the language of apologizing in lombok, indonesia

The language of apologizing in Lombok, Indonesia

Fay Wouk

Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics, University of Auckland,

Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

Received 22 December 2003; received in revised form 31 August 2005; accepted 13 September 2005

Abstract

This paper examines the speech act of apologizing in Lombok, Indonesia, based on discourse completion

task (DCT) data. In particular, it looks at the type of apology term used, and at the types of upgrading used, in

different situations. Comparisons are made with published results of choice of apology term and use of

upgrading in other cultures. Some findings include: Lombok Indonesians are shown to prefer requests for

forgiveness, and not to use other apology terms. Use of upgrading varies both with nature of offense and with

nature of relationship, but little difference is seen between genders. Where difference does occur, males

proved more likely than females to use solidarity oriented upgrading. Patterns in the use of upgrading

sometimes paralleled those found in other studies: deference strategies were used with higher status

addressees, while solidarity strategies were used with social intimates. However, often usage reflected

particular conventions of Lombok Indonesian society, and could not be explained in terms of the same

factors as had proved relevant in other studies.

# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cross-cultural pragmatics; Apology; Indonesia; Lombok; Discourse Completion Task (DCT); CCSARP

1. Introduction

An apology is a remedial action (Goffman, 1971), an act of verbal redress, used when social

norms have been violated by a real or potential offense (Olshtain and Cohen, 1983:20). Apologies

are face-threatening acts (Brown and Levinson, 1987); performing an apology requires the

speaker to admit to having done wrong, thus undermining the speaker’s face. If a speaker fails to

perform an apology when an infraction has occurred, this threatens the recipient’s face.

As all human beings live in social groups which requires the maintenance of a certain amount

of harmony, apologies should be found in all societies, and we would expect universals in terms

of how apologies are performed. However, as apologizing is a social act, and human societies

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 1457–1486

E-mail address: [email protected].

0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.011

vary greatly in their social organization, we should also expect variation in why, when, and how

this social act is carried out. Previous studies of apologies have provided ample evidence of both

the universal and the particular. There seems to be a basic set of strategies (also called semantic

formulae) which are used, singly or in combination, to accomplish an apology. Olshtain and

Cohen (1983) proposed that these were: use of an apology term, taking on responsibility, giving

an explanation or account, making an offer of repair, promising forbearance, and expressing

concern for the recipient. Most studies have found these adequate to describe their data,

although occasionally additional categories are added. Olshtain (1989) later found that ‘‘at a

global level of analysis, we can identify universal manifestations of strategy selection’’

(Olshtain, 1989:171). However, most studies have found cross-cultural differences in the

relative frequencies of different strategies (Meier, 1996; Garcia, 1989; Lipson, 1994; Kumagai,

1993; Ang-Abbey, 1991): others have shown interesting variation in the details of the language

used (Vollmer and Olsthain, 1989; Cordella, 1990, 1991; Suszczynska, 1999; House, 1988). It

appears that cultures can differ in terms of when apology is appropriate; the types of strategies or

semantic formulas used to accomplish apology in a given situation; the type of apology term

used; whether an apology is minimized or intensified; and the ways an apology is strengthened,

or upgraded.

To date, relatively few studies have looked at Asian societies (Ang-Abbey, 1991 focuses on

Hokkien Chinese, Kumagai, 1993 on Japanese, and Bergman and Kasper, 1993 on Thai), and

none at Indonesian. The goal of this study then, is to add data from one more group to the growing

literature on the practice of apologizing, focusing in particular on the type of apology term used

and the use of upgrading.

2. Prior studies

Investigation of apologies began in the early 80s. Owen (1983) looked at apologies from a

Goffmanian perspective, as a type of ritual action, specifically a type of remedial interchange. A

different type of approach, where an apology was defined as a ‘speech-act set’ of strategies,

based on the work of Fraser (1981), was developed by Cohen and Olshtain (1981), Olshtain and

Cohen (1983), and Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), as part of the CCSARP (Cross-Cultural

Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns) project. Much work has been done within this model,

focusing most often on cross-cultural similarities and differences in choice of strategy. Other

scholars, not working specifically within the CCSARP model, have done similar types of

studies, again mainly focusing on the strategies chosen. Some studies of both types have also

considered the choice of apology term and the use of upgrading. In the CCSARP model, there are

three possibilities for apology terms, or IFIDs (illocutionary force indicating devices) in the

terminology of speech act theory1: an expression of regret, an offer of apology, and a request for

forgiveness.

Data for studies of cross-cultural pragmatics are most often based on either a role-play task or

a ‘discourse completion task’ (DCT), a form of questionnaire in which situations are described

and respondents are asked what they would say in those situations. Occasionally, data from

television dramas have been used (Lipson, 1994; Kumagai, 1993). Analysis of naturally

occurring interactional data would be preferable, but the difficulties involved in collecting

F. Wouk / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 1457–14861458

1 The abbreviation IFID was proposed by Levinson (1983:238), and is widely used in the CCSARP literature, and in

other studies of the cross-cultural pragmatics of apologizing.

sufficient comparable instances for meaningful comparison make studies based on ethnographic

data the minority (Holmes, 1989; Bean and Johnstone, 1994; Aijmer, 1995; Obeng, 1999). Such

studies are usually either restricted in the types of infractions that are involved or consist of only a

small number of cases.

Within the CCSARP model, data are collected by means of a discourse completion task

containing six situations varying in the nature of the relationship between the speaker and

recipient, and a seventh with three variants which differ in severity. Meier (1996) made use of a

technique she terms ‘closed role play’, but which might better be described as an oral discourse

completion task, since the data were not interactive. She did not work within the CCSARP

model, and thus used a somewhat different terminology, and a wide variety of situations, not all

of which are fully comparable to the ones used in the CCSARP model. She discusses the use of

different apology terms, which she calls routine formulae, and their intensification, by speakers

of Austrian German. Suszczynska (1999) uses the CCSARP model and a discourse completion

task to compare American, Polish, and Hungarian speakers, and provides information on both

the choice of apology term in a variety of situations from the CCSARP model and on the use of

intensification with apology terms in a single situation, that of bumping into a woman in a

supermarket. Her work differs slightly from the CCSARP model in that she adds a fourth type

of IFID, which could be described as forestalling anger, and is most frequently expressed as

‘Don’t be angry’. The significance of adding this category of apology term will be addressed

below.

House (1988), as part of a CCSARP study, provides information about the use of apology

terms and intensification in a variety of situations for speakers of German and British English.

Cordella (1990, 1991) discusses the use of apology terms, and the intensification of both

apology terms and explanations among speakers of Australian English and Chilean Spanish,

using interactive role play data from a single situation, namely apologizing to a boss for being

late for a meeting. In analyzing apology terms, she is concerned not with the three basic types

used in CCSARP, but rather with the four different lexical expressions in Spanish that fall into

these three categories. These are sentir (regret), disculpar (transitive: forgive; reflexive:

apologize), excusar (excuse), and perdonar (pardon). She also makes a further distinction,

between speaker-oriented (SO) and hearer-oriented (HO) expressions of apology. This

distinction cross-cuts the CCSARP distinction between offers of apology, expressions of

regret, and requests for forgiveness; it also does not relate directly to the lexical expression

used, but rather focuses on the construction it is found in. SO expressions are ‘‘those in which

the speaker is the agent-experiencer of the apology’’ (Cordella, 1990:72), and include

expressions of regret and those with the verb dar (give), followed by a nominal form of

disculpar or excusar. HO expressions are ‘‘those in which the S explicitly and directly asks the

H’s participation in the act of apologizing’’ (Cordella, 1990:72) and include imperatives and

requests with disculpar, excusar, and perdonar. Trosborg (1995) used interactive role play to

investigate the behavior of British English and Danish speakers. She did not use CCSARP

situations, and developed her own coding system, which she relates to the CCSARP system,

but which is more detailed. In particular, she provides a very detailed outline of techniques for

both upgrading, or intensifying, an apology and for downplaying the severity of the offense,

both of which activities she terms ‘internal modification’. Kumagai (1993) looked at

apologizing in Japanese television dramas and American films. She analyzed these interactions

using CCSARP categories, but expanded the range of strategies to include a number of act

types not covered in them. Some of the strategies she identifies are forms of upgrading, as

identified by Trosborg.

F. Wouk / Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 1457–1486 1459

Details of the findings in the above-mentioned studies, where relevant to the discussion of

Indonesian apologies, will be presented below.

3. Methodology

This study utilizes data from a discourse completion task. DCT data has been widely used in

the field of cross-cultural pragmatics; significant cross-cultural variation has been found, and

significant generalizations have been made based on it. The value of such data is generally

recognized, particularly for the purpose of developing ‘‘an initial classification of semantic

formulas and strategies that will occur in natural speech’’ (Beebe, 1985:10, cited in Wolfson

et al., 1989). Some of the main advantages of DCT data are that, due to the controlled nature of

the study, cross-situation and cross-linguistic comparability is high; that it is possible to collect

and process the data quickly; and that large numbers of respondents can be surveyed more easily

than in role playing, thus making statistical analysis more feasible. There are, however, also many

disadvantages to using this type of data. It is not natural speech; in fact it is not speech at all, and

is not produced interactively. It is more accurately described as a record of what people think they

would say, or perhaps what they want the researcher to think they would say, rather than a record

of real behavior. The results it provides are stereotypical, rather than actual, and the responses

generally shorter (both in terms of less turns and of shorter turns) than natural speech

(Beebe, 1985:11, cited in Wolfson et al., 1989; Eisenstein and Bodman, 1993). In spite of its

disadvantages, I believe that the DCT can be a useful tool for providing a preliminary look at

cultural preferences in the performance of apologies, such as the present study aims to do,

although clearly further work with higher quality ethnographic data will be required to obtain a

fuller picture.

The test used here consisted of six situations (see Appendix A), which varied according to the

relationship of the recipient in terms of social distance (close, intermediate, distant) and status (as

determined by age and social position). The addressees were: two family members, older and

younger siblings; two strangers, same-aged and older; and two acquaintances, a friend and a boss.

After each situation, respondents had the option of completing one of two utterances, either

‘I would say nothing because . . .’ or ‘I would say. . .’. They were also asked to evaluate the

severity of the offense on a scale from one to five.

