Assessing the pragmatic competence of Arab learners of English: The case of apology

Abstract

This paper aims at assessing the pragmatic competence of Arab EFL learners at the tertiary level. The learners’ ability to use the speech act of apology was assessed through a specially designed discourse completion test that consisted of nine items. The study aimed at answering the following questions. (1) What strategies do the participants use to express the speech act of apology? (2) What politeness strategies do the participants use in realizing this speech act? (3) What pedagogical implications may such a study have? It was found that the participants used 10 direct apology strategies and no indirect ones. It is recommended that speech acts be accorded more systematic attention at the secondary and tertiary levels of education.

Keywords:

• apology
• Arab EFL learners
• pragmatic competence
• speech acts

1. Introduction

Foreign language pedagogy primarily aims at enabling foreign language learners to use the foreign language effectively for communicative purposes at both the productive and receptive levels. Developing the communicative competence of learners is a complex process that requires investment in time and effort because it consists of a number of inter-related competences, and it is usually shaped by a variety of factors. These competences include linguistic and communicative abilities. However, the learner, the teacher and the teaching materials or textbooks are among the major factors that may positively or negatively affect the achievement of foreign language learners (Fareh, 2018). Variables such as gender, social status and social background also play a role in shaping the communicative competence of learners. However, due to time and space constraints, these variables are beyond the scope of this study except for the social status.

Research in interlanguage pragmatics has been accorded adequate attention by scholars in applied linguistics and language acquisition (Blum-Kulka, 1983, Beebe et al., 1990, Jaworski,1994, Trosborg, 1995, Schauer (2009, 2017). Most of these projects focused on the production of speech acts and on the pragmatic failures that EFL learners displayed in their speech or writing. Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) has been defined as a field that investigates the process of how foreign language learners acquire language structures and use them to express various language functions or speech acts. Schauer (2009, p. 15) defines interlanguage pragmatics as the field that studies “how foreign/second language learners encode and decode meaning in their L2.” Schauer’s definition is in congruence with that of Kasper and Dahl (1991, p. 216), who stated that “interlanguage pragmatics will be defined in a narrow sense, referring to non-native speakers’ (NNSs’) comprehension and production of speech acts, and how their L2-related speech act knowledge is acquired.” A more comprehensive definition was provided by Taguchi (2017, p. 1), who defined ILP as a branch of second language acquisition that investigates “second language learners’ knowledge, use, and development in performing sociocultural functions.”

Furthermore, Kasper and Rose (2002, p. 5) stated that,

As a study of second language use, interlanguage pragmatics examines how non-native speakers comprehend and produce action in a target language. As a study of second language learning, interlanguage pragmatics investigates how L2 learners develop the ability to understand and perform action in a target language.

These definitions accentuate the fact that ILP is a branch of pragmatics that explores how non-native speakers use language forms to express language functions or speech acts in culturally appropriate contexts. This notion was also stressed by Bardovi-Harlig (2010, p. 219), who stated “pragmatics bridges the gap between the system side of language and the use side and relates both of them at the same time. Interlanguage pragmatics brings the study of acquisition to this mix of structure and use.”

The interlanguage competence of non-native speakers of different linguistic backgrounds has been researched from various perspectives including, development, realization strategies of speech acts, assessment, and level of directness and politeness at the syntactic, phonological, cross-cultural and pragmatic levels (Thomas, 1983, Olshtain and Blum-Kulka, 1985, Ryoo, 2003, Crossley and McNamara, 2010, Tattan, 2011, Taguchi, 2017). Most of the studies on ILP focused on the ability of non-native speakers to produce certain speech acts, especially, the frequent ones such as requests, apologies, complaints, and refusals. Furthermore, there is a line of research that investigates the pragmatic failures that occur in non-native speakers’ performance in speech and writing (Luo and Gao, 2011; Thomas (1983); Ghazzoul (2019). The realization of speech acts by speakers of different languages has also been examined by several researchers (Han and Burgucu-Tazegül, 2016, Tabatabaei, 2015).

