Chapter 1
Introduction
“English education cuts a sorry figure in Pakistani institutions; it does not yield
efficient learners of the language, which should ideally be the primary goal of teaching a
language” (Kiran, 2010). English, considered one of the most widely spoken languages of the
world for the past many decades (Kitao, 1996; Wierzbicka, 2006), attains the status of
official, educational, research and even court language in Pakistan, along with our national
language, Urdu (Mehboob, 2009; Kiran, 2010). Despite its undisputed importance and
function, regrettably, the teaching of English remains unsatisfactory as far as its
communicative, sociolinguistics, and pragmatic competency on the part of the learners is
concerned.
Majority of our learners remain unable to communicate well in English even though it
is taught to them as compulsory subject from class one till graduation (Coleman, 2010).
There are a number of factors which have been accounted for this faulty English language
teaching, such as unsupportive curriculum, over-crowded classrooms, obstructive
examination system etc. (Kiran, 2010; Ahmad, 2004). Within our context, English is treated
as ‘subject’ not as a ‘language’ (Kiran, 2010) thus, no particular emphasis is given on
enhancement of pragmatic competence of the learners. This negligence makes the learners
suffer seriously when it comes to communicate and express themselves in the said language.
Starting with Hymes’ (1974) original idea that learners of a language have to have
more than grammatical competence in order to be able to communicate effectively in a
language, there has been great emphasis that learners must acquire not only linguistic rules
such as morphology, syntax, phonology, and vocabulary, but they must also acquire
sociolinguistics rules of the target language (Anderson, 1990; Olshtain & Cohen, 1981;
Wolfson, 1988). The L2 pragmatic transfer studies have shown that despite being
linguistically competent in a second language, learners are likely to transfer L1 pragmatic
rules in their L2 production (Samaty, 2005) and there has been a great emphasis on
developing pragmatic competence of L2 learners in language classrooms. Researchers and
practitioners have emphasized the need that EFL learners must not only acquire the correct
syntax and phonology of the English language, but also the knowledge and understanding of
how language is pragmatically used in the target culture in order to increase their intercultural
communicative competence in English (Lee, 2002). Learners should be taught
communicative strategies and the pragmatic differences in the target language. In view of all
this, it is surprising that this is not an important consideration as far as English language
teaching in Pakistan is concerned.
1
As Searle (1969) claims “the reason for concentrating on the study of speech acts is simply
this: all linguistic communication involves linguistic acts. In order to have successful
communication, the interlocutors not only should be linguistically but also pragmatically
competent”. In other words, an effective language user is competent in not only linguistics
but also pragmatics. As Yule (1996) put it, “nothing in the use of the linguistic forms
is inaccurate, but getting the pragmatics wrong might be offensive” (p.5-6). To be able
to use a target language appropriately in terms of pragmatic competence, language users
should employ a variety of speech acts. Apology acceptance is one of them.
Different cultures differ from each other in terms of sociolinguistic norms they have.
People in each society use the interaction rules of their mother tongue in their community
each time they interact with each other (Chick, 1996). However, EFL learners encounter
difficulty when they attempt to interact with the new sociolinguistic norms even if
they have sufficient competence in other components of language like phonetics,
syntax and semantics of the language they are learning. While one source for the failure in
communication can be attributed to the unfamiliarity of the EFL learners to sociolinguistic
norms of the language being learnt; the other source for it might be the transfer of
sociolinguistic norms of their mother tongues to the target language. Generally,
sociolinguistic transfer is the use of sociolinguistic rules of interaction of one's mother tongue
while interacting in another language (Chick, 1996; Lewis, 2003; Holmes, 1989, 2001; CelceMurcia, 1991; Manes, 1983; Wolfson, 1989).
Each culture requires various kinds of speech act behavior. Blum-Kulka, House and
Kasper (1989) found that “culturally colored interactional styles create culturally
determined expectations and interpretative strategies, and can lead to breakdowns in
intercultural and interethnic communication” (p. 30). In other words, when people from
different cultures interact, breakdowns in communication may happen due to signaling
different speech act strategies that reflect the culture’s distinctive interactional style.
Many researchers focus on the need for the rules of producing “communicatively
appropriate performance” (e.g. Schmidt & Richards, 1980, P. 1; Uso-Juan & Martinez-Flor,
2008) as well as proper development of pragmatic competence (e.g. Bardovi-Harlig &
Hartford, 1996; Celce-Marcia, Dornyei & Thurrell, 1995, as cited in Fernandez Guerra
& Martinez-Flor, 2005). As a matter of fact, many learners may not be aware of socially and
culturally appropriate forms which may lead to communication break-down or
communication conflict.
Therefore, according to Schmidt and Richards (1980), we should try to
appreciate a theory which account for language use among which speech act theory plays
2
a crucial role. Speech act theory is concerned with uses of language. Schmidt and Richards
(1980) propose that generally speech act includes all the acts we do while speaking though,
this is a broad definition. The main contribution of speech act theory is to explanation of
communicative competence. Pragmatic speech acts such as complement, invitations, refusals,
suggestions, and apologies are significant components of communicative competence.
