really feeling responsible for offense, e g . When the speaker apologizes on behalf of other or another or where the offense cannot be avoided .In such cases, although the cause of the regret is not indebting, the speaker still shows concern for interlocutor for whom the object of offense is an unpleasant event. Coulmas claims that this type of apology is similar to expression of sympathy and therefore , similar forms are used (I ‘ m sorry ):coulmas goes on to argue, “at one end , apologies border and gradually merge in to expression of sympathy”, at the other end , where strong responsibility is felt by the speaker, apologies almost blend gradually in to thanks (76). However, Tannen (1994:47) argues that ‘I ‘m sorry’ is not always an apology; it can be used to achieve balance in the conversation, and if hearer understand it as an apology and responds accordingly, that may damages S’s face wants.
An influential view on the classification of apologies is Goffman (1971), in which he distinguishes to type of compensation: ritual and substantive. Following this distinction, Fraser (1981:265) gives two motivations associated with substantive and ritualistic apologies: the speaker tries to remedy the harm or damage cause by the offense in substantive apology while the ritual apology may be produced as habit associated with certain routines or when the respondent is not really responsible for the offense.
Another classification of apology is proposed by Kerbrat-Orecchioni (cited in Obeng 1999:714), to describe apology strategies in French. The classification outlines two main ways of performing an apology: act of apology and act of justification for wrongdoing. The first, which is an explicit apology, is the it primary component while the second, which is an implicit apology, is a secondary one .Accordingly, are either explicit (e.g. forgive me and I ‘m sorry), implicit use one of the other strategies), or complex (explicit apology+implicit apology). However, Obeng (1999) adds a ‘compound apology’ (implicit apology +implicit apology), which can be considered as a fourth type of apology with the same paradigm.
People usually apologizing using semantically different type of expression: therefore, apology strategies are often described according to the semantic formulae. Different classifications introduced by different scholars often overlap and while some lists are extended and detailed. Others are rather broad. It is also worthy of attention that newer classification introduced and consequently provide more comprehensive views than previous categorization models (ef. Fraser 1981; Olshtain and Cohen 1983; Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984; Holmes 1989; Bergman and Kasper 993).
Fraser (1981) provides an extended list of strategies which includes announcing apology, stating obligation to apologize, offering to apologize, requesting H to accept the apology, expressing regret, requesting forgiveness, acknowledging responsibility, promising forbearance and offering redress. Fraser analyzes these strategies mainly on the basis of expressions of responsibility and regret, and noted that it is often the case that more than one of these strategies can be combined to perform an apology for a single offense (PP. 263-265).
Olshtain and Cohen (1983) suggest the notion of ‘speech act set of apology’ stating that apologies are realized by one of five strategies: an illocutionary force indicating device (IFID), an expression of responsibility for the offense, an account of cause of violation, an offer of repair, and promise of forbearance. This set of strategies they proposed is the most influential on other linguists’ descriptions and analyses of apology studies (22).
Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984:206) proposed another classification of apology strategies. However, it is almost a rearrangement of the set of strategies proposed by Olshtain and Cohen above. Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) provide five verbs (regret, excuse, (be) sorry, forgive, pardon) beside apologize which they consider as performative verbs in English (and hence IFID), while for Fraser (1981) only those expression with an explicit mention of the apologize are considered performatives. Blum -Kulka and Olshtain (1984) state that the linguistic realization of apology can take one of two basic forms or a combination of them: the use of IFID (one of the verbs they considered performatives) and /or the use of an utterance that refers to a specified set of propositions, which relate to either the doing of the event, the violations of a norm or the recognition of damage. The latter include giving an explanation or account of cause explicitly (e .g .the bus was late) or implicitly (e. g traffic is always heavy in the morning taking responsibility (ranging from strong self-humbling to complete denial of the offense), making an offer of repair (the compensation may be specified or unspecified), and promising forbearance. Blum -Kulka and Olshtain (1984) note that any propositions; can be realized linguistically by various expressions; each can be used alone or with a selected IFID. It is worth noting that they do not include intensification as a strategy; but rather they view it as a different element that can be used alongside the strategies they identified to intensify the expression. They distinguish three types of intensification: intensification with IFID by the use of adverbials (e. g. very) or repetition; intensification external to the IFID by showing concern for H; or through the use of multiple strategies.
Another classification of apology strategies is provided by Holmes (1989:200), who asserts that her categorization system was based on that of others (e. g. Fraser 1981; Olshtain and Cohen 1983; Owen 1983; Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984; Trosberg 1987). Her main categories include: explicit expression of apology ( an offer of apology /IFID, an expression of regret and a request for forgiveness); an explanation or account; acknowledgment of responsibility (accepting the blame , expressing self-deficiency, recognizing H as entitled to an apology, expressing lack of intent, an offer of repair /redress); and promise of forbearance .
Bergman and Kasper (1993) made use of another model to analyze their data: IFID; downgrading reducing the severity of offense, and reducing responsibility including excuse and justification, claiming ignorance and denial); upgrading or use of adverbials (i.e. intensifying the IFID); taking responsibility or admitting the offense (including self-blame, lack of intent and admission of fact); offer of repair; and verbal redress (concern for the hearer and promises of forbearance).
2.2. The related empirical studies
One of the influential empirical works in speech act realization is a project called ‘cross – cultural study of speech act realization patterns’ (CCSRP). This project focused on request and apologies and aimed in establishing native speakers ‘patterns of realization, comparing speech act across languages and establishing the similarities and differences between native speakers (NSs) and non-native speaker (NNSs) in the realization of these acts (Blume-Kulka and Olshtain 1984:196). The investigation involved eight languages: Australian English, American English, British English, Canada English, Danish, German, Hebrew, and Russian. The discourse Completion Test (DCT) was used in collecting the data. The results showed that participants from different groups used similar strategies and that there were cultural preferences in their use. The essential components of an apology for the majority of NNSs and NSs were explicit apology expressions and accounts.
Since then many studies have been carried out to investigate apology realization and speaker perception using different approaches. Holmes (1989) used an ethnographical approach to collect remedial exchanges produced by adult NS of New Zealand English (NS NZE). Trosberg (1987) employed role play in a study that involved native speakers of British English (NS BE), native Danish speakers (NS Dan) and Danish learners of English (Dan-En). The DCT was used by House (1988) to study apology realization pattern by native speakers of British English (NS BE), native German speakers (NS Ger) and German learners of English (Ger -EN). Kasper (1980) also used the DCT to look at apologies provide by Danish learners of English (Dan-En) and Danish learners of German (Dan-Ger). Bergman and Kasper (1993:85) reviewed and compared the findings of these studies and found that for the majority of informants the essential components of apology were explicit apology expression (IFIDs) and responsibility statements, while explanation, minimization of the offense, offering of repair and verbal redress (concern for the hearer and promise of forbearance) were optional and context -dependent.
Suszcyznska (199) used a DCT to investigate the realization of apology in English, Hungarian and polish, with focused on the linguistic form rather than the choice and arrangement of strategies. The investigation adopted a more detailed analysis, which the researcher claimed was required for understanding different communicative styles. The researcher argued that the results suggest that the present politeness theory is not enough to explain the nature of this difference, which relates to culture – specific attitudes.
Bergman and Kasper (1993) carried out a study in Thai and American English, with the aim of finding out how contextual factors were perceived by Thai and American informants, how the selection of apology strategies is determined by contextual