This study attempts to investigate the pragmatic competence of Arab EFL learners at the tertiary level. The learners’ ability to produce the speech act of apology will be assessed through a discourse completion task. The strategies that learners use to realize this speech act will be identified. In the process of communicating in English with others, Arab learners of English are often labeled as being “impolite” and “discourteous”, especially by their English-speaking teachers who often state that they receive inadvertent or pragmatically unacceptable emails from their students, or from the students’ oral requests and apologies. Arab learners of English are often direct in their requests and apologies; a matter that may motivate native speakers to feel that such students are impolite. This can be attributed to the fact that Arab EFL learners do not know how to apologize or request politely and properly because they do not know, or were not taught, how to perform such speech acts politely. More often than not, foreign language learners may get high marks in language tests but may not be able to apologize or request using the relevant structure due to the fact that teaching focuses more on the linguistic aspects of language such as reading, writing and grammar rather than on the pragmatic aspects. Therefore, a study that aims at assessing the Arab learners’ pragmatic competence and identifying the strategies they use in performing certain speech acts is badly needed. The results of such a study may highlight the inadequacies in performing such speech acts and suggest ways to overcome such pragmatic failures.

2. Objectives of the study

This paper attempts to assess the ILP of Arab learners of English by answering the following questions:

1. What strategies do the participants use to express the speech act of apology?

2. What politeness strategies do the participants use in expressing this speech act?

3. What pedagogical implications may such a study offer?

3. Rationale

Pragmatic competence constitutes an essential component of the communicative ability of foreign language learners and an indispensable element in the process of communication. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages considers the pragmatic competence one of the major competences that foreign language learners are expected to acquire:

Pragmatic competences are concerned with the functional use of linguistic resources (production of language functions, speech acts), drawing on scenarios or scripts of interactional exchanges. It also concerns the mastery of discourse, cohesion and coherence, the identification of text types and forms, irony, and parody. P. 13.

The ILP of foreign language learners especially that of Arab learners of English has not been accorded adequate attention by curriculum designers and language acquisition researchers. Inadequate pragmatic competence may lead to pragmatic failures and communication breakdowns in the process of communication, a matter that may impede mutual understanding. More often than not, foreign language learners may get high marks in language tests but may not be able to apologize or request politely due to the fact that teaching focuses more on the linguistic aspects of language such as reading, writing and grammar rather than on the pragmatic aspects. Examining the pragmatic competence of foreign language learners and the factors that may contribute to its development is essential for all those who are concerned with and involved in foreign language pedagogy. Furthermore, identifying the non-native speakers’ strategies or patterns of realizing the speech act of apology may reveal the cultural differences between native speakers and non-native speakers in this respect. Foreign language learners need to learn how to properly realize such a speech act in communicating with native speakers to avoid any possible misunderstanding or unintended offence to native speakers due to cross-cultural differences. Foreign language learners need to know the relevant linguistic structures that can be used to express an act of speech in a certain context. In other words, they need to be aware of how to request politely, how to refuse or say “no” without threatening their face and how to apologize tactfully in various cross-cultural situations. Performing apologies appropriately is also essential in the business world. In this respect, Ondráček (2018, p. 167) stressed the need for apologies in business contexts. He states that an apology “can calm the situation, provide some reassurance to stakeholders and prevent a possible escalation of conflicts and further cost risks.”

Many apologies and requests made by non-native speakers may be perceived as discourteous or disrespectful and thus a pragmatic failure is very likely. This is because these speech acts are not realized according to the native production conventions. Therefore, being pragmatically competent is indispensable for foreign language learners in order to avoid being misunderstood and embarrassed. Consequently, such a study may offer useful implications to curricula designers, textbook writers and language teachers.

