Monolinguals

43.12

10.12

B.A and above B.A

67.7

17.2

Under B.A

32.3

7.69

The above table illustrates the average score obtained by respondents on “explanation” in 20 different situations. As it can be observed, the respondents above B.A have had better performance.

Table 4.7.the average and standard deviation of all groups’ scores on “taking responsibility”

20 situations

Average

ST. deviation

Male

44/4

10/29

Female

65/6

16/11

Above 30 years

44/7

10/35

Under 30years

63/3

15/83

Bilinguals

77/25

18/4

Monolinguals

29/75

7/2

B.A and above B.A

61/8

14/69

Under B.A

39/2

9/5

The above table demonstrates the average score obtained by respondents on “taking responsibility” in 20 different situations. This table shows that bilinguals obtained the highest average.

Table4.8: The average and standard deviation of all groups’ scores on “concern for the hearer”

20 situations

Average

St . deviation

Male

8/12

2/23

Female

7/26

1/87

Above 30 years

15/33

3/45

Under 30 years

12/11

3/01

Bilinguals

23/17

5/49

Monolinguals

44/26

9/23

B.A and above B.A

13/03

3/65

Under B.A

16/44

4/02

The above table shows the average and standard deviation score obtained by respondents on “concern for the hearer” in 20 different situations. As it can be observed, the monolingual have had the best performance.

Table 4.9: The average and standard deviation of all groups’ scores on “denial of responsibility”

20 situations

Average

St . deviation

Male

48/7

11/44

Female

51/3

13/35

Above30years

60/65

14/0

Under30years

39/35

8/96

Bilinguals

72/12

18/89

Monolinguals

17/88

7/73

B.A and above B.A

38/6

8/06

Under B.A

61/4

14/52

The above table shows the average and standard deviation score obtained by respondents on “denial of responsibility” in 20 situations. As it can be observed, bilinguals have had best performance.

Table4.10: The average and standard deviation of all groups’ score on “offer of repair”

20 situations

Average

St . deviation

Male

44/8

10/23

Female

46/12

10/85

Above 30 years

54/5

12/36

Under 30 years

45/5

12/53

Bilinguals

47/45

11/12

Monolinguals

42/65

9/93

B.A and above B.A

51/23

13/33

Under B.A

48/77

12/92

The above table shows the average and standard deviation score obtained by respondents on “offer of repair” in 20 different situations. As it can be observed, the respondents above B.A have had a better performance.

4.3. Investigating the research hypotheses

As stated in chapter one, in this study four main hypotheses were formulated which are discussed one by one.

4.3.1. First hypothesis

“There is no meaningful relationship between gender of respondents and their apology strategies. “Since apology strategies includes six categories (intensification, explanation, taking responsibility, concern for the hearer, denial of responsibility, offer of repair), so the above hypothesis can be formulated in six sub – hypothesis which are dealt with one by one.

1. There is no meaningful relationship between gender and intensification strategy.

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

Table 4.11: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and “intensification” strategy

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

0.2541

0.6541

According to the obtained results (table 4.11) on “intensification” score used by male and female, it is seen that there is no meaningful relationship between gender of respondents and intensification strategy, since the obtained T of respondents is 0.012, and the error coefficient is less than 5 percent, so this hypothesis is accepted in Alfa level (5%).

2. There is no meaningful difference between gender and explanation.

T-test is used to probe the relationship between gender and explanation strategy.

Table 4.12: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and explanation strategy

female male

Test Value

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

As it can be figured out from table 4.12 that there is no meaningful relationship between gender and “explanation” strategy, since the obtained T of respondents is 0.022 and the error coefficient is less than 5 percent, therefore this hypothesis is accepted in Alfa level (5%).

3. There is no meaningful difference between gender and taking responsibility.

T-test is utilized to prove the relationship between gender and “taking responsibility”.

Table 4.13: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and taking responsibility

female

male

Test Value

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

As displayed in above table (4.13), the obtained T from male and female regards to “taking responsibility” strategy is 0.000, since the error coefficient is less than 5%, so this hypothesis is accepted in Alfa level (5%).

4. There is no meaningful difference between gender and concern for the hearer strategy.

T-test is employed to probe the relationship between gender and “concern for the hearer” strategy.

Table 4.14: T-test for investigating the relationship between gender and concern for the hearer

Test Value

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

As shown in table 4.14, the T obtained from respondents to use “concern for the hearer” strategy is 0.001, therefore it can be said that there is no meaningful relationship between gender and this strategy, since the error coefficient is less than 5%, so this hypothesis is accepted in Alfa level (5%).

5. There is no meaningful difference between gender and denial of responsibility.

Table 4.15: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and denial of responsibility

Test Value

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

Table 4.15 illustrated that the obtained T from participants on “denial of responsibility” is 0.000, since the error efficient is less than 5%, so this hypothesis is accepted in Alfa level (5%), and it is seen that there is no meaningful relationship between gender and this strategy.

6. There is no meaningful difference between gender of respondents and offer of repair strategy.

To deal with issue, T-test has been employed.

Table .4.16: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and offer of repair

Test Value

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

Table 4.16 Shows that there is no meaningful relationship between gender and offer of repair, since the obtained T from respondents is 0.000 and the error efficient is less than 5%, so this hypothesis is accepted in Alfa level (5%).

4.3.2. Second hypothesis:

“There is no meaningful relationship between age of participants and their apology strategy.

Since apology strategy includes six categories (intensification, explanation, taking responsibility, concern for the hearer, denial of responsibility, offer of repair), so the above hypothesis can be formulated in six sub – hypothesis which are:

1. There is no meaningful relationship between age of respondents and intensification strategy.

T-test is used to probe the relationship between age of respondents and intensification strategy.

Table 4.17: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and intensification strategy

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

The findings of this table (4.17) states that there is no meaningful relationship between age of respondents and “intensification” strategy, since the obtained T of these groups are 0.000, and the error coefficient is less than 5%, therefore this hypothesis is accepted in Alfa level(5%).

2. There is no meaningful relationship between age of participants and explanation strategy.

This hypothesis is also tested by T-test.

Table 4.18: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and explanation strategy

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

Table 4.18 illustrates that the age of respondents is not an effective factor on “explanation” strategy used by participants, because obtained T from under and above 30 years are 0.003 and error coefficient is less than 5%, so this hypothesis is accepted in Alfa level (5%).

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