J0trlud~

ELSEVIER Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1053-1065

www.elsevier.nl/locate/pragma

Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian"

Different languages, different strategies
Ma~gorzata Suszczyriska
Institute of English and American Studies, Jbzsef Attila University (JATE),
Egyetem u.2, Szeged, 6722 Hungary

Abstract

Much of the cross-cultural research into the speech act of apologizing has focused on the
phenomenon of non-native communicative competence and less on cross-cultural data for
their own sake. This paper is an attempt at a more detailed analysis of a small portion of data
from a corpus of English, Hungarian, and Polish written responses to a discourse completion
test, with the goal of highlighting differences in the realizations of apologetic responses that
can be found not only in the choice and sequential arrangement of strategies but also in the
content and in the choice of linguistic form. It is believed that such a detailed analysis is
essential in order to grasp important differences in cultural communicative styles and will be
ultimately helpful in understanding different cultural values and assumptions concerning
interpersonal conduct in West and Central Europe. 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights
reserved.

Keywords: Sociopragmatics; Cross-cultural pragmatics; Speech acts; Politeness; Language

and culture; Apology

1. Research into apology

While classical speech act theory defined and classified apologizing according to
felicity conditions for its most prototypical (or so it seemed) realizations, which are
an apologetic performative verb and an expression of regret, the main contribution of
recent research into the pragmatics of apologizing was that, based not on introspec-
tion but on elicited or natural data, it defined apologizing as a culture-sensitive
'speech-act set' (Olshtain and Cohen, 1983) of semantic formulae or strategies found
to regularly co-occur in apologetic responses, being relevant for a felicitous perfor-
mance of this speech act.
Such a model was proposed in Cohen and Olshtain (1981) (derived from Fraser,
1981) and later developed (both for apologies and requests) in Blum-Kulka and

0378-2166/99/$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0378-2166(99)00047-8
1054 M. Suszczyhska / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1053-1065

Olshtain (1984) and in Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) into the CCSARP (Cross-cultural
study of speech act realization patterns) project.
The goals of the project were "to compare across languages the realization pat-
terns of two speech acts - requests and apologies - and to establish the similarities
and differences between native and non-native speakers' realization patterns in these
two acts" (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984: 196), with the prospect of applying the
results to communicative foreign language teaching and examining their usefulness
for international communication.
The languages contrastively examined for apology within CCSARP were Ameri-
can English, Australian English, Canadian French, German, and Hebrew; outside
CCSARP, using the apology-set model, the languages examined were Danish (Tros-
borg, 1987), New Zealand English (Holmes, 1990) and also Hungarian (Suszczyfi-
ska, 1994a,b); Japanese apologies were analyzed in contrast to thanks in Coulmas
(1981), while Owen (1983) investigated apologies (routinized formulae and
accounts) as remedial interchanges (within Goffman's framework, 1971) in British
English, with marginal reference to routinized apology formulae in other European
and non-European languages. Also, there is a single language study of Polish apolo-
gies by Ozrg (1985).
Many of the CCSARP studies were ultimately interested in the communicative
competence of non-native speakers of English and in the degree of pragmatic trans-
fer between a native and a target language. They compared native and non-native
responses, collected and examined across a variety of situations, for social and con-
textual factors like distance, power, and severity (ranking) of violation. The cross-
cultural data were analyzed mostly from a global perspective of strategy occurrence,
with less attention paid to strategy order or the significance of content.
The assumption was that the model should help reveal cross-cultural differences, as
it often did. Still, Olshtain (1989), in the major CCSARP study of apologetic strategies
in Hebrew, German, French, and Australian English concludes that the languages inves-
tigated "did not exhibit significant differences in strategy selection" and showed "sur-
prising similarities in IFID and expression of responsibility preferences across the seven
situations"; "at a global level of analysis, we can identify universal manifestations of
strategy selection" (Olshtain, 1989: 171). The caveat to the findings was that they may
be partly an artifact of the data collection instrument - the situations which created
cross-culturally similar contexts (student life on a campus in a Western-type society).
In the same volume of CCSARP studies, Vollmer and Olshtain (1989) offered an
analysis of German apologies, using the same model for a more detailed analysis of
apologies (like the choice among IFID strategies or strategy order across situations,
and the relevance of such choices for the strength of apology); it is such a detailed
intralanguage analysis that seems to be a necessary prerequisite to a cross-cultural
comparison. The fact that differences do not reveal themselves at a global level
proves the universality of the model (and of human experience) but also seems to
result from the global perspective itself. The differences, although not always self-
evident for the researcher, are there, readily noticed and judged in cross-cultural con-
tacts (be it a classroom or a conference hall) as this is where different 'cultural log-
ics' manifest themselves.
 M. Suszczyhska / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1053-1065 1055

