Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1 Introduction
Studies on cross-cultural speech act performances have increased dramatically
in the last few decades. These include investigations on apologies. The act of
*Corresponding author: Jeremy F. Jones, Program in TESOL and Foreign Language Teaching,
University of Canberra, Australia, E-mail: Jeremy.Jones@canberra.edu.au
Adrefiza, English Education Program, Faculty of Education, Jambi University, Sumatra,
Indonesia, E-mail: adref64@yahoo.co.id
apologizing has been regarded as one of the speech acts that have long attract-
ed pragmatics scholars attention (Grainger and Harris 2007; Shariati and Cha-
mani 2010). Grainger and Harris (2007) claim that studies on apologies have
gained popularity in the last few decades. Their realization is often culturally
specific and difficult for most foreign or second language learners to master
(Kim 2008; Nureddeen 2008). Prior studies on apologies have proliferated
either in a particular language or in cross-cultural perspectives, comparing two
or more different languages at once. Since the comprehensive study by Blum-
Kulka and Olshtain (1984), investigation into apologies has been carried out on
many other languages, mainly to establish the potential universality or varia-
tions in their realizations across languages and cultures.
Although concentrated more on Western languages, there has seemed, in
recent years, to be a growing interest in studying apologies in Eastern lan-
guages (Bataineh and Bataineh 2008). A few scholars, such as Afghari (2007),
Bataineh and Bataineh (2008), Intachakra (2004), Nureddeen (2008), Shariati
and Chamani (2010), and Wouk (2005) are among those who have chosen to
inquire into apologies in Asian and Eastern languages in the last few years.
There has been very little research, however, conducted on Bahasa Indonesia
and Australian English. Studies from Wouk (2005 and 2006) on Lombok Indo-
nesian and Cordella-Masini (1989) on Australian English are the only ones so
far that have investigated apologies in those two countries. However, these
studies were conducted separately (not cross-culturally) with little emphasis on
gender and cultural differences in how the two communities express apologies.
The limited scope of Wouks and Cordella-Masinis studies has provided inspi-
ration for the present authors to investigate Australian and Indonesian intercul-
tural speech act behaviours in apologies, within and between the languages.
This paper is aimed at studying potential differences between Australian
and Indonesian native speakers in expressing apologies. It presents and dis-
cusses the variety of strategies used by speakers of both languages, along with
socio-pragmatic features such as gender and situation, accompanying their at-
tempts to realize the act of apology. The results are expected to throw light on
the way Australians and Indonesians apologize, deepening understanding of
intercultural and gender differences in language use.
In order to gain these results, the study poses the following research ques-
tions:
1. How do young adult Australians and Indonesians, both male and female,
express apology?
2. What are their apology strategies?
3. Are there any gender and cultural differences in apology strategies in both
language communities?
2 Theoretical framework
The act of apologizing is frequent and has a secure place in our daily interac-
tions. Cordella-Masini (1989) suggests that the act of apologizing is one of the
very common features of ordinary social life in Western societies and indeed in
many others. It is often perceived as a negative politeness strategy that is ex-
pressed to show respect rather than solidarity or friendliness (Holmes 1995).
Apologizing is an integral part of successful relational management, communi-
cating awareness and acceptance of moral responsibility for offensive behav-
ior and initiat[ing] the process of negotiating absolution (Robinson 2004: 292).
It is complex and sometimes difficult to recognize because it involves social,
psychological, linguistic and paralinguistic aspects in its realization (Grainger
and Harris 2007). On most occasions, it also indicates a level of politeness and
involves face management in its realizations (Brown and Levinson 1987;
Holmes 1990), taking place everywhere, in both public and private interactions.
