Politeness Strategies in Apologizing among Libyan ...

Politeness Strategies in Apologizing among Libyan Arab Female EFL Learners in Sebha Community [PP: 37-54] Mustafa Mubarak Pathan Department of English, University of Sebha, Sebha, Libya Al Tiyb Al Khaiyali Department of English, University of Sebha, Sebha, Libya Ergaya Ali Gerair Alsout Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, Universiti Malaya, Malaysia Article History Abstract Paper Received: The paper aimed to investigate how the use of politeness strategies by Libyan Arab August 1st , 2015 female students of English language in Sebha community is influenced by ‘the social status and social distance’ in the context of apologizing. Brown and Accepted: Levinson’s model (1978, 1987) was taken to be tested on the current data. As September 15th , politeness cannot be studied isolated, apologizing speech act was the target.10 2015 naturally occurring conversations in different situations of apologizing were used as a material to discuss and identify the realization patterns of apologizing among Published: Libyan Arab female students of English language in Sebha community. Positive and September 30th , negative strategies of politeness were the main focus in the speech acts of 2015 apologizing. Therefore, the utterances were analyzed in terms of frequency of positive and negative strategies. The results of the analysis showed that the Libyan Arab female EFL speakers employ negative politeness strategies rather than positive politeness strategies. The results also indicate that Libyan Arab female EFL students prefer individualism. Moreover, equality in using negative politeness strategies with different social status was also noted. In this case, the findings of the present study are in line with the claim of universality put forward by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987). Keywords

Apologizing, Speech Act, Positive and Negative Politeness, Libyan Arab female students, Politeness Strategies

Article Citation: Pathan, M., Alkhaiyali, T. & Alsout, R. (2015). Politeness Strategies in Apologizing among Libyan Arab Female EFL Learners in Sebha Community. International Journal of Discourse Analysis. 1(1), 37-54. Retrieved from http://www.discoursejournal.org

Politeness Strategies in Apologizing among Libyan Arab Female…

1. Introduction: In recent years, movements for cultural researches have extended widely since face to face interactions need better understanding among the interlocutors from same as well as different cultures. As the boundaries of the nations are shrinking, intercultural and cross-cultural communications are becoming important issues which encourage thorough examination into various aspects related to communication and cultural factors governing these processes. Social status is one of such factors that plays important role in generating differences in the speech among speakers and listeners. Undoubtedly, the perception of social status is a universal phenomenon as each community, and every individual, has her/his beliefs and variables in dealing with such differences. Such differences, eventually, lead to potential variable politeness system which may result in misunderstanding among people within some cultures (Escandell-Vidal, 1998). On the other hand, it can also be noted that, as a member of society/community, every individual shows friendliness in requesting, in offering, or in apologizing politely (Brown and Levinson, 1978) which makes politeness a universal phenomenon but governed by different factors in different cultures which need separate investigations. With this background, the present research is an endeavor to explore the strategies of politeness (positive and negative) employed, while expressing apology, by Libyan Arab female EFL students in Sebha community. Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) model of politeness has been chosen as framework for the study as it is regarding as one of the influential framework on the theories of politeness. The current research is initiated to seek out and analyze the semantic formulaic of apology strategies. Though there exist various studies, from various cultures, on politeness strategies using

Pathan, M., Alkhaiyali, T. & Alsout, R.

Brown and Levinson’s framework; hardly any study has been undertaken to explore the use of politeness strategies by Libyans, in general, and Libyan females, studying English as foreign language, in particular. Thus, this study also is an attempt to fill this gap in literature on politeness strategies among the eastern (Arab in particular) societies. This study is worth as it is the first attempt to explore apology realization patterns among Libyan female learners in Sebha community. Moreover, the study is needed to examine whether Brown and Levinson’s politeness model (1978, 1987) is appropriate to be applied to eastern (particularly Arab) societies like in Sebha, Libya. The model has already been successfully tested on Egyptian Arabic (ElShafey, 1990), Tunisian Arabic (Elarbi, 1997), and Palestinian Arabic (Atawneh, 1991). As introduced, the primary aim of the study is to investigate the strategies of apologizing employed by Libyan Arab female undergraduate students of English language in Sebha city in different contexts. Moreover, investigation into how ‘social distance’ and ‘social status’ govern the concept of politeness strategies in students’ apologizing speech acts is also sought in the paper. While investigating the stated aims, attempt is done to seek answers to some of the research questions like1) What realization patterns of apologizing are observed in the speech acts of Libyan Arab female undergraduates of English language? 2) To what extent do ‘social distance’ and ‘social status’ factors affect the choice of positive or negative politeness strategies in students’ apologizing speech acts?

International Journal of Discourse Analysis Vol: 1, Issue: 1, ISSN: 2414-6269 www.discoursejournal.org

