Walker_4.2


EuroAmerican	
  Journal	
  of	
  Applied	
  Linguistics	
  and	
  Languages	
  
E-­‐JournALL,	
  Volume	
  4,	
  Issue	
  2,	
  December	
  2017,	
  pages	
  28-­‐48	
  
ISSN	
  2376-­‐905X	
  	
  
DOI	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.7.95	
  
www.e-­‐journall.org	
  

©	
  Walker	
  2017.	
  This	
  work	
  is	
  licensed	
  under	
  a	
  Creative	
  Commons	
  Attribution	
  4.0	
  International	
  License.	
  

	
   	
  
	
   Politeness	
  norms:	
  A	
  pilot	
  study	
  on	
  the	
  accomplishment	
  of	
  	
  

apologies	
  by	
  learners	
  of	
  Italian1	
  
	
   	
  

TALIA	
  WALKER*	
  
The	
  University	
  of	
  Sydney	
  

	
   	
  
	
   Received	
  30	
  March	
  2017;	
  received	
  in	
  revised	
  form	
  28	
  September	
  2017;	
  accepted	
  21	
  November	
  2017	
  
	
  

ABSTRACT	
  
EN In the increasingly globalised world, intercultural and cross-cultural relations are becoming ever more frequent and significant. 

Within this diverse cultural space, miscommunications tend to arise and have the ability to significantly impact upon 
intercultural interactions. Thus, this paper explores the use of politeness strategies by learners of Italian during the 
performance of the speech act of apology. Specifically, the paper examines the presence of Italian and Australian English 
politeness norms in the realisation of these apologies, focussing on three principle areas of investigation: (i) the way in which 
the social variables of the scenario were evaluated by participants, (ii) the participants’ use of formal terms of address, and (iii) 
the modification of explicit expressions of apology. It was found that although tendencies of both Italian politeness and 
Australian English politeness were demonstrated by participants, the latter was more prominent, thus suggesting L1 influence 
on L2 realisation and some difficulty in the negotiation of the intercultural space. 
 
Key words:  APOLOGIES, LANGUAGE LEARNERS, ITALIAN L2, POLITENESS 
 

ES En un mundo cada vez más globalizado, las relaciones interculturales e interculturales van cobrando relevancia y son cada 
vez más frecuentes. Dentro de este diverso espacio cultural, los problemas de comunicación van en aumento e impactan de 
forma significativa sobre las interacciones interculturales. Bajo este marco, el presente trabajo explora el uso de estrategias 
de cortesía por parte de aprendientes de italiano durante el acto de habla de la disculpa. Concretamente, se examina la 
presencia de normas de cortesía de la lengua italiana y del inglés australiano al efectuarse estas disculpas, centrándose la 
investigación en tres áreas principales: (i) la forma en que las variables sociales del escenario fueron evaluadas por los 
participantes, (ii) el empleo de fórmulas de tratamiento formales por parte de los participantes, y (iii) la modificación de 
expresiones explícitas de disculpa. Se descubrió que, aunque los participantes mostraron tendencias propias de la cortesía 
en italiano y de la cortesía en inglés australiano, esta última resultó más prominente, lo que sugiere una influencia de la L1 en 
la realización de la L2 y una cierta dificultad en la negociación del espacio intercultural. 
 
Palabras clave:  DISCULPAS, APRENDIENTES DE LENGUA, ITALIANO COMO L2, CORTESÍA 
 

IT In un mondo sempre più globalizzato, le relazioni interculturali e multiculturali diventano vieppiù frequenti e importanti. 
All’interno di questo spazio culturale variegato, tendono a verificarsi cattive comunicazioni che influiscono significativamente 
sulle interazioni interculturali. In questo studio si analizza l’uso delle strategie di cortesia da parte degli apprendenti di italiano 
durante l’enunciazione dell’atto linguistico della scusa. Nello specifico, lo studio prende in esame la presenza di regole di 
cortesia nell’italiano e nell’inglese australiano nella realizzazione di tali scuse, concentrandosi su tre aree di ricerca principali: 
(i) come i partecipanti hanno valutato le variabili sociali dello scenario, (ii) l’uso da parte dei partecipanti di termini formali e (iii) 
la modificazione di espressioni di scuse esplicite. Anche se la tendenza alle formule di cortesia nei partecipanti è stata 
dimostrata sia in italiano sia nell’inglese australiano, i risultati ci dicono che è stata più spiccata in quest’ultimo, indicando 
l’influsso della L1 sulla comprensione della L2 e una certa difficoltà nella negoziazione dello spazio interculturale.  
 
Parole chiave: SCUSE, APPRENDENTI DI LINGUA, ITALIANO L2, CORTESIA 

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
*	
  Contact:	
  talia.walk@outlook.com	
  	
  
1	
  Sincere	
  thanks	
  to	
  Associate	
  Professor	
  Antonia	
  Rubino	
  for	
  her	
  comments	
  on	
  this	
  paper.	
  



WALKER	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
   29	
  

1.	
  Introduction	
  
This	
   paper	
   explores	
   the	
   performance	
   of	
   apologies	
   as	
   accomplished	
   by	
   learners	
   of	
   Italian	
   in	
   a	
  

university	
  context	
  in	
  Sydney,	
  New	
  South	
  Wales,	
  Australia.	
  Although	
  the	
  apology	
  is	
  a	
  face-­‐threatening	
  speech	
  
act	
   (FTA)	
   (Blum-­‐Kulka	
   &	
   Olshtain,	
  1984,	
   p.	
   206),	
   it	
  has	
   not	
   been	
   investigated	
   extensively	
   in	
   relation	
   to	
  
the	
  Italian	
  language	
  and	
  from	
  the	
  perspective	
  of	
  language	
  acquisition	
  (Nuzzo,	
  2007).	
  	