Different approaches analyzing communicative competence have considered pragmatic
competence as the basic component, on the other hand, within pragmatic competence
increasing attention has been drawn to interlanguage pragmatic (ILP) studies which most of
them have been carried out on production of different speech acts.
Thus, the study of speech acts appears to be necessary to the understanding of
intercultural studies. Within the last few years, great deal of studies have been carried
out in regard to different speech acts, such as: request (e.g. Jalilifar, 2009; Taguchi,
2006), apology (e.g. Eslami-Rasekh & Mardani, 2010; Harris, Grainger & Mullany, 2006),
apology acceptance (e.g. Sharifian, 2008; Wolfson, 1981) and refusals (e.g. Allami &
Naeimi, 2010; Tanck, 2002) among which speech act of apology acceptance has absorbed
scant attention.
1.1 Purpose of Study
As no study related to the L2 English pragmatic ability of students of English in
Pakistan has yet been conducted, it will be hard to say anything with confidence about the
pragmatic competence of English students including their proficiency in using appropriate
apology acceptance strategies in English. There is a wide research gap and this study will be
attempted to fill in this gap by exploring the use of apology acceptance strategies in English
by the Pakistani university students in Pakistan.
1.2Research Questions
This study will have the following six questions:
1. What is the overall distribution of apology acceptance response among Pakistani
University students?
2. Will there be similarities and differences between male and female respondents in the
use of apology acceptance strategies?
3. Do Pakistani English students keep in mind the social distance of interlocutors while
accepting apology strategies?
4. Will the relative social power of the interlocutor over the speaker do affect their
apology acceptance strategies?
5. What type of apology acceptance strategies Pakistani English students use in certain
situations which are severe or not severe?
3
6. Can apology acceptance response among Pakistani university students be applied to
politeness principles which are proposed by Leech, and Brown and Levinson?
1.3 Significance of Study
This study is significant in many different ways. The results of this study will be the
fundamental information used to assist learners to develop their pragmatic competence in
English. Further, the study is expected to give theoretical and practical contribution in
relation to the teaching of different speech acts in English to English learners in Pakistan.
Theoretically, the findings would be useful to enlarge the EFL learners’ views on using
apology acceptance strategies, and to open the new insight of apology acceptance. The
readers will also learn some kinds of apology acceptance strategies that can be practiced in
their life in solving a certain problem.
This study will also be helpful for the policy makers, curriculum designers and
material developers in Pakistan to understand the social and cultural differences in the use of
apology acceptance strategies of the speakers of different languages and develop ESL courses
according to the learners’ sociolinguistic needs.
The results of this study will provide practical contributions. First, for second
language learners, this study will enrich their understanding on using appropriate apology
acceptance in conversation. Second, this study will also be useful for English teachers in
Pakistan in teaching and developing their students’ knowledge about the use of different
speech acts, especially apology acceptances and apology acceptance strategies in English.
Finally, this study will become a source of information for other researchers who are
interested in knowing about the use of apology acceptance strategies by Pakistani EFL
learners.
4
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The importance of pragmatics has been emphasized in the area of language learning.
In particular, the studies of speech act sets have been widely investigated in the field of
interlanguage pragmatics. Speech acts reflect the fundamental cultural values and social
norms of the target language. Lacking the cultural, social, and pragmatic context in crosscultural communication can lead to misunderstandings, both in producing the appropriate
speech act and perceiving the intended meaning of one uttered by somebody else. That is why
it is important to know how speech acts are produced in both the native and the target
language of second language learners.
In the present study, Pakistani EFL learners’ apology acceptance strategies will be
investigated in terms of the sociopragmatic perspective. Thus, in the following section,
theoretical and empirical studies will be reviewed with regard to the relationship between
pragmatics and language learning. It proceeds in the following order: pragmatics, linguistics
politeness, speech acts, speech act of apology which includes apology strategies, apology
acceptance strategies and a review of previous research studies on apology.
2.1 Pragmatics
A subfield of linguistics developed in the late 1970s, pragmatics studies how people
comprehend and produce a communicative act or speech act in a concrete speech situation
which is usually a conversation. Pragmatics has been defined in various ways, reflecting
authors’ theoretical orientation and audience. Crystal (1985) defines pragmatics as “the study
of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the
constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of
language has on other participants in the act of communication.” Yule (1996) describes
pragmatics as “the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users of those
forms.” According to Leech (1983), pragmatics is an interpersonal rhetoric - the way
speakers and writers accomplish goals as social actors who do not just need to get things done
but attend to their interpersonal relationships with other participants at the same time.
Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983) propose that pragmatics can be subdivided into a
pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic component. Pragmalinguistic refers to linguistic means
of conveying illocutionary force and politeness values. Sociolinguistics was defined by Leech
(1983) as “the sociological interface of pragmatics,” referring to the social perception
underlying participants’ interpretation and performance of communicative action. The ability
to comprehend and produce a communicative act is referred to as pragmatic competence
(Kasper, 1997a).