The situations were designed in consultation with staff members of the Center for

Research on Language and Culture at the University of Mataram (on the island of Lombok)

to be culturally appropriate, familiar to the university students who would be the respondents,

and seen by the respondents as requiring an apology. The success of the design is borne out

by the fact that in four of the six situations, only a handful of respondents chose not to say

anything. In the other two situations, a somewhat larger number chose to opt out; still the

majority chose to give an apology. Moreover, the reasons given for opting out in those two

situations did not indicate that an apology was inappropriate in that situation. In one situation

(situation C—passing a book with the left hand), 14 respondents opted out, for a variety of

reasons, the most common being that the offended party would understand and forgive

without an apology. In the other situation with a high degree of opting out, (situation

D—kicking a ruler to an older sibling instead of handing it to them), 25 respondents opted

out, and the majority of them did so because they felt too much at fault and too ashamed to

say anything. The situations were also designed to be approximately equal in severity. The

success of this design is evidenced in the results, where five of the situations were evaluated


as being moderate in severity, while only one (situation B—missing a friend’s party) was

evaluated as light to moderate.2

The study was carried out in the city of Mataram, on the island of Lombok, in 1996. Lombok is

one of the Lesser Sunda Islands, directly to the east of Bali, and to the west of Sumbawa. The

survey was administered by four students from the Center for Research on Language and Culture

at the University of Mataram. Over a period of several weeks, they approached individuals and

small groups of their acquaintances, distributed the surveys, and provided additional verbal

instructions on how to do the survey, emphasizing that the information required was in the form

of a direct quotation, not reported speech. One hundred and five respondents completed the test,

60 male, 44 female, and one unspecified. Almost all of them did indeed provide direct quotes,

although occasionally a response to a particular situation by a particular speaker had to be

discarded as it was given in reported speech, and one female’s results had to be excluded for the

same reason.

The age range of respondents was from 15 to 50, but the majority (87) were between 17 and 25

years old. There was one 15-year-old, one 16-year-old, 10 in their late 20s, three in their 30s, and

one 50-year-old. Since demographic information was collected only about age, gender, ethnic

affiliation, and language background, it is impossible to say anything more about the

respondents’ background. However, the surveys were distributed by university students within

their own social networks, so it may safely be assumed that most of the respondents were other

students, while, some will have been friends and family members. In particular, the one 15-year-

old, one 16-year-old, and one 50-year-old were probably family members. Like most of the

population of Mataram (with the exception of some older members of the lowest social class), all

respondents were fluent in Indonesian, and most (82%) also spoke one or more regional

languages. Half the respondents were from the Sasak ethnic group, native to Lombok. There were

also a sizable number of respondents from the Bima ethnic group of eastern Sumbawa (19%), and

quite a few who did not specify ethnicity, identifying themselves as Indonesians (14%).3 There

were also smaller numbers of Balinese and of the Sumbawan ethnic group of western Sumbawa,

two Javanese, one from Manggarai in eastern Indonesia, and one unspecified. Indonesians

believe that, while all Indonesians are ramah (friendly), and Westerners are sombong (arrogant),

Javanese in particular are halus (refined) while people from the other islands range along a

continuum from being considered only slightly less halus than Javanese through those who are

seen as somewhat kasar (coarse) or even as extremely kasar. It should be noted that Westerners

are not seen to fit anywhere on this scale. Thus, from an Indonesian perspective, this study is

mainly looking at the behavior of a group that, according to Indonesian cultural stereotypes,

would not be expected to exhibit a high degree of politeness by Indonesian standards, but would

be more polite than non-Indonesians, particularly than Westerners.

The questionnaire was written in Indonesian, but respondents were invited to use their

regional language if they preferred. None did. This is not surprising, given the age of most of the

respondents, and the high degree of bilingualism and even incipient language shift that is taking

place in Indonesia. This phenomenon has been documented for Sasak speakers (Syahdan, 1996),


2 Severity of offense was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 being light and 5 being severe. Situation B had

an average score of 1.92, while all the other situations had average scores ranging from 2.24 (situation A) to 2.67

(situation D). B’s score was significantly different from the others. A’s score was also significantly different from C, D and

F, and minimally different from E (x2 = 0.33). All other differences were non-significant.3 These were most likely either of mixed ethnicity, or non-Sasak in origin but born and raised in Lombok, so that they

did not feel a strong identification with their ethnic group.

many of whom are Indonesian-dominant. It is also possible that the language of the questionnaire

influenced the choice of language for response. This is unfortunate, but a questionnaire that will

be administered to speakers of a variety of languages must necessarily be in the language that

they all hold in common.

The data was coded for types of reasons given for not responding, adapted from categories

used by Bonikowska (1988) for complaint situations; for strategies used, based on both the

CCSARP (Cohen and Olshtain, 1981; Olshtain and Cohen, 1983) and Trosborg’s (1995)

categories; for orientation of the IFID, using a system adapted from Cordella (1990, 1991); and

for types of intensification used, based on Trosborg’s (1995) categories. All of the data was

coded by myself, and by an Indonesian research assistant of Javanese ethnicity. Inter-rater

reliability was high, and all cases of disagreement were discussed and a joint decision made as to

the correct coding. Results were compared between male and female speakers in each situation,

and across situations, utilizing x2 to determine statistical significance. There were very few

significant differences between male and female responses, so for the most part my discussion

will focus on combined results. Gender-based differences will be discussed where relevant.

4. Apology terms

The literature on cross-cultural apologies suggests that three types of expressions can be used to

carry out a direct apology: expression of regret, expression of apology, and request for forgiveness.

It has been suggested (Suszczynska, 1999) that expressions of regret are the weakest form of

apology. Suszczynska (1999) proposes a fourth type (‘Don’t be angry’), which is not considered a

direct apology in other studies, but seems to be the preferred form in Hungarian, and is used

occasionally in Polish as well. In most other studies, either this option is not mentioned, or it is

considered to be some sort of supporting move, not a part of the apology proper. Eslami-Rasekh

(2004) notes a different fourth type in Farsi, an expression of shame. Again, in most studies this

would not be classified as an apology, but rather as a sub-type of the strategy of taking on

responsibility. In addition, each expression can be classified as speaker-oriented or hearer-oriented

(Cordella, 1990), depending on whether or not it explicitly requests the recipient’s participation.

4.1. Apology terms in Indonesian: forms and coding

Indonesian shows somewhat less variety in apology terms than most other societies that have

been studied, and lacks a lexical item with the meaning of apology; thus forms comparable to ‘I

apologize’ do not exist. Expressions of regret exist, but are not generally used for apologizing (as

will be borne out by the results presented below). Based on the survey results, and also on my own

experience of living in Indonesia, I do not believe that expressing regret functions adequately as

an apology in most situations. It may be that such formulations are simply too weak in apologetic

force to be deemed sufficient in Indonesian society, so that the routine use of expressions of regret

to apologize never developed. Rather, all Indonesian expressions, with the exception of the

borrowed term sori (English ‘sorry’), are built around either ampun (pardon) or maaf

(forgiveness). Sori does not have the range of meanings of its English counterpart (thus it is never

used to express regret, only apology), and as no related forms meaning ‘regret’ have been

borrowed into Indonesian, there is no particular motivation for its meaning to be extended in this

way. I therefore do not consider sori to be an expression of regret.

Whereas sori only occurs in isolation, as an invariant particle, maaf and ampun can also be

incorporated into verbal constructions. Both maaf and ampun can be used as the direct object of a


verb of asking, usually minta, or in more formal circumstances mohon. Thus, one can say saya

minta/mohon maaf /ampun, meaning ‘I ask forgiveness/pardon’. Both words can also be used as

main verbs. Prescriptively, in Standard Indonesian, each root has two verbal forms, both of which

can be preceded by either the Actor Focus prefix meN- or the Patient Focus prefix di-. One form

uses the suffix -i, and means to forgive a person (mengampuni, memaafi), while the other uses the

suffix -kan, and means to forgive an offense (mengampunkan, memaafkan). However, in

everyday speech this distinction is not observed carefully. Both suffixes may be replaced by the

casual suffix -in, which does not distinguish the nature of the object. Moreover, in everyday

speech, -kan forms are often used with the offender, rather than the offense, as object. In fact, I

have never actually heard anyone say memaafi, although the form is given in dictionaries.

Prefixes are also frequently omitted in casual speech.

Although all of the expressions of apology in Indonesian are requests for forgiveness, and thus

could be considered to explicitly request the recipient’s participation, it is still possible to

distinguish them in terms of orientation. In doing so, I borrow Cordella’s (1990, 1991)

terminology, but apply it somewhat differently. Cordella defined SO forms as those in which the

speaker is the agent/experiencer, and HO forms as those in which the speaker asks for the hearer’s

participation in the act of apologizing (Cordella, 1990:72), but she actually counted as SO only

some of the forms where speaker is agent. Thus, those where the main verb was dar ‘give’, such

as doy disculpas/excusas ‘(I) give apologies/excuses’ were counted as SO. However, if the speaker

was the agent, but the main verb was pedir (ask), it was classified as HO, because the hearer’s

participation is also invoked. This means that utterances like pido disculpas/excusas/perdon’

‘I ask excuses/apologies/forgiveness’ was considered HO. If I had classified Indonesian

apologies according to this coding system, there would have been no SO apologies in the entire

data set. However, it seems reasonable to me, for Indonesian at least, to make a distinction between

an utterance meaning ‘I ask forgiveness’, where the speaker is the agent, and one meaning ‘forgive

me’, where the hearer is, with the latter utterance much more directly involving the recipient.

In my use of the terms, then, SO forms would be the performatives saya minta/mohon/

ucapkan maaf /ampun (I ask/beg/utter forgiveness/pardon), where the speaker is actor, and the

main verb is one of speaking. HO forms would be the imperatives maafkan/ampuni saya (forgive/

pardon me), where the recipient is the actor and the main verb is one of forgiveness. I also

included the category of impersonal, not found in Cordella (1990, 1991). Impersonal forms

would be maaf (forgiveness) with no participants mentioned and no verb employed, and sori. It

could be argued that maaf is a reduced form of saya minta maaf , but the very fact of reduction

removes the overt orientation towards a participant.

4.2. Apology terms in the data

Almost all the apologies involved requests for forgiveness, utilizing maaf as the lexical

base. Expressions of regret are almost never used. There are only four in my database

(Examples 1–4), and two of those are accompanied by a form of maaf (Examples 3 and 4).

These results, which are entirely in according with impressionistic observation, suggest that in

Lombok Indonesian expressions of regret function not as an apology, but only as a supporting

move.