  

Austin	
   (1975	
   [1962])	
   recognised	
   that	
   the	
   intended	
   meanings	
   conveyed	
   through	
   speech	
   acts	
   are	
  
intimately	
  connected	
  with	
  the	
  situational	
  context	
  in	
  which	
  utterances	
  are	
  produced.	
  Variations	
  in	
  speech	
  act	
  
realisation	
   signify	
   that	
   individuals	
   may	
   have	
   diverse	
   expectations	
   of	
   the	
   same	
   interaction	
   and	
   thus	
  
miscommunications	
   may	
   arise.	
   Such	
   variations	
   are	
   often	
   caused	
   by	
   personal	
   or	
   cultural	
   factors;	
   both	
   the	
  
performance	
  of	
  and	
  response	
  to	
  apologies	
  can	
  vary	
  across	
  cultures	
  (Park,	
  Lee	
  &	
  Song	
  2005,	
  p.	
  365).	
  Although	
  
speakers	
  may	
  produce	
  any	
  number	
  of	
  utterances,	
  successful	
  communication	
  is	
  conditioned	
  by	
  norms	
  arising	
  
from	
  habit	
   and	
   general	
   usage	
   (Bettoni,	
   2006,	
   p.	
   71)	
   and	
   all	
   speech	
   sequences	
   are	
   embedded	
  with	
   cultural	
  
information	
   (Wolfson,	
   1988,	
   p.	
   24).	
   In	
   fact,	
   apologies	
   are	
   one	
   of	
   the	
  most	
   culturally	
   sensitive	
   speech	
   acts	
  
(Suszczyńska,	
   1999,	
   p.	
   1053)	
  and	
   thus	
   offer	
   rich	
   units	
   of	
   pragmatic	
   analysis,	
   as	
   will	
   be	
   evidenced	
   in	
   the	
  
present	
  paper.	
  

The	
   data	
   analysed	
   here	
   are	
   part	
   of	
   a	
   larger	
   project2	
   in	
   which	
   learners	
   of	
   Italian	
   at	
   different	
  
proficiency	
   levels	
  were	
   asked	
   to	
   complete	
   a	
  written	
  Discourse	
   Completion	
  Task	
   (henceforth	
  DCT)3.	
   In	
   this	
  
task,	
   participants	
   were	
   presented	
   with	
   four	
   scenarios	
   to	
   which	
   they	
   could	
   respond	
   with	
   an	
   apology	
  
formulated	
   in	
   an	
   email.	
   They	
  were	
   also	
   asked	
   to	
   evaluate	
   each	
   scenario	
   in	
   relation	
   to	
   three	
   variables:	
   the	
  
social	
  distance	
  between	
  the	
  participant	
  and	
  the	
  interlocutor,	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  the	
  interlocutor	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  the	
  
participant,	
  and	
  the	
  degree	
  of	
  severity	
  of	
  the	
  offence	
  for	
  which	
  the	
  apology	
  was	
  being	
  offered.	
  

This	
  paper	
  will	
  specifically	
  focus	
  upon	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  four	
  scenarios:	
  accidental	
  theft	
  after	
  having	
  stayed	
  
with	
  the	
  family	
  of	
  a	
   friend	
  in	
  Italy.	
  This	
  scenario	
  was	
  chosen	
  as	
  the	
  participants’	
  responses	
  demonstrated	
  a	
  
great	
  degree	
  of	
  variation	
  and	
  were	
  rich	
  in	
  intercultural	
  phenomena.	
  	
  

The	
   following	
   analysis	
   explores	
   the	
   impact	
   of	
   Australian	
   English	
   politeness	
   norms	
   on	
   the	
  
participants’	
  realisation	
  of	
  apologies	
  in	
  Italian,	
  taking	
  into	
  account	
  the	
  whole	
  apology	
  act	
  sequence.	
  As	
  will	
  be	
  
shown,	
  Australian	
  English	
  social	
  norms	
  were	
  prevalent	
  in	
  the	
  participants’	
  responses,	
  specifically	
  in	
  the	
  way	
  
in	
  which	
   they	
   perceived	
   the	
   relationships	
   between	
   themselves	
   and	
   their	
   Italian	
   interlocutors.	
   This	
   in	
   turn	
  
impacted	
   upon	
  their	
   formulation	
   of	
   apologies	
   in	
   Italian,	
   including	
   the	
  way	
   in	
  which	
   formality	
   and	
   apology	
  
modification	
  were	
  used.	
  

As	
   I	
   will	
   argue,	
   this	
   paper	
   confirms	
   the	
   difficulty	
   which	
   language	
   learners	
   may	
   face	
  
when	
  navigating	
  the	
  intercultural	
  space	
  (Cheng,	
  2013;	
  Formentelli	
  &	
  Hajek,	
  2013;	
  Trosborg,	
  1987,	
  1995)	
  and	
  
thus,	
   by	
   implication,	
   evidences	
  the	
   necessity	
   of	
   a	
   pedagogical	
   approach	
   to	
   language	
   teaching	
   which	
  
incorporates	
  pragmatics	
  and	
  cultural	
  awareness.	
  	
  
	
  
2.	
  Theoretical	
  framework:	
  Politeness	
  

In	
   an	
   intercultural	
   communicative	
   context,	
   and	
   in	
   the	
   process	
   of	
   language	
   acquisition	
   specifically,	
  
familiarity	
  with	
   the	
   pragmatic	
   rules	
   and	
   norms	
   of	
   a	
   culture	
   and	
   language	
   are	
   vital	
   for	
   ensuring	
   successful	
  
communication	
  (Schauer,	
  2009,	
  p.	
  13).	
  	
  Languages	
  and	
  cultures	
  involve	
  varying	
  degrees	
  of	
  collaboration	
  and	
  
some	
  are	
  more	
  conflictual	
  than	
  others	
  (Rubino,	
  2011,	
  p.	
  12;	
  Rubino	
  &	
  Bettoni,	
  2006),	
  a	
  reality	
  that	
  may	
  not	
  
align	
  with	
  the	
  expectations	
  of	
  language	
  learners.	
  	