5
2.2 Pragmatic Competence and Pragmatic Failure
As Kasper (2001) states, pragmatic competence refers to the acquisition of pragmatic
knowledge and to gaining automatic control in processing it in real time. Pragmatic
knowledge of appropriateness reflects two major concepts: sociopragmatic (i.e. evaluation of
contextual factors) and pragmalinguistic (i.e. linguistic resources available to perform
language functions) (Kasper, 1992; Leech, 1983).
In Bachman’s model (1990: 87), language competence is divided into two areas
consisting of ‘organizational competence’ and ‘pragmatic competence’. Organizational
competence consists of knowledge of linguistic units and the rules of joining them together at
the level of sentence (‘grammatical competence’) and discourse (‘textual competence’).
Pragmatic competence subdivides into ‘illocutionary competence’ and ‘socilolinguistic
competence.’ Illocutionary competence is the knowledge of communicative action and how
to carry it out. ‘Sociolinguistic competence’ is the ability to use language appropriately
according to the context.
Many researchers in the area of second language acquisition (SLA) and
sociolinguistics have claimed that in order to acquire native-like competence, language
learners should acquire the rules of language use and ways of speaking as well as linguistic
competence (Gumperz, 1982; Wolfson, 1983). Research studies often revealed that although
second language learners have already acquired an advanced level of grammatical
competence, their inappropriate uses of language in context often result in interpersonal
communication breakdowns. This kind of failure is called pragmatic failure. Riley (1989)
describes pragmatic failures as “the result of an interactant imposing the social rules of one
culture on his communicative behavior in a situation where the social rules of another culture
would be more appropriate.” Thomas (1983) explains that there are two types of failure. One
is pragmalinguistic failure: a linguistic problem owing to differences in the linguistic
encoding of pragmatic force. The other is sociopragmatic failure: cross-culturally different
perceptions of what forms appropriate linguistic behaviour.
2.3 Pragmatic Transfer
The phenomenon of pragmatic transfer in interlanguage pragmatics has been
receiving increased attention from a number of linguists and researchers. Interlanguage
pragmatics is a branch of pragmatics which specifically discusses how non-native speakers
comprehend and produce a speech act in a target language (Kasper & Blum- Kulka, 1993).
Interlanguage as described by Canale and Swain (1983), can be divided into four components
of grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competence. The second category is
the most relevant for the present study, since it discusses the function of language in the
6
apology context. Sociolinguistic competence concerns the relationship between language
functions and the appropriateness for a particular context. The pragmatic competence in the
present study is part of the sociolinguistic competence.
Kasper (1992) defines the scope of pragmatic transfer in interlanguage pragmatics as
the influence exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than
L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information. Pragmatic
knowledge is to be understood as “a particular component of language users’ general
communicative knowledge that is the knowledge of how verbal acts are understood and
performed in accordance with a speaker’s intention under contextual and discourse
constraints” (Faerch & Kasper, 1984).
Although pragmatic transfer has been referred to as the transfer of L1 sociocultural
competence or cross-linguistic influence (Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990) transfer of
conversational features or as discourse transfer (Odlin, 1989) reflecting the different ideas
about pragmatics and about transfer, the term pragmatic transfer will be maintained in the
present study as it is understood by Wolfson (1981) who considers it as it refers to
sociolinguistic transfer. Another aspect of interlanguage pragmatics and cross-cultural
pragmatics is linked to the theory of linguistic politeness.
2.4 Linguistics Politeness
Since the words people use are mostly determined by relationship to other interlocutors, they
need to make sure that theirs as well as others’ needs and identities are accepted, maintained and
enhanced to the full. Linguistic politeness explains how some of these activities are performed and
provides specific codes of speech behaviour in order to bring about conflict-free communication.
There are several theories of linguistic politeness but most of them subsume similar explanatory tents
(Sifianou, 1992). Among these, the face theory proposed by Brown and Lavinson (1987) serves as the
most influential theory on politeness. It plays a leading role in the study of speech acts (Ji, 2000).
Brown and Levinson (1987) claim that the acts that threaten the hearer’s positive face consist
of expressions of disapproval or disagreement, criticism, and the mentioning of taboo topics. They
further explain that, under normal circumstances, all individuals are motivated to a void conveying
FTAs and are more motivated to minimize the facethreat of the acts they use. Consequently,
individuals must often prioritize three wants, the want to communicate the content of a facethreatening act, the want to be efficient, and the want to maintain the hearer’s face.
Another attempt at finding language universals was made by Leech (1983). He sees politeness
as forms of behaviour aimed at creating and maintaining harmonious interaction. Leech (1983)
formulates six maxims for the politeness principle as follows:
1. Tact maxim: Minimize cost to other. Maximize benefit to other.
2. Generosity maxim: Minimize benefit to self. Maximize cost to self.
3. Approbation maxim: Minimize dispraise of other. Maximize dispraise of self.
7
4. Modesty maxim: Minimize praise of self. Maximize praise of other.
5. Agreement maxim: Minimize disagreement between self and other. Maximize agreement
between self and other.
6. Sympathy maxim: Minimize antipathy between self and other. Maximize sympathy between
self and other.
According to Leech (1983) each maxim is accompanied by a sub-maxim, not all of the maxims are
equally important and speakers may adhere to more than one maxim of politeness at the same time.