(Example 1) (missed friend’s party)

Bagaimana acaramu kemarin, sayang aku tidak menghadiri=nya

how program yesterday pity I not attend=it


karena aku ada keperluan mendadak.

because I exist necessity sudden

‘How was your party yesterday? It’s too bad I couldn’t attend it because

something came up that I had to do’


Saya turut berbahagia atas keberhasilan=mu

I join:in be:happy over success=your

tapi menyesal saya tidak bisa dating

but regret I not can come

pada saat acara syukuran atas keberhasilan=mu.

at time program thanks over success=your

‘I’m happy for your success, too. I’m just sorry I couldn’t come to the

thanksgiving ceremony’

(Example 3) (missed friend’s party)4

Maaf ya? Dengan sangat menyesal saya tidak

forgive yes with very regret I not

dapat menghadiri acara syukuran=mu

can attend program thanks=your

‘Forgiveness, ok? I really regret I can’t attend your ceremony.’

(Example 4) (bought wrong office supplies)

Maaf-kan saya pak, saya telah keliru membeli

Forgive-appl me father I already err buy

peralatan yang bapak suruh dan saya sangat menyesal atas

supplies which father order and I very regret over

hal tersebut.

matter above:mentioned

‘‘Forgive me, sir, I made a mistake in buying the supplies you asked for, and I’m

very sorry about it.’

I did not find any instances of ampun in my data, except for one respondent in situation A

(see Appendix A), who begins with the exclamation ya ampun, before going on to produce an

apology complete with the apology term maaf (Example 5).

(Example 5) (forgot to buy books)

Ya ampun maaf. Saya kelupaan buku=mu,

yes forgive forgive I forgot book=your

Nanti sore saya akan pergi ke toko buku untuk

later evening I will go to store book for

membelikan buku tersebut. Jangan khawatir deh!

buy book above:mentioned don’t worry emph


4 In this and following examples, maaf is both glossed and translated as forgiveness. This creates English translations

which are not idiomatic, but I do this deliberately so that the reader will not lose sight of the fact that the Indonesian

original used a request for forgiveness rather than an expression of regret.

‘Oh no, forgiveness. I forgot all about your books. This evening I’ll go to the book

store to buy them. No need to worry.’

Since ya ampun is frequently used as an expression of surprise and amazement, it seems most

likely that that is how it was functioning here as well. The lack of ampun could be a reflection of

regional differences, as it is perhaps not as common in Lombok as in Java, or it could reflect the

moderate severity of the offenses described, since impressionistically I would say that ampun is

reserved for serious offenses.

There were no occurrences of expressions of shame or embarrassment, either functioning

as apologies or as supporting moves. Although shame appears to be an important factor

in opting out of apologizing altogether (for a discussion of opting out, see Wouk, submitted

for publication), when an apology is performed in the Lombok Indonesian data the emotion is

not mentioned.

Requests that the recipient not be angry did occur in my data, but infrequently, and usually

accompanied by another apology term. Thirteen such instances began with an apology term, as in

Examples 6 and 7.


Maaf dik ya? Kakak lupa atas

forgiveness younger:sibling yes older:sibling forget over

pesanan=nya tadi, jangan marah ya?

order=gen just:now don’t angry yes

Besok kak beli-kan yang lebih baik lagi.

tomorrow older:sibling buy-benf which more good still

‘Sorry, kid, ok? I forgot you asked for that, don’t be angry, ok? Tomorrow I’ll buy

you something even better.’

(Example 7) (passing with the left hand)

Maaf . . . saya tadi gunakan tangan kiri . . .forgiveness I just:now use hand left

Saya tidak sengaja jangan marah ya . .

I not on:purpose don’t angry yes

‘Sorry . . . I used my left hand . . . I didn’t do it on purpose, don’t be angry, ok.’

One instance was followed by an apology term (Example 8). Note that this example does not

actually contain a request that the other not be angry, but rather a complaint about the other’s

anger.

(Example 8) (kicking ruler)

Ala begitu saja marah, ya deh maaf.

excl thus only angry yes emph forgiveness

‘Jesus, getting angry over something like that! Boy, I’m sorry.

In a single case, the request that the other not be angry occurred without an accompanying

expression of apology (Example 9).



Oh, jangan marah ya . . . Aku tidak sengaja melakukan=nya.

oh don’t angry yes I not on:purpose do=it

Tahu kan, aku sendiri lagi sibuk

know ok I self still busy

menjelaskan makalah yang anda minta.

explain article which you request

‘Oh, don’t be angry ok . . . I didn’t do it on purpose. You know, I was busy

explaining the article that you asked for.’

There were also nine responses that could be considered oblique references to anger, or at least to a

negative emotion. Two referred to the way the addressee was regarding the speaker (jangan

ngeliatin gitu—don’t look:at like that, tolong jangan pandangi aku seperti itu—please don’t look at

me like that), both in situation C (passing with the left hand). Four were appeals, either for patience,

such as sabar aja (just be patient), found twice in situation A (forgot to buy books), or for

understanding, such as saya harap kamu dapat mengerti (I hope you can understand), found in

situation B (missed friend’s party), or maklumi deh bapak (be understanding sir), found in situation

E (bought wrong office supplies). These instances could perhaps be taken to imply that the other is

not being patient or understanding, and thus is angry. The final two were references to related

emotions, one to disappointment (semoga kamu tidak kecewa—I hope you’re not disappointed),

found in situation B (missed friend’s party) and one to annoyance (semoga bapak tidak merasa

keberatan—I hope you don’t mind), found in situation E (bought wrong office supplies). Seven of

these were preceded by an apology, six utilizing maaf and one utilizing sori. Based on these results,

it does not appear that ‘Don’t be angry’ counts as an apology in Lombok Indonesian any more than

expressions of regret do. This fact provides evidence for regarding it as a supporting move, at least in

the Lombok Indonesian case. The fact that ‘Don’t be angry’ is not mentioned in most other studies

suggests that it is also not a favored apology term in those societies.

As the figures in Table 1 show, impersonal forms (sori and maaf as stand alone forms) are

preferred in all situations, with frequencies ranging from a low of 52% to a high of 73%. The

usage of HO forms (maafkan saya) ranges from 12% to 17% in all but one situation, while the


Table 1

Apology forms

Situation A: forgot

books

B: missed

party

C: pass

with

left hand

D: kick

ruler

E: wrong

office

supplies

F: soak

with hose

Total apology terms

per situation

85 113 95 71 95 18

Type of apology term N % N % N % N % N % N %

Speaker-oriented (e.g. saya minta

maaf ‘I ask for forgiveness’)

11 13.0 26 23.0 7 7.4 8 11.3 25 26.3 15 13.6

Hearer-oriented (e.g.

Maafkan saya ‘Forgive me’)

10 12.0 19 17.0 15 15.8 11 15.0 6 16.8 29 25.0

SO and HO combined 21 25.0 45 40.0 22 23.2 19 25.3 31 43.1 44 38.65

Impersonal sori 8 9 7 6 0 0

Impersonal maaf 56 59 66 52 54 73

All impersonal 64 65.8 68 52.2 73 69.5 58 73.2 54 56.8 73 61.8

usage of SO forms (saya minta maaf) ranges from 7% to 13% in all but two situations. The

predominance of impersonal forms most likely reflects the relatively minor nature of the

offenses involved. A study based on more serious offenses would probably have resulted in

fewer impersonal forms being used, although this remains to be tested. The impersonal forms,

by virtue of being shorter, can be considered less formal, and thus in a sense less polite, and

consequently appropriate only for less severe offenses. The correlation between length and

politeness is exemplified in other areas of Indonesian social interaction, by the use of

honorific speech in many ethnic groups, including Javanese, Balinese, and Sasak (the latter

being one of the main groups taking this survey), where the honorific forms are frequently

derived from the non-honorific forms by the addition of extra syllables (Geertz, 1968). This is

not a strictly Indonesian phenomenon; there appears to be a tendency cross-linguistically for

length of utterance to correlate with degree of politeness (Hannes Kniffka, personal

communication5).

The frequency of participant-oriented forms increases in three situations: when

apologizing to a friend (40%), one’s boss (43%), or an older stranger (38%). It would

appear that greater politeness is preferred when talking to non-intimate higher status

addressees, and also when talking to equal status interlocutors of intermediate intimacy, who

are neither strangers nor family. Neither of these results is surprising. The relevance of status

and social distance to polite behavior have long been recognized; Brown and Levinson’s

(1987) theory of politeness claims that status, social distance, and severity of offense are the

three factors influencing the use of polite behavior, and much of the CCSARP literature has

demonstrated the validity of this claim, with respect to a number of different speech acts. The

special status of the category of intermediate intimacy has also been described previously with

respect to a variety of speech acts including compliments, invitations and apologies (Manes

and Wolfson, 1981; Wolfson, 1981, 1983, 1988, 1989; Wolfson et al., 1989; Holmes, 1995). In

these studies it appears that the politeness/intimacy relationship follows a u-shaped curve,

nicknamed ‘the Bulge’ (Wolfson, 1988), with greatest politeness among status equals in the

middle range of intimacy.

The use of SO forms (such as saya minta maaf) increases in the cases of intermediate

intimacy, in apologies to a friend (23% SO) and to an employer (26% SO), as illustrated in

Examples 10 and 11. On the other hand, the increase is mainly in HO forms (maafkan saya) in

apologies to the stranger (25%), as in Example 12.


5 I quote here from Hannes Kniffka’s email: ‘‘My ‘Habilitations-Kolloquium’ at Cologne University, Philosophic

Faculty, on Oct 22, 1980, had the title ‘Der Imperativ als grammatische Kategorie’. My hypothesis then, in brief, was this:

The bare imperative form (or Prep or so) is the strongest, roughest, toughest, . . . all additional elements are kind of

softeners rather than intensifiers. So you have ‘Out!—Get out!—Please get out!—Would you please get out!—Excuse

me, could you be so kind to get out/leave for . . . . . with increasing politeness. It is not that simple, needless to say, since

intonational contours always ‘interfere’ (or create new bases to be modified rather) and some forms seem to contradict,

like get the heck/hell . . . out of here!—I found it amazing then that there were no real intensifiers in the languages I looked

at. In the last and main chapter of the paper I made exactly the claim you quote under 1)’’ [that is, that longer expressions

are more polite than shorter ones, cross-linguistically] ‘‘supplying lots of data from IE and Non-IE-languages, including

Latvian, Turkish, Hungarian, Hindi, . . . and also some old IE-languages and presenting them in a matrix giving the

‘correlations’ between length of utterance and degree of politeness—valid cross-culturally. I checked several everyday

requests like ‘get out!’. One of my slogans in the resume, I remember, was ‘In der Kurze liegt die Wurze—in der Lange

die Hoflichkeit’, the first half being a German proverb (‘Wurze’ meaning ‘spicyness’ or so).’’ The slogan may be

translated as ‘Spice in brevity, politeness in length’.