2. Apology, politeness, and culture

In recent years politeness has become central to the discussion of human interaction.
The main tenets of Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory of avoidance-based neg-
ative politeness and solidarity-based positive politeness are well known and the
importance of their framework to cross-cultural analysis cannot be questioned. Still,
the application of this framework has faced many problems. There is little agreement
among researchers about what exactly constitutes politeness (Fraser, 1990) and the
concept of 'face', at least as defined by Brown and Levinson, does not seem to be
universally applicable (e.g. Matsumoto, 1988). Importantly, as Blum-Kulka (1992)
observes, "systems of politeness manifest a culturally filtered interpretation of inter-
action" (1992: 270), the social understanding of politeness being significantly
affected by certain cultural notions like sincerity or truthfulness.
The significance of cultural values for pragmatic analysis of verbal behavior has
been strongly advocated by Wierzbicka, who in a seminal paper (Wierzbicka,
1985b: 145) argues that linguistic differences are due to "aspects of culture much
deeper than mere norms of politeness" and are associated with cultural differences
such as, for instance, spontaneity, intimacy, and affection vs. indirectness, distance,
and anti-dogmatism. From this perspective, politeness as a metapragmatic concept
cannot be understood without first defining its different folk notions, which can be
as culture-specific as, for example, intimacy or tolerance.
Indeed, the application of Brown and Levinson's theory to the analysis of apology
seems to support Wierzbicka's claim that speech acts and other verbal behavior can-
not be truly understood without reference to cultural values and attitudes. Brown and
Levinson (1987: 187) refer to apology only marginally, listing it as intrinsically a
negative politeness strategy, which indicates S(speaker)'s "reluctance to impinge on
H's negative face", H(hearer)'s want that his actions be unimpeded by others. From
S's perspective, apologies are FFAs which imply damage to S's positive face (Brown
and Levinson, 1987: 68, 76). Olshtain (1989: 156) attempts to incorporate these
aspects, defining apology as "a speech act which is intended to provide support for
the H (hearer) who was actually or potentially malaffected by a violation X. Hence
the act of apologizing is face-saving for the H and face-threatening for the S(speaker),
in Brown and Levinson's (1987) terms". Still, the question remains what face-saving,
face-threatening and support mean for different language groups. It is true that the pri-
mary function of apology is "to restore equilibrium" (Holmes, 1990: 161) between
the apologizer and the offended person, but this can only be done in a manner appro-
priate to the culture of the speakers, where being polite (however defined) is only one
of many concerns. It is hoped that a detailed analysis of the data will throw some light
on what such culturally appropriate styles are in the examined language groups.

3. The model

The model used in my study has been based on Cohen and Olshtain (1981:
113-134) and Olshtain and Cohen (1983: 22-23), as well as on the CCSARP cod-
ing manual (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989: 289).
1056 M. Suszczyhska / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1053-1065

(1) Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs)

a. An expression of regret, e.g. I'm sorry
b. An offer of apology, e.g. I apologize
c. A request for forgiveness, e.g. Excuse me~Forgive me~Pardon me
(2) Explanation or Account
Any external mitigating circumstances, 'objective' reasons for the violation, e.g.
The traffic was terrible
(3) Taking on Responsibility
a. Explicit self-blame, e.g. It is my fault~my mistake
b. Lack of intent, e.g. I didn't mean it
c. Expression of self-deficiency, e.g. I was confused/l didn't see you~I forgot
d. Expression of embarrassment, e.g. I feel awful about it
e. Self-dispraise, e.g. I'm such a dimwit!
f. Justify hearer, e.g. You're right to be angry
g. Refusal to acknowledge guilt
Denial of responsibility, e.g. It wasn't my fault
Blame the hearer, e.g. It's your own fault
Pretend to be offended, e.g. I'm the one to be offended
(4) Concern for the hearer, e.g. I hope I didn't upset you/Are you all right?
(5) Offer of Repair, e.g. l'll pay for the damage
(6) Promise of Forbearance, e.g. It won't happen again