October-December, 2015 38 | P a g e


To what extent are these strategies, by the Libyan female learners, in line with the Arab culture and what implications do they have for the theory of politeness? 2. Literature Review: 2.1 Understanding ‘Politeness’: Language is a form of behaviour and is used, consciously or unconsciously, to reveal various underlying intricacies of human interactions. Politeness, much desired component of human interaction, has been defined differently in literature. It is a socio-culturally appropriate behaviour (Mills, 2003), a matter of abiding by the expectations of society (Yu, 2003) or the choices made during interaction by the interlocutors (Cutting, 2002). Linguistic politeness refers to how people speak and how the hearers react to their speech. This makes it quite complex phenomenon as what is meant and perceived as polite in a given context will depend on judgments based on cultural knowledge of norms of appropriateness which constantly change. (Locher, 2006). 2.2 Models of Politeness Studying politeness, as an important aspect of interaction, was formally and systematically introduced by Lakoff (1972). Similar attempt was also done by Leech (1983) who revealed an ‘essential asymmetry in polite behavior, in that whatever is a polite belief for the speaker tends to be an impolite belief for the hearer and vice versa’ (Leech, 1983, p.169). Brown and Levinson (1978) have also contributed to the phenomenon of politeness and deserve the reference. The model of Brown and Levinson (1978) is primarily dependent on the concept of ‘face’ introduced by Goffman (1955). The term ‘face’ is used in pragmatics and discourse analysis to describe the ‘self-image’ which the speaker


and the hearer would like to be liked and approved (Goffman 1967, 1999/1967). Brown and Levinson (1987) regard politeness as a redressive action taken to ‘counterbalance’ the disruptive effect of FTAs, and to show concern for people’s face (p.38). The concept of ‘face’ has been elaborated by Brown and Levinson as ‘something that is emotionally invested and that can be lost, maintained or enhanced and must be constantly attended to the interaction’ (1978, p. 66). Therefore, to display awareness and consciousness to others’ personal self-image can be called as politeness in an interaction. They argue that every member of a society has face, and when the speaker decides to commit an act, which potentially causes the hearer (or the speaker) to lose face, the speaker will tend to use a politeness strategy in order to minimize the risk. Brown and Levinson (1978) also suggest that all cultures commonly need to be polite. That is, the universal preference of the face work is an assumption held by Brown and Levinson. In politeness theory, there are two face wants. Face threatening act is when the threat to the hearer’s expectations is represented by the speaker’s saying. On the other hand, face saving act is to lessen the possible threat for the individual by the speaker’s saying. To assess the seriousness of a face threatening act, Brown and Levinson (1987) suggested three factors: 1) the social distance (SD) between the speaker and the hearer, 2) the relative power (P) of the hearer over the speaker, and 3) the absolute ranking of impositions (R) in a given culture (p. 74). People in their interactions have two faces. The acceptance of others, and sharing the speaker’s wants of the same group, is known as positive face. The independence of the speaker, and not imposition by others, represents the negative




face. It is assumed that under normal circumstances, people recognize the vulnerability of face and strive to maintain one another’s face through cooperative activity. Thus, the speaker tends to minimize the risk of losing face by using different politeness strategies. Brown and Levinson believe that different strategies can be used by the speaker to mitigate the possible damage and to assess the weightiness of FTA by sociopragmatic factors: power, distance, and ranking of imposition of a FTA in a specific culture. The four strategies, which Brown and Levinson have elaborated are: 1) Bold on record- it involves doing FTA in direct and unambiguous form. 2) Off-record-it can be achieved by providing hints, using metaphors, being obscure and indirect. 3) Positive strategy-it is ‘oriented towards the positive face of H, the positive image that he claims for himself’ (Brown & Levinson, 1978, p. 75). The defender demonstrates friendliness and intimation to the hearer. And 4) The negative strategy- which is ‘oriented mainly towards partially satisfying (redressing) H’s negative face, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and selfdetermination’ (Brown & Levinson, 1978, p. 75). The speaker will not impede the freedom of the addressee and impose on him. 2.3. ‘Apology’ as a Speech Act: Outlining brief account of apology as a speech act is necessary to underpin the model of Austin (1962) and Searle (1969). Austin (1962) launched the era of speech act theory. The definition of any speech act by the British philosopher is that an utterance is used to make things happen. Based on Searle (1969), speech act could be categorized into groups depending on their functions. Out of different types of speech acts, such as request, offer or apology; the focus here is on defining apology speech act


as it is the target concern in the current research. Moreover, its role in establishing politeness has also been established. Apology is defined as a remedial stage after an offence has happened to the hearer. Goffman (1971) describes apology as ‘remedial interchange’. In other words, it is an action to re-establish social harmony after a real or factual offence. To Brown and Levinson, apology is a negative politeness because it expresses deference more than friendliness. Apology counts as the admission by the apologizer that an offense has been performed and an acknowledgment that he is partially involved in that event. (Blum-Kulka, Kasper, and House (1989) 2.4. Apology and Politeness: The model of politeness by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) accounts that apology, as a conversational act, is inherently negative politeness strategy since it conveys respect and deference. The evidence of negative politeness in apology for Brown and Levinson is due to the strategies of apologizing in themselves and due to individual linguistic and extralinguistic aspects. Thus, apologizing is negative face wants of the offender and face saving for the hearer. Holmes (1995) claims that apology generally is face upholding act. In contrast, the argument of the sociologists like- Benoit (1995); Liebersohn, Neuman, and Bekerman (2004) is that apology is the sender’s positive face pivotal when the speaker does not annoy about what other think about him, he also feels it is not important to humiliate himself. 2.5 Apologies and Culture: Previous studies Similar characteristics of speech act in different cultures does not mean that they are similar in all aspects (Young, 1972). Watts (2005: p.69) exemplifies the nature of politeness stating that ‘every culture makes use of volitional strategies of marked egocentric behavior’, in other words, strategies regarding religious rituals, ambiguous




