Konstan tin Life a ctivities P.A.L.O.

The In stitute for

Presla vsky Un iversity ad van cemen t center Experimen tal Phon etics
and S pe e ch Patho log y

4th International Congress

on
Early Prevention in Children with
Verbal Communication Disorders

Proceedings

Varna, Bulgaria
September 5th - 7th 2014
 SYNTACTIC, LEXICAL-SEMANTIC AND PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF THE
PERFORMATIVE VERB APOLOGIZE USED BY BULGARIAN LEARNERS OF
ENGLISH
DEYANA PENEVA
Abstract: The paper focuses on the syntactic, lexical-semantic and pragmatic aspects of the English
performative verb apologize when used as a basic constituent in an apology speech act. It further dwells on
the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the apology speech act in spoken language discourse. The data
in the analysis are taken from British National Corpus (BNC) of spoken language and a Learner corpus
(LC) (comprising examples of apologetic structures used by Bulgarian learners of English (advanced high
school and university students)). The paper first focuses on the description of the reference corpus (BNC)
and the Learner corpus, the objectives of the quantitative and qualitative analysis, followed by a detailed
overview of the basic apologize patterns on the basis of three criteria – form and function, meaning and
usage. The corpus focuses only on speech acts and all samples which are not speech acts are excluded
from the survey.

Keywords: apology, apologize classifications performatives, quantitative analysis, reference corpus

1. INTRODUCTION
A crucial issue in the field of second/foreign language teaching and learning is pragmatics and
namely the appropriate use of language in performing speech acts. The paper dwells on the
quantitative and qualitative analysis of an apology speech act in spoken language discourse with
respect to its syntactic-semantic realizations as well as the pragmatic aspect of the exact apology
speech act which will contribute extensively to the second language acquisition of the Bulgarian
students when studying speech act formulas and strategies in English.
The linguistic realization of the speech act of apologizing can be represented by different
explicit and implicit semantic expressions which can take one or a combination of apologetic
structures (Aijmer 1996). In that respect the performative verb apologize is considered explicit
apology strategies as it is directly expressed by means of an explicit apology (the very performative
verb itself) that the hearer is uttering a speech act of apologizing aiming to restore the offence/harm
that has been done. The verb apologize functions as an illocutionary force indicating device (IFID)
which consists of an explicit apology.
In BNC of spoken language there are 98 apologize constructions, but only 77 of them stand an
apology as all samples which are not speech acts are excluded from the survey. The Learner Corpus
comprises 70 apologize utterances. According to the Communicative Grammar of English (Leech,
Svartvik 1994), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002) and Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary 8th edition (2013) apologize functions as a verb. As a verb it is examined in its
first person singular, present simple tense form and since it is one of the basic performative verbs in
apology speech acts apologize is discussed and explored pragmatically as an IFID (illocutionary force
indicated device) though there are a few exceptions of the basic apologize patterns which when
analyzed separately show slight deviations of the pragmatic meaning of the exact apologetic structure.
Apart from the verb apologize, apology speech acts can be expressed by the noun apology which
implies the same semantic meaning as the verb itself.
1.1. Semantic meaning of the verb apologize
As a verb apologize semantically falls into three main meanings:
1. express regret for doing or saying something wrong, to give or make an apology;
acknowledge faults or shortcomings or failing. For example: 30 HVJ S_pub_debate We have
looked, and you'll see this from our supplementary paper, I apologize for its lateness, but I think it's
benefited from the additional thought that … (from BNC)
2. give or make an apology. For example: KBC S_conv utterly disgraceful! And she's done it
to spite me Rosie. And I apologize. (SP:KBCPSUNK) I didn't, I didn't take a lot of notice really …
(from BNC)
3. defend, explain, clear away, or make excuses for by reasoning. For example: I apologize his
bad behavior. He didn’t do it on purpose. (Oxford Dictionary 2013)