  

Theories	
   of	
   politeness	
   are	
   thus	
   essential	
   to	
   discussions	
   of	
   intercultural	
   speech	
   act	
   realisation,	
   as	
  
politeness	
  norms	
  can	
  have	
  a	
  significant	
   impact	
  upon	
  both	
   the	
  production	
  and	
  understanding	
  of	
  utterances.	
  
For	
   example,	
   a	
   particularly	
   influential	
   model	
   of	
   cooperative	
   communication	
   is	
   Grice’s	
   (1989)	
   Cooperative	
  
Principle	
  and	
  Conversational	
  Maxims,	
  although	
   it	
   is	
  not	
   the	
   theoretical	
   framework	
  upon	
  which	
   the	
  present	
  
work	
  is	
  based.	
  	
  This	
  paper	
  draws	
  upon	
  the	
  foundations	
  of	
  Brown	
  and	
  Levinson’s	
  Politeness	
  Theory	
  (1987)	
  in	
  
order	
   to	
   explore	
   the	
   apologies	
   of	
   language	
   learners.	
   A	
   pertinent	
   concept	
   in	
   understanding	
   politeness,	
  
particularly	
  when	
   investigating	
  culturally-­‐salient	
  phenomena	
  such	
  as	
  speech	
  acts,	
   is	
   that	
  of	
   face,	
   the	
  “social	
  
value	
   a	
   person	
   effectively	
   claims	
   for	
   himself	
   by	
   the	
   line	
   others	
   assume	
   he	
   has	
   taken	
   during	
   a	
   particular	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
2	
   This	
   paper	
   arises	
   from	
   an	
   Honours	
   thesis	
   project	
   conducted	
   at	
   the	
   University	
   of	
   Sydney	
   under	
   the	
   supervision	
   of	
  
Associate	
  Professors	
  Antonia	
  Rubino	
  and	
  Ahmar	
  Mahboob.	
  
3	
  In	
  some	
  literature,	
  DCT	
  is	
  identified	
  as	
  ‘Discourse	
  Completion	
  Test’;	
  however,	
  ‘Discourse	
  Completion	
  Task’	
  was	
  used	
  in	
  
this	
  paper	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  the	
  more	
  common	
  term.	
  	
  



POLITENESS	
  NORMS:	
  APOLOGIES	
  BY	
  LEARNERS	
  OF	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

30	
  

contact”	
  (Goffman,	
  2003,	
  p.	
  7).	
  Politeness	
  Theory	
  identifies	
  two	
  types	
  of	
  face:	
  negative	
  face	
  refers	
  to	
  the	
  desire	
  
to	
  be	
  free	
  from	
  the	
  imposition	
  of	
  others,	
  while	
  positive	
  face	
  entails	
  the	
  desire	
  to	
  be	
  appreciated	
  and	
  approved	
  
by	
  others	
  (Brown	
  &	
  Levinson,	
  1987,	
  pp.	
  65-­‐67).	
  FTAs	
  are	
  speech	
  acts	
  which	
  in	
  some	
  way	
  pose	
  a	
  threat	
  to	
  the	
  
face	
  wants	
  of	
  any	
   interlocutor	
   (Brown	
  &	
  Levinson,	
  1987,	
  p.	
  65).	
   Such	
  acts	
   include	
  complaints,	
  requests	
   and	
  
apologies.	
  

As	
   has	
   been	
   widely	
   recognised,	
   interactional	
   understandings	
   can	
   vary	
   vastly	
   across	
   cultures	
   and	
  
languages	
  (Bettoni,	
  2006;	
  Clyne,	
  1994;	
  di	
  Luzio,	
  2003;	
  Gumperz,	
  1982;	
  Kecskes,	
  2012;	
  Kiesling,	
  2015;	
  Leech,	
  
1983;	
   Peeters,	
   2013;	
   Wierzbicka,	
   2005,	
   2010;	
   Yates,	
   2010);	
   hence,	
   Brown	
   and	
   Levinson’s	
   politeness	
  
framework	
  is	
  relevant	
  only	
  when	
  the	
  cultural	
  assumptions	
  and	
  presuppositions	
  made	
  by	
  all	
  participants	
  in	
  an	
  
interaction	
   align.	
   As	
   politeness	
   is	
   relative,	
   it	
   is	
   intrinsically	
   linked	
   to	
   the	
   social	
   and	
   cultural	
   context	
   of	
   the	
  
interaction	
  and	
  the	
  personal	
  context	
  of	
  each	
  individual.	
  However,	
  despite	
  the	
  impossibility	
  of	
  a	
  homogenous	
  
population,	
   cultural	
   tendencies	
   do	
   permeate	
   communication	
   and	
   are	
   reflected	
   in	
   speech	
   practices	
   and	
  
conversational	
   routines	
   (Meier,	
   1995,	
   p.	
   352;	
   Wierzbicka,	
   2005,	
   2008).	
   Taking	
   these	
   discussions	
   into	
  
consideration,	
  this	
  paper	
  approaches	
  politeness	
  as	
  that	
  which	
  is	
  deemed	
  to	
  be	
  socially	
  acceptable	
  behaviour	
  
within	
  a	
  given	
   interaction,	
  as	
  determined	
  by	
  social	
  and	
  contextual	
  variables.	
  The	
  phrase	
   ‘politeness	
  norms’	
  
therefore	
  refers	
  to	
  these	
  appropriate	
  behaviours.	
  