The model has been empirically developed and its universal applicability has been
successfully tested on various languages (Olshtain, 1989). It shows that when apolo-
gizing, speakers habitually resort to a limited number of verbal strategies (grouped
into six main super-strategies). It is assumed that the choice and final linguistic real-
ization of these strategies is context- and culture-sensitive, and although, as has been
mentioned earlier, the model helps reveal many cross-cultural similarities in apology
realizations, it can be successfully used in more detailed analyses, like that of
Vollmer and Olshtain (1989).
The first super-strategy, the IFID which contains formulaic, routinized forms of
apology, distinguishes between an offer of apology and what Owen (1983: 171)
classifies as an expression of attitude towards the offense (I am sorry) and a request
for restoration of balance (e.g. Forgive me). The relevance of this distinction for
cross-cultural comparison has been supported by the findings of Vollmer and Olsh-
tain (1989).
The remaining apology strategies, when analyzed at a more specific level of order
and content, will also reveal culture-specific preferences. For example, accounts will
surely vary in their content (i.e. different elements of the context will be regarded as
good or bad candidates for an effective account). Taking on responsibility will show
culture-specific preferences for its sub-categories, and most importantly, different
responsibility values will be attached to its different sub-types, which might bring
about the need to redefine the concept of the category itself. Naturally, differences in
the distribution of the strategies across a variety of situations are obvious indicators
of their sensitivity to contextual factors.
 M. Suszczyhska /Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1053-1065 1057

4. The analysis

4.1. The data

The data for my analysis come from a discourse completion test (DCT); my sub-
jects were 14 American, 20 Hungarian, and 76 Polish students. The DCT consisted
of eight situations requiting apology (Cohen and Olshtain, 1981: 132-134), the last
one (in three versions, with an increasing weight of offense) describing S bumping
into an elderly lady in a supermarket. I have chosen this situation for my analysis
because of its universality (see Goffman, 1971, and Holmes, 1990) in the subjects'
experience, its relative independence of such factors as status or profession (although
age or sex may be relevant to some degree), and because such 'collisions' which
cause small bodily inconvenience are with all probability considered an offense that
requires some apology in many cultures that are part of our modem civilization.
In my analysis, I will first discuss the realizations of the most central or prototyp-
ical strategy for an apology - the IFID formulae - using the data from the responses
to all eight situations in the three languages. In the discussion of the remaining apol-
ogy strategies, I will focus only on the 'lady in the supermarket' situation and dis-
cuss the details of strategy occurrences, their order and content.

4.2. IFIDs

As Table 1 demonstrates, all three languages possess four basic IFID formulae.
The figures refer to the number of occurrences of entire strategy types in the data. In
the majority of cases, there was one IFID strategy per situation; if there were more,
different IFID strategies within the same situation were counted individually, while
the repetition of the same strategy was considered as its single occurrence.

Table 1
IFID formulas in English, Hungarian and Polish

English (14 subjects)

Sorry Excuse Forgive Apologize

89 14 1 1

Hungarian (20 subjects)

Sajn6lom Eln~z~st Bocs{mat Ne haragudjon

(Sorry) (Excuse) (Forgive) (Don't be angry)
26 34 37 58

Polish (76 subjects)

Przepraszam Przykro mi Wybacz Nie gniewaj sic

(I apologize) (Sorry) (Forgive) (Don't be angry)
291 47 27 6
1058 M. Suszczyhska / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1053-1065