Essentially, the act of apology is most often attributed to social phenomena
such as wrongdoing, conflict, violation or transgression that have happened
and that need to be put right (Holmes 1990, Holmes 1995). Holmes views apolo-
gy as a multifunctional speech act which involves both linguistic and non-
linguistic features. Such complexity is what attracts investigators, and studies
of apologies continue to develop over time, either with an intercultural focus
or specific to a particular language. An ambitious and comprehensive cross-
cultural study of apology was conducted by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) in
their Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP) project. Here,
through the use of DCTs, apologies, along with requests, were analyzed in vari-
ous different languages with respect to variability of social constraints such
as individuality, situation, native and non-native perspectives. Similarities and
differences in their realization patterns were described and discussed. Since
then, studies have explored apologies in many other languages using varying
approaches such as naturally occurring conversation and role play. These stud-
ies include those of Holmes (1990), House (1988), Kasper (1989), and Suszczyn-
ska (1999). However, according to Nureddeen (2008), studies on apologies have
tended to focus on Western languages, with relatively little attention given to
Eastern and Asian languages. That said, Wouk (2005) claims that interest in
exploring apologies in Eastern and Asian languages has begun to develop. A
few examples of the studies are those of Bergman and Kasper (1993), who ex-
plore Thai apologies; Wouk (2005; 2006), who investigates Indonesian Lombok
apologies; Kim (2008), who compares apologies in South Korean and Australian
English; Afghari (2007) on Persian apologies; and Nureddeen (2008), who con-
centrates on Sudanese Arabic apologies.
Grainger and Harris (2007) report that research on apologies has not only
been integrated into pragmatics and politeness theory, but also into other disci-
plines such as sociolinguistics, social psychology, philosophy, and foreign lan-
guage teaching. In pragmatics, for example, the studies frequently attempt to
find out how apologies are realized and performed either in a particular lan-
guage or in two or more different languages. Commonalities and differences as
well as diversity in strategies are further explored and discussed. A number of
social factors such as age, gender, personal relationships, power and status,
discourse contexts, and situations are incorporated into the investigation (see
Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984).
Studies on apologies often cover major areas like functions, strategies, lin-
guistic and sociolinguistic structures (Holmes 1990). Other factors are also
drawn in, including nature of the situation, degree of offence, and frequency
of occurrence. In general, these studies suggest that such factors vary signifi-
cantly from culture to culture (Cohen and Olshtain 1981; Olshtain 1989; Vollmer
and Olshtain 1989). In terms of its frequency, Japan is regarded as a country
where the act of apology is believed to occur most often (Spencer-Oatey 2008).
The first emphasizes the role of the hearer; the second emphasizes the speakers
status as the one who requests; and the third represents a more inclusive ap-
proach. The chief difference between a request and an apology is that between
pre- and post-event acts. However, an apology is still a politeness strategy in
which hearer and speaker perspectives apply; that is, it constitutes a point of
view operation (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984: 204).
Indeed, Cordella-Masini (1990), a researcher in Spanish linguistics, has
used the distinction between speaker-oriented (SO) and hearer-oriented (HO)
to provide illumination on apology expressions. She classifies SO expressions
as those in which the speaker is the agent of the apology, as in the utterances
Im sorry and I apologize; the speaker takes control and does not refer any
action to the hearer. Meanwhile, HO are those in which the speaker explicitly
asks for the hearers participation in the act of apologizing. Some examples in
English are: Can you forgive me? and Please accept my apology, where the
speaker wants the hearer to participate actively in the apology situation. In
terms of politeness theory, HO may be said to be more deferential, attending to
negative face, in the sense that one is self-effacing in making an appeal to
the hearer, reluctant to impose. In Chilean Spanish, SO utterances are indicated
by the use of an expression of regret and those with the verb dar (give), while
HO utterances are indicated by imperatives and requests using disculpar, excu-
sar, and perdonar. In her study, she compares apology terms used by speakers
of Australian English and Chilean Spanish, males and females, in a single situa-
tion, namely apologizing to a boss for being late for a meeting. She found that
Australian males tended to be more direct in expressing apologies compared
to their female counterparts. The majority of the patterns used were a combina-
tion of explicit expressions of apology such as I am terribly sorry, I must apolo-
gize and an explanation of account such as I missed the bus, My car broke
down. She also found that Australians tended to use SO apologies more fre-
quently than the Chileans.
3 Methodology
This study involved a total of 24 native speakers of the two languages. They
were mostly university students (aged 19 to 30) studying in various disciplines
at universities in Canberra, Australia, and in Jambi, Indonesia. The authors
used their connections with students to recruit them. The subjects were not the
authors own students. They were required to express their apologies based on
three situations of moderate severity: missing a close friends birthday party,
revealing a close friends secret about a job application, and breaking a promise
to return a close friends book. This moderate severity is one that lies between
too light and too heavy in gravity, a scale defined in studies by Cordella-Masini
(1989), Holmes (1990), and Wouk (2005). These particular situations were se-
lected because, in the researchers estimation, such predicaments are quite
common in both societies and are instantly recognizable to ordinary people as
moderate in degree of severity. Too light and too serious degrees of severity of
offence would be beyond the investigation of present study, for two main rea-
sons. First, a serious offence may have legal consequences, require compensa-
tion, and perhaps be beyond apology. Meanwhile, a light offence would prob-
ably require little apology and might even be dismissed.