speech, face-saving strategies and formulaic behavior are different due to these aspects. Thus, it can be said that different cultures express apology differently because apology is based on and governed by culture specific aspects and norms. Face is significant notion in Arabian culture (Al-Issa, 1998); Nuredeen (2008). The honor, pride, religious beliefs and sensitive attachment to individual’s image and others’ are factors that make face important among Arabs (Al-Issa, 1998). Bentahila and Davies (cited in Emery, 2000) claim that positive strategies of politeness are favored in Arab culture. In this case, ‘considerable attention is paid in Arab society to making the other party feel good.’ Emery (2002, p. 206). There are considerable numbers of studies also done in the field of cross culture pragmatics. Comparison between American and Egyptian apologizing styles by Soliman(2003) showed that both societies use intensifiers to show sincerity, using interjections to show concern, expressing embarrassment for the offense. However, Egyptian respondents had tendency to attack lower status victims. Hussein and Hammouri (1998) reported investigation of American and Jordanian form of English apologizing strategies. Their findings revealed that the two groups ‘express apology, offer repair, and use strategies such as taking responsibility and promise of forbearance’. However, Jordanian participants involve strategies such as invoking Allah’s name for the past action; striking the victims, lessen the amount of offense and interjections. Moreover, they use more apology strategies which may be believed to be due to the influence of religion and culture. In the other scenario, Nureddeen’s study (2008) found out that Sudanese speakers use positive strategies in their apology as they avoid using face damaging apology strategies. While Alfattah (2010) reported that Yemeni


apologizers use explicit apology strategies generally and combine it with other strategies. Another study comparing two Tunisian groups (Traditional and Modern Tunisian Arabic) found out that positive face is preferred by the modern group (Elarbi, 1997). In a bit different endeavor, AlAdaileh (2007) conducted investigation into realization patterns of apology between British and Jordanians. His results showed that the Jordanian informants used IFIDs rarely with this unique usage which he believed is due to language specific strategy and culture. 3. Present Study 3.1 Theoretical Framework As Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) model of politeness for investigating face threatening acts has been influential for many theoretical and analytical works in the field, this theoretical framework has been adopted in this study. Blum Kulka etal’s (1989) model of CCSARP coding manual is adopted in this study to code the apology strategies used by the Libyan Arab female students of English language in Sebha University. This model has been chosen as it has been developed from practical observations. Moreover, several languages have been assessed using this model successfully (Olshtain, 1989). However, some modifications have been done to accommodate the data of the study. Table: 1 Blum Kulka etal’s (1989) model of CCSARP coding manual Strategy 1. ‘Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs)’

2. ‘Explanation or account’: any external mitigating circumstances, ‘objective’ reasons for the violation’


Sub-strategy a. ‘An expression of regret’. Example- I am sorry. b. ‘A request for forgiveness and accepting the apology’. Example- , Please forgive me/ pardon. a. ‘Explicit’. Example- the traffic was terrible. b. ‘Implicit. Exampletraffic is always so heavy in the morning.’ October-December, 2015 41 | P a g e


3.

‘Taking on responsibility .’

a. ‘Explicit self-blame’. Example- It is my fault.’ b. ‘Lack of intent’. Example- I do not mean it.’ c. ‘Expression of selfdeficiency’. Example- I didn’t see you/ forgot.’ d. ‘Expression of embarrassment’. Example- I feel awful about it.’ e. ‘Self-dispraise’. Example- I’m such a dimwit!’ f. ‘Justify hearer’. ExampleYou’re right to be angry.’ g. ‘Refusal to acknowledge guilt’: -‘denial of responsibility’. Example- It wasn’t my fault. -‘blame the hearer’. Example- it’s your own fault. -‘pretend to be offended’. Example- I’m the one to be offended.

4. ‘Concern for the hearer’. Example- I hope I didn’t upset you/ Are you all right?’ 5. ‘Offer of repair’. Example- I’ll write your homework.’ 6. ‘Promise of Forbearance’. Example- It won’t happen again.’

The theory of positive and negative politeness strategies is used in interactional, socio-pragmatic, and discursive researches. Thus, in the current study, the focus of analysis will be on the investigation of strategies used by Libyan Arab female students of English language in Sebha University in their apology speech acts. It will also focus on the relationship between the ‘social distance’ between speaker and listener and its influence on the choice of the strategy. Amongst the potential strategies associated to Brown & Levinson’s model (1978, 1987), the research particularly


envisages the positive and negative politeness strategies. The main and sub positive strategies are community, solidarity, familiarity, symmetry, ‘a highly sociable environment’, unlike the negative politeness strategies and the sub-strategies likedeference, the distance between sender and receiver, the avoidance of suppositions between the interlocutors, impersonalization, avoidance behavior to redress difficult situation. Table: 2 Strategies of positive and negative politeness Positive politeness Negative politeness ‘Offer of repair’ ‘Promise for Forbearance’ ‘Expressing concern’

