Revista de Humanidades: Tecnológico de Monterrey

Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM)

bglopez@campus.mty.itesm.mx
ISSN (Versión impresa): 1405-4167
MÉXICO

2000
Lisa C. Wagner
TOWARD A CHARACTERIZATION OF APOLOGIES IN MEXICAN SPANISH: THE
ROLE OF GENDER IN STRATEGY SELECTION AND PERFORMANCE
Revista de Humanidades: Tecnológico de Monterrey, número 009
Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM)
Monterrey, México
pp. 37-53
 Toward a Characterízation oF
Apologies in Mexican Spanish:
The role oF Gender
in Strategjy Selection
and Performance
Lisa C. Wagner
University of Louisville

Many scholarly investigations of apologies have been based

on the assumption that an apology refers to the same social act
across all cultures and societies (Wolfson, Marmor and Jones). 1
reject this position and argue instead that notions of offense, the
obligation to apologies and the means by which an apology is
rendered are socioculturally defined. Using the speech community
of Cuernavaca, Mexico, 1 investigate gender as an important
variable in regulating the manifestation of an apology and those
communicative strategies used by male and female members to
perform this function of language. Data callection techniques
include: written questionnaires, ethnographic recordings and
quantitative analysis.

Introduction

M any investigations of apologies have assumed that this func-

tion of language refers to the same communicative act across
al1 cultures and societies (Wolfson, Marmor and Jones). This position
has led to a proposed set of universal principies by which apologies
have been characterized: directness (Austin; Searle), cooperation
(Grite; Leech), politeness (Brown and Levinson) and face (Brown and
Levinson). 1 reject this approach and advocate instead that notions of
offense, the obligation to apologize and the means by which an apology
is performed are not universal norms of interaction, but rather are
socially conditioned components of language use. Therefore, for a
given speech community, it is important to investigate both the types
of strategies used by speakers to apologize and the situations that
merit an apology in the first place.
The current project focuses on apologies collected within the speech
community of Cuernavaca, Mexico. Within this particular speech
community, 1 have elected to focus on gc~drr as a crucial variable
regulating both the manifestation of an apology and the
communicative strategies used by male and female members to
perform this function of language. Due to the obvious complexity of
characterizing apologies within a framework of human interaction, a
multimethod approach to data collection was employed. The data
collection techniques and analysis used in this investigation include
written questionnaires, ethnographic recordings and quantitative
analysis. Using this proposed corpus, 1 address the following questions:
II Do male and female members of the speech community of
Cuernavaca, Mexico, apologize and receive apologies to the same
frequency? Z/ Do they commit and/or apologize for the same types of
offenses? 3) Do male and female members of the speech community
of Cuernavaca receive apologies for the same types of offenses? 4) Do
they exhibit any systematic preferente for strategies they employ in
relation to the specific type of offense for which they apologize?, and
finally, S) Are there any suggestive differences between the results
yielded by the two types of data collection techniques and instruments
used in the present investigation?