66
 The third meaning should be excluded from the survey since it does not refer to a
transgression/wrongdoing which the speaker personally has done. It goes to a third party’s offensive
act which breaches the basic functions of an illocutionary act (the third party does not speak on his
part and the hearer cannot recognize his intentions). The paper focuses on that sense of apologize
which occurs with the meaning of telling someone that you are sorry for doing something wrong or
causing a problem and you personally take the responsibility. The pragmatic meaning of the verb will
be discussed further in the paper.
1.2. Basic syntactic constructions/patterns of the performative verb apologize
As a verb apologize becomes explicit in seven basic syntactic groups of constructions (Radford
1997, Murcia 1999).
1. apologize can be used independently in the pattern Subject + VP (verb phrase). For
example: KBC S_conv utterly disgraceful! And she's done it to spite me Rosie. And I apologize.
(SP:KBCPSUNK) I didn't, I didn't take a lot of notice really … (from BNC)
2. apologize can be used with a preposition phrase headed by ‘for’:
- apologize + for + NP (a complement NP denoting an act or an event). For example: J3S
S_meeting It seems a strange way to do it, and I apologize for that. The three columns below
actually relate to the categories, persons extricated … (from BNC)
- apologize + for + gerund-participle clause. For example: I apologize for falling short. Sorry,
sir. (from LC)
- apologize + for + what/that-complement clause. For example: I apologize for what I did. I
have nothing to say to defend myself. (from LC)
3. apologize can be used with a preposition phrase headed by ‘to’ which is followed by NP
(denoting a person). For example: I would like to apologize to you, sir and in the future I will do my
best not make the same mistake. (from LC)
4. apologize can be used in modal constuctions:
- will/must/have to/should/can + apologize + for + NP/gerund-participle clause. For
example: 1997 SPOK Ind_Springer I will repeat what I said. I will apologize for anything I've said
which was inaccurate. BRENDA: It is, or … (from BNC)
5. apologize can be used in emphatic constructions with ‘do’ which falls into three sub-
constucitons:
- do + apologize/ do + apologize + for/ do + apologize + if. For example: KP5 S_conv thank
you. (SP:PS527) Very nice. That's very enjoyable. (SP:KP5PSUNK) I do apologize for the delay.
(SP:PS527) That's alright. (SP:PS527) That's okay. (SP:PS527).

1.3. Basic syntactic constructions of the noun apology.

In BNC there are 12 examples and in LC - 13 in which the word apology is used in its plural
form with the meaning of feeling sorry or regret for a wrongdoing or misunderstanding. There are 22
examples with the syntactic construction VP (verb phrase) + complement clause (NP). For example:
Please, accept my apologies. In Bulgarian corpus there are three extra sentences comprising the NP my
apologies but in a difference syntactic pattern. For example: My apologies will not fix the things up/
my apologies are not worth anything./ I feel like my apologies will be pointless.
All the above mentioned constuctions/classifications can be taken as apologetic structures
though preference is given to specific ones which become obvious when discussing the pragmatic
meaning of the exact utterance.

2. ANALYSIS
The analysis is made on the basic of three criteria: syntactic, lexical-semantic and pragmatic,
that is – form and function, meaning and usage respectively.

Form, Function, Meaning and Usage

Apologize as one of the basic Structural units (Word) falls into the group of content words: it is
a content word because it carries semantic content bearing reference to a world outside any particular
sentence and it falls into the group of verbs and forms one of the constituents of the clause, and
exactly the Verb phrase (Downing, Locke 2006). In that respect it could either be regarded as
transitive or intransitive. It is considered intransitive, especially in modern English as in the structures