Communication	
   in	
   a	
   foreign	
   language	
   is	
   a	
   constant	
   learning	
   process	
   and	
   regardless	
   of	
   linguistic	
  
competence,	
   cultural	
   differentiation	
   in	
   the	
   contextualisation	
   and	
   enactment	
   of	
   communication	
   can	
   cause	
  
language	
  learners	
  to	
  unintentionally	
  act	
  inappropriately	
  (Blum-­‐Kulka,	
  1983;	
  Kiesling,	
  2015,	
  p.	
  628;	
  Scarcella	
  
&	
  Brunak,	
  1981).	
  Learner	
  awareness	
  of	
  cultural	
  pragmatic	
  differences	
  is	
  therefore	
  very	
  valuable,	
  particularly	
  
in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  necessity	
  of	
  understanding	
  why	
  certain	
  speech	
  conventions	
  are	
  appropriate	
  while	
  others	
  are	
  
not	
  (Bataineh	
  &	
  Bataineh,	
  2006,	
  p.	
  1922;	
  Coulmas,	
  1981b,	
  pp.	
  69-­‐70);	
  however,	
  this	
  has	
  not	
  been	
  extensively	
  
investigated	
  in	
  Italian-­‐Australian	
  intercultural	
  contexts.	
  	
  
	
  
3.	
  Background	
  to	
  the	
  study	
  

The	
   apology	
   is	
   identified	
   by	
   Blum-­‐Kulka	
   and	
   Olshtain	
   (1984,	
   p.	
   206)	
   as	
   a	
   post-­‐event	
   FTA	
   which	
  
recognises	
   the	
  violation	
  of	
   social	
  norms	
  and	
  acknowledges	
   the	
  speaker’s	
   involvement	
   in	
   this	
  violation.	
  The	
  
apology	
  is	
  thus	
  a	
  transaction	
  which	
  aims	
  to	
  restore	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  offending	
  and	
  the	
  offended	
  
parties	
  (Edmondson,	
  1981,	
  p.	
  274;	
  Leech,	
  1983,	
  p.	
  125;	
  Robinson,	
  2004,	
  p.	
  292)	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
   image	
  of	
  the	
  
offender	
   (Benoit,	
   1995,	
   p.	
   35).	
   Taking	
   these	
   definitions	
   as	
   a	
   basis,	
   this	
   paper	
   investigates	
   apologies	
   as	
  
expressions	
   whereby	
   the	
   speaker	
   or	
   writer	
   communicates	
   remorse	
   for	
   having	
   violated	
   social	
   norms	
   and	
  
offended	
  the	
  interlocutor,	
  and	
  thereby	
  attempts	
  to	
  restore	
  harmony	
  within	
  the	
  interaction.	
  	
  

Although	
  culture	
  has	
  been	
  widely	
  acknowledged	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  vast	
  and	
  challenging	
  concept	
  (Baker,	
  2015,	
  
pp.	
  45-­‐46;	
  Duranti,	
  1997,	
  pp.	
  7-­‐8;	
  Knoblauch,	
  2001;	
  Liddicoat	
  &	
  Scarino,	
  2013,	
  p.	
  17),	
  the	
  significance	
  placed	
  
upon	
  the	
  social	
  sphere	
  consistently	
  emerges	
  in	
  the	
  diverse	
  definitions	
  of	
  culture	
  offered	
  by	
  scholars.	
  In	
  this	
  
paper,	
   Kiesling’s	
   (2015,	
   p.	
   621)	
   conceptualisation	
   of	
   culture	
   as	
   group	
   practice	
   –	
   rather	
   than	
   as	
   an	
   innate	
  
attribute	
  of	
  a	
  group	
  –	
  is	
  adopted.	
   	
  As	
  culture	
  is	
  variable	
  and	
  can	
  develop	
  over	
  time,	
   it	
   is	
  seen	
  by	
  Kiesling	
  as	
  
encapsulating	
  the	
  collective	
  actions	
  of	
  a	
  group	
  of	
  people,	
  rather	
  than	
  being	
  an	
  inherent	
  trait	
  of	
  the	
  group.	
  	
  This	
  
pragmatic	
   approach	
   thus	
   entails	
   a	
   focus	
   upon	
   actions	
   as	
   performed	
   through	
   language,	
  which	
   corresponds	
  
with	
  the	
  speech	
  act	
  theory	
  framework	
  of	
  this	
  paper.	
  

Numerous	
  cross-­‐cultural	
  and	
  intercultural	
  studies	
  have	
  evidenced	
  the	
  vast	
  differentiation	
  in	
  apology	
  
performance	
  across	
  cultures	
  (Bataineh	
  &	
  Bataineh,	
  2006;	
  Chang,	
  2010;	
  Jebahi,	
  2011;	
  Márquez	
  Reiter,	
  2000;	
  
Suszczyńska,	
   1999).	
   For	
   example,	
   the	
   Cross-­‐Cultural	
   Study	
   of	
   Speech	
   Act	
   Realisation	
   Patterns	
   (CCSARP)	
  
(Blum-­‐Kulka,	
   House,	
   &	
   Kasper,	
   1989a)	
   evidenced	
   that	
   the	
   variation	
   of	
   social	
   distance	
   and	
   power	
   between	
  
participants	
  was	
  of	
  importance	
  in	
  the	
  participants’	
  choices	
  of	
  apology	
  strategies	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  relative	
  weight	
  
of	
  these	
  factors	
  was	
  subject	
  both	
  to	
  situational	
  and	
  cultural	
  variation	
  (Blum-­‐Kulka,	
  House	
  &	
  Kasper,	
  1989b,	
  p.	
  
3).	
   These	
   findings	
   are	
   well-­‐supported,	
   for	
   example	
   by	
   Trosborg’s	
   studies	
   of	
   the	
   performance	
   of	
   requests,	
  
complaints	
   and	
   apologies	
   among	
   Danish	
   learners	
   of	
   English	
   (1987;	
   1995),	
   and	
   by	
   Cheng’s	
   (2013)	
  
investigation	
  of	
  the	
  strategies	
  used	
  by	
  learners	
  of	
  English	
  in	
  both	
  spoken	
  and	
  emailed	
  apologies.	
  The	
  former	
  
discovered	
   that	
   different	
   interactions	
   between	
   the	
   factors	
   of	
   dominance	
   and	
   social	
   distance	
   in	
   role-­‐play	
  
situations	
   resulted	
   in	
   demand	
   for	
   varying	
   levels	
   of	
   politeness	
   (Trosborg,	
   1995,	
   p.	
   148).	
   Similarly,	
   Cheng	
  
(2013,	
   p.	
   102)	
   found	
   that	
   variables	
   such	
   as	
   the	
   mode	
   of	
   communication,	
   severity	
   of	
   the	
   situation	
   and	
  
relationships	
  between	
  interlocutors	
  were	
  formative	
  in	
  the	
  construction	
  of	
  learners’	
  apologies.	
  	
