library.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.

id

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Sociolinguistics

The Definition of Sociolinguistics

Many sociolinguists have their definitions of Sociolinguistics.

Although they give their definition, the same points can be concluded.

Holmes mentions that Sociolinguistics is a study which focuses on the

relationship between language and society which the Sociolinguists are

interested in the way people speak in different social context (2001:1). It

means that “Sociolinguistics is concerned with the relationship between

language and the context used by people.”

Not only Holmes, but there are also another three experts who define

Sociolinguistics as a study concerning the relationship between language

and society (Wardaugh, 1986; Spolsky, 1998; and Hudson, 1996).

Meanwhile, Wardaugh adds that Sociolinguistics is intended to use

appropriate language in daily activities (1986).

Spolsky (1998) states that the relation of Sociolinguistics is not only

between language and society but also “between the uses of language and

the social structures in which the users of the language live.”

Based on many definitions from the experts stated above, it can be

commit is
concluded that Sociolinguistics to user
a field that studies the relationship

7
library.uns.ac.id 8
digilib.uns.ac.id

between language and the society in which people will speak differently by

following the context, with the social structure and how it is appropriate or

not.

The Scope of Sociolinguistics

There are two kinds of studies in Sociolinguistics based on Hudson

and Coulmas (In Wardhaugh, 1998) which are micro-sociolinguistics and

macro-sociolinguistics. According to them, sociolinguistics belongs to

micro-sociolinguistics because it studies the relationship between language

and the society which the way people talk is influenced by the social

structure and the language varieties and patterns such as age, gender, and

class. On the other hand, macro-linguistics belongs to sociology because it

studies the relationship between society and language that relates to the

attitude of society to language.

Therefore, based on the definition mentioned above, the researcher

chooses micro-sociolinguistics studies since it focuses on the apology

expression of individual interaction uttered by students of English

Department 5th semester of Sebelas Maret University.

The Dimension of Sociolinguistics

There are four dimensions of sociolinguistics introduced by Holmes

(2001). They are a social distance or solidarity concerning the people’s

intimacy, status or power concerning the participants’ position or

commit to user
library.uns.ac.id 9
digilib.uns.ac.id

relationship, formality relating to the setting or context and function

(affective and referential) relating to the goal/aim or topic of the interaction.

3.1. Social Distance

Holmes (2001) says that how well the participants know each other

is one of the most important factors affecting the way they talk. The

language of solidarity is in-group language. People will use vernacular

language to show the attitude of the same ethnic, vernacular forms within

the language to interact with people who know each other well and speech

styles to show intimacy. In most cultures, the appropriate language used

between intimate participants is positive politeness strategies. Meanwhile,

Negative politeness strategies tend to characterize interactions between

strangers – those who are socially distant.

Intimate Distant

High solidarity Low solidarity

3.2. Status

Status or power explains for a variety of linguistic differences in the

way people speak. They speak in a way which signifies the social status and

builds the social identity in a community. The way people talk to others and

the words used also signals their relationship on this dimension. Power or

status differences also explain the greater use of negative politeness forms

by some speakers for example; an employee will use “Sir” to his boss while
commit to user
the boss will call him only by his name (Holmes, 2001).
library.uns.ac.id 10
digilib.uns.ac.id

Superior High status

Subordinate Low status

3.3. Formality

This dimension refers to the use of language in different settings and

contexts. They speak by following the event whether formal or informal.

They use high linguistic language in formal contexts and settings.

Meanwhile, low linguistics language will be used for events with less formal

contexts and settings. Social status and distance usually influence the use of

appropriate or inappropriate language choice, the formality of the setting or

speech event can overwrite them. For example, at a wedding procession, the

language of the bridge and the groom is determined by the ritual occasion,

not by the closeness of their relationship (Holmes, 2001). Formality is also

determined by the type of community. In groups with close social distance

such as friendship, they will avoid formal language even though they are

discussing with formal situations. Conversely, conservative communities

tend to use formal varieties at every opportunity.

Formal High formality

Informal Lowcommit to user

formality
library.uns.ac.id 11
digilib.uns.ac.id

3.4. Function (The Referential and Affective Functional Scale)

In this dimension, it is divided into two functions namely referential

meaning and affective meaning. These affect the form of the language in an

interaction. Also, these two functions influence the kind of information

carried on when interacting. These two functions cause the speaker conveys

the information to the addressee in different emphasizing. Different cultural

groups may emphasize affective functions in contexts where others consider

referential information is the primary focus. For example, a short

welcoming greeting to parents at a school meeting indicates that the school

does not value their presence for some groups. But for others, a short

greeting may be considered as sensible since it enables the meeting to get

down to business with minimal delay (Holmes, 2001).

