strategy

Test Value

mean

t

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Under B.A

2.44

0.000

19

.000

0.9874

0.2518

0.7965

B.A and above B.A

1.101

It can be inferred from table 4.30 on the relationship between education and “explanation” strategy, it is seen that there is no meaningful relationship between education of participants and their “explanations” strategy, since the obtained T from under and above B.A is 0.000, and the error coefficient is less than 5%, so this hypothesis is accepted.

3 . There is no meaningful relationship between education of respondents and taking responsibility strategy.

To deal with this issue, T-test has been used.

Table4.31: T- test for investigating relationship between education and taking responsibility

Test Value

mean

t

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Under B.A

2.47

0.000

19

.000

1.6571

0.2874

0.8724

B.A and above B.A

3.21

As displayed in above table, the obtained T from under and above B.A is 0.000, therefore it can be said that there is no meaningful relationship between education and taking responsibility, since the error coefficient is less than 5%, therefore this hypothesis is accepted.

4. There is no meaningful relationship between education of respondents and concern for the hearer strategy.

To deal with this issue, T-test has been used.

Table 4.32: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and concern for the hearer strategy

Test Value

mean

t

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Under B.A –

2.16

4.98

19

.000

0.7877

0.3211

0.7023

B.A and above B.A

2.02

The obtained results after employing T-test shows that education of respondents is an effective factor in “concern for the hearer” strategy used by under and above B.A, since the obtained T from these groups is 4.98 and error efficient is more than 5%, so this hypothesis is rejected.

5. There is no meaningful relationship between education of respondents and denial of responsibility.

To deal with this issue, T-test has been used.

Table 4.33: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and denial of responsibility strategy

Test Value

mean

t

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Under B.A

4.06

0.001

19

.000

1.8521

0.2874

0.8724

B.A and above B.A

3.20

Above table (4.33) indicates that T-value of scores obtained by respondents is 0.001, so it is obvious that there is no meaningful relationship between educations and “denial of responsibility” strategy, since the error coefficient is less than 5%, thus this hypothesis is accepted.

6. There is no meaningful relationship between education of respondents and offer of repair strategy.

Table 4.34: T-test for investigating the relationship between education and offer of repair strategy

Test Value

mean

T

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Under B.A –

1.78

0.009

19

.000

0.9544

0.2871

0.6774

B.A and above B.A

1.59

As it can be figured out from table 4.34 there is no meaningful relationship between education of respondents and “offer of repair” strategy, because the obtained T from under and above B.A is 0.009 and error efficient is less than 5%, so this hypothesis is accepted in Alfa level (5%).

4.4. As stated in chapter one, in this study four main hypothesis were formulated which are:

4.4.1. First hypothesis

‘There is no meaningful relationship between gender of the respondents and their apology strategies.

Table 4.35. T- Test for investigating the relationship between gender and apology strategies.

Male

Female

Test Value

Mean

T

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

2.92

2.123

0.012

19

.000

1.5411

0.2145

0.6541

female male

Mean

T

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

0.98

0.022

19

.000

1.2214

0.4122

0.6517

0.71

female

male

Mean

T

Df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

4.111

0.000

19

.000

1.4454

0.4512

0.9032

4.001

Mean

T

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

male- female

1.23

0.001

19

.000

0.7544

0.3134

0.6908

1.12

Mean

T

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Female

male

2.49

0.000

19

.000

1.854

0.4512

0.9032

2.24

Mean

T

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

male- female

2.65

0.000

19

.000

0.2544

0.4412

0.8779

2.82

The above Table makes it clear that there is no meaningful relationship between gender and apology strategies, male and female used these strategies in similar ways, since the obtained T of scores are:0.012, 0.022, 0.000, 0.001, 0,000 and 0.000. Male and female used these strategies in similar ways, so this hypothesis is accepted.

4.4.2. Second hypothesis

‘There is no meaningful relationship between age of respondents and their apology strategies’.

T-test is used to probe the relationship between age and apology strategy.

Table 4.36. T-test for investigating the relationship between age and apology strategies

Test Value

mean

T

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Under 30

Above 30

3.245

0.000

19

.000

1.7412

0.4125

0.8541

3.147

Test Value

Mean

T

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Under 30

Above 30

1.94

0.003

19

.000

1.3322

0.3295

0.7521

1.36

Test Value

mean

T

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Under 30

Above 30

3.02

0.000

19

.000

1.0745

0.3215

0.7803

3.14

Test Value

mean

T

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Above 30 – under 30

1.87

0.018

19

.000

0.2544

0.3354

0.5987

1.18

Test Value

mean

T

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Under 30

Above 30

2.03

0.012

19

.000

1.984

0.3215

0.7803

3.5

Test Value

mean

T

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Under 30

Above 30

2.136

0.003

19

.000

1.0232

0.3621

0.5206

3.34

The analysis of the data in Table 4.36 reveals that the age of respondents is not an effective factor on apology strategies, since the obtained T from these groups are: 0.000, 0.003, 0.000, 0.018, 0.012, and 0.003, it can be said that there is no meaningful relationship between age of respondents and their apology strategies, so this hypothesis is accepted.

4.4.3. Third hypothesis

‘There is no meaningful relationship between language of respondents and their apology strategies’.

T-test is used to probe the relationship between language and apology strategies.

Table 4.37. T- Test for investigating the relationship between language and apology strategies

Test Value

mean

t

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

monolinguals

bilinguals

2.203

0.012

19

.000

1.3521

0.35152

0.9212

3.126

Test Value

mean

t

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Monolinguals

bilinguals

3.06

0.012

19

.000

1.4454

0.3417

0.6879

4.2

Test Value

mean

t

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

monolinguals

bilinguals

3.65

0.001

19

.000

1.1235

0.2032

0.9541

3.115

Test Value

mean

t

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

bilinguals -monolinguals

1.03

0.06

19

.000

0.6554

0.1265

0.4587

1.001

Test Value

mean

t

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

bilinguals –

2.17

0.003

19

.000

0.5023

0.3665

0.9521

monolinguals

1.41

As it can be figured out from table 4.37 on apology strategies and their relationship with language, it can be observed that there is no meaningful relationship between language of respondents and their apology strategies all groups used these strategies in similar ways, since the obtained T from respondents are: 0.012, 0.012, 0.001, 0.006, 0.000, 0.003, and the error coefficient is less than 5%, therefore third hypothesis is accepted.

4.4.4. Fourth hypothesis

‘There is no meaningful relationship between education of the respondents and their apology strategies’.

T-test is used