  



WALKER	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

31	
  

Scholars	
  have	
  also	
  noted	
  differences	
  in	
  apology	
  modification	
  among	
  learners	
  and	
  native	
  speakers	
  of	
  
English.	
   While	
   the	
   Uruguayan	
   participants	
   in	
   Márquez	
   Reiter’s	
   (2000,	
   p.	
   147)	
   study	
   demonstrated	
   a	
  
preference	
  for	
  non-­‐intensification,	
  the	
  British	
  participants	
  intensified	
  apologies	
  in	
  all	
  situations,	
  for	
  example,	
  
through	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   adverbs	
   such	
   as	
   very	
   or	
   so	
   prior	
   to	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   the	
   direct	
   apology	
   sorry.	
   Similarly,	
  
Suszczyńska	
  (1999,	
  pp.	
  1060-­‐1061)	
  found	
  that	
  explicit	
  apologies	
  produced	
  by	
  native	
  English	
  speakers	
  were	
  
intensified	
   more	
   frequently	
   than	
   explicit	
   apologies	
   performed	
   by	
   native	
   Polish	
   and	
   Hungarian	
   speakers.	
  
These	
  results	
  indicate	
  “a	
  ritualised	
  Anglo-­‐Saxon	
  conflict	
  avoidance	
  strategy	
  aimed	
  at	
  redressing	
  the	
  hearer’s	
  
‘negative’	
   face”	
   (Márquez	
   Reiter,	
   2000,	
   p.	
   167),	
   which	
   may	
   have	
   significant	
   implications	
   for	
   intercultural	
  
politeness.	
   Additionally,	
   Trosborg	
   (1987,	
   p.	
   162)	
   found	
   that	
   learners	
   of	
   English	
   often	
   appeared	
   to	
   be	
   less	
  
polite	
  than	
  the	
  native	
  speakers,	
  as	
  they	
  were	
  unable	
  to	
  modulate	
  their	
  apologies	
  in	
  accordance	
  with	
  English	
  
norms.	
   Apology	
   frequency	
   may	
   also	
   be	
   influenced	
   by	
   cultural	
   factors,	
   as	
   Australian	
   and	
   British	
   English	
  
speakers	
   tend	
   to	
   apologise	
   more	
   frequently	
   compared	
   with	
   other	
   cultural	
   groups	
   (Clyne,	
   1994,	
   p.	
   179;	
  
Márquez	
  Reiter,	
  2000,	
  p.	
  168).	
  

In	
   investigating	
  the	
  Italian	
  and	
  English	
  languages,	
  Lipson	
  (1994)	
  asked	
  ten	
  native	
  Italian	
  university	
  
students	
  to	
  transcribe	
  apology	
  scenes	
  from	
  American	
  sitcoms	
  in	
  Italian	
  and	
  adapt	
  them	
  to	
  the	
  Italian	
  cultural	
  
context.	
  Relationships	
  of	
  unequal	
  status	
  and	
  authority	
  were	
  subject	
  to	
  more	
  restricted	
  forms	
  of	
  apologies	
  in	
  
the	
   participants’	
   representations	
   than	
   those	
   in	
   the	
   American	
   sitcoms	
   and	
   textual	
   differentiation	
   was	
  
attributed	
   to	
   the	
   participants’	
   perceptions	
   of	
   status,	
   role	
   and	
   authority	
   (Lipson,	
   1994,	
   p.	
   27).	
   When	
  
addressing	
  friends,	
  students	
  rejected	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  apologise	
  (Lipson,	
  1994,	
  p.	
  31)	
  and	
  jokes,	
  insults	
  and	
  teasing	
  
were	
   incorporated	
  more	
  frequently	
  as	
  moves	
  to	
  minimise	
  the	
  offence	
  and	
  restore	
  balance	
  (Lipson,	
  1994,	
  p.	
  
25).	
  Conversely,	
  these	
  strategies	
  were	
  not	
  used	
  when	
  addressing	
  individuals	
  of	
  a	
  higher	
  status.	
  Evidently,	
  the	
  
students’	
  understandings	
  of	
  interpersonal	
  relationships	
  significantly	
  impacted	
  their	
  formulation	
  of	
  apologies.	
  
Similarly,	
  Nuzzo	
   (2007,	
  p.	
  178)	
   found	
   that	
  among	
  native	
   Italian	
   speakers,	
   situations	
  of	
  high	
   social	
  distance	
  
resulted	
   in	
   a	
  more	
   frequent	
   use	
   of	
   intensifiers	
   than	
   in	
   situations	
   of	
   low	
   social	
   distance.	
   This	
   suggests	
   that	
  
native	
   speakers	
   tend	
   to	
   use	
   strong	
   expressions	
   of	
   regret	
   with	
   strangers,	
   though	
   are	
   more	
   comfortable	
   in	
  
denying	
  responsibility	
  when	
  the	
  interlocutor	
  is	
  well-­‐known	
  to	
  them	
  (Nuzzo,	
  2007,	
  p.	
  179).	
  Nuzzo	
  also	
  notes	
  
that,	
  when	
  modifying	
  their	
  apologies,	
  Italian	
  native	
  speakers	
  display	
  a	
  preference	
  for	
  mitigating	
  strategies	
  –	
  
that	
  is,	
  lexical	
  elements	
  which	
  alleviate	
  the	
  offender’s	
  responsibility	
  in	
  causing	
  the	
  offence.	
  