4. Review of related literature

Interlanguage pragmatics has been extensively investigated from different perspectives. Several studies attempted to develop techniques for assessing ILP (Kusevska et al 2015, Aufa, 2012). Other studies explored how foreign English language learners realize certain speech acts and what strategies they use (Shariati & Chamani, 2010, Han and Burgucu-Tazegül, 2016, Campillo et al. 2009, Alzeebaree & Yavuz, 2017, Almegren, 2018, Stavans and Webman Shafran, 2018). The development of ILP has also attracted the attention of second language acquisition researchers (Takahashi and Beebe, 1987, Taguchi, 2017).

Kusevska et al. (2015) conducted a study to explore the components of foreign language learners’ pragmatic competence and to assess the tools used for evaluating interlanguage pragmatics. They examined the pros and cons of several data elicitation techniques, including the discourse completion task (DCT), role-plays, interviews, multiple-choice questionnaires and corpus data. The researchers confirmed that the DCT is the most frequently used instrument for evaluating learners’ pragmatic competence. To assess the pragmatic competence of learners, Aufa (2012) conducted a study using a Written Discourse Completion Task. He concluded that although this task suffers several limitations, it remains an effective technique for assessing learners’ pragmatic competence.

Alzeebaree and Yavuz (2017) investigated the realization patterns of the speech acts of request and apology used by 83 Kurdish undergraduate male and female students. Data were collected from the participants’ responses to three discourse completion tasks for each speech act. The findings revealed that there were no significant differences between males and females in using apology strategies although females used more apology and request strategies. The limitation of this study is that the findings are based on only three conversational contexts, a matter that makes the sample data far from being valid and representative.

Trosborg (1995) identified a set of apology strategies considering the felicity conditions and the social functions of apologies as identified by Norrick (1978, p. 280). These functions include: “admitting responsibility, asking to be forgiven, showing good manners, assuaging the addressee’s wrath, and getting off the hook” (in Trosborg, 1995, p. 376). Trosborg identified different types of strategies, including the direct apologies that are conveyed through using the explicit performative verbs used for expressing apology such as apologize, be sorry, excuse me, and indirect strategies that include acknowledging responsibility and self-blame as in “I shouldn’t have done it.” (1995:376).

Cordella (1990) compared the Chileans’ and Australians’ apologizing strategies in English in terms of frequency, distribution, and function of strategies. Data were collected from one situation only “missing an appointment with a boss.” The results revealed no significant differences between the two groups in the frequency of using apology strategies. However, the Chileans displayed more politeness in their apologies. Again, the findings of this study were based on one conversational situation only.

Very few studies have been conducted to investigate the apology strategies used by Arab EFL learners. Bataineh and Bataineh (2006) investigated apologies performed by Jordanian University students using a discourse completion task based on Sugimoto’s (1997) model. They found that female and male participants used the primary strategies of apology such as “statement of remorse, accounts, compensation, promise not to repeat offense, and reparation” but with different order (1901). Their findings also revealed certain differences between the strategies employed by males and females. Females tended to avoid discussion of offense with the offended person, whereas males tended to blame the offended person. The findings of this study were based on analyzing the responses of 200 participants. One of the flaws of this study is that it was based on a pre-designed set of categories stated by Sugimoto’s model and the researchers were just matching the strategies that the participants used with those of Sugimoto (1997). Instead, they should have analyzed the strategies, classified them into categories and then matched them with other models to see if there are differences or new categories. The researchers stated that their findings are preliminary and “need to be supported by further research to arrive at more definite conclusions about apology realizations by Arab L2 learners” (1921).