67
apologize for/to or if, for/to and if are viewed as conjunctions similar to prepositional phrases (Lazare
2010). The indirect object presented by for/to/if is implied. For example: I apologize (to the jury) if I
offended someone. Intransitivity is determined not by the presence of indirect object but more by the
manner of use of the verb. In that respect I apologize his lateness (I defend his lateness) is quite
different from saying I apologize FOR his lateness (I feel guilty that he is late).
The verb can also be considered transitive as it requires an indirect object that is the apology
being given or the person to whom one is giving the apology. Undoubtedly in the verb apologize the
specific object (the apology) is implied in the verb.
Since the focus is on the semantic and pragmatic aspects of apologize I should dwell mainly on
one specific lexical-semantic meaning of the verb, and namely of feeling sorry and responsible for an
offence or transgression. In that respect it would be interesting to mention its origin. Its original Greek
meaning and later Latin refers to speaking in one’s defence. Just at the beginning of 18th century the
verb adopted its English meaning and namely: frankly expressing regret for a wrongdoing. The
semantic meaning of apologize is similar to the semantic meaning of being sorry and regret but the
implicatures derived from their pragmatic meanings is different. When one says I regret/I am sorry/ I
apologize (syntactic pattern 1) the one to blame is the speaker but the propositional meaning of the
first two expressions connotes the state of feeling sorrow whereas the propositional meaning of I
apologize connotes the state of responsibility (Lazare 2010). The three expressions are emotional and
empathetic but only the last one is intellectual (it occurs on intellectual level; one does not only feels
it, but always understands that there is a need of apology). Also, I apologize is formal while I am
sorry/I regret are considered more informal. I apologize infers higher level of sincerity whereas the
other two expressions are less likely to sound sincere unless in a combination with other apologetic
strategies, though pragmatically greater preference is given to I am sorry, followed by I regret as they
sound more emotional.
There are five basic patterns which take the lead in LC corpus with respect to their overall use
and namely: do + apologize (18,57%); (intensifier) + apologize (15,71%); accept + my apologies
(14,28%); apologize + for + gerund participle (10%); modal verb + apologize (8,57%) which makes
67,13% of the overall number of apologize examples. With regard to RC data analysis for apologize,
four basic patterns possess the highest frequency of occurrence: do + apologize (21, 29%); apologize
+ for + NP (20, 64%); accept - my apologies (15,48%); apologize (14, 28%) which is 71, 69% of the
total. It is obvious that pattern modal verb + apologize from LC is not among top four preferred
strategies (18 different ways of apologizing in RC whereas apologize + for + NP pattern is not among
the favoured structures in LC. The discrepancy comes from the fact that modal verb + apologize alone
structure is present in RC but the number of cases are just four whereas with respect to LC data for
apologize + for + NP pattern the structure is mostly used with a verbal head complex (verb phrase)
comprising modal auxiliary.
Regarding P1 (syntactic pattern one), it becomes explicit in two sub-structures in LC: plain
perfomative verb and with a verbal head complex comprising a modal auxiliary. In RC P1 pattern is
also displayed via these patterns but the modal auxiliary that predominates is will which expresses
intentionality and implies the idea that the speaker is not making an apology but he intends to do it.
With respect to LC the range of modal auxiliaries is diverse: must /have to/shall/need to/should which
are not-epistemic auxiliaries, discourse-oriented and mostly ranging from strong to weak present
obligation. We could assume that intentionality infers that the apology is less probable to happen
whereas obligation infers that due to ethical or social reasons the speaker should apologize. But on the
other hand LC preference of modal auxiliaries may sound less sincere than will as the latter one
implies that the speaker feels internally that the hearer deserves apology. The overall percentage rate
for both corpora is almost equal (LC – 24,28%; RC – 23,83%)
Pattern 1
Reference corpus pattern/percentage rate pattern/percentage rate
classification LC RC
apologize (P1) apologize – 15,71% apologize – 14, 28%
(modal aux.) + apologize – 8,57% (modal aux.) + apologize – 9,03%
Total 24,28% 23,83%

With respect to P2 which falls into three sub-patterns all three structures are present in RC and
used by Bulgarian learners though the data show that British speakers and Bulgarian learners give

