Methods of the study

The methods of this study are both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The first part of the first research question (What kinds of linguistic strategies are used to express apologies in the YouTube videos of content creators?) is answered by examining the videos in detail and creating suitable descriptions of the strategies that are identified. The second part (What is the frequency and distribution of these strategies like?) is determined by utilizing the word count. Rather than

counting the individual occurrences of the strategies, the strategies were given numerical values by how many words they took up. These word amounts were then calculated into percentages.

For example, the words that have been determined to represent strategy X could have taken 10% of a video’s total word amount. As such, strategy X is deemed to take up 10% of the video.

This is quite a different approach in comparison to methods in previous apology research.

Traditionally, apology strategies are counted by singular instances of strategy use. This

traditional approach has not been utilized in this study because it is not suitable for an accurate representation of this kind of data. I feel that the approach used in this study represents the data in an accurate way.

In order to identify the strategies and create suitable categories for them, multiple frameworks from previous apology studies were used as guidance. None of them have been followed exactly but they have been used as the basis for the current study. The first one is the model created by Olshtain and Cohen (1983) which was introduced in table 1 in section 2.2. Their model includes seven categories: 1. An expression of an apology, 2. an explanation or account of the situation, 3. an acknowledgement of responsibility, 4. an offer of repair, 5. a promise of forbearance, 6. a denial of the need to apologize and 7. a denial of responsibility. Some of these categories include sub-strategies as well. Although the types of studies that Olshtain and Cohen have executed using this model are very different from the current study, the framework that they provide is very

comprehensive to all kinds of apology situations, which is why it was deemed suitable for this study as well. Suszczyriska (1999), who studied apologies in English, Polish and Hungarian, Ogiermann (2008), who studied apologies in English and Russian, and Shariati and Chamani

24

(2010), who studied the universality of apologies in Persian speakers, have also utilized Olshtain and Cohen’s framework as the basis for their studies.

Another framework that influenced the current study is Bataineh and Bataineh’s (2008)

framework, which was introduced in table 2 in section 2.2. They studied American and Jordanian students’ use of apology strategies through a questionnaire and created their own framework, which has three main categories: 1. Explicit apology (includes five strategies), 2. less explicit apology strategies (includes 11 strategies) and 3. non-apology strategies (includes five strategies).

A third framework that was used as guidance for the current study is from Fraser (1981). He presents nine strategies for apologies which are 1. announcing that you are apologizing, 2. stating one's obligation to apologize, 3. offering to apologize, 4. requesting the hearer accept an apology, 5.

expressing regret for the offense, 6. requesting forgiveness for the offense, 7. acknowledging responsibility for the offending act, 8. promising forbearance from a similar offending act and 9.

offering redress.

The three frameworks that were just introduced are only a portion of the different apology frameworks that one can find, but I find that many of the frameworks are often not so different from each other. It seems that the general, most common strategies (like expressions of regret or explanations) are the same in all of them although they are usually given slightly different names. Often there are also study-specific strategies that do not appear in every framework. In the end, these frameworks were used as guidance for the current study, but ultimately the strategies were decided based on the data used in this study.

Next, I shall briefly introduce the strategies that were chosen for this study and describe what kinds of utterances are included in which strategy.

The first strategy is 1. an expression of apology. This strategy includes all instances when the speaker says a common apology expression, such as “I am sorry” or “I apologize”. These expressions belong to IFIDs (see section 2.1).

25

The second strategy is 2. an acknowledgement of responsibility. This strategy includes the

instances where the speaker acknowledges their responsibility for the offense in some way. This strategy has five strategies, which make the meaning of this strategy clearer. The first sub-strategy is 2a. accepting the blame, which describes instances where the speaker admits, for example, that their actions were wrong, they made a mistake or that the victim is right in

blaming the speaker. In other words, they express acceptance and agreement over the fact that they are being blamed. The second sub-strategy is 2b. self-criticism. This sub-strategy includes cases where the speaker explicitly talks about themselves in a negative manner. They criticize themselves by insulting themselves or expressing that they did not know or realize what was happening (when they should have known). The third sub-strategy is 2c. expressing lack of intent, which includes cases where the speaker expresses that they did not mean to do something or that what they did came across the wrong way. It also includes instances where the speaker claims that everyone makes mistakes in life or that they are just human for making mistakes, but there was no ill intent. The fourth sub-strategy is 2d. expressing regret or remorse. It includes cases where the speaker says some form of “I regret doing it”, “I wish I would not have done it”, “I should not have done it” or “I feel bad for doing it”. The last sub-strategy of this category is 2e.

expressing disappointment or shame in oneself. This includes instances where the speaker explicitly expresses that they are disappointed in themselves or their actions, or that they feel ashamed.

The third main strategy is 3. an explanation or account of the situation. This includes instances where the speaker explains to the hearer what has happened and gives their personal account of the situation. This strategy is meant to include those explanations and accounts that are somewhat neutral in tone. Sometimes explanations transform into, for example, expressions of lack of intent, which is when those utterances are moved to the appropriate category. This strategy includes those explanations that are given as background information to the hearer, without explicitly trying to convince the hearer of the speaker’s own position. These explanations often include a clear description of the offense, but sometimes the speaker avoids restating the offense and talks around the issue.

26

The fourth strategy is 4. expressing praise, gratitude, or love. This strategy includes instances where the speaker praises the victim or talks about them and their qualities in a positive way. It does not include the cases where the speaker admits that the victim is right; those cases belong under 2a. accepting the blame. This strategy is for the kind of additional praise that would not necessarily be required for an apology. This also includes the moments when the speaker

addresses the audience or the victim and thanks them for something, or expresses love towards them.

The fifth strategy is 5. an offer of repair. It includes instances where the speaker offers reparation in order to compensate for the harm that their offense has caused. These offers are usually concrete actions that the speaker has done or is promising to do in the near future.

The sixth strategy is 6. a promise of forbearance. This one includes cases where the speaker promises the hearer that they will not repeat the offense in the future and that they will attempt to improve themselves as a person. This strategy is similar to the fifth one in that they are both remedial offers the speaker is making for the victim and the audience. An offer of repair is a concrete action in the present whereas a promise of forbearance is a verbal promise for the future.

The seventh and last strategy is 7. not acknowledging responsibility which includes cases where the speaker in some way refuses to acknowledge responsibility over the offense. These can also be called non-apology strategies. There are four sub-strategies for this category of which the first one is 7a. denying the offense completely or partially. This includes instances where the speaker denies that they ever committed the offense or denies some part of the offense. The second sub-strategy is 7b. criticizing the victim, which includes cases where the speaker criticizes or blames the victim or the accusers in some way, directing the blame away from themselves. The third sub-strategy is 7c. denying the need to apologize. This includes moments where the speaker expresses the opinion that they have not done anything wrong or that their actions do not require an apology. The fourth and last sub-strategy of the final strategy is 7d. belittling the offense. This sub-strategy includes cases where the speaker belittles the offense and expresses

27

the opinion that their actions were not as bad as what they are being accused of. They are admitting that they committed the offense, but they are evaluating the severity of it.

All the strategies and sub-strategies of this study have now been introduced. They will be described again along with some illustrating examples in section 6.1 which presents the results of the study.

The second research question (What kinds of differences are there in the usage of these strategies between men and women?) will be answered by comparing the videos of men and women,

quantitatively and qualitatively. The results acquired during the examination of the first research question are utilized in answering this question as well.