Aboud and Shibliyev (2021) investigated the apology strategies used by Arab postgraduate students at the Middle East University to identify the most frequent strategies they use. Their study also aimed at determining the correlation between the participants’ level and their use of apology strategies. Participants were placed into intermediate, upper-intermediate, and advanced levels. They also examined the influence of the students’ mother tongue, Arabic, on their use of apology strategies in English. It was found that Arab learners use “Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs), explanations and reparations as techniques of apology.” The findings also revealed a positive impact of Arabic on the learners’ use of apology strategies in English. No significant correlation was found between students’ level and their use of apology strategies (66). The analysis was based on Olshtain and Cohen’s (1983) and Blum-Kulka and Olshtain’s (1984) models. A discourse completion task with its translation in Arabic was used to collect data from the participants. This study examined two variables, the students’ level, and the impact of L1. Providing the participants with the translation of the DCT casts doubts on the validity of the results because the participants may just read the translations and respond in English according to their understanding of the Arabic text. This may account for the positive impact of the learners’ mother tongue that the findings revealed. Furthermore, I believe that the collected data should have been analyzed without having an already designed model that specifies certain types of strategies. The researchers, in such a case, will just identify the participants’ strategies according to the ones stated in the model. The researchers recommended conducting further studies on students with a specific proficiency level and of the same culture.

Al-Sobh (2013) conducted a study on eight university Jordanian students to identify the apology expressions and strategies they use in English. The findings revealed that the participants used the strategies of apology and regret, explanation, and offer of repair. The findings of this study are based on data obtained from eight participants only and this makes the study sample unrepresentative and the findings unreliable.

The novelty of this research stems from the fact that no study has been conducted on the English learners in the United Arab Emirates. Furthermore, the previously reviewed studies recommended further research on apology strategies, especially those performed by Arab learners of English. This study differs from other studies in many respects. First, data are collected from the responses of 100 university participants of almost similar language competence level. Secondly, the speech act of apology was represented in nine situations that require apologies. Thirdly, the status of the apologizer and that of the offended party are taken into consideration as variables that determine the level of politeness in the apology expression. Furthermore, this study established a hierarchy of politeness based on the level of directness used in the apology expressions and the number of moves used in each apology strategy.

Politeness is one of the major components of pragmatic competence. Transfer may occur at this pragmatic level. Kasper states that pragmatic transfer “refers to the influence exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information (1992: 207). The concept of politeness was also implied in Grice’ cooperative principle which he proposed in in his article “Logic and conversation” (1975). The principle assumes that interlocutors cooperate with each other in order to understand each other and to avoid communication failures. The principle assumes that participants in conversations cooperate with each other and usually attempt to be truthful, informative, relevant, and clear to facilitate successful communication.

5. Methodology

5.1. Data collection

The data on which this research is based were culled through a specially designed elicitation technique. A discourse completion task (DCT) was specially designed to collect responses from the participants in the study. This elicitation technique is the most appropriate technique for assessing pragmatic competence. It has been used and advocated by many researchers who investigated the ILP of foreign language learners (Shahrokhi & Jan, 2012, Satıça and Çiftç, 2018, Bardovi-Harlig, 2010, Ejaz, 2016, Matsugu, 2014, Kusevska et al., 2015). The DCT consists of nine situations in which participants were asked to read each one and imagine that they really encountered such contexts to write their apologies. Each status level of the addresser be it equal to, lower or higher than that of the addressee was represented in three situations (see Appendix). The following is an illustrative example:

You are a young man. You accidentally ran into an old woman, making her drop her glasses and her purse. What would you say to her?

In this task, the participants were asked to write what they would say in such a situation. The status of the addresser is equal to that of the addressee. Participants are expected to understand the situation and respond by using words, phrases or sentences that fit the context, taking into consideration their status in relation to that of the addressee.

The DCT was given to two native speakers of English who are language instructors to check its validity. Their feedback included modifying a few situations and changing a few of them to better fit the participants’ culture. All their comments were taken into consideration. The two native speakers were also asked to answer the DCT and to indicate the status of the addresser to make sure that the researchers’ responses are appropriate.