‘Explanations’ ‘Acknowledge responsibility’ ‘Direct apology’

of

3.2 Data Collection Methods and Procedures The study is qualitative and descriptive in nature as it explores and describes the politeness strategies employed by Libyan Arab female EFL students in Sebha community. It is argued that Speech acts and Events should be investigated in their naturally occurring data by using ethno-methodology (Wolfson, 1983). However, Ethno-methodology is complicated due to different reasons likenoise, interruption, people tend to move, and unintelligible in various places of transcription. (Archer, Aijmer and Wichmann, 2012). On the other hand, most of the previous studies have been based on the data selected from DCT or role play (Cohen and Olshtain, (1981); Olshtain and Cohen (1983); Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984); and Trosborg (1987)). Though these empirical methods have strengths (do not consume time, setting out identical situations for cross culture studies), they have some limitations too. As Cohen and Olshtain (1993:47) state it, ‘role-play forces the subjects to take on a role they would not assume in real life, or they might not be good actors, then it elicits an unnatural behavior’. In addition, the participants in




unnatural situations might be forced to utter an apology, whereas they might withdraw in the actual interactions. Thus, natural interactions is the effective way to represent how people apologize and use language in natural settings. (Olshtain and Cohen (1983), Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989), Trosborg (1987), Holmes (1990), Rose (1994) Thus, this study is based on naturally occurring data. 3.3 Participants: The participants of this study were Libyan female English language undergraduates from Sebha community and their ages ranged between 21 to 23 years. They were all Arab speakers and came from south region of Libya, particularly from Sebha city. They come from various socioeconomic backgrounds. They were chosen randomly to avoid any type of bias affecting the findings of the study. 3.4 Data collection procedures: Keeping in mind the significance of naturally occurring data, as outlined by various scholars, audio recordings of natural interactions between students and different social-status people were used as a tool of data collection in this study. The audio recorded data were transcribed and classified. As the original data was in Arabic, the transcribed data were then translated into English for the purpose of the study and the accuracy of translation (in terms of socio-cultural aspects) was checked by taking help of some senior colleagues. The data collection process took place in April, 2015 and lasted for about three weeks. Students of discourse analysis course at the English department of Sebha University were asked to record their colleagues in different situations of apologizing in real life contexts. Around 30 recordings were made available but only 10 were selected testing them on various parameters such as age, relationship, context, length, avoiding selecting data in


same speech event, authenticity and clarity of audio recording etc. It was made sure that the finally selected samples included variety of ‘social-status’ and ‘social distance’ factors among the interlocutors. All the ethical aspects regarding the data collection were also taken into consideration. 4. Data Analysis and Discussion 4.1 Data Analysis 4.1.1 Situations: The first two situations were apologizing to strangers. In the first situation, the speaker banged the stranger. Likewise, in the second situation, the speaker smacked the hearer and broke her mobile. The third and fourth situations were students coming late to the class. In the fifth situation, a student lost a library book. In the sixth and seventh situations, the speaker forgot to bring a classmate’s book. In the eighth situation, between friends, the speaker got on the bus and forgot about her friends. The ninth situation, was between mother and her daughter wherein the daughter switched off her mobile phone and mother could not contact her. The last situation was between sisters in which the elder sister poured water on younger sister’s homework notebook. Thus, attempt was done to include different types of social-status and social distance interactions to add diversity and richness to the data of this study. Selected Situations: Original Data-Arabic Transcription and English Translation Between Strangers: 1 ‫اه اه اه حولي عني‬ ‫معليش ماريتك‬ ‫شني معليش؟‬ ‫انا جيت نجري‬ ‫ اشحي قدامك‬//‫شن ماريتك‬ //‫تليفونك غير ان شاء هللا ماصارتله حاجة؟‬ ‫صارتله ماصارتله ماليكش بيه عالقة‬ ‫معليش سامحيني باهي انا شن اندير ] [نصلحه‬ [//‫ليك‬ ‫]مانبيك ترفعيه لصالح‬


.1 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .1



‫ ماهو ضروري منه مانقدر نمشي و نخلي تليفونك‬.2 ‫مكسور‬ ↑‫ انتي اشحي قدامك‬.1 ↓‫ سامحيني معليش معليش اخر مرة‬.2 ‫ لوطحتي في حد تاني شن بيديرلك‬.1 ‫ المهم سامحيني اوكي‬.2 A. Oh oh oh go away from me. B. Pardon me. I did not see you A. What is pardon me? B. I was running. A. What is mean by I did not see you? You have to look carefully. B. I hope that nothing bad has happened to your phone. A. Happened something bad or whatever. It is not your business. B. Forgive me, what shall I do for you now. Should I repair it to you? A. I do not want you to repair it. B. It is necessary to offer you a solution. I can cot go by leaving your phone broken. A. You have to look carefully when you are walking↑ B. Pardon me. Forgive me. Forgive me again.↓ A. If it happens with someone else, imagine what will happen to you. B. Ok it is important to forgive me now. Between Strangers: 2 ‫ اه اه‬.1 ‫ هللا معليش مش قاصدتها ليك هللا سوري سو‬.2 ‫معليشي معليش‬..‫سوري‬ ‫ اوكي‬.1 ‫ سامحيني‬.2 ‫ الال عادي ماصار شي‬.1 A. Oh oh B. By Almighty Allah, I am sorry. I did not mean it for you I am so sorry, sorry sorry A. Ok B. Forgive me A. No. No. It is normal. It doesn’t matter. Between Teacher-Student: 1 ‫ السالم عليكم‬.1 ‫ و عليكم السالم‬.2 >‫ لماذا تاخرتي علي المحاضرة ياطالبة؟‬.1 .‫ النها الطريق زحمة ياابلة انا اسفة ياابلة‬.2 .‫ حاضر المرة الجاية توعديني انك تجي بدري‬.1 .‫ حاضر ياابلة و هللا نوعدك مانعاودها‬.2