The following table provides details on the number of subjects of the study:
ment of time in the transcription. Furthermore, through the use of oral DCTs,
variables such as age, gender, situation, role relationships, and power status
of the interactants can still be controlled and managed during data collection
(see Beebe and Cummings 1996; Golato 2003; Kohler 2008; and Tran 2008).
The above table represents simply the numerical count but is interesting for
the comparisons of frequency. It is evident here that females use many more
apology terms than males. This occurs in both AE and BI. However, Indonesian
females use them even more frequently than their Australian female counter-
parts. Indonesian males also show more frequent use of these terms compared
to Australian males.
Both maaf and sorry can represent the same literal meaning, asking for
forgiveness, but on many occasions they also function as a supporting move
which indicates the speakers politeness behaviour over a series of social acts.
As suggested by Wouk (2005), the term maaf does not always necessarily func-
tion as apology, particularly when occurring in isolation. Nor does it indicate
that an offence or a transgression has been committed. Rather, it functions as
an impersonal form, especially when it is used without participants mentioned
and verb employed. As regards BI, if it is to function as an apology, it may be
interpreted as a reduced form of saya minta maaf (I request forgiveness). Most
often, maaf is used in various forms such as maafkan or maafin, both represent-
ing the meaning of asking for forgiveness in English. In many contexts, they
are followed by personal pronoun saya or aku. It is clear that none of them
occurs in isolation, thus they do not function as an impersonal form. The fol-
lowing are examples of apology expressions in BI:
In Example (1), the apology term maaf is used several times with a few variants
such as, maaf ya, maaf banget, and maafin, all signifying a reduced form of
the HO form Maafkan saya (forgive me). The use of intensifier banget (very)
In the above, two HO indicating devices are used, maafkan Vivi and maaf-
kan aku ya. Both mean forgive me in English. The speakers turn in the
Here maaf is used together with saya (personal I/subject participant) and the
term minta (request). It thus provides evidence that it is an HO apology again
within the category of request for forgiveness strategy. Interestingly, the expres-
sion ends with another apology jadi mohon maaf (so I beg forgiveness). Al-
though the personal I (saya) does not occur, this closing apology may be
interpreted as a reduced form of so I beg your forgiveness. It is a much shorter
apology than the one in Example (3) but nonetheless, through repetition, em-
phatic in the request for forgiveness.
In AE, the use of the term sorry is most preferred, representing a total
number of 20 occurrences in the data. The term apologize, however, is absent
in the corpus. The absence is likely to be due to the formality of the word,
which would not necessarily be appropriate between close friends with an
equal social status and distance in remedial exchanges in a modern English-
speaking society.
The following are examples from AE respondents:
In Example (5) sorry is used four times. Here, the speaker is trying to express
her strong and sincere regret by the repetition. To intensify the remorse, the
full clause Im sorry tends to be used. In Example (6), the single term sorry
is used twice. It is conceivable that the victim would regard the use of this
simple term as too casual for the situation.
In the above case, there is a single instance of sorry but intensified with real-
ly, this alone giving the apology a less casual ring than the previous one.
Overall, the data clearly tell us that the apology term sorry is common in
AE and its interpretation is not as complex as the use of its counterpart maaf
in BI. Sorry in AE represents an SO type and is an expression of regret strategy,
while maaf is used to indicate an HO type but never occurs in isolation. It is
used in various forms such as in maafkan, maafin, followed by aku or saya
(first person singular) and particle ya.
No Strategies AE BI
Total 7 12 18 25
Here, the use of SO expressions like Im sorry characterizes the apology expres-
sions. None of this strategy is found in Indonesian apologies, which, as pointed
out above, are mostly expressed through either HO or SO forms or a combina-
tion of these two forms. HO forms, predominant in the BI data, are often per-
formed through expressions such as maaf(kan)(in) aku ya (Please forgive me)
with the majority being request for forgiveness. An expression like Saya minta/
mohon maaf (I ask for forgiveness), is also common in these apologies, both
male and female. Two examples follow:
(10) Male
Darul, aaa aku mau kasih tahu, Darul, I just want to let you know,
aaa aku minta maaf soal kemaren, I ask for forgiveness, I couldnt
saya tidak bisa datang ke acara come to your birthday party. Sorry
ulang tahun kamu karna aku sibuk Rul, so sorry. I was so busy that I
sekali. Sori ya Rul, aaa maaf sekali. couldnt let you know. Once again,
Saking sibuknya aku nggak bisa I ask for forgiveness.
kasih tahu kamu. Sekali lagi saya
minta maaf.
