sp3

UNIVERSITY GOCE DELCHEV - Shtip

Faculty of Philology

English language

Seminar paper in Pragmatics and Discourse analysis

Intra-linguistic analysis of requests and apologies in Macedonian

Mentor: Made by:

Prof. Marija Kusevska, Ph.D. Ana Gjorgjeva

Viktorija Smilkova

Stip, June 2015

Contents

1.1. Introduction.1.2. Theoretical considerations.1.3. The Goals of the project.

1.3.1. Different social constraints.1.3.2. Same social constraints.1.3.3. Unknown social constraints.

2. The method used for data collection.

2.2 Population.

2.3. Procedure.

3. Designing the framework for cross-linguistic analysis of speech act patterns.

3. Requests.

3.1. Request strategy types.

3.1.1. Defining units for analysis. (address/head/adjunct)

3.1.2 Point of view

3.1.3 Downgraders.

3.1.4 Upgraders (intensifiers, expletives).

3.1.5 Adjuncts to the head act.

3.2 The questionnaire.

3.3 The Results from the questionnaires.

4. Apologies.

4.1 Apologies-definition and theory

4.2 Strategy types

4.2.1 Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices

4.2.2 Explanation/Accounts

4.3 Acknowledgement of Responsibility

4.3.1 Explicit self-blame, e.g. It is my fault/my mistake

4.3.2 Lack of intent, e.g. I didn’t mean it

4.3.3 Expression of self-deficiency, e.g. I was confused/I didn’t see you

4.3.4 Expression of embarrassment, e.g. I feel awful about it

4.3.5 Justify the hearer, Recognizing the Other Person as Deserving Apology. e.g. You're right to blame me.

4. 4 Compensation/Reparation; Offer of repair

4.5. Promise not to repeat offense/ promise of forbearance

4.6 Apology intensification

4.6.1 An intensifying expression within the IFID

4.6.2 Expressing explicit concern for the hearer—externally to the IFID

4.7.Humor

4.8. Assessment questionnaire

4.9. Results from the questionnaire

5.Conclusion

1. Introduction.

2. The method used for data collection.

Instrument

In order to define the strategies used in making requests and explore the degree of their usage in different contexts, we used a questionnaire. It consisted of six situations in which the setting and the interlocutors were described and the informants were asked to complete the discourse, an by that to elicit requests. The situations used were the following:

- postponing a project at university,

- asking a famous professional to give a speech,

- asking for a ride after a work meeting,

- requesting a favor from a stranger at a park,

- asking a friend for a favor,

- request money from an acquaintance.

Population

Procedure.

3. Requests.

The speech act of requesting is realized when the speaker verbalizes a wish that can be

carried out by the hearer. It is a direct act with the purpose of making the hearer do

something. The speaker believes that the hearer is able to perform the action. There are many

factors that influence the speech act of requesting such as: age, gender, social distance, level

of imposition, the degree of obligation etc. In order to minimize the factors that influence the

speaker’s request there are different strategies that can be employed.

According to the level of inference, all the strategies can be divided in three large groups:

Explicit strategy,

Conventionally-indirect strategy,

Non-conventionally indirect hints.

The explicit strategy is the most direct strategy and is usually realized by syntactic requests,

such as imperatives or performatives. The conventionalized requests are polite realizations

through conventional forms such as yes/no questions. The indirect hints are nonconventional

and individual utterances, which act as requests in certain circumstances.

All of the strategies can be also divided into smaller groups that will be explored in detail

later in the paper.

Another important characteristic of requests is that they are considered the most face

threatening speech acts. Because it’s an act that threatens the hearer’s face, speakers tend to

use various modification devises that can be also classified as part of the above mentioned

strategies. However, the way of distinguishing all the types of strategies and devices is by

dividing the request itself. Most of the requests can be divided into three parts:

address terms, head Act, adjuncts.

Although some requests can lack the first or the last sequence, this differentiation helps us

understand the form of each speech act and place it in the right group or subgroup.

Ex:

Сара можеш ли да ме услужиш со твоите белешки, знаеш дека бев болен минатата

недела.

Професоре, ќе ми дозволите ли да го продолжам рокот?

3.1. Request strategy types.

3.1.1. Request perspective.

The speech act of requesting includes a reference that can depends on the speaker’s perspective or point of view. There are four categories that we distinguish among:

Hearer oriented.

Ex: Би ве замолила доколку може Вие да го одржите тој говор.

Speaker oriented.

Ex: Ќе може ли да добијам запалка?