The three IFID sets cannot be perfectly mapped onto one another because, for
example, Hungarian lacks a true performative verb, English, at least in my data, does
not use the expression 'don't be angry' as an apologetic formula (interestingly, there
is no English verb to express that mental activity), and Polish, unlike English or
Hungarian, has no equivalent of 'excuse me' for smaller offenses (Borkin and Rein-
hart, 1978), but simply uses Przepraszam in all such situations. Yet, on the global
level of the available strategy types, there are obvious similarities to be observed. In
all three languages, there are IFID formulae expressing regret, asking forgiveness, or
pleading to withhold anger, all pointing to common human experience. What is
essential from the perspective of cross-cultural comparison is which of these expres-
sions have been routinized in particular language groups, and why.
In English, as has been demonstrated by many researchers (e.g. Holmes, 1990;
Owen, 1983), the overwhelming expression is one of regret (I'm sorry), with few
cases left to excuse me, and sporadic cases of forgive me or I apologize, the latter
being used more in written apologies. That dominant position of the expression of
regret in the English data is probably responsible for classical speech theory identi-
fying apology so strongly with this particular emotion, while the Hungarian and the
Polish data make the centrality of regret for apology less relevant and more lan-
guage-specific.
In the Hungarian data, all four strategies are well represented and routinized.
There is a preference for Ne haragudjon ('Don't be angry'), then comes Bocsdnat
('Forgive me'), with ElnFz~st ('Excuse me') coming next, and Sajn6lom ('Sorry')
being used least of all.
In Polish, the performative verb Przepraszam is used most often (literally trans-
lated as 'I apologize'; pragmatically, however, the English expression is not equiva-
lent) with definitely fewer cases left to Przykro mi ('I am sorry') and Wybacz mi
('Forgive me'), and just a handful of Nie gniewaj sic ('Don't be angry').
Such a simple comparison is definitely not sufficient to make very conclusive
statements, as it is based on three unequal corpora of elicited (not natural) data and
no correlatons with situational variables have been shown; still, it does demonstrate
certain important and non-arbitrary preferences which seem to support Wierzbicka's
(1985b, 1991) position that speech acts are not language-independent 'natural kinds'
but culture-specific communicative routines. The differences in the realizations of
the IFIDs provide a good example.
The IFIDs are the strategies which are the most conventionalized and rou-
tininized, being as it were in the center of the speech act category of apologizing and
representing verbal routines or syntactic-semantic formulae (Owen, 1983: 172)
which are regularly used to fulfill a specific communicative function. Although in
such ready-made chunks of language the literal meaning of what is being said is
often perceived as a matter of convention, the data demonstrate that it must be rele-
vant in some way for language users; otherwise there would be no variety in IFID
realizations. Some evidence that such is indeed the case is provided by the fact that
the non-standard choices hardly remain unnoticed within the speech community;
speakers perceive the strategies' differences as to apologetic 'strength', as when in
private communication both Polish and Hungarian friends of mine commented that
 M. Suszczyfiska / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1053-1065 1059

in English films, even in cases of serious offenses, 'they just say I'm sorry! ', mean-
ing that, from their cultural perspective, this formula was much too 'weak' for the
purpose (Vollmer and Olshtain, 1989, place the IFID formulae on the strong-weak
continuum). This means that the syntactic-semantic forms of the IFID formulae
function as conventional linguistic means to embody culture-specific attitudes and
represent modes of social interaction characteristic of a particular culture (Wierz-
bicka, 1985a: 500).
Within Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory of linguistic politeness the nature of
these differences would be probably explained in terms of the threat to speaker's
face. An expression of regret, the central strategy for native speakers of English,
appears much less face-threatening for both S and H than a request for forgiveness.
As an expressive, it does not directly impose on H's negative face, unlike Hungarian
or Polish directive requests for H to withhold anger or grant forgiveness. As far as
S's own face is concerned, an expression of regret exposes S's face (however sym-
bolically) much less to H's willingness to forgive than a direct request for forgive-
ness. Thus, the choice of I'm sorry for English remains in accordance with the gen-
eral assumption that contemporary English displays features of avoidance-based
negative politeness.
Although the above reasoning explains the nature of English apologetic choices, it
does not seem to account for how apologetic strategies work in Polish or Hungarian,
as the 'cultural logic' in these countries differs from English. For an English speaker,
an expression of regret is a 'better' way to apologize because, in comparison with
other IFIDs, it does not seem to threaten 'distance' between individuals. As
Wierzbicka notices (1985b: 156), "in Anglo-Saxon culture, distance is a positive
cultural value, associated with respect for the autonomy of the individual. By con-
trast, in Polish culture it is associated with hostility and alienation", or at least with
emotional coolness and indiference, and this is how, I believe, 'distance' is also per-
ceived in Hungarian.
As for requests to withhold anger and pleas for forgiveness, they do embody some
kind of deference and indebtedness (especially in Hungarian), but do not distance
participants from each other and do not, in my opinion, threaten their 'face' in either
language. On the contrary, they are perceived as a natural and expected display of
emotional involvment.
As far as Polish is concerned, its most popular IFID formula (Przepraszam, with
a performative verb) seems to support Vollmer and Olshtain's (1989) suggestion that
performative verbs make stronger apologies than other realizations of IFID. Still, it
is not only its performativity that seems to be of relevance for the expression's wide-
spread application throughout changing dimensions of distance, status, or gravity of
offense. Przepraszam seems less formal (without being intimate) or distancing than
I apologize, but not as deferential or humbling as other IFIDs, and I think this may
explain its 'all-purpose' nature in Polish.
To say something truly substantial about the pragmatics of the IFID formulae in
the three language groups would require a much more detailed analysis, considering
their distribution in particular situations and their sensitivity to many variables of the
context.
1060 M. Suszczyhska / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1053-1065