1. Theoretical Framework
A thorough discussion of apologies has been undertaken by
scholars in the field of ethnomethodology, most notably by Erving
Goffman. In Goffman, apologies and other remedia1 exchanges
between interlocutors are considered part of the preservation of face.
According to Goffman (13x), apologies are remedia1 exchanges that
indicate an acceptance of responsibility by the speaker, and serve as
an implicit self-judgment against the speaker. Following the work of
Goffman, Brown and Levinson place apologies and other speech acts
within a framework in which each rational “model person” hasfuce.
Face refers to two basic wants of an individual: 11to be approved of by
others, and 21 to have his/her actions and/or thoughts unimpeded
by others (Brown and Levinson 58). Within the proposed model,
emphasis is placed upon the wants of the participants involved in a
given interaction rather than upon the action itself or upon those
norms operating in society.
 According to Brown and Levinson (61-z), there are two types of
face: /w~iti711' fnc~ and t~c~~nti~ fnc~. Positiue fmc concerns the former
of thc two wants profiled above, while ~rc~ati~v,fííc~ concerns the latter.
Brown and Levinson (6~) organize their theory of politeness around
the notion that many speech acts are intrinsically threatening to face
inasmuch as they do not support the face-wants of the speaker and/
or those of the addressee. Brown and Levinson (~-67) Face-threatening
xts (FTAS) are divided by Brown and Levinson (65-67) into two types,
based upon the type of face they threaten. Acts that threaten positive
face-wants include those acts in which a speaker demonstrates that
he/she does not approve of the addressee’s positive face (e.g.
complaints, criticisms, etc.) or does not care about the addressee’s
positive face (e.g. mention of taboo topics, interruptions, etc.). Acts
that threaten negative face include instances in which the addressee
is pressured to do or to refrain from doing a future-oriented act (e.g.
requests, threats, etc.), when he/she is pressured to accept or to reject
a future act of the speaker (e.g. offers, promises, etc.), or when the
addressee has reason to believe that the speaker has a desire toward
the addressee’s goods, such that he/she may have to protect those
goods or concede them to the speaker (e.g. complements, expressions
of strong emotions such as hate, lust, etc. by the speaker toward the
addressee, etc.).
Another criterion by which FTAS may be divided is by
distinguishing between acts which primarily threaten the addressee’s
face (those acts mentioned above), and those which primarily threaten
the speaker’s face. Examples of FTAS to the speaker’s positive face
include apologies, the acceptance of a compliment, self-humiliations,
etc. Some FTAS that are threatening to the speaker’s negative face
include expressing gratitude, accepting a thank-you or an apology,
and committing to future acts by making promises or offers (Brown
and Levinson 67-8). An apology is an attempt by the speaker to make
LIP for a previous action that interfered with the hearer’s face-wants
(Brown and Levinson IU). Thus, the aim of apologizing is to restore
equilibrium between the speaker and the addressee (Leech 125). As
Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (12) explain, in an apology “...the
speaker acknowledges that a violation of the social norm has been
40 Lisa C. Wagner

committed and admits to the fact that he or she is at least partially

involved in its cause.”
Brown and Levinson (13) believe the notion off¿rce to be universal
but add, ” . . .in any particular society we would expect [face] to be the
subject of much cultural elaboration.” In their model of politeness
and face-work theory, Brown and Levinson (77-x0) identify three
independent, culturally sensitive variables which they feel subsume
al1 others with regard to the need for and the nature of remedia1 work
and repair: I) relative power; 2) social distance and 3) absolute ranking of
the inrposition. Relative power refers to the power of the speaker with
respect to the hearer. It reflects the degree to which the speaker can
impose his/her will onto the hearer. Social distance refers to the degree
of familiarity and solidarity between the speaker and the hearer.
Absolute ranking of the imposition refers to the potential expenditure of
goods and/or services by the hearer according to macro-leve1 socio-
cultural norms operating within a given culture. According to Brown
and Levinson, absolute ranking of the imposition demonstrates the
degree to which this imposition interferes with an individual’s positive
and negative face-wants. It includes referente to the right of the
speaker to perform the act and the degree to which the hearer
welcomes the imposition. On the one hand, Brown and Levinson
recognize face as a concept which is subject to cultural specifications
of many types, e.g. what kinds of acts may be considered face-
threatening, what types of persons have special rights t-o face
protection, and what sort of personal style is especially appreciated.
However, in proposing a formula to calculate the seriousness of a
given ITA, Brown and Levinson (76) exclude these very extrinsic
weightings from their model. Thus, they cannot account for cultural
differences in terms of: 1) greater emphasis placed on positive-face
satisfaction uersus negative-face satisfaction and 2) the possibility that
a speaker’s face-wants and a hearer’s face-wants may not be regarded
with equal importance in a given society. Variability of this nature
has definite consequences in terms of the use and elaboration of
potential communicative strategies.