He also concedes that the maxims may vary in importance from culture to culture. In a social
interaction, whatever an interlocutor says is potentially a face-threatening act in that it may cause the
addressee to lose his/her negative or positive faces. However, participants adopt strategies of
politeness in order to avoid face-threatening activities. The concept of politeness is also closely
related to speech act theory.
2.5 Speech Acts
Speech acts theory is based on the assumption that language is a form of behaviour,
and it is governed by a strict set of rules (Searle, 1969a). Austin (1962) defines speech acts as
acts performed by utterances like giving orders or making promises. He proposes a set of
simultaneous types of acts:
1. Locutionary act: The physical uttering of a statement
2. Illocutionary act: The contextual function of the act.
3. Perlocutionary act: The impact of the first speaker’s utterance on the next speaker.
Searle (1976; 1979) takes exception to Austin’s original classification. He criticizes
Austin’s work and takes the stance that this is a classification of illocutionary verbs and not
acts. He proposes five classifications of speech acts which are based on illocutionary point,
direction of fit and expressed psychological state. These are:
1. Representatives, which represent statements that may be judged true or false because
they purport to describe a state of affairs in the world, such as asserting and
concluding.
2. Directives, which aim to get the addressee to perform an action to fit the propositional
content, such as commands and requests.
3. Commissives, which commit the speaker to a course of action as described by the
propositional content, such as promising and offering.
4. Expressives, which express the speaker’s psychological state or attitude, such as
apologizing and thanking.
5. Declaratives, which bring about the state of affairs they name, such as appointing,
marrying and declaring. These are speech acts that, when uttered, bring about a
change to persons or things.
8
2.6 Speech Act of Apology
Holmes (1990:156) gives the definition of an apology as a speech act addressed to the
person offender’s face-needs and intended to remedy an offence for which the apologizer
takes responsibility, and thus to restore equilibrium between the apologizer and the person
offended.
Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) state that apologies are generally post-event acts and
they signal the fact that a certain type of event has already taken place or the speaker might
be aware of the fact that it is about to take place. By apologizing, the speaker recognizes the
fact that a violation of a social norm has been committed and admits to the fact that s/he is at
least partially involved in its cause. Hence, apologies involve loss of face for the speaker and
support for the hearer.
The views on the definition of apology and its function expressed by various scholars
show the theoretical views on the face- needs, social norms and functions of politeness.
Different scholars define apologies in different ways. In order to cover all the possible
aspects of apologies, a study should use a combination of definitions, or take account of
features of all the definitions mentioned above.
2.7 Apology Strategies
The diversity in definitions of apologies leads to the diversity in classifications in
apology strategies. Also, the speech act of apology is complex in the sense that it may employ
a variety of possible strategies. There are a number of researchers who have developed
systems for classifying apology strategies in various ways. Holmes (1990) categorizes the
apology strategies in four super strategies with eight sub-categories;
A Explicit expression of apology
A1 An offer of apology/ IFID e.g. I apologize; please accept my apologies.
A2 An expression of regret e.g. I’m sorry; I’m afraid.
A3 A request for forgiveness e.g. Excuse me; forgive me.
Explanation or account e.g. The traffic was horrendous.
Acknowledgement of responsibility
C1 Accepting the blame e.g. It is my fault; silly me.
C2 Expressing self-deficiency e.g. I was confused; I forgot.
C3 Recognizing V as deserving apology e.g. You’re right.
C4 Expressing lack of intent e.g. I didn’t mean to break it.
C5 Offering repair/ redress e.g. I’ll get a new one for you.
D Promise of forbearance e.g. I promise it won’t happen again.
Apart from the classifications mentioned above, apologies can be intensified in order to
9
increase apologetic force. Some intensifying devices are the use of adverbials: ‘very’,
terribly’, awfully’ in English (Márquez Reiter, 2000). Also, apologies can be downgraded to
present the offense as less severe or to reduce responsibility for the offense, as in “Am I
really late for the meeting?”
2.8 Apology Acceptance Strategies
The diversity in definitions of apology and apology strategies lead diversity in
apology acceptance strategies. Nevertheless, I have developed apology acceptance strategies
for this study while keeping in mind my cultural norms and values. Some of the apology
acceptance strategies are adopted from BBC Learning English.
A Explicit acceptance e.g. That's all right, It’s OK
A1 Implicit acceptance e.g. don’t worry about it. No worries
A2 Expressing triviality e.g. It doesn’t matter, don’t mention it, no problem
A3 Expressing acknowledgement e.g. I quite understand, you didn’t mean it
B Be annoyed e.g. "Please, I'm not quite ready to talk about this yet."; "I’m still trying
to piece this situation together."
C Accepting lack of intent e.g. you couldn’t help it, it’s not your fault
C1 To forgive divine e.g. We all make mistakes. I accept your apology"
C2 Stating the pettiness e.g. Forget about it; no harm done, never mind
C3 Communicating sentiment e.g. “Your actions hurt my feelings. It felt awful. But
I’m feeling better since you spoke to me about it.”