5. Strategies in situation

At a global level, the responses of the three groups of speakers to the situation
under analysis (bumping into a lady in a department store) display similarities in the
strategy choice: they all regularly use IFIDs, offer help, express concern and, as it is
labeled in the model, take on responsibility. Still, on a more detailed level of descrip-
tion, very definite preferences, language-specific 'styles', can be observed in how
speakers cope with the offended party in the examined situation.
In all three groups, the 'remedial action' starts with an IFID. The English group,
as expected, consequently uses an expression of regret, but always preceded by
intensified adverbials (I'm so/ terribly/ really sorry). The utterances often (64%)
start with emotional exclamations (Oh/Oh, my God/Lord.t~ Oh, no!), and in a num-
ber of cases (28%) the IFID is repeated twice.
In the Hungarian group, the picture is more complex, which stems from the very
nature of the Hungarian IFID realizations. As expected, Hungarians use all four for-
mulae, with a preference for Ne haragudjon ('Don't be angry', 45%) and Bocsdmat
('Forgive', 45%). The distribution of internal intensification (80%) of the IFID for-
mulae appears less obligatory than in English, but it is interesting to notice that
whenever the expression of regret is used, it is always intensified, as in English
(Igazdm/ nagyon/ dszinMn/ borzaszt6an sajndlom, 'Truly/very/sincerely (I) am
sorry'). Also, Hungarians use fewer exclamations than English (30%), but they
rather more often (35%) repeat the IFID within one response (twice or even three
times).
In the Polish data, 85% of responses use the performative Przepraszam, with
Przykro mi ('I'm sorry'), always intensified, and Prosz mi wybaczy( ('Please for-
give me') in the remaining 15%. Here, intensifying adverbials appear in 68% of the
cases, the IFID is repeated twice within one response in 29% of the cases, and
exclamatory expressions appear in 20% of the responses, all values being lower than
the Hungarian ones.
The above findings are summed up in Table 2 and show that, as for the modifica-
tion (upgrading) of the IFID, the English group resorts to it most often, the Polish
group less frequently, with the Hungarian group placing itself in the middle.

Table 2
Modificationsof IFIDs

Exclamation Intensification Repeat IFID

English 64% 100% 28%
Hungarian 30% 80% 35%
Polish 20% 69% 29%

One thing that those findings seem to suggest is that in all three languages the
expression of regret is relatively 'weak' in its apologetic force, always requiring
intensification, whereas other strategies do not. Thus, the obligatory nature of inten-
 M. Suszczyhska / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1053-1065 1061

sification in English, often combined with a relatively high frequency of emotional

