Volume 27, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


Speech act studies are increasingly likely to use retrospective verbal protocols to record the thoughts of participants who produced targeted speech acts (e.g., Cohen & Olshtain, 1993 ). However, although communication is always a two-way street, little is known about the recipients’ perceptions of speech acts. In academic communication at universities, it is critical for students to gain awareness of the socio-cultural norms as well as knowledge of appropriate linguistic forms in interacting with instructors. Therefore, gathering perceptual information from instructors, the recipients of many speech acts such as apologies, serves an important role in realizing successful student-instructor communication. Targeting instructors’ perceptions, two forms of an online survey were created via surveygizmo.com, with one including 12 spoken apologies and the other including 12 emailed apologies. An equal number of native (NS) and nonnative English speaking (NNS) students produced these apologies. The 150 instructors who responded to the survey gave significantly higher ratings to apologies made by NS students than to those made by NNS students. An analysis of instructors’ explanations after the ratings showed that both sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge ( Thomas, 1983 ) were valued in the successful realization of apologies, with the majority of instructor explanations addressing the sociopragmatic aspects of apology productions. In their comments on highly-rated student apologies, instructors appreciated the fact that students took responsibility in apologizing, offered worthy explanations, and delivered the messages with minimum grammatical mistakes. Poorly rated apology messages did not contain sufficient or valid evidence, inconvenienced the instructors through inappropriate requests, and usually had multiple grammatical mistakes. This study provides useful source of information to be used in university classrooms that can orientate novice learners towards socio-cultural expectations and appropriate lexical markers to be employed in making successful apologies in academic settings.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen C. Levinson
    1978Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cheng, Dongmei
    2013 “Student-instructor Apologies: How are they Produced and Perceived?”Unpublished Ph.D.thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
  3. Cohen, Andrew D. , and Elite Olshtain
    1993 “The Production of Speech Acts by EFL Learners.”TESOL Quarterly27: 33–56. doi: 10.2307/3586950
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586950 [Google Scholar]
  4. Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria
    2011 “‘Please answer me as soon as possible’: Pragmatic Failure in Non-Native Speakers’ E-email Requests to Faculty.”Journal of Pragmatics43: 3193–3215. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  5. Engel, Bevely
    2001The Power of Apology. New York: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Eslami, Zohreh R. , and Abbass Eslami-Rasekh
    2008 “Enhancing the Pragmatic Competence of Non-Native English-Speaking Teacher Candidates (NNSTCs) in an EFL Context.”InInvestigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing., ed.byE.A. Soler, and A. Martínez-Flor, 178–197. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Evetts, Julia
    2003 “The Sociological Analysis of Professionalism: Occupational Change in the Modern World.”International Sociology18: 395–415. doi: 10.1177/0268580903018002005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580903018002005 [Google Scholar]
  8. Félix-Brasdefer, J. César
    2008 “Perceptions of Refusals to Invitations: Exploring the Minds of Foreign Language Learners.”Language Awareness17: 195–211. doi: 10.1080/09658410802146818
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802146818 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ishihara, Noriko
    2009 “Teacher-based Assessment for Foreign Language Learners.”TESOL Quarterly43: 445–470. doi: 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2009.tb00244.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00244.x [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010 “Assessing Learners’ Pragmatic Ability in the Classroom.”InPragmatics: Teaching Speech Acts, ed.byD.H. Tatsuki, and N.R. Houck, 209–227. Alexandria, Virginia: TESOL.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Littlemore, Jeannette
    2003 “The Communicative Effectiveness of Different Types of Communication Strategy.”System31: 331–347. doi: 10.1016/S0346‑251X(03)00046‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00046-0 [Google Scholar]
  12. McKay, Sandra Lee
    2006Researching Second Language Classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Swart, William , Steve Duncan , and Rosina Chia
    2009 Professionalism and Work Ethic among U.S. and Asian University Students in a Global Classroom: A Multi-cultural Comparison. International Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics7: 36–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Taguchi, Naoko
    2003Pragmatic Performance in Comprehension and Production of English as a Second Language. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2011 “Rater Variation in the Assessment of Speech Acts.”Pragmatics21 (3): 453–471. doi: 10.1075/prag.21.3.08tag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.3.08tag [Google Scholar]
  16. Tateyama, Yumiko
    2001 Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. InPragmatics in Language Teaching, ed.ByK.R. Rose, and G. Kasper, 200–222. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.015 [Google Scholar]
  17. Thomas, Jenny
    1983 “Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure.”Applied Linguistics4: 91–112. doi: 10.1093/applin/4.2.91
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): apologies; instructors’ ratings; online survey; perceptions
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error