68
preference on different syntactic structures. Pragmatically the RC data show that apologize + for + NP
pattern as a whole is well over twice as much used as the same structure in LC and is present in
socially equal environment which does not require a high level of formality, though the utterances
sound more formal than all the other performative utterances in both corpora. For Bulgarian learners
all three patterns are equally formal and point out that they would use the structures when the social
distance and power of the participants is different. In RC corpus these patterns are mostly preceded or
followed by an explanation or account and in a limited number of cases there is another apologetic
strategy - concern for the hearer (ex. I hope I didn’t upset you), which implies the idea that the
speaker is willing to save the hearer’s positive face (Brown, Levinson 1987). In LC corpus the
apologize + for + NP and apologize + for + gerund-participle clause patterns are mainly preceded or
followed by another IFID (illocutionary force indicating device), explanation or account and at least
one more strategy which refers to the strategy of taking responsibility and namely expressing self-
blame (ex. It’s my fault) or self-deficiency (ex. I was confused./ I didn’t see you./ I forgot). In one of
the cases the additional apologetic strategy refers to sub-strategy of expressing lack of intent which
again is related to speaker’s sense of responsibility. It is obvious that the apologizer tries to maintain
the level of politeness quite high which leads us to the conclusion that he is trying to keep his personal
positive face (to be liked and appreciated by the others). The apology is quite likely to be accepted
sincere. The second sub-pattern apologize + for + gerund-participle is explicit in both corpora though
greater preference is shown by Bulgarian speakers. It is interesting to mention here that Bulgarian
learners are more willing to use V-ing clause than substituting it with that-NP, which is more common
with British speakers. Additionally the results from both corpora show that when the wrong deed is
specified not substituted with that the level of formality is higher, the social status of the participants
differ. This has been realized by Bulgarian speakers as they have also added other strategies (again of
taking responsibility) to enhance the sincerity effect of the apologetic act. Apologize + for + what-CL
pattern is present only in LC which raises the question if it is correct at all. Theoretically and
grammatically it is and I have checked in American Spoken Corpus that, though rarely, the pattern is
possible, however it is not typical to British speakers. It is obvious that Bulgarian speakers transfer
their native grammatical competence on the target language as what in what-CL is translated into
Bulgarian затова, че. For example: I have to apologize for what I did….(LC). A modal auxiliary is
present which further adds the meaning of performing an act which connotes the idea of duty and
obligation, not as an act personally intended. Apologize + that + compl. clause pattern is present only
in two of the cases in RC which makes it less common by the users of the language. The level of
formality is not that high, though it is not absent. The common coordinating conjunction that requires
an explanation or account and the structure sounds more colloquial than apologize + for/if/to.
Pattern 2
Reference corpus pattern/percentage rate pattern/percentage rate
classification LC RC
apologize + for apologize + for + NP – 7,14% apologize + for + NP – 20,64%
(P2) apologize + for + V-ing – 10% apologize + for + V-ing– 3, 87%
apologize + for + what-CL – 5,67% apologize + for + that-CL – 2,58%
Total 22,81% 27,09%
With respect to P3 two utterances were found in LC and three in RC. In LC the entry in both
cases is preceded by a clausal complement: I’m quick to apologize to you but my regrets come too late.
Sorry, sir. / I would like to apologize to you and in the future I will do my best not to make the same
mistake (from LC) which implies additional meaning to the apologetic utterance. I’m quick to infers
that the speaker does not only have the intention of making an apology but making it immediately as
he has realized his mistake. It further connotes the idea that the transgression was equally unpleasant
for both parties. By adding two other strategies – expressing self-deficiency and an explicit expression
of regret the speaker shows that he realizes the seriousness of the offence and he genuinely feels sorry
for that. The structure is considered to be highly formal by both British and Bulgarian speakers in
which the social distance is noticeable.
Pattern 3
Reference corpus pattern/percentage rate pattern/percentage rate
classification LC RC
apologize + to-NP apologize + to – NP - 2,86% apologize + to – NP – 3,87%
(denoting a person) (P3)

69
 The fourth classification of syntactic patterns falls into two sub-classifications. The difference in
both corpora comes from the fact that the predominant modal verbs in LC are modal auxiliaries of
duty, obligation or necessity whereas the favoured modal in RC is will, which is a verb of
intentionality (already discussed above). What’s more, will + apologize structure apart from the idea of
intentionality of the act also connotes the idea of volunteering and promising. By performing an
apology speech act the speaker indirectly refers to another illocutionary act, that of promising
(expressed by the modal will). It is an interesting case here that from one side we have the certainty of
the performative apologize, but from the other side its genuineness is lessened by the use of the modal.
The speaker will or will not apologize, he just intends to do it , but in fact is not doing it. The situation
is further complicated when we consider the fact that will + apologize syntactic pattern splits into
three other constructions: will + apologize (already discussed); will + apologize + for + NP and will
+ apologize + for + G. The difference between the three is that the latter two are followed by an
explanation or an offer of repair (ex. I will try to make it up for you.) and make the utterance sound
more sincere. However, from the modal will the hearer will infer that the apology is less probable to
happen. With respect to syntactic pattern must + apologize from LC the modal verb connotes the state
of internal present obligation which is imposed on the speaker by himself; must is also a deontic
modal, related to duty or obligation due to ethical reasons. In will + apologize + for (should/need to)
pattern the sincerity of the apology is under question whereas in must/have to patterns another
meaning is implied to the overall apology speech act, that the speaker cannot guarantee certainty but
mostly probability that the speaker must perform the apology.

Pattern 4
Reference corpus pattern/percentage rate pattern/percentage rate
classification LC RC
(modal aux.) + apologize (must/should/need/have to) + apologize (will) + apologize + for + NP – 2,58%
+ for (P4) + for + NP – 5,71% (will) + apologize + for +
(must/should/need/have to) + apologize V-ing – 1,29%
+ for + V-ing – 0,00%
Total 5,71% 3,87%

The fifth syntactic pattern do + apologize is obviously the most preferred one as the structure is
emphatic expressing high level of sincerity. In LC there are only utterances of the first type: do +
apologize, whereas in RC there are examples of all three sub-structures. The pattern in both corpora is
considered extremely formal. It is important to mention here that in RC the first sub-pattern is
followed by the strategy of taking responsibility and more specifically – the sub-strategies of
expressing self-deficiency; expressing lack of intent; recognizing the other person as deserving
apology and justifying the hearer (ex. You are right to be angry). 6 out of 17 do + apologize utterances
are followed by another IFID and namely sorry patterns which additionally strengthens the effect of
sincerity. In three of the cases the offence has been mentioned either as an act or as an event.
Pattern 5
Reference corpus Pattern/percentage rate Pattern/percentage rate
Classification LC RC
apologize (P1) do + apologize - 18,57% do + apologize - 21, 29%
do + apologize + for + NP - 5,16%
do + apologize + for + V-ing – 1,29%
Total 18,57% 27,74%