2. Review of Literature: Apologies and Gender

To date, there has been little systematic comparison of male and
female norms of apologizing. In bis ethnographic study of apologies
in Ameritan English, Fraser found no significant patterns in the
frequency of occurrence or non-occurrence of apologies made or
received by men and women. Holmes’ study of apologies in New
Zealand English, however, did revea1 systematic differences in the
frequency of apologies made and received by the two genders. It is
important to note here that Fraser’s investigation wasqualitatíve in
nature, whereas, Holmes’ investigation was both qualitative and
quantitative. Holmes’ investigation of remedia1 exchanges in New
Zealand English included a corpus of 1x3 apologies collected
ethnographically over a wide range of contexts. The women in
Holmes’ study made seventy-five percent of al1 apologies recorded,
and received seventy-three percent of them. The men, on the other
hand, made twenty-five percent of the apologies collected, and
received twenty-seven percent of them (Holmes 15~). In addition, the
data revealed that women apologized much more often to women
than they did to men, while men apologized with comparable
frequency lo both genders (Holmes 159).
When is it polite or necessary to apologize? What types of
infractions result man apology? An examination of Holmes’ data on
apologies in New Zealand English suggested the following categories
of offense (167): 1) space offenses (e.g. bumping into someone, queue
jumping ); 2) talk offenses (e.g. interrupting, talking too much, etc.);
3) time offenses (e.g. keeping people waiting, taking too long, etc.);
4) possession offenses (damaging or losing someone’s personal
property); 5) social gaffes (burping, coughing, etc.), and 6)
inconveniente offenses (e.g. giving someone the wrong item, etc.).
When comparing the variable grnder ofapoZo@w,Holmes found that
women apologized most often for space and talk offenses, while men
apologized most often for time offenses (Holmes 167-170).
There are a variety of communicative strategies which may be used
to apologize, and a number of researchers have devised systems for
classifying apology strategies (Fraser; Olshtain and Cohen; Owen;
Blum-Kulka and Olshtain; Trosborg; Vollmer and Olshtain; and
Holmes. Holmes’ (161) classification is as follows: 2) Explicit Expression
of Apology: a) offer of an apology, 1 apologize;b) expression of regret,
I’nr sc>rg, and c) request for forgiveness, EXCWZ me; 2) Explanation or
Account: i%r t~~fic 7~x7s 1~ad; 3~Acknowledgment of Responsibility: a)
accepting the blame, It is nr~/$~~llt; b) expressing self-deficiency, 1 7~~s
co/$~s~‘~f; c) recognize addressee as entitled to an apology, Yhr’w right;
d) expressing lack of intent, / di~I]z’r I~IL’IIIIto, and e) an offer of repair,
WC’// r~~placc if, and 4) A Promise of Forbearance: It 7uo11’t hppen apiri.

While the women and men in Holmes’ investigation made use of the
same range of apology strategies, there were some interesting
differences. Men were more likely than women to use performative
verbs in a formal way (e.g. I dv npnlo$ze and I nl~st npologize). Also,
only women verbally expressed Inck of intcnf and included the
IrcqrCtion ofthe ofher parfy’s riplzt tu UNnpolug/in their apology strategy.

3. The Current Investigation

The focus of the present investigation is on the apology behaviors
within the speech community of Cuernavaca, Mexico. This project
addresses the way(s) in which gender regulates both the rendering of
an apology and the types of communicative strategies used by male
and female members of this speech community to perform this
function of language. The following sections (Sections 3.1-3.4) offer
the reader a brief outline of the procedural and methodological
considerations relevant to the design of this research endeavor.

3.1. The Research Questions

The current study was undertaken with severa1 specific research
questions in mind: 1) Do male and female members of the speech
community of Cuernavaca, Mexico apologize and receive apologies
to the same frequency? 2) Do males and females commit and apologize
for the same types of offenses. 7 3) Do males and females receive
apologies for the same types of offenses? 4) Do they exhibit any
systematic preferente for strategy types they employ in relation to
the specific type of offense for which they apologize? and 5) Are there
any suggestive differences between the results yielded by the two
types of data collection techniques and instruments used in the present
investigation? The following sections describe the research design of
those instruments and procedures used to investigate these particular
questions.
 3.2. The Speech Community of Cuemavaca,Mexico: A Profile
This investigation was undertaken in Cuernavaca, Mexico, the
capital city of the state of Morelos. Located approximately one hour
to the south of Mexico City, Cuernavaca is considered part of Central
Mexico. Cuernavaca is a large metropolitan area with a population
of over one million inhabitants (http://www.giga.com/cuahua/
cllemav.htm.lcr,h). While Cuernavaca originated as a refuge for Mexico
City’s elite, today’s city is heme to people of distinct socioeconomic
levels. This community was selected for the current investigation on
the basis of researcher accessibility and the lack of previously
conducted research on apologies in Mexican Spanish.