A. Peace be upon you A. Peace be upon you and why you are late to the lecture? B. It was a traffic jam teacher. I am sorry. A. Next time if you are late, you won’t enter the lecture and solve the problem yourself. B. I accept that teacher. By Almighty Allah, I promise that I will not be late again. Between Teacher-Student: 2 .‫ وين كل هالتاخير ياطالب؟‬.1 [‫هللا سامحيني يابلة‬.‫ هللا ظروف‬.2 [‫ انتي متاخرة ليك نص ساعة‬.1 ,‫ كيف معليش حتي المرة اللي فاتت متاخرة‬.2 //‫ماتحاوليش معاي‬//‫؟‬ . ‫ نوعدك‬//.‫ باهي معليش خالص يابلة معاش نعاودها‬.1 ‫ اال‬8 ‫ المرة الجاية تجي من‬// ‫ يعني معش تعاوديها؟‬.2 ‫ربع‬ A. Where were you o student? Why you are not on time? B. By Almighty Allah, these are the circumstances around us. By Almighty Allah, please forgive me teacher. A. You are late for half an hour. What is forgive me? Previous lecture too, you were late. Do not try this with me. B. Ok teacher, forgive me. I won’t do it again. I promise. A. Are you sure? Next lecture come early at 7:45am. Between Librarian-Student ‫ يابلة الكتاب اللي استعرته راح مني‬.1 ↓‫ كيف يريح كيف مفروض حافظتي عليه‬.2 ‫ كنت نقرا بيهفي الحديقة انشغلت شوي رديت دورته‬.1 .‫مالقيته‬ ‫ انتي ملزمة تجيبي نفس الكتاب‬.2 .‫ باهي ياابلةكيف بندير سامحيني ياابلة هللا اسفة‬.1 ‫ كيف ماانتي استفدتي منه فيه طلبة غيرك رح‬.2 . ‫يستفادوا منه جيبي واحد تاني‬ ‫ خالص ياابلة هللا سامحيني‬.1 .‫ خالص الموضوع انتهي‬.2 A. Teacher, the book that I borrowed it, is lost. B. How it is lost? How? You must take care of it.↓ A. I was reading. Then I got busy with something. After that I could not find it. I looked for it. B. You have to bring the same book to the library.




A. What shall I do? I am sorry teacher. Really sorry. B. You got benefit from it. Other students will get benefit. You have to bring another copy. A. Ok teacher forgive me. B. That’s all. Between two Classmates: 1 //‫ شن درتي في امتحانك‬.1 ‫ وين المذكرة؟‬.2 ‫ و هللا اسفة نسيت‬.1 ‫ ] واك كيف بندير؟ عندي فيها امتحان كيف اندير؟‬.2 .,‫ ]باهي عطيني اسم الكتاب و توا نطبعلك في مكانه‬.1 A. How was your exam? B. Where is my book? A. Oh! By Almighty of Allah, I am sorry. I forgot it. B. Woh Woh what I can do now? I have an exam. What should I do now? A. Ok, give me the title of the book and I will print it out for you. Between two Classmates: 2 ‫ وين الكتب اللي‬..‫ انتي قاعدة هنا و انا ندور فيك‬.1 ‫عطيتهن ليك ياسليمة‬ ‫ حي سامحيني طارن من عقلي الحق‬.2 ‫ هذا علي اساس اسبوع و بترديهن‬.1 ‫ ماهو الحافلة جتني بسرعة بسرعة وطلعت نجري‬.2 .‫نسيتك جيت بنرفعهم نسيت‬ ‫ انا مادخلنيش فيها الحافلة انتي قلتيلي علي اساس‬.1 ‫الخميس عندي امتحان توا كيف‬//‫اسبوع و بترجعيهن‬ .‫بندير انا‬ ‫ الحافلة جتني‬// ‫ باهي هللا غالب شن بندير نسيتهن‬.2 ‫وعديت بسرعة بسرعة‬ ‫ التليفون نسيتيه؟ كراستك نسيتيها؟‬.1 ‫ باهي انا خبرتك بظروفي انا قلتلك حطيتهن عديت‬.2 ‫نجري و نسيتهن‬ ‫ به انا توا كيف بندير‬.‫ باهي و افرضي انك نسيتيهن‬.1 ‫يوم االمتحان‬ ‫ باهي انتي امتا امتحانك‬.2 ‫ يوم االخميس‬.1 ..‫ ]يعني مافيش وقت‬.2 [‫انا نجيك للحوش‬//‫ تقدري تجيني للحوش‬. .1 ‫انا نمشي توا للحوش نص ساعة نكلم‬..‫ انا نقولك راي‬.2 ‫خوي نجيبهن لك ونجي‬ ‫ ماهي مشكلة و كان ماتقدري نجيك‬//‫ اوكي خالص‬.1 ‫لحوشكم‬ ‫ و مرة تانية‬,‫ الال خالص توا نجيبهم و سامحيني‬.2 .‫مانعاودها‬ A. You are here and I was looking for you? Where is the book that I gave to you?


