Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

To Use or Not to Use the Shorter Forms: A Corpus-Based Analysis of the Apologetic Expressions “Sorry and I’m sorry” in American Spoken English Discourse

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Corpus Pragmatics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This corpus-based study explores how linguistic and sociocognitive factors designate when, why, and how speakers say sorry and I’m sorry in two corpora of American spoken English; namely, Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English and Corpus of Contemporary American English. It is well-documented that a given word and its surrounding words or phrases bear a mutual impact on one another’s function. This study tries to cast some light on the shades of differences between sorry and I’m sorry, which seem to be taken for granted by non-native speakers of English, through analyzing one academic and one non-academic corpora. The results of the functional analysis suggest that most instances of the word sorry were used to indicate interruption, self-repair, and expressing regret, whereas I’m sorry was chiefly exploited to express regret and apology. The use of either sorry or I’m sorry was guided by the function intended by the interlocutor. These findings are justified with reference to form–function mappings, sociocognitive alignments, and other discourse considerations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/oh.

References

  • Adolphs, S. (2008). Corpus and context: Investigating pragmatic functions in spoken discourse. Philadelphia: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aijmer, K. (1995). Do women apologize more than men? In G. Melchers & B. Warren (Eds.), Studies in anglistics (pp. 11–19). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aijmer, K. (1996). Swedish modal particles in a contrastive perspective. Language Sciences, 18, 393–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, G. (2001). Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 86, 525–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C., & Galasińksi, D. (2001). Cultural studies and discourse analysis: A dialogue on language and identity. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, M. (1996). Corpora for theory and practice. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bataineh, F. R., & Bataineh, F. R. (2006). Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL university students. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1901–1927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bednarek, M. (2009). Corpora and discourse: A three-pronged approach to analyzing linguistic data. In M. Haugh, et al. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2008 HCS net workshop on designing the Australian National Corpus. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1981). A naturalistic approach to language and cognition. Cognition and Brain Theory, 4(1), 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Beaugrande, R. (1994). Form and function in language theory and research: the tide is turning. Functions of Language, 1(2), 163–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutschmann, M. (2003). Apologizing in British English. Tryckt av Print: Umea University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diani, G. (2004). The discourse functions of I don’t know in English conversation. In K. Ajmir & A. Stenström (Eds.), Discourse patterns in spoken and written Corpora (pp. 157–173). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2000). New labor, new language?. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Doubleday & Company Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, J. (1979). Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(2), 279–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, J. (1981). Form, function, and the language acquisition device. In C. L. Baker & J. J. McCarthy (Eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 165–187). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19, 155–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J., & Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, 1(1), 121–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitao, S., & Kitao, K. (2013). Apologies, apology strategies, and apology forms for non-apologies in a spoken corpus. Journal of Culture and Information Science, 8(2), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge studies in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lieber, R. (2006). The category of roots and the roots of categories: What we learn from selection in derivation. Morphology, 16, 247–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2012). Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthiessen, C. M. (2006). Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems: An interim report. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), System and corpus: Exploring connections (pp. 103–142). London: Equinox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mautner, G. (2008). Analyzing newspapers, magazines and other print media. In R. Wodak & M. Krzyżanowski (Eds.), Qualitative discourse analysis for the social sciences (pp. 30–53). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, C., & Leicher, S. (2007). Pragmatic annotation of an academic spoken corpus for pedagogical purposes. In E. Fitzpatrick (Ed.), Corpus linguistics beyond the word: Corpus research from phrase to discourse (pp. 107–115). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ogiermann, E. (2007). Politeness in Britain, Poland and Russia. A contrastive analysis of apologies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oldenburg, Germany.

  • Ogiermann, E. (2008). On the culture-specificity of linguistic gender differences: The case of English and Russian apologies. Intercultural pragmatics, 5(3), 259–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and remedial interchanges. A study of language use in social interaction. Berlin: Mouton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radford, A. (2004). English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reppen, R. (2010). Using corpora in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Römer, U. (2005). Progressives, patterns, pedagogy: A corpus-driven approach to English progressive forms, functions, contexts and didactics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, K., & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rühlemann, C. (2010). What can a corpus tell us about pragmatics? In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistic (pp. 288–301). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salehi, R. (2014). A comparative analysis of apology strategy: Iranian EFL learners and native English speakers. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1658–1665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shariati, M., & Chamani, F. (2010). Apology strategies in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1689–1699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, M. (2004). On very frequent phrases in English: Distributions, functions and structures. Paper presented at the 25th international conference on English language research on computerized corpora (ICAME 25), Verona, May 19–23, 2004.

  • Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. B. M. (1991). The pragmatic functions of I don’t know. Text, 11(4), 607–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). What teachers have always wanted to know—and how corpora can help them. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching (pp. 39–61). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • White, S., & Rawlins, K. (2016). A computational model of S-selection. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 26, 641–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wichmann, A. (2004). The intonation of please-requests: a corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1521–1549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wichmann, A. (2011). Prosody and pragmatic effects. In G. Anderson & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Pragmatics in society (pp. 181–213). Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamborlin, C. (2007). Going beyond pragmatic failures: Dissonance in intercultural communication. Intercultural pragmatics, 4(1), 21–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

    Saleh Arizavi & Yazdan Choubsaz

Authors
  1. Saleh Arizavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yazdan Choubsaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saleh Arizavi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arizavi, S., Choubsaz, Y. To Use or Not to Use the Shorter Forms: A Corpus-Based Analysis of the Apologetic Expressions “Sorry and I’m sorry” in American Spoken English Discourse. Corpus Pragmatics 3, 21–47 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-018-0045-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-018-0045-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation