A Cross-cultural Sociopragmatic Study
Apology Speech Act Realization Patterns in Indonesian, Sundanese, and Japanese
Nuria Haristiani and Ari Arifin Danuwijaya
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Cross-cultural, Sociopragmatic, Apology, Speech Act.
Abstract: In everyday life, when a person has performed an action of utterance which has offended another person, and
for which he can be held responsible, the person needs to apologize. However, in the cross-cultural context,
different rules and customs may apply according to its language and cultural background. This study examined
the differences and similarities of apology speech acts and strategies used in different cross-cultural contexts,
i.e., in Indonesian, Sundanese, and Japanese. The data on this research were collected using Discourse
Completion Test (DCT), which investigated four apology situations focused on the relations with the
interlocutors. The subjects of this study were 60 Japanese native speakers, 60 Indonesian native speakers, and
54 Sundanese native speakers. The collected data were then classified using Cross-Cultural Speech Act
Realization Pattern (CCSARP) coding scheme. The study findings revealed that Indonesian, Sundanese, and
Japanese native speakers used four similar strategies overall, but used different main strategies depending on
the relation with the interlocutor. Moreover, Indonesian and Japanese native speakers tend to express apology
in the highest frequency, whereas Sundanese native speakers tend to express their responsibility in the highest
frequency. Furthermore, the difference of apology speech act also showed in utterance level which indicates
the characteristics of each language. This study is expected to give a reference in speech act study, and help
understanding apology in cross-cultural context.
1 INTRODUCTION
Apology is a speech act intended to remedy the
offense for which the apologizer takes responsibility
and rebalance the social relations between
interlocutors (Holmes, 1990). In addition, it is also
perceived as a social event and is called for when
social norms have been violated whether the offence
is real or potential (Olshtain & Cohen, 1983). The act
of apologizing whether as ‘remedial work’ or social
events, requires an action or an utterance which is
intended to ‘set things right’ (Trosborg, 1987). Searle
(1965) claims that speech act is operated by universal
pragmatic principles and possible variations in
verbalization and conceptualization exist across
languages (Wierzbicka, 1985).
Several studies have attempted to analyse speech
acts across languages and cultures aiming at
investigating the existence of pragmatic universals
and their characteristics (e.g., Blum-Kulka,1989).
The result shows that concerning apologies, little
variation was found in the use of five main apologies
across languages studied. However, Olshtain (1989)
points out that similarities of expressing apology
(IFID) and preferences of expressing responsibility
from CCSARP data was surprising. It means that in
most situation, participants tend to express apology
and took responsibility of the offence. Regardless of
similarity pointed out from these results, there are
also possibility to find out different tendencies from
different languages with different cultures that
possess different rules. Furthermore, Blum-Kulka
(1989) also stated that studies of speech acts need to
move away from western languages and include as
many non-western languages and cultures in their
scope of study as possible.
Apology speech act in Japanese has been studied
from many points of view, such as analysing Japanese
apology strategies based on its semantic formulae
(Yamamoto, 2004; Sato, 2011; etc.), and also in
cross-cultural context such as in Japanese and English
(Barnlund and Yoshioka, 1990; Ikeda, 1993; Ootani,
2008;), Japanese and Chinese (Boyckman and Usami,
2005; Abe, 2006; etc.), Japanese and Korean (Jung
2011). However, there are only few cross-cultural
studies which compares apology speech acts in
Haristiani, N. and Danuwijaya, A.
A Cross-cultural Sociopragmatic Study - Apology Speech Act Realization Patterns in Indonesian, Sundanese, and Japanese.
DOI: 10.5220/0007166603130318
In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference
on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017) - Literacy, Culture, and Technology in Language Pedagogy and Use, pages 313-318
ISBN: 978-989-758-332-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
313

Indonesian and other languages, especially with
Japanese (Takadono, 1999; Haristiani, 2010), and
fewer in Sundanese and other languages. Therefore,
as an attempt to respond to Blum-Kulka’s (1989) call
to examine deeper about the characteristic of speech
act in non-western languages, this study aimed to
extract and categorize the range of strategies in the
speech act of apologizing in Indonesia, Sundanese
and Japanese as Asian languages, based on Blum and
Kulka’s (1984, 1989) CCSARP coding scheme and
main formulas.