Although	
  apologies	
  performed	
  in	
  Italian	
  have	
  not	
  been	
  explored	
  within	
  the	
  Australian	
  context,	
  some	
  
studies	
  have	
  been	
  conducted	
  which	
   focus	
  on	
  other	
  FTAs	
  (Bettoni	
  &	
  Rubino,	
  2007;	
  Rubino,	
  2011;	
  Rubino	
  &	
  
Bettoni,	
   2006).	
   In	
   investigating	
   complaints,	
   Rubino	
   and	
  Bettoni	
   (2006,	
   p.	
   355)	
   concluded	
   that	
   Italians	
   and	
  
Anglo-­‐Australians	
   differed	
   both	
   in	
   their	
   perceptions	
   of	
   the	
   offence	
   and	
   how	
   this	
   was	
   to	
   be	
   redressed.	
  
Additionally,	
   Bettoni	
   and	
   Rubino	
   (2007,	
   p.	
   491)	
   observed	
   that	
   when	
   responding	
   to	
   complaints,	
   Anglo-­‐
Australians	
  tended	
  to	
  use	
  variations	
  of	
   the	
  same	
  formulaic	
  expression,	
   I’m	
  sorry,	
  and	
  intensifiers	
  such	
  as	
  so	
  
and	
  awfully	
  were	
  often	
  included.	
  Conversely,	
  native	
  Italians	
  alternated	
  between	
  mi	
  dispiace	
  (‘I’m	
  sorry’)	
  and	
  
mi	
   scusi	
   (‘excuse	
   me’),	
   rarely	
   using	
   more	
   elaborate	
   expressions.	
   These	
   strong	
   linguistic	
   differences	
   have	
  
implications	
  for	
   intercultural	
  communication	
  and	
  foreign	
  language	
  use,	
  and	
  thus	
  will	
  be	
  investigated	
  in	
  this	
  
paper.	
  

	
  
4.	
  Methodology	
  of	
  the	
  study	
  

As	
  mentioned	
  above,	
  this	
  paper	
  presents	
  data	
  from	
  a	
  larger	
  project	
  which	
  investigated	
  the	
  politeness	
  
strategies	
  used	
  by	
  learners	
  of	
  Italian	
  when	
  performing	
  apologies.	
  A	
  written	
  DCT	
  was	
  used	
  to	
  collect	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  
email	
   responses	
  which	
  were	
   then	
   analysed	
   in	
   regards	
   to	
   apology	
   structure	
   and	
   the	
   three	
   variables	
   under	
  
investigation.	
  	
  

	
  
4.1.	
  The	
  DCT	
  

The	
  data	
   collection	
   for	
   the	
  project	
   involved	
   the	
   application	
  of	
   a	
  written	
  DCT	
  whereby	
  participants	
  
were	
  asked	
  to	
  respond	
  to	
  four	
  scenarios	
  in	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  an	
  email.	
  	
  

In	
  completing	
  the	
  DCT,	
  participants	
  were	
  presented	
  with	
  the	
  same	
  situation	
  twice,	
  but	
  were	
  required	
  
to	
   direct	
   their	
   responses	
   to	
   two	
   different	
   interlocutors,	
   so	
   as	
   to	
   investigate	
   the	
   possible	
   impact	
   of	
   social	
  
variables	
   on	
   speech	
   act	
   performance.	
   The	
   format	
   of	
   the	
   DCT	
   involved	
   a	
   short	
   description	
   of	
   the	
   scenario,	
  
followed	
  by	
  a	
  space	
  in	
  which	
  students	
  were	
  able	
  to	
  provide	
  a	
  response,	
  as	
  shown	
  in	
  Figure	
  1.	
  	
  

	
  



POLITENESS	
  NORMS:	
  APOLOGIES	
  BY	
  LEARNERS	
  OF	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

32	
  

	
  
Figure 1. Format of the DCT 

	
  
The	
  task	
  was	
  completed	
  on	
  campus	
  under	
  exam	
  conditions	
  without	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  linguistic	
  aids	
  such	
  as	
  

dictionaries	
  or	
  electronics.	
  
Special	
  care	
  was	
  taken	
  in	
  formulating	
  scenarios	
  that	
  were	
  relevant	
  to	
  the	
  student	
  context,	
  such	
  as	
  a	
  

student	
  exchange	
  situation	
  or	
  an	
  intercultural	
  encounter	
  in	
  Italy.	
  All	
  scenarios	
  were	
  set	
  in	
  Italy,	
  implying	
  that	
  
students	
  should	
  engage	
  with	
  Italian	
  politeness	
  strategies	
  and	
  apology	
  constructions,	
  and	
  this	
  was	
  emphasised	
  
by	
   the	
   fact	
   that	
   the	
  DCT	
  was	
  written	
   in	
   Italian	
  with	
  only	
  potentially	
  challenging	
   terms	
  provided	
   in	
  English.	
  
The	
  explicit	
  construction	
  of	
  this	
  Italian	
  setting	
  therefore	
  placed	
  the	
  participants	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  Italian	
  
language	
  and	
  culture.	
  	
  

Identifying	
   email	
   communication	
   as	
   the	
   modality	
   of	
   the	
   DCT	
   also	
   eliminated	
   the	
   possibility	
   that	
  
variations	
   in	
   text	
   type	
   across	
   the	
   scenarios	
   could	
   influence	
   the	
   learners’	
   construction	
   of	
   apologies.	
   The	
  
specification	
  that	
  responses	
  should	
  be	
  written	
  in	
  email	
  form	
  was	
  thereby	
  an	
  important	
  controlled	
  variable	
  in	
  
ensuring	
  data	
  consistency.	
  