Hearer and speaker oriented.

Ex: Сакате ли да заминеме со вашиот автомобил и да си ги поделиме трошоците...

Impersonal request (use of people as neutral agents or passivation).

Ex: Еј Сара, не би било лошо тие пропуштени предавања да ги надополнам со твоите белешки.

3.1.2 Downgraders.

Understater (elements by means of which the speaker minimizes parts of the proposition).

Ex: Извинете професоре, бев многу болен и не успеав да завршам, ми треба уште малку време.

Downtoners (elements by means of which the speaker minimizes the impact of his/her utterance is likely to have on the hearer, achieving the modulation via devices signalling the possibility of non-compliance).

Ex: Дали би сакале ако не ви пречи и ако си одите дома да ме однесете и мене?

3.1.3 Upgraders.

Intensifiers (elements by means of which the speaker over-represents the reality denoted in the proposition).

Ex: Не знам како да ти објаснам, во фрка сум, немаш претстава мој драг пријателу, колку ќе ми значи ако ми излезеш во пресрет, итно ми требаат пази за да платам аванс...

3.1.4 Adjuncts to head act.

Checking on availability.- the speaker prefaces his/her main speech act with an utterance intended to check if the precondition necessary for compliance holds true.

Ex: Дали си заминувате дома? Дали може да ме префрлите и мене?

Getting a precommitment.- the speaker precedes the act by utterance that can count as an attempt to obtain a precommital.

Ex: Може ли да ве замолам нешто? Ако не пречам ве молам да ме превезете до дома.

Grounder.- the speaker indicates the reasons for the requests.

Ex: За жал мојот автобус само што замина, па би ве замолила ако сакате да се вратам со вас, доколку не би ви пречело.

Sweatener.- by expressing exaggerated appreciation of the hearer’s ability to comply with the request, the speaker lowers the imposition involved.

Ex: Ве замолувам да ни укажете чест и задоволство со вашето присуство и одржувањето говор, ќе ни претставува големо задоволство на сите да ја имаме можноста да ни кажете нешто повеќе за вашите ставови околу еколошката катастрофа.

Disarmer.- the speaker indicates his/her awareness of a potential offence, thereby attempting to anticipate possible refusal.

Ex: Уф, знам дека можеби е непогоден момент, но морав тебе да ти се обратам. Дали можеби имаш пари на заем?

3.2 The questionnaire.

3.2.1 The different contexts used.

Situation 1:

You have to hand in a project the following day. You have been ill and you haven’t finished it yet. You go to talk to your professor, with whom you have a good academic relationship to ask for an extension. You say to him/her…

In the first situation the interlocutors are a student and a professor; hence there is a social distance between them. This discourse was mostly hearer oriented and full of grounders and disarmer. It is important to note that this is the situation in which speakers used grounders the most. You can see the exact numbers from the analysis on the pie chart below.

hearer oriented point of view; 14

speaker oriented point of view; 10

checking on availabil-ity; 3

grounder; 20

sweetener; 1

disarmer; 10

understater; 1 downtoner; 1

Situation 2:

You belong to a non-profit organisation and you have decided to invite a famous person to give a speech. Members of your group have appointed you so that you speak to this person and ask him/her to give a speech about ecological disasters. You approach the person and you say…



speaker & hearer ori-ented point of view; 3

understater; 3downtoner; 6

checking on availability; 5

precommitment; 3

grounder; 7

sweetener; 12

disarmer; 2

This discourse was also mostly hearer oriented as you can see on the pie chart above. Speakers used downtoners, grounders and precommitments. It is the situation in which speakers used sweeteners the most.

Situation 3:

The meeting has just ended. Your bus has just left and the next one will not be along for another hour. The couple sitting next to you live on the same street and have come by car. You would like a ride with them and you say...



speaker & hearer ori-ented point of view; 1

impersonal point of view; 1downtoner; 6


precommitment; 5

grounder; 5

sweatener; 1

disarmer; 6

The strategy that was used the most in this situation was the checking on availability. Also the hearer oriented point of view and the speaker oriented point of view usage was very close.

Situation 4

You are walking in a park. You feel like a cigarette, but you do not have a lighter. There is someone sitting smoking on a bench nearby. You approach them and say…



impersonal point of view; 2understater; 1downtoner; 1

precommitment; 1

grounder; 2

disarmer; 13

In these situation the disarmers were used the most. So it seems that when the interlocutor is a stranger, a Macedonian speaker is most aware of a possible offence or refusal.