The participants were university students in the second semester of their first year. They were 115 male and female students from different colleges in two universities. Most of them have already fulfilled the university admission requirements that stipulate obtaining a band score of 5 on the IELTS or a score of 500 on the TOEFL. In addition, the participants are graduates of public and private schools. This means that they have been learning English for at least 10 years. The participants were allowed 25 minutes to answer the DCT. It is worth mentioning that 15 responses were excluded because the participants did not complete the DCT or they did not take it seriously. The participants were randomly selected from two universities. Whole classes were selected from first year students who accomplished the language proficiency admission requirements.

5.2. Method of analysis

The students’ responses to the nine situations were marked by two of the researchers to yield more valid results. In cases of discrepancy, a third researcher was called on to mark the controversial cases and his vote was the casting one. The responses for each speech act were analyzed in terms of strategies used (direct or indirect) and politeness strategies employed. Erroneous responses were also noted to identify the most frequent pragmatic difficulties that the participants encounter in responding to the situations of the DCT.

6. Findings and discussion

The responses of the participants on the nine conversational situations were analyzed for each context and for each status. The findings revealed that the participants used the following strategies in the contexts where their status is either lower (LS), equal (ES), or higher (HS) as shown in Table (1) below.

Table 1. Frequency of apology strategies

	Strategy	LS%	ES%	HS%
1	Direct apology followed by a repair	23.8	22.92	30.97
2	Direct apology accompanied with a justification	21.36	21.95	13.58
3	Direct apology accompanied with a justification and a repair	18.45	10.24	10.32
4	Offering a repair directly without any performative verbs of apology	10.19	12.19	20.56
5	Direct apology	9.7	20.48	7.06
6	Justification and a repair	5.80	3.41	5.97
7	Justification to account for the committed offence	3.4	1.95	5.43
8	Direct apology accompanied with justification and a promise of non-occurrence	2.91	0.48	0
9	Direct apology accompanied with self-blame and a repair	2.42	5.85	5.97
10	Expressing concern followed with a direct apology and a repair)	1.94	0.48	0

6.1. Direct apology followed by a repair

This strategy was manifest in using a performative followed by offering a repair (a phrase or a sentence is added to the direct apology to rectify the situation that motivated the apology and to alleviate the negative effect of the offence). This strategy was employed by 23.8% of the lower status speakers, and by 22.92% of the equal status apologizers and by 30.97% of the higher status apologizers.

Examples

• I am sorry. Let me bring the purse for you.

• I am sorry. I will buy you a new laptop.

The addition of such sentences to the direct apology contributes to maintaining social relationships between the interactants. It also expresses a higher level of politeness than just acknowledging one’s own fault. Furthermore, it contributes to face-saving for both the apologizer and the offended person.

However, the repair move in certain cases was manifested by a non-softened imperative to rectify the situation. In such a strategy, the speaker admits having made a mistake that requires an apology but in a direct and less polite manner. These apologies can be ranked low on a scale of politeness because they are uttered by a subordinate who is supposed to be politer with his superior. The speaker should have softened his imperative sentences by saying “I will request him to … .” instead of “ask him to meet me another time.” This sentence implies that the speaker assumes an equal or even a higher status, and thus his apology may not be accepted by the addressee since it actually defeats its purpose.

• I apologize and ask for another meeting that is not early.

• Sorry. I will ask him to meet me another time.

6.2. Direct apology

This strategy involved using a performative verb that directly expresses the function of apology. This formula is the most direct strategy. Most of the participants (96%) used the formulas:

• I am sorry.

• I apologize.

Such verbs indicate that the speaker acknowledges the wrongdoing/offence he has done. Sometimes, the respondent used just one formula and sometimes they used two formulas to intensify their apology. However, these direct apologies do not reflect a high level of politeness. This strategy was more frequently used when the interactants are of equal status. It is less frequent when the apologizers were of lower or higher status than the addressee. As far as politeness is concerned, this strategy occupies rank 3 on the politeness scale as can be seen below.

6.3. Direct apology accompanied with a justification

Using a performative verb together with offering an explanation or a justification of the fault that occurred.

• I apologize … by mistake

• I am sorry…I forgot.

• I am sorry. I overslept.