(11) Female
Hei aku kemaren minta maaf ya Hi, I ask for forgiveness for yester-
aku nggak bisa datang. Aku malu day, I couldnt come. Im ashamed.
aku lali aku lupa. Aku minta maaf I really ask for forgiveness.
banget nih.
The HO form with request for forgiveness like saya minta maaf or aku minta
maaf (I ask for forgiveness) is evident in the above examples, indicating that
the speaker is the agent in the exchange. An interesting phenomenon is that,
as claimed by Wouk (2006), Saya minta maaf is not equivalent to the English
SO form I apologize. In her study of Lombok Indonesian apology, Wouk (2006)
claims that Indonesians do not have a form of apology comparable to I apolo-
gize, as most other societies do. This is probably because Indonesian apologies
are somewhat less varied than those elsewhere. Although expressions of regret
are found in Indonesian exchanges, they do not always correspond to apology
as such. Wouk (2006) adds that the term sori or maaf, for example, does not
necessarily represent its English counterpart sorry, which indicates an expres-
sion of regret. On some occasions, maaf is also used to indicate solidarity po-
liteness, mostly when embarking on an exchange with the hearer. In this way,
it does not indicate that a violation, a conflict, or a transgression has taken
place.
In general, however, the term maaf has the lexical meaning of sorry and
stands as the main indicator of apologizing in BI. In many situations, maaf can
be used in isolation without incorporation into a verbal construction. It still
represents an act of apologizing but when it is combined with minta (ask) as
Saya minta maaf (I ask for forgiveness), which is very common in the BI data
here, it represents an Indonesian standard formal apology expression.
Indeed, what characterizes the Indonesian apology is standard formal.
The culture seems to favour this approach to apologizing, one that is deferen-
tially HO. In Australian apologies little surprise in the stereotypically infor-
mal culture the degree of formality is lower, and self-referential sorry is
favoured in practice, while the other-referential and more old-fashioned for-
give me is not used. Ultimately, the comparison in the use of SO and HO apology
strategies, as far as the present data are concerned, reveals a clear contrast
between Australian and Indonesian preferences.
laic manner; that is, they are initiated with an opening remark such as greeting
Hi or Halo, and followed by an Illocutionary Force Indicating Device (IFID)
(Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984; Holmes 1989; Nureddeen, 2008), most often
through the use of apology terms sorry or maaf. As suggested by Nureddeen
(2008) and Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), the IFID is regarded as a category
encompassing the explicit use of an apology expression through the utterance
of the terms sorry, forgive me, and so forth. The IFIDs can be represented
through either the expression of regret or request for forgiveness, as discussed
in the previous section. In AE, the IFID is usually indicated through the use of
either Im sorry or simply sorry, while in BI, the term maaf corresponds
to that function. The IFIDs are then followed by any combination of the sub-
types of apology strategy such as explanation of account, statement of lack of
intent, responsibility-taking, or repair. Sometimes, another one or two IFIDs
are used again at the end of the expression so as to confirm the apology or to
indicate the sincerity of the apology. The repetition of IFIDs may also be aimed
at showing a serious attempt to restore harmony among the interlocutors. This
tendency for repetition is spread throughout the examples above.
A common feature of the Indonesian apologies is the frequent use of the
Islamic greeting Assalamualaikum. This is no surprise in a Muslim country
where people are taught from childhood to use the ritual greeting. More often
than not in the data, it is preceded by the secular greeting halo (borrowed from
the English), thus Halo assalamualaikum.
4.4 Intensification
Prior studies such as those of Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), Eslami-Rasekh
(2004), Nureddeen (2008), Suszczynska (1999) and Wouk (2006) view intensifi-
cation as an element within the apology expressions which is indicated through
the use of either intensifiers or the repetition of the apology terms. Wouk (2006)
reports that intensification can occur either within the apology terms used or
within the apology strategies. She adds that studies in the use of intensification
in a number of apologies in different languages have been undertaken. In both
Eslami-Rasekhs (2004) and Suszczynskas (1999) studies, speakers of American
English, for instance, are reported to use expressions of regret with frequent
use of intensification, while Poles, Iranians, and Hungarians tend to use less
intensification in their apologies than Americans do (Wouk 2006).