C4 Trusting the fate e.g. don’t worry, it had to happen, we were destined to see this
D Warning e.g. Be careful, next time it should not happen, don’t let it happen again
E High spirit e.g. "Well (long pause) I appreciate your mentioning it."
F Asking for self-realization e.g. “You should know what you did!”
The number of apology acceptance strategies differs according to different researchers and a
variety of apology acceptance strategies seem to reflect western culture as in the case of
explanations.
2.9 Research on Apology
In an attempt to explore the apology strategy use of Iraqi EFL learners, Abdul -Ameer
(2013) found that Iraqi EFL learners’ do not study how to apologize to the individuals of
greater, equivalent or lower position. They are not taught using apology strategies to protect
good interaction with the upset individuals. Moreover, they do not analyze the truthfulness
and length of it and pragmatic competence does not progress normally and it must be taught
and be focused on. He also found that the highest number of apology strategies used by Iraqi
EFL male learners were with individuals of high or greater position. This demonstrates a
10
transfer of the Iraqi social and cultural standards.
In a more recent study that aimed at finding and examining the apology expressions
used in English by Jordanian university students, Al-Sobh (2013) discovered that the
apology strategies used were apology and regret, explanation, offer of repair, equal – equal,
low high and acknowledging responsibility. Participants did not use clear strategies of
apology in the circumstances given as they might not study them in university books clearly.
So they used different apology expressions, some colloquial ones for the same situations
which clearly exhibited that Jordanian university students lacked pragmatic competence.
Another study was undertaken by Sadeghi (2013) who investigated the differences and
similarities between Kurdish and Persian children’s apology strategies. He discovered that
“an immediate expression of apology”, “an offer of repair”,” a description or account”, and
“recognition of responsibility” techniques were used by most of the participants. “A
guarantee of forbearance” was hardly used by the respondents. As far as “responsibility of
acknowledgement” was concerned (the declaration of offense), was the new expression
discovered in this category. Intensifiers of apology were also found in this study, mostly used
after IFID. As the consequences of contextual factors on the use of intensifiers of apology
were involved namely, the social distance and dominance between the interlocutors, it was
discovered that the most greater regret were provided to good buddies and the least greater
regret were provided to unknown people.
To my knowledge no study has yet been conducted on the use of apology acceptance
strategies in South Asia, especially in Pakistan. Literature review illustrates that successful
communication with native English speakers is a complex behavior that requires both
linguistic and pragmatic competence. This study will help ESL learners to become competent
and conscious about the use of language in a context and avoid potential miscommunication.
To this point, I reviewed theoretical and empirical studies with regard to the use of
apology strategies in English and other languages. In the next chapter, I will describe the
design methodology, data collection and analysis procedures.
11
Chapter 3
Research Design and Methodology
This data-oriented study will be a combination of quantitative and qualitative
approaches. This research will combine quantitative and qualitative data in such a way that
will give a balanced representation of apology acceptance strategies of Pakistani University
students in Pakistan. The use of mixed method is to achieve “complementary strength and
overlapping weakness” (Johnson & Turner, 2003). The quantitative data will enrich the
understanding of the phenomenon of apology acceptance strategies through confirmation of
the qualitative findings. For data collection, a Discourse Completion Test (DCT) that contains
15 items is developed. In addition, Focus Group discussions in class will be conducted. I
personally will explain and administer the DCTs. All participant responses will be analyzed
using frequencies, an Independent Samples t –Test or ANOVA, and summary narrative
methods in order to present a realistic description of the use of apology acceptance strategies
in English by Pakistani university students in Pakistan.
3.1 Population and Sample
The target population of this study will be the students of MA English and BS English
degree programs, especially in their final years of study, in departments of English in the
institutions of higher education in Pakistan. The participants will be selected using nonrandom, purposive, and convenience sampling procedures from the higher education
institutions of the Pakistan. The sample will be relatively homogeneous in terms of their
cultural and linguistic background (Pakistani) and academic experiences. There will be both
male and female respondents. The target students will be perusing their Master/ BS degrees
in English Literature, Linguistics, English Language Teaching (ELT), and TEFL/TESOL or
TESL. The master’s students will be studying in their 4th semesters and the BS students will
be studying in their 8th semesters. The reason for selecting the students of these semesters is
that they are in their final semesters of the degree programs, and it is assumed that they would
be more proficient and have knowledge and some L2 English pragmatic ability, especially in
apology acceptance speech acts.