Participants	
   were	
   also	
   given	
   the	
   opportunity	
   to	
   opt	
   out	
   of	
   responding	
   to	
   the	
   scenarios.	
   It	
   is	
  
understood	
  that,	
  for	
  any	
  number	
  of	
  reasons,	
  an	
  individual	
  may	
  not	
  apologise	
  in	
  all	
  situations	
  in	
  which	
  another	
  
individual	
   may	
   deem	
   an	
   apology	
   to	
   be	
   necessary.	
   Opting	
   out	
   of	
   speech	
   act	
   performance	
   is	
   in	
   fact	
   quite	
  
common	
  (Kuchuk,	
  2012,	
  p.	
  128)	
  and	
  has	
  been	
  identified	
  as	
  a	
  possible	
  response	
  to	
  FTAs	
  in	
  particular	
  (Brown	
  
&	
  Levinson,	
  1987,	
  p.	
  69).	
  Hence,	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  each	
  scenario	
  description,	
  the	
  option	
  to	
  refuse	
  to	
  answer	
  was	
  
offered	
  to	
  participants.	
  	
  

Drawing	
   upon	
   other	
   studies	
   (e.g.	
  Lipson,	
   1994;	
  Márquez	
   Reiter,	
   2000;	
   and	
  Rubino	
   &	
   Bettoni,	
  
2006,	
  among	
  others),	
  participants	
  were	
  also	
  asked	
  to	
  evaluate	
  each	
  scenario	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  three	
  variables	
  –	
  
namely,	
   the	
   social	
   distance	
   between	
   the	
   participant	
   and	
   the	
   interlocutor,	
   the	
   status	
   of	
   the	
   interlocutor	
   in	
  
relation	
  to	
  the	
  participant,	
  and	
  the	
  degree	
  of	
  severity	
  of	
  the	
  offence	
  for	
  which	
  the	
  apology	
  was	
  being	
  offered.	
  
Participants	
  were	
  required	
  to	
  rate	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  each	
  of	
  these	
  variables	
  on	
  a	
  scale	
  of	
  one	
  (Low)	
  to	
  five	
  (High),	
  
as	
  shown	
  below	
  in	
  Figure	
  2.	
  

These	
  three	
  variables	
  were	
  defined	
  for	
  the	
  students	
  in	
  the	
  following	
  way,	
  and	
  these	
  definitions	
  were	
  
also	
  included	
  on	
  the	
  DCT	
  itself	
  so	
  as	
  to	
  avoid	
  ambiguity:	
  

Social	
   distance:	
   how	
  well	
   known	
   the	
   participants	
   are	
   to	
   each	
   other,	
   ranging	
   from	
   strangers	
   to	
  
intimates	
  
Status	
   of	
   interlocutor:	
   the	
   degree	
   of	
   power	
   held	
   by	
   the	
   interlocutor,	
   i.e.	
   if	
   their	
   social	
   position	
  
within	
  the	
  interaction	
  is	
  higher,	
  equal	
  to,	
  or	
  lower	
  than	
  the	
  speaker	
  
Severity	
  of	
  offence:	
  the	
  ‘seriousness’	
  of	
  and	
  extent	
  of	
  damage	
  caused	
  by	
  the	
  offence	
  for	
  which	
  the	
  
apology	
  is	
  being	
  offered.	
  

	
  



WALKER	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

33	
  

	
  
	
  
 

Would you rate the severity of your offence as: 

1 2 3 4 5 

Low    High 
Figure 2. Likert scale from the DCT 

	
  

The	
  participants’	
  emails	
  and	
  variable	
  ratings	
  then	
  provided	
  the	
  data	
  set	
  for	
  this	
  paper.	
  	
  
	
  
4.2.	
  Participants	
  

The	
   participants	
   were	
   students	
   enrolled	
   in	
   one	
   of	
   four	
   Italian	
   Studies	
   courses	
   at	
   a	
   large	
   public	
  
university	
   in	
   Australia	
   and	
   with	
   of	
   proficiency	
   levels	
   ranging	
   from	
   B1	
   to	
   C14,	
   based	
   on	
   student	
   grading	
  
conducted	
  by	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Italian	
  Studies.	
  

The	
  four	
  classes	
  and	
  their	
  assumed	
  proficiency	
  levels	
  were:	
  
	
  

− Intermediate	
  Italian	
  4	
  (B1)	
  
− Senior	
  Italian	
  4	
  (B1/B2)	
  
− Senior	
  Italian	
  6	
  (B1/B2)	
  
− Honours	
  cohort	
  (B2/C1)	
  	
  

	
  
Despite	
  differences	
  in	
  the	
  proficiency	
  levels	
  of	
  the	
  students,	
  it	
  was	
  expected	
  that	
  all	
  participants	
  had	
  

been	
  instructed	
  in	
  the	
  differences	
  between	
  Italian	
  and	
  English	
  politeness	
  strategies,	
  and	
  this	
  was	
  supported	
  
by	
   syllabus	
   documents	
   (Department	
   of	
   Italian	
   Studies,	
   2016a,	
   2016b,	
   2016c).	
   	
   Although	
   some	
  participants	
  
who	
  were	
  attending	
  higher	
  language	
  classes	
  were	
  more	
  successful	
  in	
  formulating	
  their	
  apologies	
  than	
  those	
  
in	
  lower	
  classes,	
  this	
  was	
  not	
  always	
  the	
  case;	
  thus,	
  differentiation	
  in	
  student	
  proficiency	
  was	
  not	
  considered	
  
in	
  this	
  study.	
  

Demographic	
   questionnaires	
   (included	
   in	
   the	
   Appendix)	
   were	
   also	
   completed	
   by	
   participants	
   in	
  
order	
   to	
   ascertain	
  whether	
   such	
   factors	
   impacted	
  upon	
   the	
   responses	
  provided.	
  However,	
   few	
   conclusions	
  
could	
  be	
  drawn	
  from	
  these	
  demographic	
  details.	
  Neither	
  did	
  cultural	
  background	
  appear	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  meaningful	
  
factor	
   in	
  explaining	
  participants’	
   linguistic	
  choices.	
  Hence,	
  the	
  demographic	
  factors	
  did	
  not	
  form	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  
data	
  analysis	
  for	
  this	
  paper.	
  