Teman, saya minta maaf karena tidak dapat hadir.

friend I request foregiveness because not can attend

Ada keperluan yang harus saya selesaikan.

exist necessity which must I finish

‘I ask your forgiveness because I couldn’t make it, mate. There was something I

had to finish up.’

(Example 11) (bought wrong office supplies)

Pak saya minta maaf, tadi saya lupa nama

father I request forgiveness just:now I forget name

barang=nya dan ragu terpaksa saya beli yang ini.

thing=gen and uncertain forced I buy which this

Nanti saya pergi beli lagi.

later I go buy again

‘Sir, I request forgiveness, I forgot the names of the things and I was uncertain, so

I had to buy these. Later I’ll go shopping again.’

(Example 12) (soaking with hose)

Masyallah. Maaf-kan saya pak. Saya benar-benar

excl forgive-appl me father I true-true

kaget tadi pak.

startled just:now father

‘Oh my God. Forgive me sir. I was really startled sir.’

It may be that this increase represents a pattern in the use of these types of expressions, but given

that the data contains only one situation for each type of relationship, it is possible that there is

another explanation. The increase could have to do with type or deliberateness of the infraction

(soaking the stranger with a hose is specified as being accidental, while the other two are not), or

some other factor that is not obvious from the study. This is clearly a matter for further

investigation. It is interesting to note that, although one of the values of DCT data is supposed to

be greater control of variables than is possible in ethnographic data, problems of confounding

variables are not entirely eliminated.6 In fact, ethnographic data, with a wider range of

circumstances, might well clarify what has been confounded here.

4.3. Cross-cultural comparison of apology terms

In the CCSARP model, apology terms fall into three classes, expressions of regret,

expressions of apology, and requests for forgiveness. The implication of this typology is that this

exhausts the range of possible ways to apologize, and that these forms, if they occur, must be head

acts of an apology. However, it appears that there is cultural variation as to which formulas

become routinized as an apology. For example, in Indonesian, expressions of regret may occur as

supporting moves, but do not appear to function as apologies, due to their weak pragmatic force.

In Farsi, expressions of shame have been conventionalized as apology terms, but have not been

found to function as such in other societies investigated to date. In Hungarian, forestalling anger

has been routinized as an apology, and is in fact quite frequently used, while in Polish it is also


6 I am grateful to Janet Holmes for pointing this out to me.

routinized, but used only occasionally (Suszczynska, 1999). However, for most societies

investigated to date, including Lombok Indonesian, forestalling anger may occur as a supporting

move, but does not function as an apology. I cannot begin to suggest why this formulation is used

as an apology in certain societies, but its relative rarity cross-linguistically could be related to the

fact that forestalling anger does not actually provide redress to the hearer. Rather, it seems to

function as a sort of protection for the speaker. This focus on speaker’s face may explain why this

formula is less frequently used as an apology.7

It appears that some cultures have a preferred strategy for apologizing in situations of

moderate severity, although there is considerable variation as to how strong that preference is.

English speakers almost exclusively use expressions of regret (House, 1988; Cordella, 1990;

Holmes, 1990; Suszczynska, 1999), while Poles appear to prefer expressions of apology,

although showing somewhat more variation than do English speakers, using their preferred

strategy 78% of the time (Suszczynska, 1999). However, many other societies show a fairly even

split between two, or even three strategies; such is the case for speakers of Hungarian

(Suszczynska, 1999), Austrian German (Meier, 1997), German (House, 1988; Volmer and

Olshtain, 1989), and Farsi (Eslami-Rasekh, 2004).8 In societies where a variety of strategies are

used, it appears that choice of strategy is at least partly determined by social or contextual factors

(Volmer and Olshtain, 1989; Eslami-Rasekh, 2004). Indonesian preferences are at least as strong

as English speakers’, if not stronger, although this preference may be due at least in part to lexical

gaps in Indonesian rather than to cultural preferences.9

It is more difficult to do a comparison of orientation, as that information is not provided

directly outside of Cordella’s work (Cordella, 1990, 1991). However, with a careful reading of

other articles, it is sometimes possible to glean the information. Based on what I have found,

Lombok Indonesian appears to be unusual among languages investigated so far in preferring an

impersonal form. Of course, any verbal construction will necessarily be oriented either towards

the speaker or the hearer, but speakers might still employ a nominal expression of apology, which

would then be impersonal. However, in most languages for which information is available,

speakers do not appear to make use of such forms with any frequency. Apparently nominal forms

are not used as expressions of apology in Polish (Suszczynska, 1999). English has both a nominal

form of apology, pardon, and also a reduced expression of regret, sorry, which are both

impersonal, but they are not frequently employed in the types of situations used in most research

on apology (House, 1988; Cordella, 1990; Holmes, 1990; Suszczynska, 1999). Spanish also has

nominal apology terms, but they do not appear to be a favored form of expression (Cordella-

Masini, 1989). German has a number of such terms, but they were used considerably less


7 One referee pointed out that in Hungarian and Polish societies, anger is often expressed by acting offended or being

sulky, rather than acting in aggressive manner, and suggested that ‘Don’t be angry’ means something like ‘don’t show you

don’t like me because our friendship is important to me’, and thus could be considered a form of redress to the hearer.

However, my feeling is that in most cultures ‘don’t be angry’ is generally seen as speaker protection, not hearer redress,

which is probably why it is not found as an apology term. A large scale cross-cultural study of native speaker insights into

this matter is beyond the scope of this paper.8 Hungarians use requests for forgiveness 46% of the time, and forestalling anger 37% of the time (Suszczynska, 1999).

Austrian Germans use expressions of regret and requests for forgiveness in almost equal frequency (Meier, 1997).

Germans in Germany favor the same two strategy types, and use them with roughly equal frequency (House, 1988;

Volmer and Olshtain, 1989). Farsi speakers use three types frequently, offers of apology 38% of the time, requests for

forgiveness 31%, and expressions of shame, which have conventionalized as an apology term rather than functioning as

an acknowledgment of responsibility, 23% (Eslami-Rasekh, 2004).9 It could of course be argued that the lexical gap is the result of cultural preference.

frequently than forms which were not impersonal (House, 1988; Volmer and Olshtain, 1989).10

Only Hungarian seems to regularly makes use of impersonal forms, according to Suszczynska

(1999); however, she gives information only about types of strategies, not about actual forms

used, so it is not possible to determine the frequency of impersonal forms from the information

given in her paper.

Where there is a strong preference for a single strategy, there will be a correspondingly strong

preference in orientation, at least in experimental studies. Thus, English speakers and Poles

overwhelmingly prefer SO apologies (House, 1988; Cordella, 1990; Holmes, 1990; Suszczynska,

1999). However, even where a range of strategies are employed, an overall preference in

orientation may appear, as is the case for Farsi, which also shows a preference for SO apologies

(Eslami-Rasekh, 2004), and for Chilean Spanish, which according to Cordella (1990, 1991)

shows a preference for HO strategies (although a reanalysis of her data according to my criteria

shows an equally strong preference for SO strategies).11 Alternatively, the preference may vary

with the situation, as appears to be the case for German (House, 1988; Volmer and Olshtain,

1989), and to some extent for Lombok Indonesian. It should be noted that most of these

observations are based on experimental data (with the exception of Holmes, 1990). Owen’s

(1983:66) ethnographic study of apologies in English demonstrates that in real life, English

speakers regularly make use of impersonal forms. Additional ethnographic studies focusing on

other languages may also show a greater use of impersonal forms, and thus less strong

preferences.

Differences in choice of apology term have been explained in terms of cultural preferences for

positive (solidarity) versus negative (deference) politeness. In particular, it has been suggested

that English speakers’ reliance on expressions of regret should be seen as a form of negative

politeness, helping to maintain social distance, as it neither imposes on the recipient by requiring

an action, nor exposes the speaker to the recipient’s evaluation (Suszczynska, 1999). Other

cultures prefer forms that decrease social distance, and thus could be said to employ positive

politeness. In a similar way, the predominance of HO forms in Chilean Spanish, according to

Cordella, can be related to the group orientation of Chilean, in comparison with a more

individualistic orientation among Anglo-Australians. This is somewhat problematic if the Farsi

data are taken into account, however, since Irani society is also group oriented (Eslami-Rasekh,

2004), yet favors SO apologies.

The Lombok Indonesian data suggests another take on this matter. Although impersonal forms

were more common in all situations, the frequencies of HO and SO depended on the situation. It

would appear that in Indonesia, rather than speaking of a cultural preference for negative or


10 In these studies, overall, 22% of apology terms were impersonal, and the frequency per situation ranged from a low of

0 to a high of 34%.11 English speakers appear to use SO strategies approximately 90% of the time, Poles 78%, and Iranis 70%. Germans

used more SO forms overall, but the distribution varied greatly according to the situation. In five situations, SO forms

were the most common type, accounting for between 70% and 52%, while in the remaining two situations HO forms

accounted for approximately 50%, while the other 50% were split fairly evenly between SO and impersonal. Thus,

overall, Germans used more SO forms, but that may reflect the situations chosen, rather than a cultural preference.

Fortunately, in all of these languages, expressions using a verb meaning ‘ask’ are extremely rare or not found at all, so it is

immaterial which criteria are used to define HO. Chilean speakers, using Cordella’s criteria, are considerably more likely

to use HO forms (64.7%). When using my criteria a rather different picture emerges; a reanalysis of the data found in her

MA thesis shows Chileans using SO forms 65% of the time, HO 30% and impersonal forms 5% of the time. However, it is

not clear that my criteria are actually appropriate for Spanish, with its wide range of options in terms of verbal formulas. I

developed them only to deal with the rather narrow range found in Indonesian.

positive politeness, it is more appropriate to speak of different preferences for one or the other in

different situations. In contrast, the evidence indicates that for English speakers, there is a clear

cross-situational cultural preference for SO terms. Unfortunately, information about the behavior

of Chileans is only given for a single situation; since most other studies do not report a breakdown

of strategy types or apology terms by situation, it is not possible to say in most cases whether it is

a cultural or situational preference that is operating. It would certainly be worth finding out

whether the English pattern of a single over-arching preference, or the Lombok Indonesian

situational variation in preferences, is more common cross-culturally. Germans, like Lombok

Indonesians, appear to respond to the nature of the situation, and vary their apology terms

accordingly (House, 1988; Volmer and Olshtain, 1989). In some situations, impersonal forms

were somewhat more frequent than in others, although they were never the most frequent type.