3.3. Informant Profile and Selection Procedure

The current study employs two distinct types of data collection
techniques and instruments: written questionnaires and ethnographic
recordings. Informants were chosen to participate in the questionnaire
portion of the research project on the basis of availability to the
researcher, their willingness to participate, and their ability to
contribute to an overa11 even number of informants of both genders
(males and females). Due largely in part to time and economic
considerations of the researcher, informants were secured via a
networking approach and the application of the technique of srzo7uball
s~1/1/f71j\l~~.Snowball sampling involves using already established
contacts to secure additional informants. It is important to point out
that the data resulting from this type of sampling method is not
random data, and, thus, some externa1 validity may have been lost.
However, because it was crucial for the researcher to collect a large
amount of data in a relatively short time period, this was deemed a
viable data collection technique. A total of one hundred twenty-five
individuals from Cuernavaca responded. In order to control for
possible dialectal variation, al1 informants verbally confirmed that
they had resided their entire lives in Cuernavaca, Mexico, before
answering the questionnaire. For the ethnographic portion of the
questionnaire, a total of two hundred apology situations were
recorded. Informants were selected on the basis of having performed
an apology in the presente of the researcher. Because the researcher
had no contact with these informants before or after the performance
44 txr Lisa CWagner

of the apology, little personal data was available to her. However, the
variable of gender was readily apparent and subsequently ceded.

3.4 Data Collection Techniques Methodological Considerations

The first data collection technique used in the current investigation
was the administration of written questionnaires. Although written
questionnaires in the form of Discourse Completion Tests (DCTS)
continue to be the most commonly employed ways of eliciting speech
act data across different languages (Olshtain; Olshtain and Cohen,
and Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper), they have received less than
favorable responses from sociolinguists because they are considered
to be instances of reported speech. It has been proven that reported
speech and other reported social behaviors often differ greatly from
those behaviors actually observed for a given population (Wolfson,
D’Amico-Reisner and Huber). Bodeman and Einstein compare data
collected through DCTS, open-ended role-plays and field notes of
naturalistic data (i.e. ethnographic data). They note that the data
differed in terms of length and complexity, as written data was found
to be more concise and less complex than the other two types. Beebe
and Cummings (71) compare data from written DCTS and telephone
conversations in their study of refusals in Ameritan English. Written
DCTS were found to “ .- .bias the response toward less negotiation, less
elaboration, less repetition, less hedging, less variety and less speech
in general.” However, the semantic formulae produced in both types
of data elicitation were remarkably similar. According to Hill et al.
(353), by using written elicitation techniques, one is able to secure “. . .the
prototype of the variants occurring in the individual’s actual speech.”
In other words, written speech yields more stereotyped responses and
becomes a valuable tool for conducting cross-cultural investigations.
Beebe and Cummings (í'3) add that DCTs are “. . .a good way to discover
what semantic formulae are frequently used or expected in the
performance of a speech act.” Finally, Bernard (146) states that
questionnaire research is “. . .an effective component of overall field
research.” In summary, quantitative techniques in the collection 0f
speech act data nicely compliment qualitative techniques of
ethnographic approaches: they provide an inherent structure by which
discrete categories may be identified, measured and characterized.
Due in large part to questions of access, time, finances and overa11
projected yield of apology samples, 1 chose to ethnographically record
instances of naturally occurring speech by using one of the tools
traditionally associated with cultural anthropology: the notebook.
Although this technique loses some validity in that it is an account of
authentic interaction as perceived and documented by a human
observer, it has two main advantages which directly correlate with
the intentions and goals of this particular investigation: I) this
technique provides for a wide range of social and situational
parameters, which are targeted variables of this study in a most
economical and timely fashion, and 2) it adds some additional externa1
validity to the sample apologies offered by informants in responding
to the written questionnaires.

3.4.1. Written Questionnaires

The present study uses as its basis a modified version of the
instrument designed for the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization
Project (CCSARP) (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper). The situational
questionnaire contained a total of eight scripted dialogues designed
to elicit an apology. In addition to the script, each dialogue included
a short prelude which described the setting of the interaction and the
roles of the interactants in relation to each other. The role relationship
depiction contained the inherent parameters of social distance and
social status. The dialogues themselves included blank space, where
it was hoped that the respondents would provide the speech act being
elicited. Finally, al1 dialogues were comprised of a response to the
supposed (informant-supplied) speech act. For the purpose of the
current project, the CCSARP Questionnaire was translated from English
to Spanish, with minar modifications. Informants were provided with
a brief description of the situation contained in the prelude of the
CCSARP Questionnaire (Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper). Scripted
dialogues introduce bias in two ways: I) they provide respondents
with information, in the form of illocutionary up-take, which is not
normally available to them at the point in natural discourse where
they may chose to perform or not perform a given speech act, and 2)
 .
46 L~sn C. Wagner
tii

they may forte responden& to complete their speech act within one
turn of talk.