B. Oh my God, forgive me. I forgot it completely. A. You promised that one week and you would return it back. B. The bus came early and I went out in a hurry. I was going to bring it but I forgot. A. It is not my business with the bus. You said that one week and you would return it back to me. On Thursday, I have an exam so what shall I do now? B. So what shall I do? It is something out of my control. The bus came early and I went in a hurry. A. Did you forget your mobile or your notebook? B. I told you it is because of my circumstances. I told you that I went out in a hurry and forgot about it. A. Ok, let’s assume that you forgot, so what I am going to do for my exam? B. When will be your exam? A. On Thursday. B. This means there is no time left? A. Could you come to my house? Or I would come to your home. B. I have a suggestion. I will call my brother to drive me back to the home to bring it to you. A. Ok it is not a problem. If you could not bring it, I will come to your house. B. No. No. I will bring sure and forgive me and won’t do it again. Between two Friends: ‫ نعومة نعومة خير‬,‫ رحاب وينك‬.1 .‫ اسكتي ياكريمة‬.2 ‫ خيرك هكي‬.1 ‫ و هللا ماهي‬//‫ معقولة تركبي في الحافلة و تخليني‬.2 [‫حركة منك‬ .‫ ]و و هللا اال عارفة و هللا نسيتك‬.1 A. Rehab where are you? Nawma hi Nawma B. Shut your mouth Karima. A. Why you are like this? B. It is unbelievable you got in the bus and left me. It is not good thing from you. A. By Almighty Allah, I know I forgot you. Between Mother-Daughter: .‫ السالم عليكم ياماما وصلت‬.1 ‫ وينك من امبدري و انا نضرب عليك مقفل‬.2




‫ و هللا ياماما نسيته بدون شحن و كان الضي قاص‬.1 .‫علينا‬ .‫ خيرك ماضربتيش من تليفون صاحبتك‬.2 //‫باهي اسفة ياماما‬.....‫ و صاحبتي ماعندهاش رصيد‬.1 .‫ باهي حصل خير‬.2 A. Peace be upon you, mom. I am here. B. Where were you, I have been calling you but it is switched off. A. I forgot it to charge. By Almighty Allah, mom and there was no electricity. B. Why you did not call me from your friend’s phone? A. My friend was out of balance. I am sorry mom. B. Ok. It is ok. Between two sisters [elder-younger]: ‫ بزعتي عليا المية و انا قاعدة نكتيب ياسليمة‬.‫ اه ه ه ه‬.1 ‫ و انا مزال عندي امتحان بكرة عندي امتحانين‬. ‫هللا‬ ‫توا كيف بنكمله بكرة االبلة بتضربني راه اشحي كم‬ [‫عندي ورقة‬ [‫ و انتي ليش ماتشحي‬// . ‫ ماريتك به انا جيت فايته‬.2 ‫ ]انتي ماتشحي‬.1 ‫ و انتي ليش مقعمزه هانا ماقعمزتي غادي انا ماريتك‬.2 [‫ شوفي ها قريب نكمل‬.1 ‫كم عندك امتحان بكرة‬.//‫ ]ترا ترا نشوفه‬.2 ‫ ايه عندي امتحانين‬.1 ‫ باهي بري اقري امتحاناتك و انا نجففهم ليك و نكتبه‬.2 ‫ليك واجب رياضيات‬ ‫ ال واجب القراءة‬.1 ‫ توا انا نكتب واجب الرياضيات و نجيب المجفف‬.2 .‫سامحيني اه توا نكتبه هي‬ A. Oh ahhahaha. You poured water on me and I am writing my homework Salima, By Almighty Allah. And I still have other homework and I have two exams tomorrow. Now how I will finish it. Tomorrow the teacher will punish me. Look how many pages! B. I did not see you. And why you don’t see it? A. You didn’t see? B. And why you are sitting here and not sitting there. A. Look I am about to finish.] B. Let me see. How many exams do you have tomorrow? A. Yes, I have two exams. B. Ok go and study for your exams and I will dry them and I will rewrite the


homework for you. Is it a writing homework? A. No, it is mathematics. B. Now I am going to write mathematics homework and I will bring the dryer. Forgive me. I am going to write it for you.

These naturally occurring audiorecorded conversations in these situations were used in order to classify the realization patterns employed in apologizing context by Libyan Arab female students of English department in Sebha community. The data showed that the direct apology is the marked preference use among Libyan Arab Female students of English language in different situations. The analysis of the data is represented in terms of frequency of use. The use of IFIDs was the most used one (used about 15 times in all the conversations). Take responsibility of the action by expressing self-deficiency, refusal to acknowledge regret, and contradicting of responsibility appeared to be the second preference and usage in the students’ apologizing strategies. Explanation of the circumstances and offer of repair were equal in use with 7 usages in terms of frequency of occurrence in all the conversations. In the explanation and mitigating the violation, explicit strategies were used most of the time. Few uses of Promise of forbearance to express apology were also noted. To concern the hearer anger was also used but only once by the sample participants. The tables below illustrate the participants’ use of various apology strategies. Table: 3 various politeness strategies and sub-strategies used in different conversations by the participants.












4.2 Analysis of positive and negative politeness strategies: The graph charts below show the frequency use of politeness strategies (positive and negative) for expressing apology.

The findings from the data reveal that different strategies are used in the daily conversations for apologizing by the sampled interlocutors. It is noticeable that negative politeness strategies use is remarkably higher than positive strategies. It is also observed that the Libyan Arab female students of English language preferred to use IFIDs to any other strategies for expressing apologies. This finding, to some extent, supports the result of previous studies like of Ala’Eddin Banikalef and Maros (2013), Alfattah, (2010), Bataineh, (2008). Taking responsibility by expressing different sub-strategies was the second most