exclamations, can be explained, at least partly, as a function of the strategy choice.
Another possible explanation would be that the offense itself is perceived as more
serious than in other language groups. The extensive use of a performative verb in
Polish with relatively little intensification suggests that the performative is indeed a
'strong' apologetic device in that language. Generally, the IFID choices in the exam-
ined situation reflect the expected preferences. With regard to the differences in the
amount of intensifying devices, they reflect speakers' attempts to adjust IFIDs to the
requirements of the situation.
As for the remaining strategies that follow IFID, one of the main differences is
that of strategy order. In the English data, the IFID is immediately followed by an
expression of concern and an offer of repair (help), predominantly in that order, with
an expression of concern appearing in 71% of the responses and an offer of help in
all of them (100%). Concern most often takes the form of an almost formulaic Are
you all right~OK?, while help is offered with Let me help you with your pack-
ages~Let me help you pick up your things. Only in 2 cases (14%) does S express
moderate self-dispraise (I should be more careful). Altogether, the English answers
to the situation offer quite a routine-like strategy-set, where a generic response could
have the following prototypical form:

(1) Oh, I'm so sorry! Are you all tight? Let me help you with your things.

The main difference between the English and the Hungarian data is that in the lat-
ter, 60% of the responses contain intensified self-dispraise, expression of self-defi-
ciency or non-intentionality (a feature found elsewhere in the Hungarian data;
Suszczyfiska, 1994a,b), and in almost all of these cases these strategies immediately
follow the IFID. In the apology model, these strategies are all listed as implicit
expressions of responsibility. I am not sure if they are always used with this purpose
in mind, or whether the concept of 'responsibility' adequately labels what is going
on. These strategies can easily be grouped together because they share a common
perspective - they speak about the offender, often in an unfavorable way, like
Szi~rnyen iigyetlen vagyok ('I am terribly clumsy') or Borzaszt6an figyelmetlen
voham ('I was terribly careless'). It is precisely this humbling of self that seems to
reveal a culturally important attitude. More research into Hunagrian pragmatics is
needed to define this concept in culturally relevant terms.
Expressions of concern (40%) and offers of help (80%) ('other' strategies) usually
follow suit. It should be mentioned that in the cases where both are missing (3
responses), the IFID is repeated twice or even three times, while different forms of
self-dispraise are also repeated, which may point to the intensity of apology some-
times being a function of its length.
The offers of help and expressions of concern do not exhibit the same formulaic
character in Hungarian that they do in my English data, leaving more verbal access
to the context. People simply ask concrete questions like F6j a 16ba? ('Is your leg
hurting? ') or Nagyon megiiti~tte mag6t? ('Have you hurt yourself very much? '). The
Hungarian equivalent of Are you OK? (Minden rendben?) does not appear in my
1062 M. Suszczyhska /Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1053-1065

data. The unspecific nature of such a request seems to conflict with the higher degree
of attention and involvement required by such a situation in Hungarian.
An offer of help, as in the English responses, refers to picking up the packages.
There are at least three syntactic constructions that Hungarian speakers use for this pur-
pose: Segithetek 6sszepakolni ?~Hard segitsek/Segitek 6sszeszedni a csomagokat ('Can
I help collect (your things)? '/'Let me help you'/'I (will) help pick up your packages'),
which shows a slightly wider variety of available forms than in my English data. Also,
speakers occasionally express personal involvement and readiness to help, prefacing
the offer of help with expressions like J6jj6n/vfrjon ... ('Come'/'wait' ...). While
showing concem (20%), Hungarians often express the hope that nothing very serious
has happened, like Remdlem, nem t6rt 6ssze a csomagja ('I hope your packages haven't
been damaged') - perhaps a form of conversational optimism (in Brown and Levin-
son's terms). All in all, it is more difficult to posit a generic Hungarian apology because
of the greater variety of strategies and forms, but I suggest it might look like this:

(2) K6rem, ne haragudjon. Nagyon iigyetlen voltam. J6jj6n, segitek 6sszeszedni a

csomagokat. Nem fit6tte meg mag~it? Rem61em nem s~lyos.
Please, don't be angry. I was very clumsy. Come, I will help you pick up the
packages. Haven't you got hurt? I hope it is not serious.