2 RESEARCH METHOD
2.1 Participants
One hundred seventy two students took part in this
study, which include 60 Indonesian native speaker
(INS), 54 Sundanese native Speaker (SNS), and 60
Japanese Native Speakers (JNS). INS and SNS were
all students studying in different academic fields at
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, and JNS were all
students studying in different academic fields at
Hiroshima University. The average age of the
participants was 22.5 for INS, 22 for SNS, and 23
years old for JNS. The reason for choosing university
students was that in most studies on speech acts, the
participants had been university students. Thus, for
the sake of comparability of the results of this study
with the findings of the other studies carried out
around the world, collecting the data from a sample
of a similar population i.e., university students is
advisable (Afghari, 2007).
2.2 Data Collection
The data in this study were collected through an open
questionnaire which is a Discourse Completion Test
(DCT). The DCT used in this study included a brief
description of the situation. The situation in DCT was
a situation that university students are likely to
encounter in their daily language which is “Failed to
return book borrowed from interlocutor”. The two
main social factors specifically added in the situations,
i.e., social distance and social dominance. The social
distance is that the interlocutors either had a close
relationship (- distance) or hardly knew each other (+
distance). The social dominance or the power
relationship between the interlocutors inside the DCT
in this study was assigned only two values: status
equal (student-student), and status non-equal
(student-lecturer). All the interlocutors in the DCT is
set as follows: (1) Status un-equals, intimates:
Intimate Lecturer (IL), (2) Status un-equals, non-
intimates: Non-intimate Lecturer (NL), (3) Status
equals, intimates: Intimate Friend (IF), and (4) Status
equals, non-intimates: Non-intimate Friend (NF).
Data collected from DCT were then classified into
coding scheme from Cross-cultural Speech Act
Realization Project (CCSARP) by Blum-Kulka (1984,
1989), minus the “A promise of forbearance” (FORB).
3 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Coding Scheme of DCT Data
Based on CCSRAP coding scheme, the linguistic
realization of apology speech act can take the form of
five main strategies (Blum-Kulka, 1984, 1989;
Afghari, 2007). However, since the apology subject
in this study is about failing to return borrowed book,
“A promise of forbearance” (FORB) strategy mainly
replaced by “Promise to return the book” which
already included in “An offer of repair” (REPR).
Thus, the FORB strategy is not included in the coding
scheme in this study. According to the results from
DCT data, the apology strategies used by INS, SNS,
and JNS mainly including four (4) strategies based on
CCSARP coding scheme described as follows:
(Substantial English translation from utterance (E),
examples utterance taken from the data from three
languages in Indonesian (I), Sundanese (S) and
Japanese (J) with Japanese utterance’s reading in
alphabet are also provided)
1. An expression of an apology (use of IFID)
e.g. (E) I apologize
(I) Saya memohon maaf yang sebesar-
besarnya.
(S) Hapunten pisan Bu.
(J) 本当にすみませんでした。
(Hontouni sumimasendeshita)
2. An acknowledgement of responsibility (RESP)
e.g. (E) I forgot to bring the book.
(I) Buku yang kemarin saya pinjam itu lupa
dibawa hari ini.
(S) Abdi hilap teu nyandak bukuna.
(J) 今日返却の本を忘れてきてしまいま
した。(kyou henkyaku no hon o wasurete
kite shimaimashita)
3. An offer of repair (REPR)
e.g. (E) Can I return the book tomorrow?
(I) Bolehkah kalau saya bawa bukunya
besok saja?
(S) Upami enjing tiasa teu Bu?
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
314

(J) 明日お返ししてもよろしいでしょう
か。
(Ashita okaeshishitemo yoroshiideshouka)
4. Concern for the hearer (CONC)
e.g. (E) Do you need it today?
(I) Gimana emang butuh banget untuk hari
ini ya?
(S) Bukuna teu kacandak, bade enggal
dianggo?
(J) もしかして今日必要だった？
(Moshikashite kyou hitsuyoudatta?)
The first strategy which is “An expression of an
apology”, is the most direct realization of an apology
done via an explicit Illocutionary Force Indicating
Device (IFID) (Searle, 1969; Afghari 2007).
Furthermore, the main four strategies above consist
of a number of sub-formulas (sub-strategies), which
will not be discussed further in this paper.
3.2 Frequency Distribution of Apology
Strategies Used by INS, SNS, and
JNS
The data collected from DCT then classified into four
coding schemes of apology strategies and each
strategy’s frequency distribution is as seen in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that INS used the highest frequency of
apology strategies overall (715 times), followed by
JNS (689 times), and lastly by Sundanese (618).