Other situations evinced a preference for SO forms, while still others did so for HO ones.

However, unlike in Lombok Indonesian, these preferences did not appear to correlate with either

status or social distance; of the two situations where HO predominated, the speaker was of higher

status in one, and of lower status in the other, and the two participants were strangers. In the third

(equal status) stranger situation, SO forms predominated. This is clearly an area which requires

further investigation.

5. Upgrading

Apologies can be modified, either by downgrading the offense or upgrading the

remediation (Trosborg, 1995). There are many ways to upgrade an apology. Politeness

formulas and expressions of deference can be used to show the speaker’s respect for the

recipient, thus exemplifying negative politeness. The apology term itself can be repeated.

Solidarity can be increased, in a typical positive politeness strategy, by the use of intimate

terms of address and a variety of pragmatic particles and expressions. Any strategy that is used

can be strengthened through the use of intensifiers or emphatic markers, although most

discussion of intensification in the literature has focused on intensification of two strategies,

apologies and explanations.

5.1. Upgrading in the data

This study investigates the use of intensifiers, emphatic particles, expressions of deference,

politeness formulas, solidarity increasing pragmatic expressions, repetition of the apology term,

and intimate terms of address. These categories were chosen following Trosborg (1995). In

coding the data, I also looked for evidence of downgrading, or minimization of the offense, but

did not find any. The only minimization that occurred was in the explanations, not the apologies. I

will thus not discuss downgrading further.

An examination of Table 2 reveals that patterns of intensification show considerable variation

according to the situation. In some cases, this is best explained in terms of the nature of the

offense; in others, it seems to relate most directly to the relationship between the participants.

Emotive particles are quite common, but are mainly found in situations A (forgot to buy

books) and F (wetting stranger with hose). It seems most likely that their use relates in the first

case to suddenly remembering the forgotten promise, and in the second case to the suddenness of

the actual occurrence. The most frequently used particle was aduh (71%) (Example 13), which

has connotations of dismay and regret, while two expressions of surprise, astaga (Example 14)

and wah (Example 15) comprised most of the remainder (22%).


F.

Wo

uk

/Jou

rna

lo

fP

ragm

atics

38

(20

06

)1

45

7–

14

86

14

72

Table 2

Upgrading

A (forgot

books)

B (missed

party)

C (pass with

the left hand)

D (kick

ruler)

E (wrong

office supplies)

F (soak

with hose)

All

Emotive particle (e.g. aduh, wah, astaga) 28 11 8 5 4 32 88

Repetition of apology term 4 13 8 2 6 16 49

Intensifier with apology (e.g. sekali ‘very’,

sangat ‘very’, bener ‘true’)

2 18 2 2 7 3 34

Emphatic particle with apology (e.g. deh, sih, nih) 5 8 8 1 22

Intensifier with explanation (e.g. sekali ‘very’,


28 28 8 11 2 26 103

Emphatic particle with explanation (e.g. deh, sih, nih) 3 4 12 8 27

Intensifier with offer of repair (e.g. sekali ‘very’,


10 1 11

Emphatic particle with offer of repair (e.g. deh, sih, nih) 10 1 11

Expression of deference (e.g. pak ‘father’) 3 88 83 171

Politeness formula (e.g. tolong ‘please’, mohon ‘beg’) 1 6 4 4 8 6 29

Solidarity increasing pragmatic expression (e.g. ya ‘yes’) 45 37 21 13 1 12 129

Intimate term of address (e.g. dik ‘younger sibling’, kak

‘older sibling’, mas ‘older borther’)

45 15 12 54 126

Total 181 137 70 112 116 (28) 187 (104)


Aduh kakak lupa membeli-kan buku kamu di pasar,

excl older:sibling forget buy-appl book you in market

nanti kakak pergi beli lagi ya.

later older:sibling go buy again yes

‘Gosh, I forgot to buy your books at the market, later I’ll go shopping again, ok?’

(Example 14) (soak with hose)

Astaga . . .! Maaf pak . . .? Soal=nya saya tidak dengar

excl forgiveness father matter=gen I not hear

apa-apa tadi waktu bapak masuk, maaf-kan pak

anything just:now when father enter forgive-appl father

ya?

yes

‘Oh my God. Forgiveness sir. The thing is I didn’t hear anything just now when

you came in. Forgive me sir, ok?’


Wah minta maaf, ndak sengaja pak,

excl ask forgiveness not on:purpose father

karena saya lagi terkejut.

because I in:the:process:of startled

‘Gee I ask your forgiveness, it wasn’t on purpose sir, because I was startled’

The force of an apology can be intensified through repetition of the apology term, the use of

intensifiers, or use of emphatic particles. In the data, reduplicated apology terms (maaf-maaf and

sori-sori) (Example 16) were found, as were the use of two different apology terms (Example 17).


Aduh, dek, sori-sori buku=nya kelupaan dan

excl younger:sibling sorry-sorry book=gen forgotten and

uang=nya juga sudah kakak pakai. Jangan marah ya.

money=gen also already older:sibling use don’t angry yes

‘Gee, kid, sorry, I forgot your books and I’ve used up your money.

Don’t be angry, ok?’


Minta maaf pak ..! Saya kira tadi suara apa,

ask forgiveness father I think just:now voice what

sehingga saya jadi terkejut, tolong bapak maafkan.

so:that I become startled please father forgive

‘I ask forgiveness sir. I was wondering what that noise was, to the point that I got

jittery. Please forgive me.’

A wide range of intensifiers were found, both with apology terms (Example 18) and with

explanations (Example 19), and sometimes with both (Example 20). Frequently used intensifers

included terms meaning really (bener, pasti, betul) or very/too (terlalu, sekali, sangat), as well as


others relating to quantity, like banyak ‘a lot’ (Example 20) and sebesar-besarnya ‘as much as

possible’ (Example 18).

(Example 18) (missed party)

Maaf yang sebesar-besarnya teman

forgiveness which as:much:as:possible friend

tadi malam saya tidak bisa hadir.

last:night I not can attend

‘I humbly ask your forgiveness that I wasn’t able to attend last night.’


Maaf-kan saya sangat terkejut sekali. Sehingga saya

forgiveness-appl I very startled very so:that I

tidak sengaja untuk menyiram anda.

not on:purpose for spray you

‘Forgive. I was very very startled, so that I accidentally sprayed you.’


Banyak maaf teman.

many forgiveness friend

Tadi malam saya bener-bener tidak bisa datang.

last night I really-really not can come

‘Many apologies friend. Last night I really couldn’t come’

The most frequently used emphatic particles were deh, sih and nih, but occasionally dong, kan,

kok, or aja was used. As with intensifiers, the emphatic particle could occur with the apology term

(Example 21) or with another strategy, such as an explanation (Example 22).


Aduh! aku sampai lupa dengan pesanan=mu itu.

excl I arrive forget with order=you that

maaf-in deh.

forgiveness-appl emph

‘Rats, how could I have forgotten your request. Forgive, really.’


Maaf saya lupa habis lagi

forgiveness I forget after:all in:process:of

konsentrasi sih!.

concentrate emph

‘Forgiveness I forgot, but y’know I was really concentrating [on something else]’

Intensification by means of repetition of the apology term, use of intensifiers, and use of emphatic

particles is fairly common in most situations. The most notable exception is situation C (passing

with the left hand). Interestingly, although C was evaluated as a graver offense than either A

(forgot to buy books) or B (missed friend’s party), the two situations with the lowest average

scores for severity of offense, both of those received quite a bit of intensification. The other

situation with relatively low frequencies of intensification (although not as low as C) is situation


E (bought the wrong office supplies), which, like C, had a relatively high score for severity of

offense. It would appear that frequency of intensification does not relate to perceived severity of

offense.

Rather, the lower scores in situations C and E can be explained in terms of Indonesian cultural

expectations. Situation C describes an activity, passing with the left hand, which is taboo in

societies which use the left hand for personal hygiene and the right hand for eating. However,

there are many situations in which its use is actually unavoidable. In those cases, one is expected

to precede or accompany the action with the utterance ‘maaf tangan kiri’, which translates as

‘forgiveness for the left hand’. So the actual infraction in this case is not so much the action, as the

lack of an accompanying apology formula. Given that under normal circumstances, a simple

‘maaf ’ is all that is required, it is not surprising that in the case where the formula has been

forgotten, producing it without intensification would seem adequate to most respondents.12

In situation E, the apology is to a boss, and upgrading of all types is notably absent, with the

exception of expressions of deference. This is somewhat surprising, as it is evaluated as being a

relatively grave offense toward an addressee who is in a position of authority, where one might

expect a more effusive apology. Indeed, that is what one would find with an English speaker

addressing a boss (Cordella, 1990), and a Hebrew speaker addressing someone of higher social

status (Olshtain, 1989). Again, a possible explanation can be found within Indonesian culture. It

may well be that even modern employment situations are equated with traditional patron–client

relationships. This is a structured type of relationship, and a more structured relationship can lead

to more structured behavior, with more rigid constraints, such that effusiveness is not appropriate.

Alternatively, one might say that in a patron–client relationship, although the client is dependent

on the patron’s good will, the patron has more of a responsibility for the client’s well-being than is

the case in a modern, more impersonal, employment situation, and there is thus less need to

assuage the offended superior.

The only expressions of deference found in the data was a term of address pak ‘father’ which is

used to address older, higher status males, and is comparable to English ‘sir’. Predictably, its use

was restricted to older, non-intimate recipients, and most respondents chose to use a term of

address to them. The politeness formulas found in the data included tolong ‘please’ (Example

23), permisi (literally ‘permission’, a loan word from Dutch permissie, frequently used as a

leavetaking formula or when passing in front of someone), used twice in handing something over,

once the magazine, and once the ruler (Example 24), and the use of mohon ‘beg’ in asking

forgiveness (Example 25). They were rare in all situations, and the numbers are too small to be

considered for possible statistical significance.