Situation 5:

You were sick last week and missed two class sessions. Since the exam is coming up soon, you would like to ask Sarah, a friend of yours, to borrow her class notes. You say to her…



speaker & hearer oriented point of view; 1

impersonal point of view; 1

intensifier; 3


precommitment; 2

grounder; 1

sweatener; 3

disarmer; 8

In this situation when our friend is our interlocutor, you can see that 21 of the informants from the total 24 used a hearer point of view. The requests were almost always direct and without much usage of the other strategies.

Situation 6:

You have been looking for an apartment to rent for quite some time. Finally you find one, but you must pay $300.00 down payment immediately. At present you only have $200.00. You meet a friend that you know from university and decide to ask him if he could lend you the money. You say…



checking on availabil-ity; 1

intensifier; 2

understater; 3grounder; 17


precommitment; 3

disarmer; 8

downtoner; 2

In this situation the social distance between the interlocutors is very small. Here the hearer point of view was mostly used, and the grounders were the most present from the strategies.

3.3 The Results from the questionnaires.

On the chart below you can see the total results from the questionnaires with all of the situations. The types of perspective are colored orange, while the other strategies are colored blue.

The overall results show us that the speech act of requesting in Macedonian is mostly a direct hearer oriented question, and the impersonal perspective is rarely used. What’s interesting about Macedonian speakers is that they explain the reasons about their requests in any kind of situation regardless of the social differences between the speakers. Also disarmers were used almost always, but their usage depends on the social distance between the speakers. Sweeteners were very often present in the conversation with the famous person, but rarely appeared in the other situations.

4.1. Apologies

The word 'apology' derives from the Greek root 'logos', meaning 'speech' or 'word'. Though originally associated with a formal justification, apology also refers to remarks made following an injury, whether intentional or unintentional.

Apologies fall into the category of expressive illocutionary acts and have been defined as transactions involving "a bid to change the balance sheet of the relation between S and H".

That is, apologies constitute attempts to restore the imbalance created in the relationship of the interlocutors by S committing an offence adversely affecting H. Therefore,

apologies are considered remedial interchanges aiming to restore and maintain social equilibrium.

This remedial nature highlights the social character of apologizing and links it to issues of face-threat and face-preservation.

We can classify apologies as negative politeness strategies, aiming at protecting the negative face of the addressee whose rights, property or freedom of action have been threatened or violated by the offensive act. Moreover, they threaten the speaker's positive aspect of face, since apologizing involves the speaker’s admission that he/she is at fault for an offence he/she regrets.

An apology should always be viewed as a reaction triggered by an offence and it is in the context of pairing specific offences with specific apologies that any elements of face-threat or face-preservation should be analyzed. Offences are threatening both the positive and the negative face of the victim, since she/he may feel that her/his personality is not being respected and that "the feelings of solidarity, co-operation and trust held [between herself/himself and the offender] are no longer obvious

With respect to the offender's face needs, it can be claimed that the offence has damaged her/his positive face endangering her/his image as a likeable and reliable member of the group. Finally, the negative aspect of her/his face is also harmed, since the burden of the offensive act prevents her/him from acting freely and communicating openly until her/his good reputation has been restored. Therefore, apologies are considered multidirectional acts, in the sense that can attend to both aspects of both interlocutors' face.

The typical expression of an apology is done by the words, „I'm sorry'. However, the words 'I‟m sorry' can have many possible interpretations for a listener as well as a speaker. The difference of meaning results in three elements in an apology (i) admitting one's fault, (ii) expressing regret for the injurious action, and (iii) expressing sympathy for the other‟s injury.

In order for an apolgy to have an effect , it should reflect true feelings.One cannot effectively apologize to another unless one portrays honest feelings of sorrow and regret for whatever one has done.

An admission of fault and responsibility as essential components of the apology when the interlocutor's behaviour violates a social norm.When an action or utterance (or the

lack of either one) has resulted in offense, the offender needs to apologize. As a consequence one deals with two parties: an apologizer and a recipient of apology; the act depends on whether the person who caused the infraction percieves himself/herself as an apologizer.The act of 'apologizing' requires an action or an utterance which is intended to set things right.

4.2. Strategy types

There are six strategies which can make up an apology irrespective of politeness orientation and other culturally specific issues: explicit use of an illocutionary force indicating device (IFID), an explanation or account for the offence, an offer of repair, a promise of forbearance and an expression of concern for the offended. Due to the different levels of severity of the offences that call for an apology, it was noted by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) that different forms of apology intensification may be employed. These can be of two main types:

a) internal intensifiers that are included in the IFID and

b) external ones, such as expressing concern for the hearer.