favorable strategy. This strategy is indirect expression of apology. Explanations of the circumstances was the third most preferred strategies among the Libyan Arab female students of English language. On the other hand, the offer of repair seems to be the most preferred positive strategies. The least preferred strategies are forbearance promise and articulating concern for the addressee. The preferences and differences in using different strategies are marker of sensitivity of the data to the social distance between the interlocutors in different contexts. No doubt, different variables influence the way of communication between speakers and hearers. Brown and Levinson examined the seriousness of the face threatening act by three factors or aspects: the social distance, the power, and absolute ranking. However, in this study, the focus has been only on the effect of social status and distance on expressing apologizing with positive or negative politeness strategies. 4.3 Findings and Discussion: After the analysis, it was surprising to find out that in ‘with the Librarian’ and ‘with mother’ situations the apologizers used only negative strategies which are explanations and direct apology. This is when the relation between the interlocutors is not equal and the hearer has higher status than the speaker. In the other situations, the use of explanation and direct apology is associated with discourse devices such as invoking Allah’s name, and multiple strategies to emphasize the sincerity of apologizing. To illustrate the discussion with example, in one situation, the apologizer claims that ‘it was a traffic jam’. This strategy has been associated with promise of forbearance to strengthen the apology and ‘give face to the addressee’ Brown and Levinson (1978, p. 74). From the analysis of the data, it was also noted that Libyan Arab female students




of English language in Sebha community preferred to use IFIDs over any other strategies when they express apologies. This supports the result of previous studies such as on Jordanian speakers by Hussein and Hammouri (1998) and on Yemeni apologizers by Alfattah (2010) who use multiple strategies with direct apology in order to show sincerity of the act. For example: a daughter justified to her mother why she closed her phone. The daughter used three strategies within one situation to express apology. ‘I forgot it to charge. By Almighty Allah Mum, and there was no electricity, and my friend was out of balance, and I am sorry mum’ Moreover, invoking Allah’s name in most situations of apology seems to be culturally connected which makes Arab culture distinguishable in this respect. However, it is important to note here that unlike the participants in Al-Adaielh’s study (2007), that Jordanian speakers rarely uttered IFIDs form, the present study’s results were different though coming from the same Arab culture. This is considered to be a unique feature of their culture. Acknowledgement of responsibility is the second preferred and used strategy among Libyan Arab female students of English language in Sebha community. It was also noted that the self-defense was used in order to restore the damage of the addressee. Also, invoking Allah’s name seems to be a feature among Libyans’ ways of apologizing to mitigate and lessen the threat. Moreover, this strategy is used with all levels of social distance and status. This is quite obvious from the data of the study. For example, the apologizer ‘with a stranger’ situation, used this mechanism saying: ‘By Almighty Allah, I am sorry I did not mean it for you, I am so sorry, sorry sorry’


And in another situation ‘between friends’, when the speaker forgot about a friend, she used expression of self-defense by associating it with mechanism of uttering Allah’s name, ‘By Almighty Allah, I know I forgot you.’ Offer of compensation is taken as positive face of the hearers. The speakers’ face is saved by giving the hearer freedom ‘a bid to carry out an action’ (Cohen and Olshtain, 1994, p. 144). This strategy was also used by the Libyan Arab female students of English language in Sebha community when repairs were available. For example, it was used ‘between sisters’ situation when the offender damaged her sister’s homework papers; ‘Ok go and study your exams and I will dry them and I will rewrite the homework for you. Is it a writing homework?’ In this data under discussion, with stranger, classmate, and younger sister, who have different social distance and status, offer of repair was used by the interlocutors as a strategy of apologizing. Similar strategies were also observed among the modern Tunisians and Sudanese (Alfattah 2010, and Nureddeen 2008) who often avoid the use of face damaging strategy. Promise of forbearance is ‘directed to the addressees’ positive face, his perennial desire that his/her wants should be thought of as desirable.’ (Brown and Levinson, 1978, p. 101). This positive politeness strategy is intended to ensure that the offence or damage would not occur in future. Likewise Bataineh and Bataineh (2005) reported that their participants also used this strategy. On the other hand, in the same study of Bataineh and Bataineh (2005), Jordanian females avoided discussing the offense, unlike the Libyan females did. This mechanism was used in the present study where people of high social distance




(teachers) and with equal status (classmates) were noted. In the two situations with teachers, when students apologized, they showed remorse for coming late by uttering a promise. For instance; ’Ok lecturer, I won’t do it again. I promise.’ Another positive strategy is expressing concern for the hearer by ‘giving sympathy’ (Brown and Levinson, 1978, p. 75). This strategy has been used with strangers whose low social distance and the damage was physical.(Ogiermann, 2006). For example, it was noted in the present data when the interlocutor said: ‘I hope that nothing bad has happened to your phone’ This example shows concern for the hearer. Egyptians were reported of using the same strategy but with different expression for example interjections ‘oh,’ as reported by Soliman (2003). Reflecting upon the analysis and results, various insights into cultural values and social scales of Libyan Arab female students of English language in Sebha community of Libya are revealed. The analysis of the data has answered the research questions that the researcher aiming to investigate. 1. The patterns which are used by Libyan Arab female students of English language in Sebha community are illustrated in the table. 2. The current work also investigated the universality of positive and negative politeness strategies that to what extent these strategies are different from one culture to culture Maha (2014). Negative politeness strategies were the most preferred rather than positive strategies in this Libyan context of the female English language students. 3. The implications of using negative politeness strategies is that these