(Example 23) (kick ruler)

Kak ..! Tolong maaf-in adik ya?

older:sibling please forgiveness-appl younger:sibling yes

Kakak kan orang baik. Besok tidak akan

older:sibling emph person good tomorrow not will

adik ulangi lagi.

younger:sibling repeat again

‘Bro/Sis, please forgive me, ok? You’re a good person after all. I won’t do it again.’


12 Most respondents also produced either an explanation or a statement that it was done accidentally, in addition to the

apology.

(Example 24) (kick ruler)

Nih permisi ya kak saya malas sekali untuk

this permission yes older:sibling I lazy very for

merunduk mengambil=nya.

bend take=gen

‘Here please ok, bro. I’m too lazy to bend down and pick it up.’


Maaf ya teman. Saya tidak bisa hadir dalam acara

forgiveness yes friend I not can attend in program

syukuran=mu - sekali lagi saya mohon maaf.

gratitude=you one:time again I beg forgiveness

‘Sorry, yeah, friend. I can’t come to your celebration. Once again I beg forgiveness.’

Solidarity strategies such as agreement seeking particles (ya, literally yes) found in

Examples 23–25, solidary terms of address (kin terms like dik ‘younger sibling’, kak ‘older

sibling’) found in Examples 23 and 24, and words meaning friend, such as sobat or teman,

(Example 25) are quite common in situations A (forgot to buy books), B (missed friend’s

party), and D (kicking ruler), moderately common in C (passing with left hand), rare in F

(soaking with hose) and virtually non-existent in E (bought wrong office supplies). It is

perhaps not surprising that these strategoes should be rare in dealing with higher status

recipients who are not in an intimate relationship; there is little grounds for claiming solidarity

in these cases. Intimate terms of address are most common when addressing siblings, the most

intimate relationship, while other pragmatic expressions are used most to younger siblings and

friends.

The overall amount of upgrading varies considerably with the situation. If expressions of

deference (which skew the results) are excluded, then it would appear that upgrading is used most

in situations where the recipient is neither a stranger nor of higher status. With strangers,

deference is more common to someone of a higher status than to an equal status stranger, but this

may have to do with the nature of the offense, rather than the relationship, since as pointed out

above, passing with the left hand can be dealt with formulaically, while soaking someone with a

hose cannot. Upgrading is least common, as mentioned before, to the boss, due most likely to the

special nature of this relationship.

Some gender differences were observed in use of upgrading, with males using significantly

more upgrading overall than did females in situations B (missed party) (x2 = 3.65, p = 0.05) and

C (passing with left hand) (x2 = 4.36, p = 0.038). In Situation B, the ratio of male to female

upgrading was 1.41, in C it was 1.64, while in the other situations it was between 0.95 and 1.15.

The difference between male and female use of upgrading in C and B on the one hand, and A, D,

E and F on the other was significant (x2 = 5.0, p = 0.028).

In situation B, males had overall more instances in every category, and significantly more

instances of intensifiers with explanations (x2 = 4.8, p = 0.03). An example of a male response

including intensification of the explanation, as well as various other types of upgrading, is given

in Example 26.


Wah ..! Banyak maaf yaa, saya tidak bisa hadir

excl many forgiveness yes I not can attend


kemarin, soal=nya ada hal yang penting sekali,

yesterday matter=gen exist thing which important very

sekali lagi maaf yaa . . .one:time again forgiveness yes

‘Gee. Many apologies, yes, I couldn’t come yesterday. The thing is I had something

very important to do. Again forgiveness, ok’

Although males used more explanations than females in this situation, the difference in

frequency of explanations was not statistically significant, and the greater male use of intensifiers

with explanations is only partly explained by greater male use of explanations; males have a ratio

of 1 intensifier per every 2.2 explanations, while the female ratio is 1 per every 4.3 explanation.

Upgrading an explanation has been described as a positive politeness strategy, increasing

solidarity (Cordella, 1991).

In situation C, males use significantly more intimate terms of address, as illustrated in

Example 27 (x2 = 5.5, p = 0.02), and showed a strong tendency to use more of the solidarity

oriented particle ya, although this difference is less significant (x2 2.8, p = 0.1).

(Example 27) (passing with left hand)

Maaf mas . . .! ngasih=nya pakai tangan kiri

forgiveness older:brother give=gen use hand left

soalnya saya sedang pegang tas.

matter I in:process:of hold bag

‘Forgiveness, pal, for giving it to you with my left hand. The thing is, I was

holding a bag.’

For other types of upgrading the differences are inconsistent, some being used more fre-

quently by males and others by females, but all of these frequencies are small, and not

significant.

It thus appears that in addressing both a friend and a same-aged stranger, male respondents

were more inclined to use strategies that boost solidarity than were females. This is an

interesting result, because many studies of gender differences in conversational style suggest

that women are more solidarity (cooperation)-oriented than men (Zimmerman and West,

1975; Brown, 1980; Ide, 1982; West and Zimmerman, 1983; Fishman, 1983; Holmes,

1983, 1984, 1986; Coates, 1988; Nordenstam, 1992; Smith, 1992). However, in Wouk

(1998) I argue that in terms of the use of pragmatic particles this is not the case for

Indonesian, where males seem equally solidarity oriented. The current study would suggest

that in some situations they may even be more so, although it must be born in mind that this

suggestion is based on DCT data, and would need to be confirmed by an examination of

ethnographic data.

5.2. Cross-cultural comparison of upgrading

Many discussions of apologies in the literature do not consider upgrading at all. Those that do,

do not always use the same categories, or combine categories that I have kept separate. This

makes comparison difficult, but some observations can be made, in particular about the use of

interjections, address terms,and intensification.


5.2.1. Interjections

Information about the frequency of interjections is available for speakers of Japanese,

American English, Farsi, German, and British English for a variety of situations (Kumagai, 1993;

House, 1988; Volmer and Olshtain, 1989; Eslami-Rasekh, 2004), and for speakers of Hungarian

and Polish in a single situation (Suszczynska, 1999). Eslami-Rasekh’s study is anomalous in

having extremely low frequencies for both groups. In all the other studies, interjections are used

regularly, and a clear pattern emerges. In the studies looking at multiple situations, American

English speakers use higher frequencies of interjections than do the other groups, which had

similar overall frequencies. The Lombok Indonesian speakers overall use of interjections (which

I call emotive particles) also fell in this range.13

It should be noted that Kumagai (1993) used spoken data (albeit scripted), while the other

studies used written data, and it is possible that the lack of interjections in the Lombok

Indonesian data (and in other studies) reflects the form of the data (written), rather than a cultural

tendency towards lesser expressiveness, and this would have to be tested against more

naturalistic data. However, there are two arguments against this. First, the Japanese data in

Kumagai’s study is more in line with the findings in other studies. Second, Suszczynska (1999),

using a written test, also found Americans much more likely to use interjections (64%) than were

Hungarians (30%) or Poles (20%). It would appear that in the American case, the written

medium did not reduce expressiveness, so it could be argued that the lower Lombok Indonesian

(and German, British, Hungarian and Polish) scores, reflect cultural preferences, not the

medium of data collection. It is also worth noting that Kumagai’s data includes a range of

different situations, while Suszczynska looked at a single situation, namely bumping into

someone in a supermarket. This is a situation which contains an element of suddenness, or

surprise, which I argued above is an important factor in the presence of exclamations in the

Lombok Indonesian data. If we restrict the comparison with Suszczynska’s results to the two

situations (A—forgot to buy books and F—soaking with hose) in which a sudden realization

occurs, the percentage of exclamations is 31%, quite comparable with the Hungarian result. It

would thus appear that Lombok Indonesians are not particularly inexpressive, while Americans

are unusually expressive.14

House (1988) finds variation according to the situation, for both German and British English

speakers; this is explained in terms of status (high status speakers do not use them) and of need to

apologize (when need to apologize is low, interjections are not found). Volmer and Olshtain

(1989), utilizing the same data, propose the same explanation. However, in this data set, some

high status speakers did use interjections, whereas in one situation of equal status interjections

were largely absent; it would thus appear that status alone cannot account for the use of

interjections. I note that interjections are not found in situations that lack an element of surprise or

realization; since most of the situations where interjections are relatively common do involve an

element of surprise, it is possible that in addition to status, surprise is also a relevant factor in

these results.


13 Kumagai (1993) found that Japanese used interjections in 18% of their apologies while Americans used them in 35%.

House (1988) found that 14% of Germans used interjections (referred to as exclamations), 18% of British English

speakers did. Of the 564 responses in my data set, 88, or 15.6%, had interjections (emotive particles), which is much

closer to the Japanese, British, and German frequencies than to the American one.14 Eslami-Rasekh’s (2004) contradictory results remain unexplained.

5.2.2. Terms of address

Kumagai (1993) also looked at the use of address terms, but did not, as I do, distinguish

between deferential and solidary forms. She found that Japanese used such terms 6% of the time,

against the Americans’ 27%. My data shows them being used in 52.6% of the responses, which is

considerably higher than either of Kumagai’s results. Again, this would have to be verified

against naturalistic data, but impressionistically, in Indonesian conversation terms of address are

extremely frequent, so this result is in line with what I have observed.

Kumagai (1993) suggests that interjections are used more by both Japanese and Americans

with lighter offenses, while address terms are used more with more serious offenses. This is not

borne out in the Lombok Indonesian data, where all the offenses are approximately equal in

seriousness; hence the use of these strategies is better explained in terms of the nature of the

relationship, with intimate recipients calling forth intimate terms of address, and non-intimate

recipients of higher status calling forth deferential terms of address, while interjections relate to

suddenness of realization.

5.2.3. Intensification

Discussions of the use of intensifiers and repetition of apology terms are found in a few

studies. Meier (1997), Suszczynska (1999) and Eslami-Rasekh (2004) found that expressions of

regret were intensified more than other types of apology terms. In fact, in both Suszczynska’s and

Eslami-Rasekh’s studies, the Americans, who used almost exclusively expressions of regret,

almost always used intensifiers, while the Poles, Hungarians and Iranis, who used a variety of

forms, had lower frequencies of intensification. Both authors explain this by arguing that

expression of regret is weak in apologetic force, and thus requires more intensification than do

stronger forms. Intensification was used less by my Lombok Indonesian respondents than by any

other group, somewhat less than by Meier’s Austrians, and Eslami-Rasekh’s Iranis and

Americans, and considerably less than by all three of Suszczynska’s groups.15 If the use of

intensification does indeed reflect the strength of the apology terms chosen, then the low

frequency of intensification in the Lombok Indonesian data can be explained at least in part by the

fact that Indonesian apologies all employ terms that are stronger to begin with. The much higher

frequency of intensification in Suszczynska’s data may relate to contextual factors, given that her

discussion focuses on behavior in only a single situation.