A study from House (1988, cited in Wouk 2006) claims that the amount of
intensification used depends on some specific factors. These include the situa-
tion, degree of offence, role relationships between the speakers and hearers,
and the social status of the interlocutors. In Wouks (2006) study of Lombok
Indonesian apology, intensification was found to be more favoured between
speakers of equal or lower status and disfavoured between those of higher
status.
Regarding the apologies in the present study moderate in severity and
between interlocutors of equal status what remains is to identify the type and
rate of occurrence of intensification in the data from the two languages. As can
be seen in Tables 4 and 5 below, the two language groups show a noticeably
different proportion of the use of intensifiers in their apologies. AE speakers
opt for many more intensifiers than do BI speakers. There are a total of 14
intensifiers in AE and only 3 in the BI data. This latter count corresponds to
Wouks (2006) findings on Indonesian Lombok apologies, where there was a
relatively low frequency of intensification found. Not only do Indonesians use
a low frequency of intensifiers, but they also employ many fewer types of inten-
sifiers in their apologies. In other words, Indonesian intensifiers are far less
varied than those of the Australians. There are only two main intensifiers in
BI, while AE offers seven in the data. Table 4 demonstrates the frequency of
intensifiers used in BI:
1 Banget/bangat 1 0 1
2 Nian 2 0 2
Total 3 0 3
The terms bangat or banget and nian signify the meaning of very in English.
Their frequency is low, comprising only a total of three instances in the data.
Although they can be used interchangeably in everyday conversation, bangat
is more informal and commonly used among young people or teenagers. It was
1 Really 3 8 11
2 So 0 3 3
Total 3 11 14
originally borrowed from the indigenous language of Jakarta but it has become
widespread in Bahasa Indonesia.
As shown in Table 5, there are only two intensifiers (really and so) present
in the AE data. Really occurs 11 times, while so only three times, used only by
females. Overall, the use of intensifiers in AE is much more frequent in females
than in males.
kan aku ya), the males say I ask for your forgiveness (Aku minta maaf), a
degree more formal and perhaps less emotional. It should also be pointed out
that the more numerous instances of HO in the BI data than the AE are due to
the much larger number of BI females who opt for HO forms; that is, they tend
towards negative politeness. As Holmes (1995) reminds us, negative politeness
is characteristic of low power, and it may be that the Indonesian females ex-
hibit such a politeness form because they are aware of their low power in their
society. Ultimately, then, the data do not challenge some of the generalizations
about culture and gender in the recent literature on language behaviour.
5 Conclusion
It must be acknowledged that, since the data of the present study are relatively
limited in terms of volume and authenticity, further research with a larger sam-
ple and scope, along with (if possible) a more authentic data collection proce-
dure is recommended for greater reliability and validity.
That said, the findings of the present study should add to the body of
knowledge on the pragmatics of apology, from an intercultural and gender
point of view. They reveal, in particular, that speakers of Australian English
and Bahasa Indonesia have different tendencies in the realization of apologiz-
ing acts. The Australians in the study are given to expressions of regret, using
predominantly sorry or really sorry; the Indonesians, meanwhile, make requests
for forgiveness and utter more complex and varied apology expressions than
their counterparts. Evidently the Indonesians appear as much more deferential
and formal than the Australians, who are by comparison informal in their lan-
guage of apology. As regards the gender aspect of the study, it seems to confirm
differences of discourse style between male and female, and offers no evidence
of convergence between genders.
Pedagogically, the findings may be used as a resource by teachers of lan-
guage, discourse and intercultural communication. Among other things, the
findings could promote discussion about avoiding communication breakdown
between genders and between people of different cultures. Indeed, since there
has been relatively little research into apology in the two languages, this study
hopes to narrow the gap of sociocultural misunderstanding between the two
neighbouring countries. It may also bring a degree more understanding be-
tween Indonesia and Australia, which seem to have, in this era, regular crises
in their relations; and it may also contribute to understanding between Austra-
lia, Indonesia and the rest of the world
References
Afghari, Akbar. 2007. A Sociopragmatic study of apology speech act realization patterns in
Persian. Speech Communication 49. 177185.