3.2 Instrumentations
A Discourse Completion Test (DCT), having 15 apology scenarios, is developed to
collect information from the Pakistani English students about their use of apology acceptance
strategies in English. Following a brief introductory part explaining the purpose of the study,
the DCT consists of two parts- Part A Demographic Information and Part B Apology
Accepting Scenarios (see Appendix A). The first part is intended to collect certain necessary
demographic information such as, name of institution, discipline and semester, gender,
12
student status, and level of English. The second part consists of fifteen apology acceptance
situations designed to elicit apology acceptance strategies ( the type of words/expressions) by
modifying those situations used in the previous apology speech act studies of Olshtain and
Cohen, (1983); Cohen, Olshtain, and Rosenstein, (1986); Brown, (1987); Bergman and
Kasper, (1993); Thijjing, (2010). In the design of the apology situations, sociolinguistics
status and distance (high, equivalent and low) of the respondents and their interlocutors is
also considered. The participants will be asked to write responses in English (what they
would say in a specific situation as detailed or stated in the DCT) keeping in mind that they
are in real life situation. Another questionnaire (Focus Group Discussion Questionnaire for
Pakistani university students attached as Appendix B) is the final instrument for this study
that aims to elicit whether or not respondents transfer apology acceptance strategies from
their L1to English and vary apology patterns in different situations with interlocutors of
various social statuses and distance (high, equal and low) as well as severity and non-severity
of the situation. The Focus Group discussions in class will be recorded. Items of the Focus
Group Discussion Questionnaire will be written in view of the purpose of the study and will
be related to situations in the DCT. The Focus Group Discussion questionnaire consists of
two major sections. The first part (Part A) asks questions about the participants’ year of
study, major of study, gender, and their own English proficiency evaluation. The second part
(Part B) asks questions about their use and transfer of apologies acceptance strategies and the
importance of apology acceptance strategy instruction. All questions are open-ended.
3.3 Data Collection Procedures
Before administrating the DCT for data collection, I will first seek the permission
from the chairpersons of the departments of English in each of the selected universities.
Responses will be collected from participants of MA/BS English (4th and 8th semesters)
degree program. Two instruments will be used for data collection: (1) a Discourse
Completion Test (DCT) and (2) Focus Group Discussion Questionnaire for Pakistani
university students. Ethical issues of the research will be taken into account in gathering data.
At each campus, I will personally invite students to take part in the Informed Consent
Sessions. Students will be provided with the information related to this study and requested to
participate in the study. Each student will be provided with the Informed Consent Sheet (see
Appendix C) and the Discourse Completion Test. Students who will consent to take part in
the research will be asked to complete the Discourse Completion Test. I will explain to
students that the study focuses on language use and apology acceptance strategies not the
language ability. I will also explain each situation to the participants before they complete the
DCT. At the end of discourse completion test, I will request the participants to take part in
13
Focus Group discussions in class. Focus Group Discussion Questionnaire for Pakistani
University students will be provided to students. After obtaining their consent for Focus
Group discussions in class at a mutually agreed upon time, the discussions will be conducted
in university classrooms. Each Focus Group discussion in class will be for an approximate
duration of 25-30 minutes. All discussions will be audio-recorded to ensure accurate
responses are obtained. The participants will be told and their consent will be sought about
the recording of the Focus Group discussions in class. English language will be used during
the discussion when participants will be asked to explain their answers.
3.4 Data Analysis Procedures
Using a codebook, all responses will be coded and compiled separately in different
MS Excel files and sheets. First of all, I will use specific code numbers and letters for the
universities and respondents. Similarly, specific values will be assigned to different variables
of both response data and demographic data. All MS Excel files will be converted into SPSS
21 (IBM local- version) for analysis. Descriptive statistics will run before any of the
subsequent analyses to check normality of data. The data sets will be analyzed in the light of
the research questions using frequencies, descriptive statistics, and an Independent Samples tTest or ANOVA. A mix of summary narrative, tables with numerals and figures will be used
for the description and discussion of results and findings. As can be seen in the Table 3.1
below, the elicited data will be categorized according to the following apology acceptance
speech act sets which have been developed by adopting these strategies from BBC Learning
English.
Table 3.1
Apology Strategies and Possible Realizations
Strategy
Classification of
Brief descriptions
code
Patterns
A
Explicit acceptance
That's all right, It’s OK,
A1
Implicit acceptance
Don’t worry about it. No worries
A2
Expressing triviality
It doesn’t matter, don’t mention it, no problem
A3
Expressing
I quite understand, you didn’t mean it
acknowledgement
B
Being annoyed
C
Accepting
lack
"Please, I'm not quite ready to talk about this yet’
of You couldn’t help it, it’s not your fault
intent
Continued
14
Table 3.1
Apology Strategies and Possible Realizations
Strategy
Classification of
code
Patterns
C1
To forgive divine
We all make mistakes. I accept your apology"
C2
Stating the Pettiness
Forget about it; no harm done, never mind
C3
Communicating
“Your actions hurt my feelings. It felt awful. But
sentiment
I’m feeling better since you spoke to me about it.”
Trusting the fate
Don’t worry, it had to happen, we were destined
C4
Brief descriptions
to see this
D
Be careful, next time it should not happen , don’t
Warning
let it happen again
E
High spirit
"Well (long pause) I appreciate your mentioning
it."
F
Asking
for
self- “You should know what you did!”
realization
For the analysis of Focus Group Discussion in class data, dominant pattern of responses will
be identified.
3.5 Timeline
Following will be the timeline for this study:
Gantt Chart for Research Work
Activity/Time
Activity
Nov-16
Dec-16
Jan-17
Feb-17
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Dissertation Write-up
15
Mar-17
Apr-17
May-15
Jun-17
Jul-17
Aug-17
References
Ahmed, N. (2004). An evaluative study of the English course at the Intermediate Level.