The last syntactic pattern in which the noun apology is used in its plural form is present in both
corpora and is preferred by both speakers – British and Bulgarian. I shall focus on the three extra
cases from Bulgarian corpus. My apologies will not fix the things up. / My apologies are not worth
anything./ I feel like my apologies will be pointless are not present in RC and no similar constructions
were found in British corpus. Pragmatically they serve as apologetic acts and can fall into the sub-
strategy of expressing self-deficiency but imply the idea of meeting sympathy on hearer’s part. This
could be considered a type of evasive strategy, though it is not mentioned in the mainstream apology
type classifications, but I have found a number of examples in LC. By provoking compassion and
sympathy on hearer’s part the speaker seeks to minimize the severity of offence and create an attitude
that he takes the transgression personally and understands the whole seriousness of the offence which

70
is both humiliating and unpleasant for him. These face threatening acts extensively threaten the
speaker’s positive face, but are considered effective in Bulgarian culture whereas from the RC data I
conclude that such an evasive strategy is not typical as British speakers are less prone or not prone at
all to provoke pity or compassion on somebody else’s part. With respect to accept + my apologies
pattern it shows high level of formality and is considered extremely polite since by performing it the
speaker aims to minimize the severity of the offence. For example: EEB W_commerce Please accept my
apologies for having to cancel our meeting on the 24th January. A matter has arisen … (from BNC)
With respect to P5 both corpora show preference to that structure. There are two cases in which
the verb take is wrongly used instead of accept. This could be due to language incompetence. Similar
to the analysis of the noun apology in RC, the Bulgarian learners have pointed out that they will use
the construction in extremely formal circumstances.
In general, apologize patterns are not that common in colloquial English than sorry and regret
patterns, but they are preferred especially in cases when the social status of the speaker and the hearer
is different; in situations in which there is a strong possibility of the apology speech act to fail due to
lack of politeness and breaching the social norms.
We could assume from the results that in situations where there is a high risk the apology to fail
provided the socio-cultural rules of polite behavior and social distance are not preserved both British
and Bulgarian speakers when feeling an offence has been done by them solely prefer to use these
constructions as they sound more sincere than the others. These constructions, however, are followed
by other apologetic strategies which further support the genuineness of the act: strategies of taking
responsibility mainly which are different for British and Bulgarians. Unlike sorry which expresses
regret and does not mean to apologize but is considered the most common apology speech act,
apologize is less common but connotes the idea that you are at fault and the speaker bears the
responsibility of his deeds. The Bulgarian learners were not able to understand this factor. They have
mainly focus on the level of formality. Additionally, when using the verb apologize, the Bulgarian
participants associate the verb with obligation and necessity rather than an act which requires personal
intentionality which will definitely lead us to the conclusion that the communicative act could fail if it
is not inferred properly by the hearer, that is, if the hearer considers the apology not sincere enough.
Another point to bear in mind is that Bulgarian learners tend to provoke feelings of pity and sympathy
on the part of the hearer which is not common among British speakers.
To conclude, in all syntactic patterns the semantic meaning remains the same, it does not change
though the pragmatic meaning changes with respect to the level of politeness and the severity of the
offence which is context-dependent. Though all differences mentioned above are contextually
specified they can be regarded as slight but extremely important as they form the particular cultural
contour of the language. They all can be reduced to a common denominator: performative utterances
which express the various nuances of one and the same speech act: the apology.
REFERENCES
Aijmer, K. (1996). Apologies. In Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London:
Longman, 18-123.
Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Downing, A., Locke, P. (2006). Downing A.; Locke P. English Grammar: A University Course. 2nd ed.
Abingdon and New York: Routledge..
Lazare, A (2010). The Apology Dynamic. AAOS Now, Volume 4, Number 5. 212-342.
Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1994). A communicative Grammar of English, New Yourk: Longman Group
Limited.
Murcia, M. (1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course (second edition), Boston:Heinle
& Heinle.(co-authored with D. Larsen-Freeman).
Radford, A. (1997). Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (ISBN 0-521-43146-8) 2002.
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 8th edition (2013)
forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php

71