Referential
High Low
Information Information
Content Content

Affective
Low High
Affective Affective
Content Content

B. Pragmatics

There are many definitions of Pragmatics from experts. As one of a

commit
branch of linguistics study, to userstudies the meaning of utterances.
Pragmatics
library.uns.ac.id 12
digilib.uns.ac.id

According to Leech in Trosborg (1994), Pragmatics concerns with the

meaning of the utterance. It depends on the situation where the utterance

occurs.

Levinson (1983) mentions that pragmatics is the study of context

role in the meaning of utterance. This study involves interpreting what

people mean in a particular context and how the context affects what is said.

It needs an understanding of how speakers manage what he wants to convey

according to who they speak, where, and under what circumstances.

Moreover, Yule (1996:4) states that the speaker or the writer must

be able to depend on a lot of shared assumptions and expectations.

Pragmatics concerns to people’s assumptions, people purposes or goals, and

the types of actions (such as to request, offer, apologize, etc.) that they are

performing when they speak.

Based on many definitions above, the writer concludes that

Pragmatics is a study of utterance meaning which is suitable and influenced

by the context. It means that the hearer must assume the speaker’s meaning

according to the context. It can be said that pragmatics emphasizes the

relation between language meaning and context.

C. Sociopragmatics

Sociopragmatics is a combination study of sociolinguistics and

pragmatics. It concerns with the meaning of language use in relation to

social and cultural values. Trosborg

commit to(1994:37)
user states that sociopragmatics is
library.uns.ac.id 13
digilib.uns.ac.id

concerned with the analysis of significant patterns of interaction in

particular social situations and/or in particular social systems. For example,

speech acts may be realized differently in different social contexts and

situations as well as in different social groups within a speech community.

Emphasis on the interactive aspect and the acknowledgment of the social

context in which a speech act occurs has formed the basis of socio-

pragmatics research (Trosborg, 1994:38).

From the definitions above, it can be said that sociopragmatics

involves an analysis of the use of speech acts in relation to social situations

and the social functions of language. This research applies a socio-

pragmatics approach as it discusses the apology speech act employed in a

particular situation by considering the social relationship between the

participants, the choice of appropriate language, and the speaker’s intended

meaning.

D. Context

Context is an important thing in interpreting the meaning of

utterance. If someone ignores the context and situation, there is a high

probability of misinterpreting the meaning of the utterance. Leech (1983:13)

states that context contributes to helping hearer interpret the meaning of

speech given by the speaker.

Meanwhile, according to Malinowsky (in Halliday and Hasan, 1985;

7), there are two types of contexts, namely the context of the situation and
commit to user
library.uns.ac.id 14
digilib.uns.ac.id

cultural context. The context of the situation is the context in which speech

is uttered or spoken. This includes participants or people involved, time,

place, social environment, etc. Meanwhile, the cultural context is the

background of the context or history behind the participants. It covers roles,

norms, tradition, belief, etc.

Thus, the context has a very important role and has also contributed

a lot in both spoken and written languages. By paying attention to the

context, speaker and listener, the writer and the reader will not misinterpret

the intended meaning.

E. Speech Act

The Definition of Speech Act

When people want to express themselves, they not only produce

speech that contains the structure of language and words but also acts

through utterance. The actions taken by the speaker through utterances are

referred to as speech acts (Yule, 2006: 118).

Moreover, Austin reveals that sentences are not only used to say but

are more active in doing things. When speaking, an action such as stating

facts or opinions, justifying or blaming something, greeting, giving advice

and so on (Allan, 1986: 164). Austin also divides speech acts into three basic

senses, when one is saying something, one is doing something, and hence,

three kinds of acts are simultaneously performed;

a. Locutionary
commit to user
library.uns.ac.id 15
digilib.uns.ac.id

Locutionary act is the actual words uttered. Yule (1996: 48) defines

locutionary act is the basic act of utterance or producing meaningful

linguistic expression.

b. Illocutionary

Illocutionary act is the major concept of this speech act theory. This act

is accomplished by making the statement, explanation, apology, offer,

request, promise, etc.

c. Perlocutionary

Perlocutionary act is the effect or result that the speaker produces by

uttering something. It is the effect of locutionary and illocutionary act.