Although this strategy is direct and is usually considered less polite, it is politer than just using the performative phrase alone. The justification implies that the error was not intentional, and it occurred because of the reason given. It was more frequently used by lower and equal status apologizers (21.36%, 21.95%, respectively). Higher status apologizers’ use of this formula was less frequent than that of the lower and equal status apologizers. This can be attributed to the tendency among higher status people not to justify their mistakes to their subordinates. Furthermore, this may reflect a social attitude prevailing among higher status people in our societies.

6.4. Direct apology accompanied with a justification and a repair

This strategy was manifest in using three moves: a performative phrase followed by a justification and a request to rectify the error.

• I am sorry Mum. I am too busy. Can you ask someone else?

• I am sorry I forgot. I will order food from my own money.

Such a manifestation directly expresses an apology that indicates the apologizer’s acknowledgment of his offence. In addition, it is followed by a justification for the apology and a request to rectify the offence. This type of response indicates a high level of politeness since it involves acknowledging the mistake, provides a justification and offers a request to heal the rupture. This response implies that the speaker admits his low status, and this may account for using a three-move apology: acknowledgment, justification, and rectification/repair. It also reflects a high degree of politeness. The lower status apologizers’ use of this strategy was higher than those of the equal and higher statuses interactants (18.45%. 10.24%, 10.32%, respectively). The low frequency in the performance of equal and higher statuses reflects the attitudes of these two categories towards politeness. It is clear that equal and higher status apologizers do not care much about being polite in addressing their counterparts and subordinates.

6.5. Offering a repair directly without any performative verbs of apology

In this apology, the speaker did not condescend to acknowledge his mistake and did not even provide any explanation or justification to reduce the resulting tension between the interactants. Such apologies come at the lowest level on the scale of politeness.

• I will order the food because there is no time to cook.

• I will buy a new computer for you.

The percentages of using this strategy were 10.19%, 12.19%, 20.56%% for the lower, equal and higher statuses respectively. The higher percentage of formulas used by the higher status apologizers (20.56%) reflects their tendency to be less polite with their subordinates. It also reflects the culture of those people towards others.

6.6. Expressing concern followed with a direct apology and a repair

In this strategy, the apologizer expresses concern towards the health of the other party to make sure that no harm was done to her. This was manifest in his enquiry about the consequences of what happened. He also admits his offence, expresses his regret, and offers a repair in the form of act in which he picked up the items that the lady dropped and gave them to her. This is a face-saving act that shows respect to the offended party and reflects a high level of politeness. This highly polite strategy was performed only by 1.94% of the lower status apologizers and by 0.48% of the equal status ones. However, it was not used at all by higher status apologizers. This finding corroborates the use of less polite strategies by higher status apologizers.

• Did I hurt you? Sorry mam. This is your stuff.

• I’m so sorry. Are you okay? Let me help you get that up.

This kind of apology manifestation can be considered polite since it satisfies the felicity conditions of the speech act of apology. The speaker admits his mistake, offers a sincere apology, and did something to repair the offence and to show forbearance as well. In terms of structure, the apology consists of three moves. The more moves used the politer the apology is.

6.7. Justification and a repair

This strategy was performed in close percentages (5.80%, 3.41%, 5.97%) by lower status, equal status, and higher status apologizers respectively. It consists of two moves only and does not contain a performative verb to indicate the acknowledgment of regret on the part of the apologizer, which is an essential component of a sincere apology. Consequently, such a strategy does not meet the felicity conditions that should be available in a true apology. This behavior may be ascribed to the tendency of apologizers not to admit the mistakes they commit against others, and it also implies a degree of impoliteness and disrespect to the other party.

• I forgot. I will order food.

6.8. Justification to account for the committed offence

This strategy consists of only one move in which the apologizer says something to justify why the offence happened without bothering about the feelings of the other party. The offender does not acknowledge regret, nor does he offer a repair. That is why this strategy occupies a low level on the politeness scale and displays indifference on the part of the offender. It also violates the felicity conditions of a true apology. Consider the following examples:

• I had a car accident

• I called the wrong number.