4.2.1 Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices

It is the most direct realization of apology which can be done by an explicit illocutionary force indicating device, henceforth (IFID), sometimes also referred to as a statement of remorse, a pre-formulated, or ritualistic apology In this formula, an apology is performed by the offender directly. The offender uses an apology verb such as 'apologize', 'be sorry', 'forgive', 'excuse', or 'pardon'

МК: Извинете, Простете, Се извинувам

4.2.2 Explanation/Accounts

The specifics of an explanation or account are any external mitigating circumstances, ‘objective’ reasons for the violation, e.g. The traffic was terrible” constitutes an account or explanation.

S intends to justify the offence as resulting from external factors over which s/he has no (or very little) control, then an explanation or account of the situation fulfills the function of an apology. Such an explanation may be explicitly related to the offence or it may present the 'state of affairs' in a general way, thus relating implicitly to the offence.

A speaker may try to mitigate his/her guilt by giving an explanation or account of the situation.

МК: Заборавив, Во гужва бев, Имам добра причина

4.3 Acknowledgement of Responsibility

When using acknowledgement of responsibility as a strategy, the speaker is using a face-threatening act to express their belief in the necessity of an apology by overly admitting their relationship with the act (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper)

The sub-categories for this strategy may be placed on a continuum from strong self-humbling on S's part to a complete and blunt denial of responsibility. Thus, the acceptanceof responsibility would be viewed by H as an apology, while denial of responsibility would be intended as S's rejection of the need to apologize.

4.3.1 Explicit self-blame, e.g. It is my fault/my mistakeМК: Јас сум виновен, Моја грешка

4.3.2 Lack of intent, e.g. I didn’t mean it

МК: Не беше намерно, Непредвидливи работи се случуваат, Сосема случајно, Се случи по грешка.

4.3.3 Expression of self-deficiency, e.g. I was confused/I didn’t see you

МК: Безобразно од моја страна, Неодоговорен сум, Професионална деформација

4.3.4 Expression of embarrassment, e.g. I feel awful about it

MK: Ужасно се чувствувам, Многу ми е жал, Жалам

4.3.5 Justify the hearer, Recognizing the Other Person as Deserving Apology. e.g. You're right to blame me.

МК: Во право си, Се надевам не се лутиш многу

4. 4 Compensation/Reparation; Offer of repair

i specified: e.g. I'll pay for the damageii unspecified: e.g. I’ll see what I can do The apology strategy of compensation/reparation gives the apologizer an opportunity

to repair the situation by offering some type of compensationSpeakers may attempt to repair or pay for the damage resulted from his/her

infraction.'Repair' may be offered in its literal sense or as an offer to pay for the damage. In situations in which actual repair is not possible (not wanted,etc.), the apologizer may offer some kind of 'compensatory' action or 'tribute' to the complainer.

МК: Ке ја купам книгата; Ке ги избришам белешките

4.5. Promise not to repeat offense/ promise of forbearance

By using the strategy of promising not to repeat the offense, subjects explicitly stated that the event would not occur again in a future time.

When 'apologizing', the speaker takes responsibility by expressing regret and he/she will be expected to behave in a consistent fashion and not to repeat the act for which she/he has just apologized for .In this respect , apologies seem to be related not only to future behaviour , an apologizer can promise either never to perform the offence in question again , or to improve his/her behaviour in a number of ways.Such responses are often signaled by the performative verb 'promise', for example:

It won't happen again , I promise.

МК: Нема да се повтори. Никогаш повеќе.

4.6 Apology intensification

The use of intensifiers in the apology do just that, they intensify, or make stronger an individual’s apology usually through an addition of a word, most commonly “very”, “really”, and “so”. An example of an intensifier used in an apology would be, “I am very sorry”

4.6.1 An intensifying expression within the IFID

i:adverbials: I'm very ... sorry

ii: repetition (or double intensifier): (I'm terribly,terribly sorry)

МК: Многу, навистина, леле, длабоко, од се срце, уште еднаш, ептен

4.6.2 Expressing explicit concern for the hearer—externally to the IFID

In expressing concern for the hearer, the speaker is explicitly showing a sense of worry for the hearer, i.e. “I’m really sorry ma’am, are you alright?” Have you been waiting long?

МК: Дали сте добро? Дали сте повредени? Многу ли чекаше?

4.7.Humour

Sometimes speakers use humorous comments employed to lessen the offensive act and pacify the hearer .