Further, the sequence of most strategies used in INS
and SNS are similar, which are RESP (INS: 273 or
38.18%; SNS: 230 or 37.22%), at the highest
frequency, followed by IFID (INS: 255 or 35.66%;
SNS: 215 or 34.79%), then REPR (INS: 155 or
21.68%; SNS: 128 or 20.71%), and lastly by EXPL
(SNS: 32 or 4.48%; SNS: 45 or 7.28%). Meanwhile,
JNS used IFID most frequent (274 or 39.77%),
followed by RESP (229 or 33.24%), then REPR (148
or 21.48%) and lastly by EXPL (38 or 5.52%).
Table 1: Frequency distribution of apology strategies used
by INS, SNS and JNS (%).
INS SNS JNS
IFID
255 215 274
(35.66) (34.79) (39.77)
RESP
273 230 229
(38.18) (37.22) (33.24)
REPR 155 128 148
INS SNS JNS
(21.68) (20.71) (21.48)
EXPL
32 45 38
(4.48) (7.28) (5.52)
Total
715 618 689
(100) (100) (100)
Even though the most frequently used apology
strategy in three languages was slightly different, the
two most used apology strategies in all three
languages were the same: IFID and REPR. It seems
that, as also put by Trosborg (1987) and Afghari
(2007), the two strategies which are ‘directly
apologizing’ (IFID) and ‘showing responsibility’
(RESP), are the most frequently used apology
strategy in Indonesian, Sundanese and Japanese, as
well as in English and Persian. Several studies stated
that Indonesian tend to use many strategies in
frequent number while apologizing (Takadono, 1999;
Haristiani, 2010; etc.), and the result of this study also
showed the same tendency since Indonesian used
apology strategies in higher frequency compared to
the other two languages. Meanwhile, there are studies
reported that Japanese tend to use simple and small
amount of strategies in apologizing (Ikeda, 1993;
Abe, 2006; etc.). However, the results of this study
showed rather different tendency, since Japanese
native speaker used higher frequency of apology
strategies compared to Sundanese native speaker.
3.3 The Use of Apology Strategies by
INS, SNS, and JNS Based on the
Interlocutors
The use of four main apology strategies according to
the interlocutors in three languages is as seen on
figure 1 (a), (b) and figure 2 (a), (b). Figure 1 (a)
shows that when the interlocutor is an intimate
lecturer (IL), INS and JNS used IFID in the highest
frequency with a slight difference (INS: 37.71%;
JNS: 38.01%), followed by RESP as second frequent
strategy (INS: 32.57%; JNS: 35.09%), then REPR
(INS: 21.71%; JNS: 15.79%), and lastly EXPL (INS:
8%; JNS: 11.11%). Meanwhile, SNS used two
strategies as the most frequent strategies which are
IFID and RESP (37.91%), followed by REPR
(19.23%), and lastly EXPL (4.95%). Further, when
the interlocutor was a non-intimate lecturer (NL), ISN
and JNS again showed a highly similar tendency.
A Cross-cultural Sociopragmatic Study - Apology Speech Act Realization Patterns in Indonesian, Sundanese, and Japanese
315

Figure 1: Percentage of overall apology strategies used by
INS, SNS, and JNS to non-equal interlocutors (Lecturer).
Figure (a) shows apology strategies used to Intimate
Lecturer (IL), while (b) to Non-intimate Lecturer (NL).
In addition, as seen in Figure 1 (b), INS and JNS
used IFID the most (INS: 38.95%; JNS: 39.39%),
followed by RESP (INS: 33.16%; JNS:33.33%), then
REPR (INS: 17.89%; JNS: 18.18%), and lastly EXPL
(INS: 10%; JNS: 9.09%). Meanwhile SNS tend to use
RESP the most (38.80%), and followed by IFID
(37.70%) with only a slight difference. SNS then used
REPR (18.03%) and lastly EXPL (5.46%), which are
similar to other two languages.
From these data, it is understandable that in
Indonesian and Japanese, when apologizing to the
non-equal (+ power) interlocutors, expressing
apology is considered as the most important strategy.
While in Sundanese, both expressing apology and
responsibility are considered equally important, or
moreover expressing responsibility tend to be
considered as more important. The change of social
distance from intimate to non-intimate slightly
affected the use of main strategy in Sundanese, but
not in Indonesian and Japanese. However, in
Indonesian, the frequency of offering a repair tend to
be higher when the interlocutor is an intimate lecturer,
while in Japanese, offering a repair tend to be used
more to non-intimate lecturer.
Figure 2: Percentage of overall apology strategies used by
INS, SNS, and JNS to equal interlocutors (Friend). Figure
(a) shows apology strategies used to Intimate Friend (IF),
while (b) to Non-intimate Friend (NF).