3.4.2. Ethnographic Method

A cor~r~s of two hundred apologies was collected from live
encounters characterized by natural speech. Apologies were manually
recorded verbatum in a notebook. In addition, special note was taken
of the setting of the encounter, in the form of a description of the place
and general situation. Finally, each notebook entry included a profile
of the interlocutors present, complete with information regarding their
gender, as well as their approximate ages. When noteworthy, the
participants’ kinesics were also described. The eclectic means of data
collection outlined above (sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2) allows for a more
complete characterization of apologies than may be allowed by
ethnographic or empirical studies alone.

4. Findings
The first question posed asked whether there was a difference in
frequency between the apologies performed by female and male
members of the speech community of Cuernavaca. Using an
ethnographic corplrs of a total of two hundred apologies, the data revea1
that women made a total of ~Y’X of al1 apologies recorded, while men
made just 31~ of them. An even greater difference is apparent in the
percentage of apologies received by both genders. Women received
87.5% of all apologies recorded, while men received a mere 12.5% of
them. These two findings support Holmes’ belief that women make
and receive apologies to a far greater frequency than do men.
However, while Holmes found men and women to make and receive
apologies from the opposite gender to the same frequency in New
Zealand English, this finding was not the case for Mexican Spanish.
While over L)o’%,of the apologies made by men were to women, just a
little under 14~ of the apologies made by women were to men (see
Table 1.1).
 Towird a Charactrrization ofApo/qies in Mexican Spanish 47
l5
Table 1.1 Apologies Made and Received by Gender.
N=200

!
Dyad Number of Percentape
AuoloPies of total (%1

Made by Gender
Female to Male 19 9.5
Female to Female 119 59.5
TOTAL MADE
BY FEMALES 138
c 69.0%

Male to Female 56 28.0

Male to Male 6 3.0
TOTAL MADE
BY MALES 62 31.0%

Received Percentage of
by Gender Number Total(%)
MALES 25 12.5%
FEMALES 175 87.5%

The second question of the current investigation asked what types

of offenses deserved an apology. After the data was collected, the
apologies were divided into eight main types based on the nature of
the offense for which they were being performed: I) mistakes, 2) space
offenses, 3) time offenses, 4) social gaffes, 5) personal injury or damage
to personal property, 6) breaking a promise, 7) not complying with a
request and 8) keeping the addressee from obtaining something he /
she wants. The three most common types of offense apparent in the
present corplrs were: 1) space offenses (22.5%),2) failures to grant requests
(12.5%) and .?Jmistakes (IXI%) (see Table 2.1).
4x Lisa C. Wagner

Table 2.1 Most Common Offense Types Overall. N = 200

Most Common Types of Offense Overa11 in Cuernavaca Corpus

OFFENSE TYPE PERCENTAGE (%)

1. SPACE 22.5%
2. FAILURE TO GRANT REQUEST 12.5%
3. MISTAKES 12.0%

When considering the variable of gender, the data show that both
men and women apologized most frequently for space offenses (30.0%
and IX.~% respectively). Following space offenses, the two types
of offenses for which men were the most apt to apologize were: 1) talk
offenses (15.7’~) and 2) personal / property damage (14.3~). The two
types of offenses, after space offenses, for which women were most
apt to apologize were: 1) failures to grant requests (16.3~~~)and 2)
mistakes (13.2%). These data stand in contrast to Holmes’ findings
for New Zealand English in which men apologized most often for
time offenses, while women apologized most often for space and talk
offenses (see Table 2.2).