strategies by Libyan Arab female students of English language in Sebha society are individual oriented like the western societies. IFIDs strategy is one of the strategies which prove individualism. 4. From the data discussed, it is concluded that Libyan Arab female undergraduates of English language in Sebha community are unlike other Arab culture communities who favor positive politeness to negative politeness. This is a unique finding of this research. 5. Conclusion: The new era of shifting focus from linguistic competence to cultural and crosscultural studies has resulted in the growth of studies on speech acts in general and investigating performing different conversional acts politely in particular. Initiated to bridge the gap of lack of research on politeness orientation in Libyan community, this study aimed to investigate the realization patterns of apology and to seek if they are positive or negative politeness strategies as suggested by Brown and Levinson. The findings of this study suggest that direct apology and explanation of circumstances are the most preferred to express apology. Also, negative politeness strategies are used rather than positive politeness. And fewer uses of hedge devices to minimize the damage or offence etc. were the most used realization forms. Moreover, the Libyan Arab female EFL community seems to prefer individualism. Findings also go in line with the universality of politeness principle argued by Brown and Levinson. The limitations of the study include- use of only two strategies from Brown and Levinson’s model for discussion, the selection of only ten samples of naturally occurring data, focus on southern urban region for sampling etc. which imply further in depth research for gaining more




generalized findings about the strategies employed by Libyan Arab female EFL community. However, this research can be the guiding force in this direction to initiate and generate more studies investigating various aspects on the topic researched and discussed in this paper. References:

Archer, D., Aijmer, K., & Wichmann, A. (2012). Pragmatics: An advanced resource book for students. Al-Issa, A. S. (1998). Sociopragmatic transfer in the performance of refusals by Jordanian EFL learners: Evidence and motivating factors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(02), 467A. (UMI No. 9823511). Alfattah, Mohammed, 2010. Apology strategies of Yemeni EFL university students. MJAL 2 (3), 223–249. Al-Adaileh, B.A.M. (2007). The speech act of apology: a linguistic exploration of politeness orientation in British and Jordanian culture. University of Leeds. Abdullah, A., Banikalef1, A. & Maros, M. , (2013) Social Beliefs for the Realization of the Speech Acts of Apology among Jordanian EFL Graduate Students School of Linguistics and Language Studies (SOLLS), Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia. English Linguistics Research Vol. 2, No. 1; 2013 Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Atawneh, A. M. A.. (1991). Politeness theory and the directive speech-act in Arabic-English bilinguals: An empirical study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(02) 479A.


Bataineh, Ruba Fahmi, Bataineh, Rula Fahmi, 2008. A cross-cultural comparison of apologies by native speakers of American English and Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 792–821. Bataineh, R. & R. Bataineh. (2005). ‘Apology Strategies of Jordanian EFL University Students.’ Journal of Pragmatics 38 (11): 19011927.Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some language universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bonikowska, Malgorzata P. 1988. The choice of opting out. Applied Linguistics 9:169-181. Cohen, A. D. and E. Olshtain. 1981. 'Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: the case of apology'. Language Learning: 31:1. Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and discourse. NY: Author. Elarbi, N. (1997). Face and politeness in traditional and modern Tunisia: An




application of Brown and Levinson's politeness theory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (07), 2460A. ( UMI No. 9802865) El-Shafey, F. (1990). Politeness strategies in spoken British English and spoken Egyptian Arabic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cairo University. Emery, P. (2000). Greeting, congratulating and commiserating in Omani Arabic. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13, 196-216. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria (1998) Politeness: a relevant issue for relevance theory. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11, 45-57. Goffman, E., (1971). Relations in Public: Micro-studies of the Public Order. Harmonds worth, Penguin. Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213–231. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. New York: Longman. Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19(2), 155-99. Hussein, Riyad F., Hammouri, Mamoun T., (1998). Strategies of apologies in Jordanian Arabic and American English. Grazer Linguistische Studien 49, 37–51. Liebersohn, Y., Neuman, L., & Bekerman, Z. (2004). Oh baby, it's hard for me to say I’m sorry: Public apologetic speech and cultural rhetorical resource. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 921-944. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Lakoff, R. (1972). Language in Context. Language, 48, 907-927. Locher, M. (2006). Polite behaviour within relational work: The discursive


approach to politeness. Multilingua, 25, 249-267. Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nureddeen, F. (2008). Cross cultural pragmatics: Apology strategies in Sudanese Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 279–306. Ogiermann, E. (Ed.). (2006). Cultural variability within Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory: English, Polish and Russian apologies. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela Publicacións. Olshtain, E., 1989. Apologies across languages. In: Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (Eds.), CrossCultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, Advances in Discourse Processes, vol. 31. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 155–173. Olshtain, Elite, and Andrew. D. Cohen, 1983. Apology. A Speech Act Set: Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, ed. by Nessa. Wolfson and Eliot Judd, 18-36. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Rose, Kenneth. R. (1994). On the validity of Discourse Completion Tests in nonwestern contexts. Applied Linguistics 15:1-14. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Soliman, Abdelmeneim, (2003). Apology in American English and Egyptian Arabic. In: Paper Presented at TESOL 3rd Annual Graduate Student Forum, Baltimore, MD. Trosborg, Anna. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics 11:147-167.




Watts,

Richard J., (2005). Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behavior: reconsidering claims for universality. In:Watts, Richard J., Ide, Sachiko, Ehlich, Konrad (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 43– 69. Wolfson, N. (Ed.). (1983). An emprirically based analysis of complimenting in American English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Young, Robert W.,


1972. Language in culture. In: Abrahams, Roger D., Troike, Rudolph C. (Eds.), Language and Cultural Diversity in American Education. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 101–104. Yu, M. (2003). On the universality of face: evidence from Chinese compliment response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1679–1710.