Further, in the situations where the interlocutor is
an equal, the use of apology strategies in three
languages showed different tendencies. As seen on
Figure 2 (a), to an intimate friend (IF), INS still used
IFID as the main strategy with significant frequency
(42.50%), followed by RESP (32.50%), while SNS
and JNS used REPR as the main strategy (SNS:
38.95%; JNS: 43.28%), followed by IFID (SNS:
31.40%; JNS: 24.63%). On the other hand, as seen in
figure 2 (b), to non-intimate friend (NF) INS and SNS
has the same tendency to use RESP as the main
strategy (INS: 37.08%; SNS: 40.27%), followed by
IFID (INS: 35.39%; SNS: 33.56%). While JNS used
IFID in the highest frequency (40.24%), and then
RESP (34.76%). Moreover, REPR and EXPL used in
a similar tendency in three languages, either when the
interlocutor is intimate (IF) or non-intimate (NF).
From above data, it can be seen that the use of
main apology strategies and its frequency to equal
interlocutors (friends) in Japanese and Indonesian
showed different tendency between intimate and non-
intimate interlocutors, but not in Sundanese. In
Japanese, when apologizing to an intimate friend,
expressing responsibility considered as the most
important strategy, while in Indonesian expressing
apology considered as the most important strategy.
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
316

Meanwhile, when apologizing to non-intimate friend,
the most used strategy in Japanese changed to
expressing apology, while in Indonesian the most
frequently used strategy switched to expressing
responsibility. However in Sundanese, when
apologizing to both intimate and non-intimate equal
interlocutors, expressing responsibility is considered
as the most important strategy, regardless the social
distance or the intimacy difference.
The findings of this study show that Indonesian
and Japanese native speakers tend to distinguish the
use of most frequent strategies to the interlocutor
mainly influenced by the power dominance. When
the interlocutor is equal, the use of most frequent
strategy is also influenced by social distance.
Indonesian and Japanese also used apology
expression (IFID) in high frequency and tend to
repeat using IFID, which also stated in many previous
studies (Ikeda, 1993; Haristiani, 2010; Jung, 2011;
etc.). On the other hand, Sundanese native speakers
prefer to use the same main strategy, which is
expressing responsibility, to all interlocutors
regardless the difference in social dominance and
social distance.
However, besides the use of main four apology
strategies, the distinction of speech act also showed in
the level of utterance. For example, in Japanese that
has honorific forms, many expressions of apology
from the highest level of polite terms (sonkeigo) to
regular level form (futsuukei) such as Moushiwake
gozaimasen, Moushiwake arimasen, Sumimasen,
Gomen, Gomennasai, Warui, etc., were all used by
Japanese native speaker to express their apology
according to their relationship with the interlocutors.
Other than apology expression, the honorific forms
(sonkeigo, kenjougo, teineigo) in Japanese were also
used respectively in all utterance, mainly when the
interlocutor has higher social dominance. Meanwhile,
in Indonesian that has no structural honorific form,
the utterance distinction to different interlocutors
mostly showed by using address terms (Bapak/Ibu)
(Haristiani, 2012), and also by using indirect speech
(euphemism), which mainly used to interlocutors
with higher social dominance. On the other hand, in
Sundanese that also has structural honorific form
similar to Japanese, apology expression also used in
some forms with different level of politeness such as
Hapunten, Punten, Hampura, and Maap.
Furthermore, similar to Indonesian, in Sundanese,
address terms also used in high frequency especially
to interlocutors with higher social dominance. These
findings showed that even the use of main strategies
according to CCSARP coding scheme in these three
Asian languages did not show a striking difference
with those in European languages (Olshtain, 1989;
Holmes, 1990), the difference of speech act in three
languages found particularly in the level of utterance,
which indicates the characteristics of each language.
4 CONCLUSIONS
This study aimed to extracting and categorizing the
range of main strategies used in performing speech
act in cross-cultural context which are in Indonesian,
Sundanese, and Japanese. This study also examined
the use of apology strategies according to the
relationship with the interlocutors, based on social
dominance (equal and non-equal), and social distance
(intimate and non-intimate).
The findings of this study indicate that in
Indonesian, Sundanese, and Japanese – as in the other
languages studying the western (Olshtain and Cohen,
1983) and non-western (Afghari, 2007), apologies
generally fit within the framework of the categories
explored and discovered in western studies. Also,
expressing of apology directly and an acknowledging
responsibility were found to be the most frequent
apology strategies used to all interlocutors in all three
languages. However, the expression of apology
mainly used most in Indonesian and Japanese, while
acknowledging responsibility was Sundanese most
used strategy. Furthermore, the characteristic of
apology speech act of each language in this study also
reflected in the utterance level, which shows the
characteristic of Japanese and Sundanese which has
structural honorific forms, and Indonesian which
doesn't have honorific forms, structurally.