This strategy was performed by 3.4% of the lower status cases, 1.19% by the equal status and 5.43% by the higher status participants. These percentages reveal the attitude of the apologizers towards the offended people. The percentage of the higher status participants indicates their negative attitude towards others and shows their disrespect to them.

6.9. Direct apology accompanied with justification and a promise of non-occurrence

This strategy consists of three moves: a direct apology using a performative verb, a justification, and a promise of non-occurrence. It expresses a rather high level of politeness and respect to the offender. However, it does not offer repair to alleviate the damage done to the other party. It was performed by 2.91% of the lower status and 0.48% of the equal status participants. In certain cases, the performative was intensified by repeating the direct apology twice. However, this strategy was not attested in the performance of the higher status participants. This finding supports the previous findings that revealed a negative attitude among the higher status participants in performing apologies to their subordinates. Consider this example.

• I am sorry. I forgot. It will not happen again.

6.10. Direct apology accompanied with self-blame and a repair

This strategy consists of three moves in which the participant expresses regret, blames himself for the offence he made, and offers a repair to ease the tension between the two interactants. This strategy is among the highest in terms of politeness. It satisfies the felicity conditions of a true apology. It is worth noting that this strategy does not involve a justification of the offence because it is implied in the three moves: his acknowledgment of the offence, the self-blame and the repair. The following example illustrates this strategy.

• I am really sorry/I apologize. It is my fault. I will cook for you.

The strategy was performed by 2.42%, 5.85%, 5.97% of the lower, equal and higher status participants respectively.

As far as politeness is concerned, we propose the following scale for politeness strategies ordered from the least polite to the politest formula:

1. Justification to account for the fault committed

2. Offering a repair directly without any performative verbs of apology

3. (Intensified) Direct apology

4. Direct apology with justification

5. Direct apology with justification and self-blame.

6. Direct apology with justification, self-blame, expression of concern and a promise of nonoccurrence

7. Direct apology with justification, self-blame, expression of concern, a promise of nonoccurrence and offering a repair.

7. Discussion and conclusion

In light of the above analysis, we can safely state that the most frequent strategy is the one in which an explicit performative verb is used to express apology. Searle (1969, p. 62) used the phrase “Illocutionary Force Indicating Device” (IFID) to refer to the use of an explicit performative in expressing speech acts. These findings are in harmony with the findings of Blum-Kulka and Olshtain and (1983:36–55) that “The most direct realization of an apology is done via an explicit illocutionary force indicating device (IFID), which selects a routinized, formulaic expression of regret (a performative verb) such as: (be) sorry; apologize, regret; excuse, etc.” Furthermore, the current findings support those of Rabab’ah and Fowler Al-Hawamdeh (2020, p. 998) whose study revealed that the use of IFID (explicit performative) was the most frequently used strategy by well-educated Jordanians to express apologies.

The analysis revealed that Arab learners of English tend to use direct strategies more than indirect strategies. This might be ascribed to the lack of practice they had in their schooling stages. All the strategies listed in Table 1 above include the use of a performative verb that expresses regret or apology. The three strategies that do not have a direct performative (4,6,7) consist of either a justification of the fault or just offering a repair. The role of the social status of the participants differed from a status to another. The lower status apologizers used politer strategies than the equal and higher status apologizers. The least polite strategies were characteristic of the higher status apologizers. This may be due to cultural considerations. High status people, in general, do not hold lower status people in high regard. That is why the strategies they used were the least polite in various contexts. The participants seem to be influenced by their L1 culture in which it is very common to apologize by saying “aasif” (I am sorry). The findings also revealed that the more moves used in a strategy, the politer the strategy is.

