Chapter One

Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

One of the noteworthy factors in conversing with others is to know how to properly apologize for
an offense and, in return, respond accordingly. Acquiring this communicative competence can
help learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) to avoid cross-cultural miscommunication.
The first serious discussions and analyses of apology emerged during the 1970s with Kort’s
(1975) study. An apology is a social act that interactants use to remedy an offense to a person
offended (Hamilton & Hagiwara, 1992; Kort, 1975). It is needed when social rules and norms are
disregarded and aimed to rectify rapport (Al-Rawafi et al., 2021; Degenhardt & Bernaisch, 2022;
Hamilton & Hagiwara, 1992; Limberg, 2015; Shevchenko & Gutorov, 2019; Mir, 1992).
Apologizing is an influential sociocultural competence (Aydin, 2013; Cohen & Olshtain, 1981;
Limberg, 2015; Mir, 1992) that helps to maintain communication (Ngo & Luu, 2022;
Shevchenko & Gutorov, 2019).
 In each culture, what is considered offense might deviates from those in other cultures.
This deviation has been studied by many researchers. Considering compensating the offense, the
apology strategy might also vary cross-culturally (Shevchenko & Gutorov, 2019). These
differences in the mentioned communicative competence have triggered many studies (Al-
Rawafi et al., 2021; Bataineh & Bataineh, 2006, 2008; Chamani & Zareipur, 2010; Degenhardt
& Bernaisch, 2022; Demir & Takkaç, 2016; Hussein & Hammouri, 1998; Intachakra, 2004;
Kotani, 2016; Saleem, Unjum, Ahmed & Qadeer, 2021; Shevchenko & Gutorov, 2019; Tahir &
Pandian, 2016).
Apology response (AP) as the last part of apology sequence, might be carried out in
various forms, from silence to different lexical bundles (Holmes, 1995). Needless to say, within
each culture, the way people respond to the apologizer also differs. Apology response (AR),
which is the focus of this study, was first investigated by Owen (1983). Her work became the
benchmark for other studies on this area (Adrefiza & Jones, 2013; An, Su & Xiang, 2022;
Holmes, 1989; Robinson, 2004). The most recent and comprehensive study belongs to An et al.
(2022), which is was specifically on British English.
As Chafe and Danielewicz (1987) explained in their book, the spoken language varies
from the written language. We Mmust not lose sight of the fact that they are not poles apart. In
another words, despite being different, some spoken utterances might be written- like and in
some cases the written lexemes might be like spoken words. Different aspects of spoken
language have been the focus of many studies.
American English and British English are the two standard dialects of English (Creese,
1991). Differences between American English and British English was the emphasis of many
researches (Hymes, 1974; Saphir, 1921; Whorf, 1939). Concerning speech acts, Creese (1991),
perceived dissimilarity among British and American speakers of English. As language learners
are eager to master one of the dialects of English, American or British, proper lexical
collocations for their use must be introduced.
Since data from previous studies on AR are limited and none of them have concentrated
on American English on a large scale, the need for research on the matter has become apparent.
This study was an attempt to fill this gap so that EFL learners can benefit from a comprehensive
list of AR lexical bundles both in American and British, and perceive the differences if there are
any.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Research has indicated that there can beare significant differences between American and British
English regarding syntax, semantics, pronunciation, and discourse (Creese, 1991; Fares, 2019;
Hosseinzadeh, Kambuziya, & Shariati, 2015; Hymes, 1974; Mair, 2007; Potts & Baker, 2012;
Tottie, 2009; Treiman Barry, 2000). Mair (2007) focused on differences among “lexico-
grammatical” (p. 84) instances in American English and British English and reported that despite
clear distinction in their pronunciation, there is a common grammatical system which is used
differently in various dialects of English. Research on semantics has also showed shown major
differences between American and British English (Potts & Baker, 2012). Hosseinzadeh et al.’s
(2015) research contributes to the better understanding of distinction in American and British
English pronunciation.
The differences between American English and British English have mainly been are
mainly found in the pragmatics of the language, that is, the proper use of language in different
situations. Being acquainted with pragmatics within each culture helps language learners to avert
cross-cultural miscommunication (Aydin, 2013). This issue has triggered a handful ofnumerous
researches studies on pragmatics (House & Kadar, 2021; Levinson, 1983; LoCastro, 2003;
Trosborg, 1995; Trosborg, 2010; Yule, 1996), and also cross-cultural pragmatics (Aydin, 2013;
Bataineh & Bataineh, 2006, 2008; Cenoz, & Valencia, 1996; Chamani & Zareipur, 2010; Cheng,
2010; De Felice & Murphy, 2017; Demir & Takkaç, 2016; Felix-Brasdefer, 2003; Ismagilova,
Shakirova, & Zabavnova, 2020; Nelson et.al, 2002; Palacios Martinez, 2010; Shevchenko &
Gutorov, 2019; Tannen, 1984).
Pragmatic differences have been found in the form of apology and apology responses .
Apology has been studied widely (Cohen & Olshtain, 1981; Creese, 1991; Deutschmann, Mats.
2003; Kort, 1975; Jucker, 2018; Owen, M. 1983; Robinson, 2004; Trosborg, 1987,1995). A
considerable amount of literature has been published on cross-cultural comparison of apology
(Al-Rawafi et al., 2021; Aydin, 2013; Bataineh & Bataineh, 2006, 2008; Chamani & Zareipur,
2010; Degenhardt & Bernaisch, 2022; Demir & Takkaç, 2016; Hussein & Hammouri, 1998;
Intachakra, 2004; Kotani, 2016; Saleem, Unjum, Ahmed & Qadeer, 2021; Shevchenko &
Gutorov, 2019; Tahir & Pandian, 2016). Different studies have been done on the difference
between Americans and Japanese in terms of apology (Hamilton & Hagiwara, 1992; Sugimoto,
1997). According to Hamilton and Hagiwara (1992), Americans generally tend to deny, justify or
use aggressive strategies as remedial acts. Sugimoto (1997) stated that Americans use
forgetfulness or lack of control over the situation as an excuse for the offense.
It has been perceived that Americans attempt to remedy an offense more than Turkish
people (Aydin, 2013). Several researchers demonstrated that ‘sorry’ was used most frequently
among remedial acts (Aydin, 2013; Cohen & Olshtain, 1981; Holmes, 1990; Mir, 1992). Mir
(1992) observed dissimilarities in employment and intensification of apologies by Spanish and
American speakers.
Creese (1991) pointed out that differences were perceived between Americans and Brits
in apologizing. British people apologize more for minor matters than Americans, especially in
close relationships. It seems that apologizing is practiced differently in England. Al-Zumor
(2011) found that there are slight differences in utilizing apology strategies between American
and British speakers of English.
Different scholars have investigated apology taxonomies (Cohen & Olshtain, 1981;
Deutschmann, 2003; Sugimoto, 1997).; Sugimoto's taxonomy has been challenged by Bataineh
and Bataineh (2005), and reported some differences in apologizing strategies used by Americans.
An et al., (2022) gathered all these taxonomies and introduced a list which is the starting point of
this thesis.
Alongside apology is an apology response (AR). The remedial responses introduced by
Owen (1983) is the primary work on apology response. Holmes (1989) addressed New
Zealander's apology sequence and introduced six categories of response strategies. Robinson
(2004) provided apology organizations using videotapes from American and British speakers.
Adrefiza and Jones (2013) focused on Indonesian and Australian apology responses. Murphy
(2016) analyzed apologies and apology responses made by UK politicians. An et al.'s (2022)
research is specifically on spoken British English. Most studies of AR have only been carried out
in exclusive areas and the number of samples has been limited. Owen’s (1983) study included
recorded transactions in shops or telephone conversations. New Zealanders were the subject of
Holmes’ (1989) study and the samples of Robinson (2004) was from videotapes.
So farHowever, there has been no study to has focused on apology responses in spoken
American English on a large scale. Most studies of AR have only been carried out in exclusive
areas and the number of samples is limited. Owen’s (1983) study includes recorded transactions
in shops or telephone conversations. New Zealanders were the subject of Holmes’ (1989) study
and the samples of Robinson (2004) is from videotapes. To fill this gap, the present study was
designed to be corpus-based with the data being naturally occurring spoken English. Since the
corpus entails a considerable amount of data, the opportunity to extract pertinent data present
itself, and hopefully the quantity of data collection collected in this research will not be
questioned. By using discourse analysis, the extracted data related to AR was examined, trying to
complement the results of the study by An et al. (2022).