Lastly, this study succeeded in categorizing
apology speech act strategies based on CCSARP
main formulas. However, to understand deeper about
the characteristic of apology speech act in each
language in the cross-cultural context, the sub-
formula (sub-strategies) is also significant to be
analyzed further in the next study.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper acknowledged the students in Universitas
Pendidikan Indonesia and Hiroshima University that
has participated in data collection in this study. This
paper also acknowledged Universitas Pendidikan
Indonesia for providing research fund through
Bangdos (Grant: Afirmasi).
A Cross-cultural Sociopragmatic Study - Apology Speech Act Realization Patterns in Indonesian, Sundanese, and Japanese
317

REFERENCES
Abe, K. 2006. Shazai no Nicchuu Taishou Kenkyuu. Thesis
in Hiroshima University, unpublished.
Afghari, A. 2007. A sociopragmatic study of apology
speech act realization patterns in Persian. Speech
Communication, 49, pp. 177-185.
Barnlund, D. C., Yoshioka, M. 1990. Apologies: Japanese
and American styles. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 14, pp. 193-206.
Blum-Kulka S., House J. 1984. Request and Apologies: A
cross cultural study of speech act realization patterns
(CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5 (3), pp. 196-214
Blum-Kulka S., House J. 1989. Cross-Cultural and
Situational Variation in Requesting Behaviour. In S.
Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (Eds.). Cross-
Cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologies. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex, pp. 123-154
Boyckman, S., Usami, Y. 2005. Yuujinkan de no Shazaiji
ni Mochiirareru Goyouron teki Housaku: Nihongo
bogo washa to Chuugokugo bogo washa no hikaku.
Goyouron Kenkyuu, 7, pp 31-44
Haristiani, N. 2010. Indonesiago to Nihongo no
Shazaikoudou no Taishoukenkyu – Shazaibamen to
Gokaibamen ni okeru feisu no ijihouryaku ni
chakumokushite, Thesis in Hiroshima University,
unpublished.
Haristiani, N. 2012. Indonesia go to Nihongo no koshou no
hikaku – Shazai bamen ni mirareru jishoushi-taishoushi
no taiguuteki kinou ni chakumokushite, Sogogakujutsu
gakkaishi, 11, pp. 19-26
Holmes, J. 1990. Apologies in New Zealand English. Lang.
Soc., 19, pp. 155-200.
Ikeda, R. 1993. Shazai no Taishoukenkyuu: Nichibei
Taishoukenkyuu - Face to iu shiten kara no kousatsu -.
Nihongogaku, 12(11), pp 13-21.
Jung, H. A. 2011. Shazaikoudou to Sono Hannou ni
kansuru Nikkan Taishoukenkyuu: Poraitonesu riron no
kanten kara, Gengo Chiiki Bunka Kenkyuu, 17, pp 95-
112.
Olshtain, E., Cohen, A. 1983. Apology: A speech act set. In
Wolfson, N., Judd, E. (Eds) Sociolingusitics and
Language Acquisition. Newburry House, Rowly. MA.
Olshtain, E. 1989. Apologies Across Languages. In S.
Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (Eds.). Cross-
Cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologies. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex, pp. 155-173
Ootani, M. 2008. Shazaikenkyuu no Gaikan to Kongo no
Kadai: Nihongo to Eigo no taishoukenkyuu o chuushin
toshita kousatsu. Gengo Bunka to Nihongo Kyouiku.
Zoukan tokushuugo, pp 24-43.
Sato, A. 2011. Gendai Nihongo no Shazai Kotoba ni
kansuru Kenkyu. Iwate Daigaku Daigakuin
Jinbunshakaikagaku Kenkyuka Kiyo, 20, pp. 21-38.
Searle, J. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Takadono, Y. 1999. Nihongo to Indonesiago ni okeru
Shazai no Hikaku. Indonesiago to Bunka, 5, pp 27-50
Trosborg, A. 1987. Apology Strategies in Natives/Non-
Natives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, pp. 147-167.
Wierzbicka, A. 1985. Different cultures, different
languages and different speech acts. Journal of
Pragmatics, 9, pp. 145-178
Yamamoto, T. 2004. Shakaiteki sougo koui toshite no
shazaihyougen – gengohyougen sentaku no haikei ni
wa naniga aruka- Shinshuu Daigaku Ryuugakusei Senta
Kiyo, 5, pp. 19-31.
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
318