Table 2.2 Most Common Offense Types Resulting in

Apologies by Gender. N=200

MALE PERCENTAGE FEMALE PERCENTAGE

1. Space 30.0% 1. Space 18.6%
2. Talk 15.7% 2. Failure to 16.3%
Grant Request
3. Damage 14.3% 3. Mistakes 13.2%

The third question formulated asked for which types of offense

men and women received the most apologies. The data revealed that
men and women received the most apologies for space ofinses (30.0%
and 21.2~/u,respectively). On a scale of frequency, men were next most
likely to receive apologies for misfakes and personal /properfy dumuge
(both at 23.3%). To the contrary, women were next most likely to receive
 Table 3.1 Apologies Received by Offense Type According to
Gender. N=200

APOLOGIES RECEIVED BY OFFENSE TYPE

ACCORDING TO GENDER

MALE FEMALE
1. Space 30.0% 1. Space 21.2%
2. Mistakes 23.3% 2. Failure to Grant Request 11.8%
3. Damage 23.3% 3. Kept from Something 11.8%

The fourth question addressed whether men and women differ

with respect to the apology strategies they choose to employ when
responding to common offense situations. The apology strategies
generated from speakers from Cuernavaca, Mexico, were categorized
under the following labels: IJ illocutionary forte indicating device (IFID)
(e.g. ~7rrdorzr); 2) accepting responsibility (e.g. f~e mi culpa); 3)
admission of facts, but not of responsibility (e.g. se me hizo tarde); 4)
explanation (e.g. llabín nlfrcho trdfco) 5) offer of repair (e.g. fe lo lavo)
and 6) promise of forbearance (e.g. 110z,lrelue LJpusur). In considering
three common offense types found in the ethnographic data (failure
to comply with a request, space offense, and damage to a person or
property), both men and women preferred to employ an IFID when
apologizing for space offenses and damage to a person or property,
and to use an explanation when apologizing for failures to comply
with requests. Table 4.1 illustrates the most commonly employed
strategies by gender for the above mentioned offenses.
50lik Lisa C. Wagner

Table 4.1 Three Common Kinds of Offense and Strategy Type

Preferente by Gender. N=ZOO

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A REQUEST

STRATEGY TYPE GENDER OF APOLOGIZER
MALE FEMALE
IFID 31% 29%
Explanation 46% 41%
Admission of Facts

Forbearance

SPACE OFFENSE GENDER OF APOLOGIZER

STRATEGY TYPE

DAMAGE TO A PERSON / PROPERTY

STRATEGY TYPE GENDER OF APOLOGIZER

While men and women from the Cuernavaca speech community

made use of the types of apology strategies, Table 4.1 shows that they
often preferred a particular strategy type to a different frequency.
The final question of the current project was concerned with how
data collection methodologies and techniques may affect the results
of a given study. As one will recall, data for the present investigation
was collected using two distinct methodologies: u survey research
(questionnaires) and 2) ethnographic research (notebook recordings).
When considering overa11 patterns of strategy type preferente
exemplified by male and female members of the Cuernavaca speech
community, one finds some striking differences between the
ethnographic data and the survey data. First of all, the questionnaire
data (written responses) included a much higher preferente for
explanations and IFIDS than did the ethnographic data (oral dialogues).
The questionnaire data (written) showed IFIDS to be utilized in 47.4%
of the total corpirs, while the ethnographic data (oral) showed IFIDS to
be utilized in just 23.7% of the total apology strategies used. Likewise,
explanations were used in an average of h~.l’~ú of the total number of
apology strategies yielded by the questionnaire data, whereas they
were used just an average of 41.3% of the time in the ethnographic
corylrs. Second, there was a great discrepancy between the use of the
strategy U#¿T qf tyair in the results obtained from the two different
methodologies. An offer of repair comprised 37.2% of the total corpus
of apologies strategies acquired by means of written questionnaires,
while it comprised merely 7.9% of the total nbmber of strategies yielded
ethnographically. Table 5.1 illustrates the overa11 patterns for apology
strategy type usage from the survey and ethnographic portions of
this study.

Table 5.1 Apology Strategy Type Used by Each Gender

Using Different Data Collection Techniques

SOURCE: ETHNOGRAPHIC NOTEBOOK DATA (CORPUS,

N = 200 APOLOGIES)
APOLOGY STRATEGY TYPE APOLOGIZER
GENDER
MALE FEMALE
‘%J %
IFID 32.4 15.0
ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY 6.2 6.8
ADMISSION OF FACTS 11.6 5.4
EXPLANATION 38.8 41.8
OFFER OF REPAIR 32.6 41.8
FORBEARANCE 1.4 2.2
 SOURCE: WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE DATA
(CORPUS, N = 750 APOLOGIES)
APOLOGY STRATEGY TYPE APOLOGIZER
GENDER
MALE FEMALE
‘XI ‘%,
IFID 53.6 41.2
ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY 5.0 7.1
ADMISSION OF FACTS 14.3 5.9
EXPLANATION 58.8 61.4
OFFER OF REPAIR 7.6 8.2
FORBEARANCE .8 2.6