1.3 Objective of the Study

This corpus study follows three key aims. Firstly, a taxonomy of apology responses in American
English will be introduced using the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). The
corpus provides a large-scale collection of authentic instances that allow researchers to scrutinize
and obtain data (Kitao, 2012; Su & Wei, 2018). Secondly, the study aims to assess the extent to
which two dialects of English, American and British, differ in apology responses, and highlight
the similarities and dissimilarities between American English and British English apology
responses.

1.4 Significance of Study

What we know about apology responses is derived from small-scale data (Owen, 1983;
Robinson, 2004). To date, apology response in American English has not yet been extensively
studied. While some cross-cultural research has been carried out on AR (Adrefiza & Jones, 2013;
An et al., 2022; Holmes, 1989; Adrefiza & Jones, 2013), and An, Su and Xiang's (2022) work on
AR is exclusively on British English. No no single study exists that has focuseds on American
English at odds with British Englishat a large scale. Since there is a relative paucity of high-
quality research focusing , especially on naturally occurring American English on a large scale,
this paper study pursues tried to fill the gapthe investigation of apology responses in American
English. …

1.5 Research Questions

1. What are the apology responses in American English?
 2. What are the similarities and differences between American English and British English
apology responses?

1.6 Definitions of Key Terms

Apology: a social activity done to show remorse for an offense as well as taking responsibility
and asking for forgiveness (Bataineh & Bataineh, 2008; Holmes, 1990; Ngo& Luu, 2022).
Apology response (AR): the verbal or non-verbal actions committed in response to an apology
(Alsulayyi, 2017; Jucker, 2018).
Spoken American English: a dialect of the English language that is mostly used in the United
States (Wolfram & Schilling, 2015).
Discourse: the language that is employed for communication and interaction in social situations
(Cook, 1989; Van Dijk, 1997).
Discourse analysis: language use in context is scrutinized to demonstrate how it becomes
meaningful for interlocutors (Cook, 1989).

1.7 Outline of the Thesis

The presented thesis is organized in five chapters. The introductory chapter covers information
regarding background of the study, statement of the problem, research question and definition of
key terms. Second chapter provides literature relating to apology and apology response. All the
information related to methodology such as data collection and procedure can be found in
chapter three.
The results are discussed in chapter four, and the following chapter five , provides discussion of
the results, the conclusion and implication of the study.