House (1988) found that amount of intensification varied according to situation, being

particularly high (50% or more) for both German and British speakers when the recipient was of

higher status, and for British speakers when the recipient was a stranger of equal status. It was

notably low (20% or less) for both German and British speakers when the recipient was of lower

status.16 Volmer and Olshtain (1989) confirm this observation and agree with an analysis in terms

of social status. This is quite different from the Lombok Indonesian results discussed above,

where upgrading was favored for familiars of equal or lower status, and disfavored for a superior.


15 Meier (1997) found intensifiers with the apology term in 22% of the Austrian data. Suszczynska (1999) found that

100% of Americans, 80% of Hungarians, and 69% of Poles used intensifiers with their apology terms. Additionally, 28%

of Americans, 35% of Hungarians and 29% of Poles repeated the apology term. Eslami-Rasekh (2004) found that

Americans used intensifiers 22% of the time, and repetition of the apology term 5% of the time, while Iranis used

intensifiers 18% of the time, and repetition 12%. On the other hand, only 10% of Lombok Indonesians used either

intensifiers or emphatic particles with an apology term, and 9% of Lombok Indonesians repeated the apology term.16 It was also low for the one situation in which it was not judged that an apology was particularly likely in an

independent test of likelihood of apology in a given situation.

5.2.4. Intensification with apologies versus intensification with explanations

Cordella (1990, 1991) compares the use of intensification with apologies and with

explanations. She found that speakers of Australian English were far more likely to intensify

their apologies (55%) than their explanations (10%), while speakers of Chilean Spanish were

slightly more likely to intensify their explanations (26.6%) than their apologies (20.4%), when

role-playing an apology to a boss for being late for a meeting. She suggests two possible

explanations for this difference. One explanation has to do with cultural preferences for

strategies used. Observing that Australians’ most frequent strategy is the use of an apology

term, while Chileans’ most frequent strategy is an explanation, she hypothesizes that each

group intensifies the strategy that is preferred, or most important, in their culture. The second

explanation relates to positive and negative politeness, and cultural differences in the social

goals underlying the performance of the apology. The preferred strategy of the Australians is a

negative politeness strategy, a speaker-oriented apology term, while the preferred strategy of

the Chileans could be seen as a positive politeness strategy, an attempt to reinforce solidarity.

Thus, the Australians, whose social goal is re-establishing harmony, intensify the negative

politeness strategy, while the Chileans, whose social goal is increasing solidarity, intensify the

positive politeness strategy.

If we compare the Lombok Indonesian results with Cordella’s, a number of interesting facts

emerge. In Table 3, I compare intensification with apology, explanation, and offer of repair.

Intensification of the apology can be done through repetition, use of an intensifier or emphatic

particle, or use of the more polite form mohon (beg). I have included offers of repair (which

Cordella did not discuss) in Table 3, as they, like apologies, offer redress to the recipient, while

explanations, rather than offering redress, serve to excuse the speaker. What we find is that in the

boss situation (E), Lombok Indonesians behave relatively more like Australians, favoring

intensification with apologies, although their frequency of intensification is lower. In situations C

(passing with left hand), D (kicking ruler), and F (soaking with hose), however, they are relatively

more like Chileans, slightly favoring intensifiers with explanations, although with considerable

variation in frequency from much less than the Chileans (in C) to about the same (in D) and

slightly more (in F). In situation A (forgot to buy books), if apology and repair are combined, the

frequency of intensification in the two types (redress to recipient versus excusing the speaker) is

basically equal. Finally, in the friend situation (B), both ratio and frequency are similar to those

found with Australians apologizing to their boss.


Table 3

Intensification

Intensification

with apology

Intensification

with explanation

Intensification

with repair

N % N % N %

A: forgot books 11 11 28 28 20 20

B: missed party 45 45 28 28 1 1

C: pass with left hand 10 11 12 13

D: kick ruler 15 19 23 29

E: wrong office supplies 20 20 2 2

F: soak with hose 25 25 34 34

Combined frequency of intensifiers (e.g. sekali ‘very’, sangat ‘very’, bener ‘true’), repetition of apology term, and

emphatic particles (e.g. deh, sih, nih) with apology, explanation and offer of repair.

The Lombok Indonesian data have implications for both of Cordella’s explanations of the

Australian and Chilean data. Firstly, Cordella’s explanation in terms of a culturally preferred

strategy cannot be applied to Indonesian. In the Lombok Indonesian data, apologies are more

frequent than explanations; apologies are found in 87.6% of the responses, but explanations only

in 50.4%. Yet in three out of six situations, Lombok Indonesians used more intensification with

explanations than with apologies, while in a fourth the frequencies were equal. Only in two

situations did apologies receive more intensifiers. Thus, while such a claim may fit Cordella’s

data, it would be preferable to come up with an interpretation that would apply to the Lombok

Indonesian data as well.

Secondly, as mentioned above in reference to preference for type and orientation of apology

term, in some cases at least, appealing to overall cultural preferences for negative or positive

politeness is inappropriate. Certainly for the Lombok Indonesian data it is more appropriate to

speak about cultural preferences in a particular type of situation, or in a particular type of

relationship, with reference to intensification as well. Cordella only investigated one situation,

with one type of relationship, and it is not certain that different situations would have called for

similar behavior.

6. Conclusion

Lombok Indonesian apologies in situations of moderate severity are built around a single

lexical item, maaf , a request for forgiveness. Expressions of regret are not used, perhaps because

they are too weak in apologetic force to be culturally recognized as an apology, and expressions

of apology are absent due to a lexical gap. Impersonal forms are most frequently chosen; person-

oriented forms, although remaining in the minority, appear to increase in frequency in situations

where the addressee is of higher status and/or moderate social distance obtains (the addressee is

neither friend nor stranger). SO forms increased with addressees of moderate social distance,

regardless of status, and HO forms with higher status strangers. However, the small number of

situations involved makes this explanation only tentative.

In their strong preference for a single type of apology term, Indonesians are most similar to

English speakers; many other societies show preferences to a less strong degree, and some show

no preference. In their preference for impersonal forms, Lombok Indonesians are unique among

societies investigated to date. Of societies where results for more than one type of apology

situation have been reported, none show the same pattern as that found in Lombok Indonesian.

English speakers, due to their strong preference for expressions of regret, use mainly SO forms;

Austrians show considerable variation with no clear pattern. Germans, like Lombok Indonesians,

show variation according to the situation, but there is no correlation with either status or social

distance.

Indonesian modification of apologies, at least in this study, is restricted to upgrading the

remediation; no instances of downgrading the offense were found in the data. The reason for this

is unclear. It is possible that offenses were not downgraded because they were considered to be

mild to start with, or that it is due in some way to the manner in which data was collected.

However, studies of other societies using DCTs and offenses of moderate severity have found

instances of downgrading. In order to evaluate this finding, investigation of a wider range of data,

preferably ethnographic in nature, would be necessary.

The types of upgrading employed varied with the situation. Variation in the use of emotive

particles seemed to relate to the nature of the offense, occurring mainly when some element of


surprise or suddenness was present. Variation in the use of intensification seemed to relate both to

the nature of the offense and to the nature of the relationship, in ways that reflected particular

conventions of Indonesian society. Whether intensification was more likely to occur with an

apology or other form of addressee redress, or with an explanation, varied according to the

situation. Predictably, deference strategies were used with higher status addressees, while

solidarity strategies were used with social intimates. There was some gender difference in the use

of upgrading, with males in some situations being somewhat more likely than females to use

solidarity-oriented upgrading.

Lombok Indonesian frequency of emotive particles seems similar to other societies for which

upgrading has been investigated, with the exception of American speakers of English, who seem

to show unusually high frequencies. However, the reasons given for the use (or omission) of

emotive particles in other studies, relating to relative status of participants or severity of the

offense, are different from those I have suggested. Lombok Indonesian use of intensification also

follows different patterns than is the case in other societies. Frequency tends to increase with

weaker apology terms, or with increased social distance or increased status of the addressee; none

of these were relevant for the Lombok Indonesian data.

This study suggests, among other things, that in order to fully investigate cross-cultural

differences in the language of apology, it will be necessary to carry out additional studies,

with both more carefully controlled and more naturalistic data, in a variety of societies,

looking at factors like choice of apology term, orientation of apology term, and use of

different types of upgrading, in a number of different situations, varying both in severity and

in type, for each category of status/social distance relationship between participants. Only in

this way can the contributions of severity of offense, type of offense, status, social distance,

and cultural preferences in politeness, be teased apart. Further, since the same behaviors

appear to mean different things in different cultures, it might be useful if studies, be they

based on discourse completion tasks, role plays, or naturally occurring data, were

accompanied by a different type of investigation, more anthropological in nature, where at

least some key participants were interviewed about why they made the choices they did.

Although such insights are not necessarily any more accurate than theoreticians’ suppositions,

they would add a further dimension, and deepen our understanding of the cultural

underpinnings of the observed behaviors. In this way, we could increase our understanding

both of what is particular to different human cultures and of what is universal in human

behavior.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the students and staff of the Center for Research on Language and

Culture at the University of Mataram for their assistance in designing the questionnaire and in

collecting the data. Funding for the research was provided by the University of Auckland. I would

also like to thank Slamet Setiawan for assistance with coding, Tim and Maren Behrend for useful

discussions about the data in relation to Indonesian culture, Tim Behrend for assistance in

making translations of examples as idiomatic as possible, Janet Holmes and two anonymous

referees for comments on this paper, and Vince Sarich for assistance with quantitative analysis

and editorial assistance.


Appendix A. Translation of questionnaire and situations used in Discourse Completion

Test

A.1. General instructions

With this survey, we hope to collect information about the manner of interacting of

Indonesians in the region of Nusa Tenggara, with the goal of comparing the culture and behavior

of Indonesians from the region of Nusa Tenggara with people in other societies. The topic of this

research is apologizing.