The example:

Mom: “Anne, where is the fruit I asked you to buy?”

Anne: “Mom, I’m so sorry, I forget to buy it. I will go after it,”

The dialogue between Mom and Anne above shows that the

utterance of saying “Anne, where is the fruit I asked you to buy?” is the

locutionary act. Mom who reminds Anne about the fruit is the illocutionary

act, while the act of apologizing is Perlocutionary act.

Speech Act Classification

Searle (in Levinson, 2000:240) mentions that there are five types of

commit to
speech acts based on its purposes, user
they are:
library.uns.ac.id 16
digilib.uns.ac.id

a. Representatives

These kinds of speech acts commit the speaker to the truth or the

speaker’s belief of the expressed proposition, for example, asserting,

concluding, etc.

b. Directives

Directives are used by the speaker to make the hearer do something, for

example, requesting, advising, ordering, inviting and commanding.

c. Commissives

It commits the speaker to some future course of action, for example,

promising, threatening, refusing and offering.

d. Expressive

Expressive is a speech act in which expresses a psychological state or

the speaker feels, for example, apologizing, thanking, congratulating

and welcoming.

e. Declaration

This kind of speech act is used by the speaker to declare something to

the hearer. It alters the status or condition of an object or someone, for

example, excommunicating, declaring war, baptizing a person, and

firing from employment.

F. Apologies

The Definitions of Apologies

Apology is one of the expressive speech acts. Apologies are made

when the speaker makes ancommit

offensetoonuser
the hearer whether intentional or not.
library.uns.ac.id 17
digilib.uns.ac.id

Leech (1983) says that apologizing has a social purpose to maintain

harmony between both sides, namely the speaker and listener. Moreover,

apology is also a speech act spoken by the speaker to return the face of the

hearer or speaker itself intended to remedy an offense and improve their

relationship (Holmes: 1990). According to Fraser (1981), apologies can be

made and done if these two things can be fulfilled; first, when the speaker

acknowledges the mistake made, and second when the speaker conveys

regret for his mistake.

Brown and Levinson (1987) say that by apologizing, interactional

balance will return because the speaker pays the debt for the offense he/she

made. Furthermore, apologies have the effect of paying off debts, thus

compensating victims for the damage done by the offense (Searle and katz

in Trosborg, 1994). There are two participants in the act of apologizing,

namely apologizer and recipient of the apology. Apologizers are people who

are considered by the recipient as having the responsibility for causing the

offense. Recipients are people who consider themselves worthy of apology.

From some of the definitions above, it can be concluded that apology

occurs when the offender has committed an offense either in the form of

action or speech, which also violating social norms, by being responsible

for mistakes and expressing regret. Apology is done to improve the

relationship and harmony of both sides.

commit to user
library.uns.ac.id 18
digilib.uns.ac.id

The Apology Strategies

Apology strategies are the methods used by the apologizer to do an

apology speech act. In this study, the author used an apology strategy from

Anna Trosborg. It is done because her strategy is considered very specific

among the others.

Trosborg’s strategies of apologizing are developed from Olshtain

and Cohen semantic formula of apology. According to Trosborg (1994:379-

383), the restoration of a complainable may be performed directly by means

of an explicit apology utilizing one of the verbs directly signaling apology

(apologize, be sorry, excuse, etc.). It can also be done indirectly by taking

on responsibility or giving explanations. A potential apologizer may find

reasons to minimize the degree of the offense. If the offense in question is a

grave one, a verbal apology may be insufficient to restore the damaged

relationship. Remedial strategies can take the form of verbal re-

compensations (apologies, explanations, etc.), or in more severe cases in

which verbal remediation is insufficient, strategies attempting a remedy of

the complainable may be required. An offer of repair is often required in

cases in which a verbal apology is felt to be insufficient to restore social

harmony. A promise of forbearance relates to future behavior. An

apologizer promises that he/she will never perform the offense again. The

offender usually uses the strategy of expressing concern as an additional

attempt to placate the complainer. Trosborg divides the apology strategy

into four kinds like the following;

commit to user
library.uns.ac.id 19
digilib.uns.ac.id

a. Evasive strategies

This strategy is closely related to the strategies in which the

complainant fails to take on responsibility. But he/she does not deny

the responsibility. Nevertheless, the complainant may be only partly

responsible. This strategy applies these followings to three sub-

strategies:

1. Minimizing

It is an apology strategy in which the offender does

not feel guilty so he/she considers that there is nothing

serious happens.

e.g.: What about it, It’s not the end of the world.