As far as the Polish responses are concerned, the speakers quite regularly offer
help (80%), as in Hungarian, but an expression of concern appears only in 24% of
the responses. As for the remaining strategies (altogether 40%), there is a range of
choices (wider than in Hungarian) from self-dispraise like Straszna ze mnie niezdara
(I'm a terrible klutz') (16%, but in Hungarian 30%), expressions of non-intentional-
ity, claims of non-awareness ('I didn't notice/see you', 11%) or self-deficiency ('I
don't know what has got into me today'), and sporadic references to an objective
reason ('I have a flu, I am in a hurry') are found, including one case of explicit self-
blame ('It is my fault').
As to Hungarian vs. Polish, in both groups speakers talk about themselves (the
offender) much more than do the English subjects (Poles less than Hungarians);
Poles use self-dispraise definitely less often then Hungarians, choosing from a wide
range of other strategies on the responsibility continuum.
Another specifically Polish feature that should be mentioned here is the content of
the offer of help. Poles often offer help in two steps: the first one concerns the site
of the offense and refers to picking up the packages, showing similar structural fea-
tures to Hungarian. Once this has been done, another offer comes (this time only as
a polite interrogative) - that of transporting the lady and her packages home or to
some other place (24%). Again, it is not possible to give one prototypical response
for Polish, but I would suggest the following as a possible choice:

(3) Bardzo Pani0 przepraszam. Nie zauwa2ylam Pani. Zaraz pozbieram Pani
zakupy. Co z nog0? MoZe odprowadzi6 Panio do domu?
I'm very sorry, Madam. I didn't notice you. I will pick your packages right
away. What about your leg? Should I perhaps take you home?
 M. Suszczyhska / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1053-1065 1063

Table 3 sums up the findings discussed above.

Table 3
Distribution of strategies in situation
'Other'-strategies 'Self'-strategies
Help Concern
English 100% 71% 14%
Hungarian 80% 40% 60%
Polish 80% 24% 40%

If we interpret this data on the assumption that the strategies like self-dispraise,
non-intentionality, or self-deficiency (here labeled as 'self'-strategies) express
responsibility, then we are bound to claim that the English group is not keen on tak-
ing responsibility. This seems somewhat counter-intuitive, as we feel that, for exam-
ple, the intensified expression of regret or an expression of concern partly performs
this job. Rather, the (dis)preference for the self-strategies should be seen as moti-
vated by deeper cultural attitudes related to public self-exposure of an individual (cf.
Wierzbicka, 1985b: 168 on disapproval of public display of emotions in the Anglo-
Saxon culture). Admitting one's deficiency can be quite embarrassing, discrediting,
and ultimately unnecessary in a society that values personal preserves and egalitari-
anism. For the same reasons, there is a high expectation of consideration for others
and their 'personal preserves', although within the limits of non-imposition on H's
privacy.
It seems that such immunity of one's private self is much less part of the Hungar-
ian or Polish culture. People are more publicly available to each other, which implies
less social distance and a smaller personal preserve - the hurting leg is verbally
noticed, speakers are more ready (and expected) to display their weaknesses in order
to 'pay' for the offense and the private territory of the offended person is easily
'invaded' in the offender's eagerness to offer help.
The version of the 'lady in the supermarket' situation in which a collision happens
because the lady was blocking the way, provides further data supporting the above
observations. In the English data, 4 English subjects (28%) decide to justify or
account for the offense (I need to get through/It's so crowded here today) but only
one refers in a hedged way to the lady's responsibility for the collision (The stair's
so crowded today and you have so many bags I couldn't help bumping into you).
As for the Hungarian responses, altogether 25% of the subjects comment on the
difficulty in passing by, while 15% directly reprimand the lady, e.g. Bocsdmat, de j6
lenne, ha mdtshol tetszene dlldog61ni ds nero az tit kfzep~n ('Forgive me, but it would
be good if you were kind enough to stand somewhere else, not in the middle of
the way').
The Polish data show 51% of comments on the difficulty in passing and 36% of
responses reprimand the lady, often quite impolitely, like Przepraszam, ale mogtaby
sic Pani usunqC z przejgcia, bo naprawd zatarasowata Pani drog ('I'm sorry, but
1064 M. Suszczyhska / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1053-1065

could you move out of the passage, Madam, as you have really blocked the way').
The relatively high percentage of those 'attacks' on the social flaws of others seems
to correlate with the low percentage of self-dispraise in Polish.
Again, Wierzbicka's (1991: 92) observation provides a good account of the
observed differences: in Anglo-American culture "'direct confrontation' is avoided
in the interest of social harmony between independent individuals", which does not
seem to be the case in Poland or Hungary, where confrontational, 'direct' behavior
is not discouraged, and opinions and emotions, including negative ones, can be
expressed in strong terms, even if painful for the other party (Wierzbicka, 1985b:
162, 1991: 115).