Bataineh, Rula Fahmi & Ruba Fahmi Bataineh. 2006. Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL
students. Journal of Pragmatics 38(11), 19011927.
Bataineh, Rula Fahmi & Ruba Fahmi Bataineh. 2005. Apology strategies of American
university students: An intercultural analysis of the effect of gender. Journal of
Intercultural Communication 9. 119.
Bataineh, Rula Fahmi & Ruba Fahmi Bataineh. 2008. A cross-cultural comparison of
apologies by native speakers of American English and Jordanian Arabic. Journal of
Pragmatics 40. 792821.
Beebe, Leslie M. & Martha C. Cummings. 1996. Natural speech data versus written
questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In
Susan M. Gass & Joyce Neu (eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to
Communication in a Second Language, 6586. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bergman, Marc L. & Gabriele Kasper. 1993. Perception and performance in native and
nonnative apology. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Interlanguage
Pragmatics. 82107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blum-Kulka, Shosana. & Elite Olshtain. 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study
of speech act realization pattern (CCSARP). Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(3). 196212.
Blum-Kulka, Shosana. 1982. Learning to say what you mean: A study of speech act
performance of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics 3. 157167.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:
Requests and Apologies. New York: Ablex, Norwood.
Borkin, Ann. & Susan M. Reinhart. 1978. Excuse me and Im sorry. TESOL Quarterly
12(1). 5770.
Brown, Pamela, & Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness
phenomena. In Ester Goody (ed.). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social
Interaction. 56310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, Deborah. 1990. Feminism and Linguistic Theory. London: Macmillan.
Coates, Jennifer. 1993. Women, Men, and Language. London: Longman
Cohen, Andrew D. & Elite Olshtain. 1981. Developing a measure of sociocultural competence:
The case of apology. Language Learning 31(1). 113134.
Cordella-Masini, Marisa. 1989. Apologizing: A cross-cultural study in Chilean Spanish and
Australian English. MA Thesis. Canberra: TESOL, Canberra College of Advanced
Education.
Cordella-Masini, Marisa. 1990. Apologizing in Chilean Spanish and Australian English: A
cross-cultural perspective. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 7. 6692.
Eslami-Rasekh, Zohreh. 2004. Face-Keeping Strategies in Reaction to Complaint: English and
Persian. Journal of Asian and Pacific Communication 14(1). 115138.
Fraser, Bruce. 1981. On apologizing. In Florian Coulmas (ed.). Conversational Routine:
Exploration in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, 259
273. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Appendix 1
Descriptions of apology situations Australian English
Situation 1 (Being absent at a close friend birthday party):
You were invited to come to a birthday party of a close friend. The invitation was delivered
through email/phone last week. You didnt come to the party for a certain reason. Now youre
calling him/her to apologize. Please express your apology naturally as you normally do in
real situation in your own language.
Appendix 2
Descriptions of apology situations Bahasa Indonesia
Situasi 1 (Tidak hadir pada acara ulang tahun teman dekat):
Anda diundang untuk menhadiri acara ulang tahun seorang teman dekat. Undangan disampai-
kan via email/telp semingu sebelumnya. Anda tidak datang karna alasan tertentu. Sekarang
anda menelpon teman anda tersebut untuk minta maaf. Silahkan utarakan permintaan maaf
anda tersebut seperti apa adanya.
Appendix 3
Apology transcription Australian English
Female:
Male:
1 Birthday Hi mate yeah Im really sorry that I didnt come to your A.34
birthday party last night. I just I just clean forgot yeah.
Do you wanna organize to do something else perhaps?
Hi mate, sorry I didnt er come to your birthday last A.43
night. Er I had er some other important stuff to do. Um
I wanna make it up to you if you wanna catch up some
other time.
2 Job Application Hey, I er you know that er the job interview that you A.35
said that youre going for I know you wanted to keep it
private but Im really sorry I accidentally told to one of
our friends er I hope thats OK.
Yeah, Im sorry for giving away your secret er I really A. 41
didnt mean to do that.
3 Book Return Sorry I missed that appointment this morning. Er you A.39
know that book that I needed a couple of days ago. Er
I misplaced it. Um I was hoping er I could give it give
back er to you next week. Sorry again.
Hi, Im sorry I didnt meet you this morning with that A.45
book. I cant find it anywhere. Ill try to get it as soon
as possible and get it back to you, I just cant find it.
