Social Distance

With respect to the effects of contextual factors on apology strategy selection, the contextual factor concerned in this section is the social distance between the speaker and the interlocutor.

Table 19 lists the occurrence number and percentage frequency of each apology strategy used by NS-E, EFL-H, EFL-L, and NS-C in relation to social distance, and Table 20 lists the occurrence frequency means of each apology strategy used by the four groups. And from these two tables, it is found that the four groups share a lot of similarities in their apology strategy selection in relation to social distance, the same as cases under other contextual factors. The effects of social distance on the distribution of apology strategies are elaborated as follows.

Table 19 Occurrence number and percentage frequency of apology strategies used by NS-E, EFL (EFL-H and EFL-L), and NS-C in relation to social distance

Groups

Table 20 Means of occurrence frequency of apology strategies used by NS-E, EFL-H, EFL-L, and

－ .1542** .24826 (.005) .2250*** .23988 (.000)(.000) .1833*** .25371 (.000)(.001) .2375*** .23209 (.000)(.000)

Str. 2 31.495 5.907 13.146 10.731

(Mean: number of occurrences/ number of situations under contextual factors concerned) *. The mean difference is significant when it is compared to NS-E group at the levels of: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

As far as the opting out strategy is concerned, this strategy is found to be used noticeably most to very close friends, a finding opposite to Bonikowska’s observation that the highest number of opting out responses occurs in +Distance situations (Bonikowska, 1988).

Furthermore, this strategy is found to be used much less least to acquaintances, even without any occurrence in apologies of EFL to acquaintances (also see Figure 26).

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

NS-E EFL-H EFL-L NS-C

groups

means of occurrence frequency

stranger acquaintance close friend

Figure 26 Means of occurrence frequency of “opting out” used by the four groups in relation to social distance

Social distance also plays a decisive role in the use of strategies of apologies and the four groups are found to have very similar patterns of apology strategy selection in relation to this contextual factor. The evasive strategy is used significantly most to close friends and least to strangers (also see Figure 27). On the other hand, all the other three strategies of apologies are used most to acquaintances, with the only exception that EFL-L learners use the strategy of providing explanation or account most to strangers (also see Figure 28, Figure 29, and Figure 30). This finding that these three apology strategies are used most to acquaintances and the finding that opting out is used least to acquaintances both confirm Wolfson’s (1989) bulge hypothesis, according to which less apology strategies are used in interaction between very low and very high distance participants, whereas the most apology strategies are used in

0

Figure 27 Means of occurrence frequency of “evasive strategy”

used by the four groups in relation to social distance

0

Figure 28 Means of occurrence frequency of “acknowledging responsibility” used by the four groups in relation to social distance

0

Figure 29 Means of occurrence frequency of “providing explanation or account” used by the four groups in relation to social distance

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

NS-E EFL-H EFL-L NS-C

groups

means of occurrence frequency

stranger acquaintance close friend

Figure 30 Means of occurrence frequency of “direct expression of apology” used by the four groups in relation to social distance

Finally, as far as strategies of offering remedial support are concerned, the strategy of expressing concern is used much more to strangers than to acquaintances or close friends. And both offering promise of forbearance and offering repair or compensation tend to be used most to acquaintances. But just as what I mentioned before, occurrence frequency of the strategy of providing promise of forbearance is so small that its distribution may be due to pure chance.

Table 21 lists the apology strategy preference order by the four groups in relation to social distance, and NS-E, EFL-H, EFL-L, and NS-C are found to, just as how they behave under other contextual factors, have almost identical preference order about their apology strategy use in terms of social distance.