Conclusion
Both the ethnographic data and the questionnaire data collected
in this investigation indicate that gender is an important variable in
characterizing notions of offense, the rendering of an apology and
the strategies preferred by members of the speech community of
Cuernavaca for doing so. The differences manifested by the variable
of gender in terms of apology performance support the hypothesis
tha’t apologies are complex language functions that are at least partially
defined by factors other than linguistic ones. Differences in the data
secured from written questionnaires and ethnographic notebook
recordings alert researchers to the need to take into account the data
collection technique(s) they employ when comparing their findings
with those of other studies.

Bibliography
Austin, J.L. Hou to Do Things zoith Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1962.
Beebe, L. and Cummings, R. Natural Speech Act Data Versus Written
Questionnaire Data: How Data Collection Methods Affect Speech Act
Performance. Speech Acts Across Cubres: Chllenges to Communicating in
n Sccond Lnqunge. Eds. S. Gass and J. Neu. New York: Mouton de Gruyer,
1996. l-14.
Bernard, H. Resenrch Methods in Cultural Antlzropology. Newbury Park: Sage
Productions, Inc., 1988.
Blum-Kulka, S. House, J. and Kasper, G., eds. Cross-Cultural Pragmntics:
Reqlrests sud Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1989.
Bodemnn, J. and Einstein, M. May God IncreaseYour Bounty: The Expression
of Gratitude in English By Native and Non-Native Speakers. Cross
Clrrrcwls, 15, 1YF-x. l-21.
Brown, I’. and Levinson, S. Politrrress: Sorrre U~~izwrsnls in Lang~~qc Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University l’ress, 1~87.
Fraser, B. On Apologizing. Cmucrsatiowd Ro~rtirw. Ed. Florian Coulmas. The
Hague: Mouton de Gruyer, 19X1.259-271.
Goffman, E. On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social
Interaction. Corirll~~rilicntion irr Fncc to Focc Irrterociiorr. Eds. J. Laver and S.
Hucheson. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, lY72.17~-196.
Grite, H.P. Logic and Conversation. Syrrtax nnd Semnntics 3: Spch Acts. Eds.
f? Cole and J. Morgan. New York: Academic Press, 1~75.41-58.
Hill, B. Ide, S. Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A. and Ogino, T. Universals of Linguistic
Politeness. \orrrml of Prqmtics, 10, 1986. 347-371.
Holmes, J. Wor~rerr, Meu nrld Politeness. New York: Longman, 1995.
Leech, G. Prirlciplcs ofI-‘rqnrntics. New York: Longman, 1~83.
Olshtain, E. Apologies Across Languages. Cross-Cultnrnl Prqvzatics: Rcqwsts
nrrd Ayolqies. Eds. S. Blum-Kulka et al. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation, 19X9.155-173.
Olshtain E. and Cohen, A. Apology: A Speech Act Set. Sociolin~r~istics and
Lar~g1ru,~eAc91risitio~~. Eds. N. Wolfson and E. Judd. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House, 19X3. 32-51.
Owen, M. Apologics nnd Remedinl Exclm~~g~s. New York: Mouton, 1983.
Searle, J. Spcccll Acts: An Esso!/ ilr thc Phi/osoyln/ of Lnn,pqe. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Trosborg, A. Apology Strategies in Native/Non-Native Speakers of English.
Corl~rll~l,licntiz,c Co~~rpetcrm ir Forcip Lnqruzge Lurrzing nnd Rcading. Ed.
A. Trosborg, 19X6. l-17.
Vollmer, H.J. and Olshtain, E. The Language of Apologies in German. Cross-
Clrltrrrnl Prngmntics: Re91~sts nnd Apolo~ies. Eds. S. Blum-Kulka et al.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1989. 197-218.
Wolfson, N., Marmor, T. and Jones, S. Problcnts in the Comparison ofSpeech Acts
Across Cdtlrres. Paper Presented at the 18”’ Annual TESOL Convention,
New York, 1%~.