You are requested to read six situations which would provide an opportunity for someone to

apologize. You are asked to explain how you would react if you were in such a situation. For each

situation, you are asked to give the most complete information possible. For example, if someone

goes to a great effort to help us, it’s not enough if we just say ‘Thanks’. Rather, we would add

several other sentences, such as ‘wah, thank you very much sir, I always cause you so much

trouble’ etc., or something else that gives a picture of our feelings.

If, in a given situation, you would be more inclined to use a regional language, please give

your answer in the regional language. However, if you would be more inclined to use Indonesian,

please give your answer in Indonesian.

For each situation you will also be asked to evaluate its severity. For each situation you will

choose (circle) one number out of the five choices available, which you consider most

appropriate. If you choose 1, that means a little bit, 2 means more than a little, 3 means moderate,

4 means rather a lot and 5 means a lot.

A.2. Questions (repeated after each situation)

1. Choose one of the following:

a. I would say nothing because

b. I would say

2. How severely would you rate this offense?

1 2 3 4 5

A.3. Situations

A. Lower status—intimate17

Your younger sibling asked you to buy some books when you went shopping. Because you

had a lot of things to buy, in the end you forgot about his/her request, and you even spent the

book money on other things. When you get home and meet him/her, you remember about his/

her request.

B. Equal status—familiar

Your friend is having a party to celebrate the success of his/her thesis defense. S/he invited

all his/her good friends, including you. But for a certain reason you couldn’t go to his/her

party.


17 Status and distance information was not included in the questionnaire, but is given here for the convenience of readers.

C. Equal status—stranger

While you are talking with your friends, a student you don’t know asks to look at the article

which you are discussing. Without noticing, you pass it to him/her with your left hand. S/he

looks at you with annoyance.

D. Higher status—intimate

Your older sibling asks you to get his/her ruler which has fallen under the table you are

writing at. Because you’re feeling lazy, you take it with your toes and kick it towards him/her.

S/he gets angry at this.

E. Higher status—familiar

Your boss asks you to buy some office supplies. You buy the wrong things.

F. Higher status—stranger

One evening while you are watering plants you are startled by someone saying hello.

Because you are startled, you accidentally spray him with the hose you are using, so that this

older man (who by his uniform is an employee of the television company come to collect

payment) becomes soaking wet.

Appendix B. Glossing conventions

appl applicative

benf benefactive

emph emphatic particle

excl exclamation

gen genitive

References

Aijmer, Karin, 1995. Do women apologise more than men? In: Melchers, Gunnel, Warren, Beatrice (Eds.), Studies in

Anglistics. Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm, pp. 55–69.

Ang-Abbey, Lucila, 1991. Transfer behavior of Hokkien Chinese speakers in apologizing. Borneo Research Bulletin 23,

14–35.

Bean, Judith Mattson, Johnstone, Barbara, 1994. Workplace reasons for saying you’re sorry: discourse task management

and apology in telephone interviews. Discourse Processes 17, 59–81.

Beebe, L.M., 1985. Speech act performance: a function of the data collection procedure? Paper presented at the Sixth

Annual TESOL and Sociolinguistics Colloquium at the International TESOL Convention, New York.

Bergman, Marc L., Kasper, Gabriele, 1993. Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In: Blum-Kulka,

Shoshana, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 82–107.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Olshtain, Elite, 1984. Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural study of speech-act realization

patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5, 196–213.

Bonikowska, Malgorzata P., 1988. The choice of opting out. Applied Linguistcs 9 (2), 169–181.

Brown, Penelope, 1980. How and why are women more polite: some evidence from a Mayan community. In: McConnell-

Ginet, Sally, Borker, Ruth, Furman, Nellie (Eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. Praeger, New

York, pp. 111–136.

Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Coates, Jennifer, 1988. Gossip revisited: language in all-female groups. In: Coates, Jennifer, Cameron, Deborah

(Eds.), Women in their Speech Communities. Longman, London, pp. 110–131.

Cohen, Andrew D., Olshtain, Elite, 1981. Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: the case of apology.

Language Learning 31 (1), 113–134.


Cordella, Marisa, 1990. Apologizing in Chilean Spanish and Australian English: a cross-cultural perspective. Australian

Review of Applied Linguistics Series S (7), 66–92.

Cordella, Marisa, 1991. Spanish speakers apologizing in English: a cross-cultural pragmatics study. Australian Review of

Applied Linguistics 14 (2), 115–138.

Cordella-Masini, Marisa, 1989. Apologizing: a cross-cultural study in Chilean Spanish and Australian English.

Unpublished MA thesis, Australian National University.

Eisenstein, Miriam, Bodman, Jean, 1993. Expressing gratitude in American English. In: Kasper, Gabriele, Blum-Kulka,

Shoshana (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford, pp. 64–81.

Eslami-Rasekh, Zohreh, 2004. Face-keeping strategies in reaction to complaints: English and Persian. Journal of Asian

Pacific Communication 14 (1), 181–197.

Fishman, Pamela, 1983. Interaction: the work women do. In: Thorne, Barrie, Kramarae, Cheris, Henley, Nancy

(Eds.), Language, Gender and Society. Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp. 89–101.

Fraser, Bruce, 1981. On apologizing. In: Coulmas, Florian (Ed.), Conversational Routine, Janua Linguarum 96, Rasmus

Rask Studies in Pragmatic Linguistics, vol. 2. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 259–273.

Garcia, Carmen, 1989. Apologizing in English: politeness strategies used by native and non-native speakers. Multilingua

8 (1), 3–20.

Geertz, Clifford, 1968. Linguistic etiquette. In: Fishman, Joshua (Ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Language. Mouton,

The Hague, pp. 28–295.

Goffman, Erving, 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Holmes, Janet, 1983. The function of tag questions. English Language Research Journal 3, 40–65.

Holmes, Janet, 1984. Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo,

Journal of The Linguistic Society of New Zealand 27, 47–62.

Holmes, Janet, 1986. Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech. Language in Society 15, 1–22.

Holmes, Janet, 1989. Sex differences and apologies: one aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics 10,

194–213.

Holmes, Janet, 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. Longman Group Limited, New York.

Holmes, Janet, 1990. Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society 19 (2), 155–199.

House, Juliane, 1988. ‘‘Oh excuse me please . . .’’: apologizing in a foreign language. In: Bierbaumer, P., Kettemann,

B., Fill, A., Karpf, A. (Eds.), Englisch als Zweitsprache. Narr, Tubingen, pp. 303–327.

Ide, Sachiko, 1982. Japanese sociolinguistics: politeness and women’s language. Lingua 57, 357–385.

Kumagai, Tomoko, 1993. Remedial interactions as face-management: the case of Japanese and Americans. In: Yumoto,

Shonan, Masato, Sakurai, Baba, Akira, (Eds.), in honor of Tokuichiro Matsuda: papers contributed on the occasion of

his sixtieth birthday. Tokyo, Kenkyusha, pp. 278–300.

Levinson, Stephen, 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lipson, Maxine, 1994. Apologizing in Italian and English. International Review of Applied Linguistics 32 (1), 19–39.

Manes, Joan, Wolfson, Nessa, 1981. The compliment formula. In: Coulmas, Florian (Ed.), Conversational Routine, Janua

Linguarum 96, Rasmus Rask Studies in Pragmatic Linguistics, vol. 2. Mouton, The Hague, Netherlands, pp. 115–132.

Meier, Ardith J., 1996. Two cultures mirrored in repair work. Multilingua 15 (2), 149–169.

Meier, Ardith J., 1997. What’s the excuse? Image repair in Austrian German. Modern Language Journal 81 (2), 197–208.

Nordenstam, Kerstin, 1992. Tag questions and gender in Swedish conversations. Working Papers on Language, Gender

and Sexism 2 (1), 75–86.

Obeng, Samuel Gyasi, 1999. Apologies in Akan discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 709–734.

Olshtain, Elite, 1989. Apologies across languages. In: Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, Kasper, Gabriele

(Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, Advances in Discourse Processes. Ablex, Norwood,

NJ, pp. 155–173.

Olshtain, Elite, Cohen, Andrew, 1983. Apology: a speech-act set. In: Wolfson, Nessa, Judd, Elliot (Eds.), Sociolinguistics

and Language Acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp. 18–35.

Owen, Marion, 1983. Apologies and Remedial Interchanges. Mouton, Berlin.

Smith, Janet, 1992. Women in charge: politeness and directiveness in the speech of Japanese women. Language in Society

21, 59–82.

Suszczynska, Malgorzata, 1999. Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian: different languages, different strategies.

Journal of Pragmatics 31, 1053–1065.

Syahdan, 1996. Sasak-Indonesian code switching. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.

Trosborg, Anna, 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Request, Complaints and Apologies. Studies in Anthropological

Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.


Vollmer, Helmut, Olsthain, Elite, 1989. The language of apologies in German. In: Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House,

Juliane, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, Advances in Discourse

Processes. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 197–218.

West, Candace, Zimmerman, Don, 1983. Small insults: a study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between

unacquainted persons. In: Thorne, Barrie, Kramarae, Cheris, Henley, Nancy (Eds.), Language, Gender and Society.

Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp. 102–117.

Wolfson, Nessa, 1983. An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English. In: Wolfson, Nessa, Judd,

Elliot (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp. 82–95.

Wolfson, Nessa, 1988. The bulge: a theory of speech behavior and social distance. In: Fine, Jonathan (Ed.), Second

Language Discourse: A Textbook of Current Research. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 21–38.

Wolfson, Nessa, 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Newbury House, Cambridge/New York.

Wolfson, Nessa, 1981. Invitations, compliments, and the competence of the native speaker. International Journal of

Psycholinguistics 24 (4), 7–22.

Wolfson, Nessa, Marmor, Thomas, Jones, Steve, 1989. Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures. In:

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies.

Advances in Discourse Processes. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 174–195.

Wouk, Fay, 1998. Gender and the use of pragmatic particles in Indonesian. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3, 194–220.

Wouk, Fay. Strategies of Apologizing in Lombok, Indonesia, submitted for publication.

Zimmerman, Don, West, Candace, 1975. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In: Thorne, Barrie, Henley,

Nancy (Eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp. 105–129.

Fay Wouk holds a BA in linguistics and an MA in linguistics from the University of Michigan, and a PhD in Linguistics

from UCLA. Her research interests include grammar and interaction, conversational analysis, cross-cultural pragmatics,

and the languages of Indonesia.


the language of apologizing in lombok, indonesia

Documents