Table 21 Apology strategy preference order of NS-E, EFL-H, EFL-L, and NS-C in relation to social distance

Stranger N % Acquaintance N % Close friend N %

NS-E NS-E NS-E

1 Direct expression of apology 212 42.9 1 Direct expression of apology 215 33.2 1 Direct expression of apology 183 32.5 2 Offer repair/compensation 110 22.3 2 Acknowledge responsibility 181 27.9 2 Offer repair/compensation 119 21.1 3 Acknowledge responsibility 63 12.8 3 Offer repair/compensation 140 21.6 3 Acknowledge responsibility 100 17.8 4 Express concern 53 10.7 4 Provide explanation/account 67 10.3 4 Opt out 96 17.1 5 Provide explanation/account 34 6.9 5 Evasive strategy 21 3.2 5 Evasive strategy 37 6.6

6 Evasive strategy 11 2.2 6 Express concern 20 3.1 6 Provide explanation/account 17 3 7 Opt out 10 2 7 Promise of forbearance 3 0.5 7 Express concern 11 2

8 Promise of forbearance 1 0.2 8 Opt out 1 0.2 8 Promise of forbearance 0 0

EFL-H 494 100 EFL-H 648 100 EFL-H 563 100

1 Direct expression of apology 105 43.2 1 Direct expression of apology 115 39 1 Direct expression of apology 92 34.8 2 Offer repair/compensation 44 18.1 2 Acknowledge responsibility 74 25.1 2 Acknowledge responsibility 47 17.8 3 Acknowledge responsibility 39 16 3 Offer repair/compensation 71 24.1 3 Offer repair/compensation 41 15.5 4 Express concern 28 11.5 4 Provide explanation/account 16 5.4 4 Opt out 32 12.1 5 Provide explanation/account 16 6.6 5 Express concern 13 4.4 5 Evasive strategy 27 10.2 6 Opt out 7 2.9 6 Evasive strategy 5 1.7 6 Express concern 13 4.9 7 Evasive strategy 4 1.6 7 Promise of forbearance 1 0.3 7 Provide explanation/account 10 3.8 8 Promise of forbearance 0 0 8 Opt out 0 0 8 Promise of forbearance 2 0.8

EFL-L 243 100 EFL-L 295 100 EFL-L 264 100

1 Direct expression of apology 103 46.4 1 Direct expression of apology 119 45.6 1 Direct expression of apology 83 36.1 2 Offer repair/compensation 43 19.4 2 Acknowledge responsibility 66 25.3 2 Offer repair/compensation 43 18.7 3 Acknowledge responsibility 25 11.3 3 Offer repair/compensation 48 18.4 3 Acknowledge responsibility 34 14.8 Express concern 25 11.6 4 Provide explanation/account 14 5.4 4 Opt out 27 11.7 5 Provide explanation/account 19 8.6 5 Express concern 9 3.4 5 Evasive strategy 22 9.6 6 Opt out 6 2.7 6 Evasive strategy 3 1.1 6 Provide explanation/account 11 4.8 7 Evasive strategy 1 0.5 7 Promise of forbearance 2 0.8 7 Express concern 10 4.3 8 Promise of forbearance 0 0 8 Opt out 0 0 8 Promise of forbearance 0 0

NS-C 222 100 NS-C 261 100 NS-C 230 100

1 Direct expression of apology 209 44.5 1 Direct expression of apology 209 37.3 1 Direct expression of apology 145 27.7 2 Offer repair/compensation 91 19.4 2 Offer repair/compensation 136 24.2 2 Acknowledge responsibility 105 20.1 3 Acknowledge responsibility 60 12.8 3 Acknowledge responsibility 124 22.1 3 Offer repair/compensation 92 17.6 4 Express concern 46 9.8 4 Provide explanation/account 48 8.6 4 Opt out 76 14.5 5 Provide explanation/account 36 7.7 5 Express concern 25 4.5 5 Evasive strategy 57 10.9 6 Opt out 16 3.4 6 Evasive strategy 13 2.3 6 Express concern 28 5.4 7 Evasive strategy 12 2.6 7 Promise of forbearance 5 0.9 7 Provide explanation/account 20 3.8 8 Promise of forbearance 0 0 8 Opt out 1 0.2 8 Promise of forbearance 0 0

470 100 561 100 523 100