МК: Ајде, честам ручек! Те честам кафе!

4.8. Assessment questionnaire

The main instrument for data collection was a DCT (see Blum-Kulka et al. 1989) designed to elicit speech acts in six different situations, all of which were designed to elicit apologies. Situation 1, the subject has forgotten to erase the notes written on the margins of the book pages, which was borrowed from the library. The addressee is the librarian. Situation 2, the subject has borrowed a book from a professor, but doesn’t remember its whereabouts. Situation 3, the subject has picked up a wrong suitcase at the airport. Situation 4, the subject has unintentionally hurt a stranger on a bus. Situation 5, the subject has arranged a meeting with a friend, but has completely forgotten about it. Situation 6, the subject doesn’t keep a given promise to a friend, which might lead to serious consequences.

Thus, while the third and forth, as well the fifth and the sixth situations were symmetrical in the sense that they involve familiarity/non-familiarity(i.e. apologize to a complete stranger) and no power difference (-P, -D), the first and second ones were asymmetrical, since they involve distance and power (+P, +D)

4.9. Results from the questionnaire

Situation 1: You borrow a book from the library and while reading it you make some comments which you forget to erase. The librarian notices the comments and complains about them.

Explicit use od IFID35%

Intensifica-tion5%

Reasons/explanations for offence

13%

Explicit acknowl-edgement

of re-sponsibil-

ity6%

Self-de-preciation

3%

Justify the hearer

5%

Offer of repair29%

Promise of forbearance3%

In the first situation 36% of the participants used IFIDs, 29% offered to compensate for the offence, 6% accepted the responsibility, 13% tried to give reasons for the offence. The most common IFIDs used in this situation were: Се извинувам,Простете, Извинете,Извинете, ве молам, Жал ми е. The most common offer of repair was : Ке ја

вратам книгата, Ке ги избришам белешките, Ке купам нова книга-most of the participant offered to repair the damage. The ways of explaining were- Заборавив, Не внимавав.

Situation 2: Borrowed book from a professor

You have borrowed a book from a professor. Now you are supposed to give it back to him,but you cannot remember where you put it.


Intensification2%

Reasons/explanations for offence27%

Explicit ac-knowledgement of responsibility

2%

Self-deprecia-tion 2%

Offer of repair35%

In the second situation, most of the participants used IFIDs -52%, and a very large number gave reasons and explained, somehow even tried to insert additional mitigating circumstances for the offence. Most common explanations were: Заборавив,Не се сеќавам. The most common offers to repair were: Ке ја заменам со нова, Ке ја донесам утре/на наредната средба. None of the participants showed embarrassment or justified the hearer i.e. the complainer.

Situation 3: Taking somebody else’s belongings by mistake

You are in the baggage reclaim area and pick up your suitcase from the conveyor system. A woman approaches you and says that you have picked up her suitcase. You look at the suitcase that you are holding and you realise that it is not yours.


Intensification5%Reasons/explanations for of-

fence16%

Explicit ac-knowledgement of responsibility

13%

Self-deprecia-tion 7%

Lack of Intent 13%

Offer of repair5%

Concern for the hearer2%

In the third situation 16% of the participants gave reasons and explained the offence. The most common explanation was: Имаме ист, сличен, идентичен куфер, Преморен сум, расеан сум, Под стрес сум, Имав тежок лет, which can also be seen as acknowledgement of responsibility, even self-depreciation. Lack of intent was also very common i.e. Не видов,Случајно,Забуна, По грешка. 5 % used intensifiers-Леле, многу, навистина,Ох,Е,Уште еднаш

Situation 4: Hurting a stranger unintentionally

You have placed your shopping bag on the luggage rack of a crowded bus. When the bus brakes, your bag falls down and hits another passenger


Intensification4%

Reasons/explana-tions for offence

9%

Explicit acknowl-edgement

of re-sponsibil-

ity4%

Lack of Intent 13%

Em-barass-ment2%

Offer of repair

4%

Promise of forebear-

ance2%


In the fourth situation nearly 50% of the overall number of responses were explicit IFIDs, since the situation is specific and the degree of offence is high. Most common IFIDs were-Извинете, Жалам, Ве молам, Се извинувам, Многу ми е жал,Простете. Nearly 13% of responses involved concern for the well-being of the hearer, with expressions such

as: Дали сте добро, Како ви е, Дали сте повредени. Lack of intent and promise of forbearance were present in very few responses.

