strategy.

T-test is utilized to investigate the relationship between age and taking responsibility.

Tabl4.19: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and taking responsibility strategy

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

The above table (4.19) makes it clear that age of respondents is not effective factor on “taking responsibility” used by under and above 30 years respondents, since obtained T from these groups is 0.000, therefore this hypothesis is accepted.

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

T-test is employed to investigating the relationship between age and “concern for the hearer”.

Table 4.20: T-test for investigating relationship between age and concern for the hearer strategy

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

As illustrated in table 4.20 the obtained T from above and under 30 years respondents is 0.018, it can be said that there is no meaningful relationship between age of participants and “concern for the hearer” used by them, since the coefficient is less than 5%, this hypothesis is accepted.

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

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

Table 4.21: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and denial of responsibility

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

It can be inferred from table 4.21 that there is no meaningful relationship between age of respondents and “denial of responsibility” used by under and above 30 years subjects, since the obtained from these groups is 0.012, and error coefficient is less than 5%, so this hypothesis is accepted.

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

This hypothesis is tested by T-test.

Table 4.22: T-test for investigating relationship between age and offer of repair strategy

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

According to the obtained results in table 4.22 on “offer of repair” strategy used by respondents, it is seen that there is no meaningful relationship between age of participants and “offer of repair” strategy, because, the obtained T from above and under 30 years is 0.003 and the coefficient is less than 5%, so this hypothesis is accepted.

4.3.3. Third hypothesis: There is no meaningful relationship between language of the respondents 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 language of the respondents and intensification strategy.

T-test is used to find out the relationship between language and “intensification” strategy.

Table4.23: T- test for investigating the relationship between language and intensification strategy

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

Table 4.23 demonstrates the T-value (0.012) of monolinguals and bilinguals in terms of “intensification” strategy used by these groups, since the error coefficient is less than 5%, therefore, this hypothesis is accepted in Alfa level (5%), and language is not an effective factor in using apology strategy.

2. There is no meaningful relationship between language of respondents and explanation strategy.

T-test is employed for investigating the relationship between language and “explanation” strategy.

Table 4.24: T- test for investigating relationship between language and explanation strategy

As shown in above table (4.24) that the T-value obtained by respondents is 0.12, so it is obvious that there is no meaningful relationship between language of respondents and their “explanation” strategy, since the error efficient is less than 5% , so this hypothesis is accepted in Alfa level(5%).

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

This hypothesis is tested by T-test.

Table4.25: T- test for investigating relationship between language and taking responsibility

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

As displayed in table 4.25 the obtained T-value from respondents is 0.001, it can be said that there is no meaningful relationship between language of respondents and “taking responsibility” strategy, since the error coefficient is less than 5%, so this hypothesis is accepted.

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

T-test is utilized to investigate the relationship between language and “concern for the hearer” strategy.

Table 4.26: T- test for investigating relationship between language and concern for the hearer.

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

The obtained results after employing T-test shows that the language of respondents is not an effective factor on “concern for the hearer” strategy, because the obtained T from bilinguals and monolinguals is 0.06, and the error efficient is less than 5%, therefore this hypothesis is accepted in Alfa level(5%).

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

T-test is employed to find out the relationship between language and “denial of responsibility” strategy.

Table 4.27: T- test for investigating relationship between language and denial of responsibility

Test Value

mean

t

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

monolinguals

bilinguals

2.23

0.000

19

.000

1.0325

0.2032

0.9541

3.54

Table 4.27 indicates that the T-value of bilinguals and monolinguals in terms of “denial of responsibility” is 0.000, it can be said that there is no meaningful relationship between language of respondents and “denial of responsibility” strategy used by these groups, since the error coefficient is less than 5%, so this hypothesis is accepted.

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

This hypothesis is also tested by T-test.

Table 4.28: T- test for the investigating the relationship between language and offer of repair strategy

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

The above table makes it clear that language is not an effective factor respondent on “offer of repair” strategy, because the obtained T from respondents is 0.003, and the error coefficient is less than 5%, therefore this hypothesis is accepted in Alfa level (5%).

4.3.4. Fourth hypothesis

“There is no meaningful relationship between education of the 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 education of the respondents and intensification strategy.

This hypothesis is also tested by T-test.

Table 4.29: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and intensification strategy

Test Value

mean

t

df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Under B.A

2.874

0.000

19

.000

1.2987

0.3214

0.9514

B.A and above B.A

2.251

With regard to the obtained results in table 4.29 on the relationship between education and “intensification” strategy used by respondents, it is observed that there is no meaningful relationship between education and this strategy, since the obtained from these groups is 0.000, and the error efficient is less than 5%, so this hypothesis is accepted.

2. There is no meaningful relationship between education of the respondents and explanation strategy.

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

Table4.30: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and explanation