NUML Research Magazine, (1), 55.
Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2010). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of
pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics,
43(1), 385-406.
Al-Sobh, M. A. (2013). An Analysis of Apology as a Politeness Strategy Expressed by
Jordanian University Students. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, 03 (02).
Ameer, A. (2013). The Effect of Gender and Status on the Apology Strategies Used by
American Native Speakers of English and Iraqi EFL University Students. Research on
Humanities and Social Sciences, 03 (02).
Anderson, E. S. (1990). Communicative competence: Knowledge of register variation. In R.
C. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative.
Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B.A. (1996). Input in an institutional setting. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 18, 171-188.
Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written
questionnaire date: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S.
M. Gass & N. Joyce (Eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to
Communication in a Second Language (pp. 66-86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Celce-Marcia, M., Dornyei, Z., & Thurre ll, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A
pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied
Linguistics, 6, 5-35.
Chick, J. K. (1996). Intercultural communication in L. M. Sandra & H. H. Nancy (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp.329-348). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Coleman, H. (2010). Teaching and learning in Pakistan: The role of language in education.
Islamabad: The British Council.
Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1984). Pragmatic Knowledge: Rules and Procedures. Applied
Linguistics, 5(3), 214-225.
Eslami-rasekh, A., Tavakoli, M,. & Abdolrzapour, P. (2010). Certainty and conventional
16
indirectness in Persian and American request forms. Medwell Journal, the Social
Sciences, 5 (4), 332-339.
Fernandez Guerra, A., & Martinez-flor, A. (2005). Is teaching how to suggest a good
Suggestion? An empirical study based on EFL learners‟ accuracy and appropriateness
when making suggestions. Porta Linguarum, 5, 91-108.
Harris, S., Grainger, K., & Mullany, L. (2006). The pragmatics of political apologies.
Discourse & Society, 17(6), 715-737.
Holmes, J. (1989). Sex Differences and Apologies: One Aspect of Communicative
Competence. Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 194-213.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In Pride, J. B., & Holmes, J. (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics, 269-293. Baltimore, USA: Penguin Education, Penguin Books Ltd.
Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross- sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and
Australian native speakers. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 46-61.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.). (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kiran, A. (2010). Perceptions of Pakistani English language teachers of the barriers to
promoting English language acquisition using student-centered communicative
language teaching with the Students of their ESL classrooms. Saint Paul, Minnesota:
Hamline University.
Kitao,
K.
(1996).
Why do
we
teach
English?
The
Internet
TESL
Journal.
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-WhyTeach.html.
Lee, J. S. (2000). Analysis of pragmatic speech styles among Korean learners of English : A
focus on complaint-apology speech act sequences. Unpublished Dissertation, Stanford
University, California United States.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lewis, N. (2003). Compliment responses in different languages and the problem of
sociocultural transfer in SLA. Hauptseminararbeit (Hausarbeit), Institut fur Englische
Philologie. FU Berlin, Germany.
Manes, J. (1983). Compliments: A mirror of social values. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
82-95.
Mahboob, A. (2009). English as an Islamic language: A case study of Pakistani English.
World Englishes, 28(2),175-189.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1981). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 18-35). Rowley, MA:
17
Newbury House. Competence in a second language (pp. 5-25). New York: Newberry
House Publishers.
Samaty, M. (2005). Helping foreign language learners become pragmatically competent.
Paper presented at The 10th TESOL Arabia Conference.
Schmidt, R. W., & Richards, J. C. (1980). Speech acts and second language Learning.
Applied linguistics, 1(2), 129-157.
Searle, J. (1969a). An Essay in the Philosophy of language: Cambridge University Press.
Sharifian, F. (2005). The Persian cultural schema of "shekasteh-nafsi": A study of
compliment responses in Persian and Anglo-Australian speakers. Pragmatics and
cognition, 13(2), 337-362.
Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-Cultural
Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English.
Pragmatics, 16(4), 513-533.
Tanck, S. (2002). Speech act sets of refusal and complaint: A comparison of native and nonnative English speakers‟ production. TESOL Working Papers, 4 (2), 1-22.
Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wolfson, N. (1988). The Bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. In J. Fine
(Ed.), Second language discourse: A textbook of current research. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. In H. G. Widdowson (Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
18
Appendix A
Discourse Completion Test for Pakistani Students of English in the Departments of
English in Pakistan
Part A
Demographic Information
Your Name _____________________________________
Name of Institution _____________________________________________
Program of Study and Semester/Year_________________________________
Sex: Male__________________ Female_______________________
Age: ______ years
Nationality:________________________________
Native Language: _________________________
Rate your speaking ability in English
Excellent ____________ Good ____________ Fair ___________ Poor _____________
Time spent in English speaking country __________ Months, _____________ years.
Interaction in English with Native speakers of English in the past
Frequent ___________ Occasional ____________ Rare __________Nil______________
Interaction in English with Native speakers of English at present
Frequent ____________ Occasional ___________ Rare ___________
19
Part B
Apology Acceptance Scenarios
Instructions
Please put yourself in the following situations and assume that in each instance you will have
to say something. Write down what you would say in English in the space provided. Make
sure you read the whole situation carefully before you respond.