Oh, what does that matter, that’s nothing.

2. Querying preconditions

This strategy happens when the apologizer thinks

that his/her fault commonly happens to everyone.

e.g.: Well, everybody does that.

commit to user
library.uns.ac.id 20
digilib.uns.ac.id

3. Blaming someone else

Blaming someone else is a strategy of apology

which the apologizer uses a third party to be blamed so

that it is not totally his/her fault.

e.g.: I am late because my brother asked me to pick him up

at school.

b. Indirect Apologies

1. Acknowledgment of responsibility

When a complainant chooses to take on

responsibility, he/she can do so implicitly or explicitly and

with varying degrees of self-blame. These are the sub-

categories of this strategy:

• Implicit acknowledgment

In this strategy, the complainant blames his/her self

implicitly after did the offense

e.g. Oh, your finger. (after he/she stepped on someone’s

finger)

• Explicit acknowledgment

On the other hand, the complainant blames his/her self

explicitly after did the offense

e.g. I stepped on your foot.

commit to user
• Expression of lack of intent
library.uns.ac.id 21
digilib.uns.ac.id

Expression of lack of intent is done when the complainant

uses apology to express his/her lack of purpose.

e.g. I didn’t mean to.

• Expression of self-deficiency

This is one of indirect apologies in which the complainant

considers his/her fault and feel guilty by saying self-

deficiency expression.

e.g. I was confused; You know I am bad at…

• Expression of embarrassment

The complainant expresses his/her fault by saying

something that makes his/herself feels guilty indirectly.

e.g. I feel so bad about it.

• Explicit acceptance of the blame

It is done when the complainant fully takes responsibility

by blaming his/her fault.

e.g. It was entirely my fault; You’re right to blame me.

2. Explanation or account

A complainant may try to mitigate his/her guilt by

giving an explanation or account of the situation. Various

kinds of mitigating circumstances serve as indirect apologies

and maybe put forward on their own or in addition to direct

expression of apology. An explanation or account consists of:

commit to user
• Implicit explanation
library.uns.ac.id 22
digilib.uns.ac.id

A complainant may try to mitigate his/her guilt by giving

an explanation or account of the situation implicitly.

e.g. Such things are bound to happen, you know.

• Explicit explanation

A complainant may try to mitigate his/her guilt by giving

an explanation or account of the situation explicitly.

e.g. Sorry I’m late, but my car broke down.

c. Direct Apologies

An apologizer may choose to express his/her apology

explicitly. There are some words to express apology directly.

Here are the subcategories of this strategy:

1. Expression of regret

Expression of regret is a direct apology in which the

apologizer may choose to express his/her apology explicitly

and directly to the offender.

e.g.: I’m sorry to keep you waiting.

Sorry about that.

I’m sorry to have been so long in getting in touch

with you

2. Offer of apology
commit to user
library.uns.ac.id 23
digilib.uns.ac.id

This strategy prospects the addressee action and it is for the

speaker’s benefit. Offer of apology usually use these words

to express apology;

e.g.: I apologize for…

Please accept my sincere apology for...

My client would like to extend his apologies to you

for the inconvenience involved.

3. Request for forgiveness

Request for forgiveness is one of direct apologies in which

the apologizer will request for forgiveness of his/her fault

explicitly.

e.g.: Please, forgive me. I’m terribly sorry about…

Excuse me, I’m sorry for interrupting you, but…

Pardon me, I didn’t hear what you said.

d. Remedial Support

If the gravity of the offense is a severe one, a verbal

expression of apology is hardly enough to placate the offended

person. Explanations and justifications may be needed.

Furthermore, additional support may be offered. It can be in the

form of verbal expressions of concern, or promises with regard

to future behavior and/or remedy of the offense.

commit to user
1. Expressing concern for hearer
library.uns.ac.id 24
digilib.uns.ac.id

In order to pacify a complainer, the complainant may express

concern for his/her wellbeing, his/her condition, etc.

e.g. I’m sorry. Are … Are you all right?

2. Promise of forbearance

With respect to future behavior, an apologizer can promise

either never to perform the offense again or to improve his/

her behavior in several ways. Such responses are often

signaled by the performative verb ‘promise’.

e.g.: It won’t happen again, I promise.

I would never sass you, Grandma.

