Social Status

Another contextual factor concerned to influence apology strategy selection and preference is interlocutor’s relative social status. Table 16 lists the occurrence number and percentage frequency of each apology strategy used by NS-E, EFL-H, EFL-L, and NS-C and Table 17 lists the occurrence frequency means of each apology strategy used by the four groups. These two tables demonstrate that as they behave under other contextual factors elaborated above, NS-E, EFL-H, EFL-L and NS-C have very similar patterns of apology strategy use in terms of social status; in addition, these two tables also reveal that social status is very influential in apology strategy selection. The influences of social status on each apology strategy use are elaborated respectively as follows.

First, the strategy of opting out is used most to ＋status interlocutors by the groups of NS-E, EFL-H, and NS-C, a finding which confirms Bonikowska’s (1988) observation that the highest number of opting out responses occurs in +Power situations, while this strategy is used most to －status interlocutors by EFL-L learners. And in every group, this strategy is used least to ＝status interlocutors; it is even used by none of the EFL learners in their apologies to

＝status interlocutors (also see Figure 22).

Figure 22 Means of occurrence frequency of “opting out” used by the four groups in relation to social status

Table 16 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 status

Groups

Table 17 Means of occurrence frequency of apology strategies used by NS-E, EFL-H, EFL-L, and

＋ .1250*** .15609 (.000)(.000) .0917*** .12253 (.001) .0500*** .10171 (.000) .1292*** .14181 (.000)(.000)

＝ ^{.0042*** .03227 (.000) .0000*** .00000 (.001) .0000*** .00000} (.000) .0042*** .03227 (.000)

) .26055 (.001)(.026) .3667* .20483 (.022)(.030) .4250** .27347 (.002)

Str. 3 10.847 5.531 3.937 19.797

(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.

Secondly, strategies of apologies are also found to be very sensitive to interlocutors’

relative social status. The evasive strategy and acknowledging responsibility strategy are both used significantly most to ＋status interlocutors and least to －status interlocutors (also see Figure 23 and Figure 24). On the other hand, explanations or accounts are given most to equals and least to －status interlocutors (also see Figure 25). And though direct expression of apology is not as sensitive as the other three strategies of apologies to interlocutors’ social status, there is still a tendency that this strategy is used more to －status interlocutors and equals but less to ＋status interlocutors.

0

Figure 23 Means of occurrence frequency of “evasive strategy”

used by the four groups in relation to social status

0

Figure 24 Means of occurrence frequency of “acknowledging responsibility” used by the four groups in relation to social status

0

Figure 25 Means of occurrence frequency of “providing explanation or account” used by the four groups in relation to social status

Finally, as far as apology strategies of offering remedial support are concerned, it is found that specific strategy tends to be used to interlocutors with specific status. The strategy of expressing concern is used most to －status interlocutors. Conversely, the strategy of offering promise of forbearance is used most to ＋status interlocutors, and it is not used by any group in their apologies to －status interlocutors. Something worth noting is that, as mentioned before, the occurrence frequency of providing promise of forbearance is so small that its distribution result may be due to pure chance. And as far as the strategy of offering repair or compensation is concerned, it is found to be used most to equals by all the four groups.

Table 18 lists the apology strategy preference order by the four groups in relation to social status, and some important findings are revealed from this table. For one thing, NS-E, EFL-H, EFL-L, and NS-C are found to have very similar apology strategy preference order in relation to interlocutor’s relative social status. Another is that to people with equal status, opting out is the last strategy the four groups choose to use in apologizing. The other is that among all situations concerned with different contextual factors, NS-E apologizing to ＋status interlocutors is the only case that acknowledging responsibility is used more than the most pervading apology strategy—giving direct expression of apology.