In light of the above analysis, we proposed a scale for politeness strategies ordered from the least polite to the politest formula. It was found that most of the apology strategies used by the participants were direct strategies in which a performative verb was used to express the apology. Indirect strategies usually imply a higher level of politeness. This might be due to the lack of relevant activities to train students on using the various types of apology strategies and to cultural considerations as well.

Finally, it is recommended that Arab EFL learners be trained to use a diversity of speech act realizations and structures so that they will be able to use the appropriate structure in the appropriate context, taking into consideration the cultural norms in which these expressions or strategies can be used.

It is recommended that curriculum designers and textbook writers accord more attention to developing this essential competence in language learning. The subcomponents of the pragmatic competence should be systematically incorporated in teaching materials and exams at all levels of teaching English and assessment techniques. This finding is in harmony with that of Abu Guba and Abu Qub’a (2020), who stressed the influence of L1 culture on the performance of Arab learners of English in using clichés (145–46).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Shehdeh Fareh

Prof. Shehdeh Fareh: PhD in Linguistics from the University of Kansas in 1988. Taught at the University of Jordan from 1988-2001. Joined the University of Sharjah in 2001. His research interests include contrastive linguistics, discourse analysis, translation and TEFL. Authored a series of books for teaching English as a foreign language, a textbook for teaching English to students of medicine and health sciences, published more than 40 articles in prestigious journals and translated more than 20 books from English into Arabic and vice versa.

Mohammad Nour Abu Guba

Dr. Mohammed Nour Abu Guba is a faculty member at the language Institute at Sharjah University in the UAE. His main interests are second language pronunciation, phonological theory, and phonetics. He earned his PhD from Salford and Leeds Universities in the UK in 2016.

Inaam Hamadi

Inaam Hamadi is a holder of an MA in Linguistics. He has been teaching at the University of Sharjah for more than 15 years. He is also a co-author of a book titled English for Medicine and Health Sciences. Published a number of research papers. His research interests include TESOL, English for Medicine and language Assessment.

Asmaa Awad

Dr. Asmaa Awad is the Assistant Director of the Language Institute, Men's Colleges, UoS. She has PhD, MA, CELTA, OCELT, CCTAFL and TOT Diploma. Dr. Asmaa has been teaching English and Arabic for non-Arabic Speakers for over 25 years. Her main areas of interest are Education Technology and comparative literature.

Ayman Fareh

Ayman is a PhD Candidate in Applied Linguistics and Discourse Studies. For over 25 years, he has been actively engaged in providing guidance and training in effective teaching, textbook design, curriculum delivery, as well as language assessment. His research interests are: Teaching Strategies, SLA, ESP, and Critical Discourse Analysis.

Appendix

Dear student,

Imagine that you encountered the following situations. You are requested to write your response for each situation.

Circle the choice that applies to you.

Gender: Male Female

School: Public/Government Private

Write your response to each of the following situations. Write as much as you feel necessary

1. You are a young man. You accidentally ran into an old woman, making her drop her glasses and her purse. What would you say to her?

2. You got great news and even though it is 2:10 after midnight, you decided to call your friend, but you called a wrong number and woke someone else up. What do you say to him/her?

3. You were supposed to meet your supervisor at 8:00 this morning; you overslept; it is 11:30 and your phone shows 4 missed calls from him. What do you say to him?

4. You are the chief engineer in a company. You asked one of your assistants to stay an hour late at work to help you, but you did not show up. What would you say to him?

5. Your mother asked you to make dinner tonight, but you got busy and forgot; it is 7:00 pm and everyone’s hungry. What do you say to her?

6. You are a teacher, and you borrowed your student’s laptop. Unfortunately, it fell down and broke. What do you say to him/her?

7. You borrowed your friend’s car to go shopping. Unfortunately, you had an accident, and the car was slightly dented. What do you say to him/her?

8. You borrowed your friend’s cell phone while you were picnicking, and accidentally dropped it in the river. What do you say to him/her?

9. Your son is celebrating his birthday. You promised to give him a gift but you forgot. What do you say to him?