.53
2 strategies Count 235 270 505
% of total 15.66 18 33.66
3 strategies Count 270 255 525
% of total 18 17 35
4 strategies Count 138 118 256
% of total 9.2 7.86 17.06
5 strategies Count 36 24 60
% of total 2.4 1.6 4
6 strategies Count 4 4 8
% of total 0.26 0.26 0.53
8 strategies Count 1 0 1
% of total 0.06 0 0.06
9 strategies Count 1 1 1
% of total 0.06 0.06 0.06
Total Count 750 750 1500
% of total 50 50 100
Table 11. Chi Square and correlation test results for apology
strategies employed by SBMUS in 5 apology situations related
to the fourth research hypothesis.
Chi square test Correlation
test
Situations P Reliability Value
1 0.218 -- -0.151
2 0.601 -- -0.009
3 0.170 -- -0.113
4 0.992 -- -0.027
5 0.579 -- -0.053