1. At the office, your employ forgot to pass on an urgent letter to you. The next day you
complained to your employ that he/she did not pass it to you. He/she says.
Employ: Sorry sir, I forget to pass it to you. It won’t happen again.
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
2. Your friend promised to return your laptop after a week. However, he/she kept it for
almost two weeks. Then you asked your friend to return it. He/she says.
Friend: O’ Sorry yar, forgot, really I’ll give you tomorrow, promise.
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3. You are the head of a department in a university. You were supposed to attend a
meeting convened by the university Dean, your PSO forgot to inform you about the
meeting and you missed it because of him/her. Your PSO talked to you about his/her
fault. He/she says.
PSO: I’m really sorry; it just skipped out of my mind.
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
4. Your student copied an essay from a website for your assignment and you traced the
plagiarism. Your student says.
Student: I beg pardon Sir, forgive me this time, and assure you it won’t happen again.
You:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
5. You were in the hospital. A junior colleague promised to visit you at the hospital but
had an urgent business prevented him/her from going. The next day she/he came to
explain why she/he didn’t come to see you. He/she says.
Colleague: excuse me sir, my grandmother was not well and I had to take her to
hospital, there was no one at home who could take care of her.
20
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
6. You are working as a tourist-guide. You dropped your clients at the hotel and kept
waiting for your client to pay you the fair. Anyhow, you kept on waiting for your
client for almost half an hour. At last your client comes and hands you over the fair
and says:
Client: I’m sorry dear. You had to wait that long. Actually, I was looking for my
wallet.
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
7. Having tea with your junior colleague at your house, he/she accidentally spilled tea on
your carpet. your junior colleague says:
Oooops, sorrrry . I spoiled your carpet.
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
8. You and Abdullah are friends. You lent a camera to Abdullah unfortunately it was
damaged. Abdullah says:
Abdullah: I’m extremely sorry buddy, your camera got damaged. But don’t worry
dude, I’ll buy you a new one.
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
9. You are a university lecturer; your students got an appointment from you to discuss a
difficult topic with you. Your students came almost an hour late. They say:
Students: we beg pardon Sir, actually we had class with Miss Fatima and she left
class quite late.
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
10. At the restaurant, a waiter stepped on your foot while passing by you. He says:
Waiter: Ouch! I’m every very sorry Sir/M’am, I didn’t see you comin.
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
11. You were assigned to do a report with your classmate. You were told to see him in at
the main door of the library but he came almost half an hour late. The reason of being
late was because he missed the first bus. He comes and says:
21
Classmate: Sorry yar I missed the train. Mom didn’t make me to wake up early. And
buses you know mostly come late but today came well in time and I was late.
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
12. You and your friend did a role-play for a speaking test in an English class. The
conversation was not smooth because your friend did not prepare well. You got upset.
Your friend says:
Friend: sorry Yar we couldn’t do well. Anyhow, don’t worry Yar, why are you upset.
It’s just a role-play test. We’ll do it again. Come on yar, I’ll not let you down.
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
13. Rushing to get into examination room on time, you ran and got knocked by a fellow
student and fell down in a corridor. Student says:
Students: sorry sorry buddy, I didn’t look at you.
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
14. In a university, rushing into the cafeteria a student strode on your foot. He/she says:
Student: excuse me budz, I was in hurry
.
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
15. You are a manager. One of your junior colleagues whom you do not know well asked
you for advice about his/her presentation for the next meeting but he/she was late.
You kept on waiting for the junior colleague at your office though you had to leave
for home. He/she comes and says:
Junior Colleague: I’m extremely sorry Sir, I made you to wait for me.
You:_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
22
Appendix C
Informed Consent Sheet
Dear participant,
You are invited to participate in a research study for PhD in English that aims to find
out the use of apology Acceptance strategies in English by Pakistani university students in
Pakistan. The purpose of this study is to explore the use of apology acceptance strategies in
English by Pakistani learners of English. You have been asked to participate in this study as
you are a student who is currently undertaking English course in the 4th semester of Master in
English/7th or 8th semester of BS in English, in __________________________University.
You are asked to please take a few moments to complete the Discourse Completion Test; the
DCT is structured with open-ended questions that will ask you about the specific apology
acceptance strategies you use in specific situations. There are no risks involved if you
participate in this study. Absolute confidentiality and anonymity of your responses in the
DCT will be maintained. You will not be identified with your name and / or institute. As
participation in this study is voluntary, you may withdraw from the project at any time and
without giving any reason before the final analysis of data. You can contact at the address,
telephone number or email address provided below to withdraw your consent or if you have
any other question. In order to develop our students’ metapragmatic ability by exposing them
with real life situations, this study will be helpful for the curriculum designers and material
developers in Pakistan to understand the social and cultural differences in the use of apology
acceptance strategies and develop ESL courses according to the Learners’ sociolinguistic
needs as well. If you have any questions, please call at 0336-5673775 or e-mail at
tahirhallian2@yahoo.com. Please sign the document if you want to participate and return
with the questionnaire to me. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Signature of the Student: _________________________
23