6. Conclusion

This paper has aimed to demonstrate that a more detailed analysis of cross-cul-
tural data will produce a more clear picture of differences in apologetic responses
and help understand the nature of different communicative styles. Much more data
would be needed to validate the findings of the small scale analysis presented here.
The model proposed by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) has been very helpful in coding
the data and spotting the differences between the language groups. The question that
remains the most difficult to answer is the nature of such differences. It seems that
politeness theory, in its present form, is not enough to explain such differences, since
they stem less from universal norms of politeness but more from culture-specific val-
ues and attitudes. Undestanding these values and attitudes is essential to understand-
ing language use.

References
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, 1992. The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In: Richard J. Watts,
Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, eds., Politeness in language. Studies in its history, theory and prac-
tice, 255-280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper, 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests
and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Elite Olshtain, 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of
speech-act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5: 196-213.
Borkin, Ann and Susan M. Reinhart, 1978. Excuse me and I'm sorry. TESOL Quarterly 12(1): 57-70.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson, 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, Andrew D. and Elite Olshtain, 1981. Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The
case of apology. Language Learning 31(1): 113-134.
Coulmas, Florian, 1981. Poison to your soul: Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In: Florian
Coulmas, ed., Conversational routine, 69-91. The Hague: Mouton.
Fraser, Bruce, 1981. On apologizing. In: Florian Coulmas, ed., Conversational routine, 259-273. The
Hague: Mouton.
Fraser, Bruce, 1990, Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219-236.
Goffrnan, Erving, 1971. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Holmes, Janet, 1990. Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society 19: 155-199.
 M. Suszczyhska / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 1053-1065 1065

Matsumoto, Yoshiko, 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japan-
ese. Journal of Pragmatics 12:403-426
Olshtain, Elite, 1989. Apologies across languages. In: Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House and
Gabriele Kasper, 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 155-173. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Olshtain, Elite and Andrew D. Cohen, 1983. Apology: A speech-act set. In: Nessa Wolfson and Elliot
Judd, eds., Sociolinguistics and acquisition, 18-36. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Owen, Marion, 1983. Apologies and remedial interchanges. Berlin: Mouton.
O~,6g, Kazimierz, 1985. Przeproszenia w dzisiejszej polszczy~nie m6wionej. Jzyk Polski LXV (4):
265-276.
Suszczyriska, Maigorzata, 1994a. A study in intercultural pragmatics: Apology. Studies in Applied Lin-
guistics 1 : 111-122.
Suszczydska, Malgorzata, 1994b. Linguistic politeness and the speech act of apology. Folia Practico-lin-
guistica XXIV: 571-578.
Trosborg, Anna, 1987. Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics 11: 147-167.
Vollmer, Helmut J. and Elite Olshtain, 1989. The language of apologies in German. In: Shoshana Blum-
Kulka, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper, 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies,
155-173. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wierzbicka, Anna, 1985a. A semantic metalanguage for a cross cultural comparison of speech acts and
speech genres. Language in Society 14: 491-514.
Wierzbicka, Anna, 1985b. Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Prag-
matics 9: 145-178.
Wierzbicka, Anna, 1991. Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mou-
ton de Gruyter.

Matgorzata Suszczyliska was born in Inowroclaw, Poland, 10 Dec. 1953. She graduated from the Uni-
versity in Warsaw (MA in historical linguistics) in 1977 and worked as a teacher of English till 1982,
when she moved to Hungary. Since 1985 she has worked as an Assistant Professor and then as a Senior
Professor at the English Department of J6zsef Attila University in Szeged. She is currently working on
her Ph.D. dissertation on cross-cultural pragmatics. Her research interests include spoken discourse,
speech acts and conversational analysis.