Situation 5: Late for an appointment with a friend

A friend arranged to meet you in order to get some notes from you to study for an exam. She waited for an hour but you didn't show up. She calls you up and you say to her:


Intensification9%

Reasons/explanations for of-fence18%

Explicit ac-knowl-

edgement of respon-

sibility11%

Lack of Intent 11%

Em-barass-ment3%

Offer of repair11%

Promise of forebearance3% Humour

5%

In the fifth situation 29% of the responses were explicit IFIDs. 18% of the participants gave reasons and explanations for the offence. Most common were: Ми се случи нешто непријатно,Ме фати гужва во сообраќај, Имам добра причина, Бев спречен,Непредвидена ситуација ме спречи, Имав проблеми, Имав работа. Intensifiers used –Навистина, Непријатно, Од се срце, Ужасно ми е, which can also be treated as embarrassment. Some of the participants used humor to lessen the offence, integrated in the offer of repair, or used separately. Few of the responses were- Честам кафе, Ручекот е на моја сметка.

Situation 6: Not keeping a promise to a friend

Your friend is sick and can’t go to university today. However, she has to hand in her seminar paper. She asks you if you could do her a favour and hand in the paper to the professor. You promise to do it. The next day she phones you and as you pick up the telephone and see her number you realise that you have forgotten all about it. She asks you if you have handed the paper in. In response you say:


Intensification7%

Explicit ac-knowl-

edgement of respon-

sibility24%

Self-depreciation 5%

Lack of Intent 2%

Em-barass-ment5%

Offer of repair27%

Promise of forebearance

1%

Humour1%


In the sixth situation, the most responses -27% included offer of repair, i.e. Ке ја предадам утре, Што можам да сторам, Ке му се јавам на професорот,Сметај ја работата завршена, Веднаш ке ја поправам грешката, Како да го решиме проблемот, Ке се снајдеме..Responses which included explicit acknowledgement of responsibility were: Сосема заборавив,Изумив. There were a few interesting responses with a certain degree of embarrassment-5%, even humor to pacify the hearer.

General results from the questionnaire:

Explici

t use

od IFID

Intensifi

cation

Reaso

ns/exp

lanati

ons for o

ffence

Explici

t ackn

owledge

ment o

f resp

onsibilit

y

Self-d

eprec

iation

Lack o

f Inten

t

Justify

the hea

rer

Embara

ssmen

t

Offer of r

epair

Promise

of foreb

earan

ce

Humour

Concern fo

r the h

earer

020406080

100120140

122 21 47 42 11 23 3 7 69 6 4 12

Overall results

The overall result grid shows the most common and the least used strategies for apologizing. It is evident that Macedonian speakers tend to use direct and formulaic expressions-IFIDs in most situations, as a conventionally and socially accepted way to response to a complaint and initiate an apology. A very high number of responses included

an offer to repair the damage, which elaborates the socially accepted style of attempts for compensating, as well as giving reasons and explanations for the offence, which implies that the act of apology in Macedonian tends to be treated as a highly face-threatening act. Suprisingly, very few of the responses included self-depreciation and justifying the hearer, which demonstrates a high level of concern on speaker’s behalf in terms of saving their own face.

5.Conclusion

There are a number of different factors which affect the S's decision to apologize in order to restore the H's face, even at high cost to S's face

degree of violation or the seriousness of the offence

cultural, personal, and contextual elements

Culturally, for instance, coming late to a meeting might be perceived as a less serious offence in Macedonian and therefore, as a group, will tend to apologize less intensely in this situation i. e. 19 of the participants used IFID’s, 13 gave an explanation, 3 of them tried to lessen the offence in a humorous way, but most of them didn’t take the offence seriously i.e. none of the participants self-depreciated, justified the hearer’s complaint or showed concern for them.

The degree of violation as perceived by the S is also under consideration-mostly linked to the social parameters like distance and power. Most of the participants showed a high degree of concern towards offending a more powerful person (i.e professor) in which 80% offered to repair the offensive act, 74 % tried to explain/ involve an external mitigating circumstance (somehow as a denial of responsibility)

Whereas in symmetrical cases with familiarity, surprisingly, a very high percentage of participants admitted their responsibility, offered to repair, even showed concern for the hearer.

Based on different functions of the speech act of 'apologizing', a broad definition of an apology can be summerized, as being culturally determined and regarding Macedonian speakers, as that an apology is a speech act addressed to the hearer's face-needs and intended to remedy an offense for which the apologizer takes responsibility, and thus to restore good relationship between the apologizer and the hearer.

Documents

sp3