Appendix 4
Apology transcription Bahasa Indonesia
Female:
1 Birthday Hai Irma, ini Eni. Aduh maaf A.1.16 Hi Irma, this is Eni. (Particle/
(Ulang Tahun) ya kemaren nggak bisa dat- Exclamation) I ask forgive-
ang. Maaf bangat, lupa lupa ness, I couldnt come yester-
lupa, terus ketiduran. Maaf day. Very sorry, I really
ya, mau kan maafin? Janji ya, forgot, then I went to sleep.
nanti kita makan siang di Forgive me, would you for-
KFC atau dimana terserah give me? I promise to take
kamu, OK? Emmm maafin you out at KFC or else-
dong? wehere for lunch, OK? (Filler)
forgive me?
Male:
1 Birthday Darul, aaa aku mau kasih A.1.19 Darul, (filler) I just to want
(Ulang Tahun) tahu, aaa aku minta maaf to let you know, (filler) I ask
soal kemaren, saya tidak for forgiveness about yester-
bisa datang ke acara ulang day, I couldnt come to your
tahun kamu karna aku sibuk birthday party because I was
sekali. Sori ya Rul, aaa maaf extremely busy. Im sorry
sekali, saking sibuknya aku Rul, (filler) so sorry, being so
nggak bisa kasih tahu kamu. busy I couldnt tell you that I
Sekali lagi saya minta maaf couldnt come. Once again, I
ask for forgiveness.
Halo assalamualaikum Fer. A.2.23 Hello (Islamic greeting) Fer.
Ini Doni Fer, maaf kemaren This is Doni Fer, Im sorry I
saya nggak bisa datang ke couldnt come to your birth-
acara ulang tahunnya karma day party yesterday because
kemaren ada salah satu fami- one of my relatives was sick
ly yang sakit dan kami harus and we had to come and see
mengunjunginya kesana kar- him because he was in a se-
ma sakitnya itu parah. Sekali rious condition. Once again,
lagi Doni pengen minta maaf I want to ask your forgive-
sama Fery karma Doni nggak ness because I couldnt
bisa datang aaa di acara come to your birthday, Im
ulang tahun Fery, maaf ya Fer? sorry Fer.
2 Job Application Halo, aaa Lex, aaa aku mau A.2.20 Hello, (filler) Lex, (filler)I
(Lamaran ngomongin masalah kema- just want to tell you some-
Pekerjaan) ren. Aaa aku kemaren kece- thing about yesterday.
plosan, nggak sengaja, masa- (Filler) it slipped out yester-
lah pekerjaan kemaren. Aaa day, I didnt do it deliberate-
aku kan udah janji nggak ly. (Filler) I know that I prom-
akan ngomongin sama orang ised not to tell it to anyone,
lain, tapi kemaren aa sori ya, but yesterday (filler) sorry it
aku keceplosan. Aku janji just slipped out. I promise
aku akan nggak akan ngo- not to tell it again to anyone
mongin ke orang lain lagi. else. Im sorry, forgive me.
Sori ya, maafin aku.
Halo In, sori nian In, aku ke- A.2.24 Hello In, Im very sorry In, it
maren kecoplosan ngomong. really slipped out yesterday.
Kemaren kan Iin bilang I know that you dont want
nggak boleh dibilang bilang me to tell anyone, but yester-
sama siapa siapa, tapi day I didnt realise it so it
kemaren karna keasyikan just slipped out. So Im very
ngomong ya aku keceplosan. sorry because it slipped out
Jadi ya sori lah aa maaf ban- and I have told anyone, Im
gat karna aku keceplosan sorry In.
ngomong, maaf ya In?
Bionotes
Jeremy F. Jones
Jeremy F. Jones is an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Program of TESOL and Foreign
Language Teaching at the University of Canberra, Australia. His teaching, research and
publications are in the areas of discourse analysis, intercultural communication, testing and
assessment, and language teaching methodology.
Adrefiza
Adrefiza is currently lecturing in the TEFL Education Program, Faculty of Education, Jambi
University, Sumatra, Indonesia, and is also the Head of the Language Centre. His main area
of interest lies in intercultural pragmatics and speech acts, comparing English and Bahasa
Indonesia with regard to various sociocultural parameters, and considering pedagogical
implications for EFL teaching. Other interests include language acquisition, language
teaching methodology, and assessment.