3. Offer of repair

An apologizer may offer to repair the damage, which has

resulted from his/ her infraction. Repair may be offered in its

literal sense or an offer to pay for the damage. In a situation

in which actual repair is not possible (not wanted, etc), the

apologizer may offer some kind of compensatory action or

tribute to the complainer.

e.g.: I'm sorry your suite isn't ready yet. But you're

welcome to stay here in Her Majesty's suite

I’ll pay for the broken vase

I’m sorry, please let me fix it for you

(in Wolfson & Judd,1983).

commit to user
library.uns.ac.id 25
digilib.uns.ac.id

G. Related Study

Many previous studies have close relationship with this research.

The writer chooses five studies as follows;

1. The research entitled “Apology Strategies used by Sudanese EFL

learners” conducted by Salih and Elhassan in 2016. This research uses

the apology strategies from Olshtain and Cohen (1983), it is the most

frequently used in pragmatic research. The methods used to collect the

data is a multiple-choice discourse completion test (MDCT) distributed

to 60 candidates who are Sudanese EFL students at Sudan University of

Science and Technology. They find out that the Sudanese EFL learners

use different apology strategies in their spoken discourse and they use

“an offer of repair” as an apology strategy.

2. The research entitled “Apology Strategies of Jordanian EFL university

students” conducted in 2006 by Ruba Fahmi Bataineh and Rula Fahmi

Bataineh. A questionnaire was used by the researchers to collect the data

consisted of two randomly selected groups of one hundred Jordanian

undergraduate EFL students drawn from the Department of English at

YU and the Department of English for Applied Studies at JUST. They

use Sugimoto’s (1997) apology as the basis of this analysis. In this

research, they reveal that male and females use different apology

strategies;

a. The five primary apology strategies used by the male respondents

commit to user
were accounts, compensation, reparation, showing lack of intent to
library.uns.ac.id 26
digilib.uns.ac.id

do harm, and promising not to repeat offense. Meanwhile, those

used by female respondents were accounts, promise not to repeat

offense, compensation, reparation, and showing lack of intent to do

harm.

b. Female respondents tended to assign responsibility to themselves or

others more than their male counterparts.

c. Female respondents used more non-apology strategies than their

male counterparts.

3. The research entitled “Apologizing Strategies Used By The Students Of

English Department of Muhammadiyah University Of Surakarta” is

analyzed by Rodiah in 2016. The researcher collects the data through

documentation of Discourse Completion Task (DCT) and the

respondents are students in the first semester of English Education of

Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. Rodiah concludes her research

as follows;

a. The students use inappropriate apologizing and politeness strategies

that make the students impolite and over-polite in expressing their

apology.

b. Combination of promise for forbearance strategy is mostly used by

the students for the hearer who has lower power. Meanwhile, a

combination of explicit explanation strategy is mostly used for the

hearer who has equal and higher social status.

commit to user
library.uns.ac.id 27
digilib.uns.ac.id

c. Students frequently use some types of apologizing strategies

together which means that Trosborg’s strategies are not independent.

d. The students mostly use negative politeness strategy for the hearer

who is familiar-equal and unfamiliar-lower. Meanwhile, the students

mostly use positive politeness strategy for the hearer who is close-

higher, close-equal, close-lower, familiar-higher, familiar-lower,

unfamiliar-higher, and unfamiliar-equal.

4. The research entitled “Realization of Apology Strategies by English

Department Students of Pekalongan University” is conducted by Qorina

in 2012. This qualitative descriptive research employs DCT (discourse

completion task) to collect the data. The subjects taken were from

students of English Department of Pekalongan University from 2nd, 4th,

6th, and 8th semester. Qorisa uses apology strategies employed by

Holmes (1990). This research concludes that apology strategy frequently

used is the strategy of expressing regret. The higher semester students

use various explicit expressions and acknowledgment of responsibilities

strategies than the lower semester students.

5. This research entitled “A Study of Apology Strategies Used by Iraqi EFL

University Students” is done in 2016 conducted by Ugla and Abidin.

DCTQ (discourse completion task questionnaire) and an interview were

done to collect the data from Al- Yarmouk University College and

College of Education for Human Sciences/ University of Diyala. They

use the theory of apology strategies from Holmes (1990). Ugla and
commit to user
library.uns.ac.id 28
digilib.uns.ac.id

Abidin reveal that Iraqi EFL students used many kinds of apology

strategies. The students were well aware of how to use adequate apology

forms to meet the requirements of specific situations and relationships,

and they felt the need for explaining and avoiding interpretation of their

response as an apology.

commit to user