Table 18 Apology strategy preference order of NS-E, EFL-H, EFL-L, and NS-C in relation to social status

High status N % Equal status N % Low status N %

NS-E NS-E NS-E

1 Acknowledge responsibility 212 32.3 1 Direct expression of apology 215 33.2 1 Direct expression of apology 206 38.5 2 Direct expression of apology 197 30 2 Acknowledge responsibility 181 27.9 2 Acknowledge responsibility 133 24.9 3 Offer repair/compensation 128 19.5 3 Offer repair/compensation 140 21.6 3 Offer repair/compensation 110 20.6 4 Provide explanation/account 33 5 4 Provide explanation/account 67 10.3 4 Express concern 38 7.1 5 Opt out 30 4.6 5 Evasive strategy 21 3.2 5 Provide explanation/account 32 6 6 Evasive strategies 29 4.4 6 Express concern 20 3.1 6 Opt out 11 2.1 7 Express concern 20 3 7 Promise of forbearance 3 0.5 7 Evasive strategies 5 0.9 8 Promise of forbearance 8 1.2 8 Opt out 1 0.2 8 Promise of forbearance 0 0

EFL-H 657 100 EFL-H 648 100 EFL-H 535 100

1 Direct expression of apology 98 33 1 Direct expression of apology 115 39 1 Direct expression of apology 103 43.6 2 Acknowledge responsibility 87 29.3 2 Acknowledge responsibility 74 25.1 2 Offer repair/compensation 58 24.6 3 Offer repair/compensation 45 15.2 3 Offer repair/compensation 71 24.1 3 Acknowledge responsibility 45 19.1 4 Evasive strategy 19 6.4 4 Provide explanation/account 16 5.4 4 Express concern 22 9.3 5 Express concern 13 4.4 5 Express concern 13 4.4 5 Opt out 5 2.1 6 Provide explanation/account 12 4 6 Evasive strategy 5 1.7 6 Evasive strategy 2 0.8 7 Promise of forbearance 12 4 7 Promise of forbearance 1 0.3 7 Provide explanation/account 1 0.4 8 Opt out 11 3.7 8 Opt out 0 0 8 Promise of forbearance 0 0

EFL-L 297 100 EFL-L 295 100 EFL-L 236 100

1 Direct expression of apology 96 36.4 1 Direct expression of apology 119 45.6 1 Direct expression of apology 115 49.8 2 Acknowledge responsibility 67 25.4 2 Acknowledge responsibility 66 25.3 2 Offer repair/compensation 47 20.3 3 Offer repair/compensation 43 16.3 3 Offer repair/compensation 48 18.4 3 Acknowledge responsibility 44 19 4 Opt out 15 5.7 4 Provide explanation/account 14 5.4 4 Express concern 21 9.1

Promise of forbearance 15 5.7 5 Express concern 9 3.4 5 Provide explanation/account 3 1.3 6 Provide explanation/account 10 3.8 6 Evasive strategy 3 1.1 6 Opt out 1 0.4 7 Evasive strategy 9 3.4 7 Promise of forbearance 2 0.8 7 Evasive strategy 0 0

Express concern 9 3.4 8 Opt out 0 0 Promise of forbearance 0 0

NS-C 264 100 NS-C 261 100 NS-C 231 100

1 Direct expression of apology 188 33.9 1 Direct expression of apology 209 37.3 1 Direct expression of apology 212 42.3 2 Acknowledge responsibility 151 27.3 2 Offer repair/compensation 136 24.2 2 Offer repair/compensation 124 24.8 3 Offer repair/compensation 84 15.2 3 Acknowledge responsibility 124 22.1 3 Acknowledge responsibility 102 20.4 4 Opt out 31 5.6 4 Provide explanation/account 48 8.6 4 Express concern 44 8.8 5 Promise of forbearance 29 5.2 5 Express concern 25 4.5 5 Opt out 7 1.4 6 Provide explanation/account 27 4.9 6 Evasive strategy 13 2.3 Provide explanation/account 7 1.4

7 Express concern 26 4.7 7 Promise of forbearance 5 0.9 7 Evasive strategy 5 1 8 Evasive strategy 18 3.2 8 Opt out 1 0.2 8 Promise of forbearance 0 0

554 100 561 100 501 100