Any	
  problematic	
  transcripts	
  –	
  in	
  that	
  they	
  were	
  incomplete	
  or	
  had	
  been	
  incorrectly	
  completed	
  –	
  were	
  
removed	
  from	
  the	
  data	
  set	
  and	
  therefore	
  had	
  no	
  bearing	
  on	
  the	
  results	
  presented	
  in	
  this	
  paper.	
  	
  

	
  
4.3.	
  Data	
  for	
  this	
  paper	
  

The	
  data	
  presented	
   in	
   this	
  paper	
  arises	
   from	
  one	
  of	
   the	
   four	
   scenarios	
   in	
   the	
  DCT,	
  available	
   in	
   the	
  
Appendix	
   both	
   in	
   the	
   original	
   Italian	
   (as	
   provided	
   to	
   participants)	
   and	
   in	
   English.	
   As	
   the	
   data	
   set	
  was	
   too	
  
narrow	
   to	
   provide	
   an	
   effective	
   statistical	
   analysis,	
   a	
   descriptive	
   analytical	
   framework	
   was	
   used.	
   This	
  
descriptive	
  method	
  arose	
  from	
  the	
  data	
  itself,	
   thus	
  was	
  more	
  revealing	
  than	
  an	
  imposed	
  framework	
  arising	
  
from	
   another	
   project,	
   and	
   also	
   allowed	
   for	
   a	
   detailed	
   consideration	
   of	
   the	
   whole	
   complex	
   apology	
   act	
  
sequence.	
  	
  

The	
  chosen	
  scenario	
  specified	
  that	
  upon	
  unpacking	
  their	
  luggage	
  after	
  staying	
  with	
  a	
  friend	
  and	
  his	
  
mother	
   in	
  Verona,	
   the	
  participant	
  discovered	
   that	
   they	
  had	
  accidentally	
   taken	
   two	
  phone	
  chargers	
   that	
  did	
  
not	
  belong	
  to	
  them.	
  In	
  completing	
  the	
  DCT,	
  participants	
  were	
  required	
  to	
  write	
  to	
  both	
  the	
  mother	
  and	
  the	
  
friend	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  situation.	
  	
  

The	
   scenario	
   discussed	
   in	
   this	
   paper	
   is	
   the	
   email	
   to	
   the	
   mother,	
   which	
   was	
   chosen	
   for	
   several	
  
reasons.	
  Firstly,	
  the	
  two	
  alternations	
  of	
  the	
  scenario	
  demonstrated	
  high	
  degrees	
  of	
  variance	
  in	
  regards	
  to	
  the	
  
rating	
  of	
  the	
  social	
  variables,	
  indicating	
  that	
  many	
  participants	
  recognised	
  social	
  distinctions	
  between	
  the	
  two	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
4	
  According	
  to	
  the	
  Common	
  European	
  Framework	
  of	
  Reference	
  for	
  Languages.	
  



POLITENESS	
  NORMS:	
  APOLOGIES	
  BY	
  LEARNERS	
  OF	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

34	
  

addressees.	
  As	
  this	
  scenario	
  is	
  quite	
  different	
  from	
  many	
  scenarios	
  used	
  or	
  undertaken	
  in	
  previous	
  DCTs	
  and	
  
role-­‐play	
   tasks	
   conducted	
   by	
   other	
   scholars	
   (e.g.	
   Chang,	
   2009;	
   Márquez-­‐Reiter,	
   2000;	
   Suszczyńska,	
   1999;	
  
Trosborg,	
   1995),	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   both	
   the	
   offence	
   and	
   the	
   interlocutor	
   stipulated,	
   it	
   provides	
   a	
   particularly	
  
intriguing	
  analytical	
  focus.	
  While	
  most	
  data	
  arising	
  from	
  the	
  scenario	
  incorporated	
  Australian	
  English	
  norms,	
  
participants	
   did	
   attempt	
   to	
   engage	
   with	
   Italian	
   pragmatics;	
   thus,	
   this	
   scenario	
   offers	
   insights	
   into	
   the	
  
interplay	
  of	
  the	
  two	
  languages	
  in	
  the	
  intercultural	
  context	
  of	
  language	
  acquisition.	
  	
  

As	
  five	
  of	
  the	
  42	
  participants	
  opted	
  out	
  of	
  responding	
  to	
  this	
  scenario,	
  the	
  following	
  analysis	
  arises	
  
from	
  the	
  responses	
  of	
  37	
  participants.	
  	
  

All	
  examples	
  quoted	
  in	
  this	
  paper	
  have	
  been	
  transcribed	
  exactly	
  as	
  they	
  were	
  written	
  by	
  participants,	
  
including	
  grammatical	
  and	
  lexical	
  errors.	
  These	
  errors	
  have	
  not	
  been	
  represented	
  in	
  the	
  English	
  translations.	
  
However,	
   in	
   some	
   translations,	
   English	
   grammatical	
   correctness	
   has	
   been	
   compromised	
   in	
   order	
   to	
  more	
  
accurately	
  communicate	
  the	
  meaning	
  of	
  the	
  original	
  Italian.	
  	
  
	
  
5.	
  Analysis	
  

Based	
  on	
   comparisons	
  with	
  previous	
   literature	
   already	
  discussed	
   in	
   this	
  paper,	
   the	
   analysis	
  of	
   the	
  
data	
  revealed	
  the	
  frequent	
  use	
  of	
  Australian	
  English	
  terms	
  of	
  address	
  and	
  apology	
  structures,	
  rather	
  than	
  the	
  
consistent	
  use	
  of	
  Italian	
  norms	
  usually	
  required	
  in	
  the	
  scenarios	
  presented	
  to	
  participants.	
  The	
  prevalence	
  of	
  
these	
  features	
  of	
  Australian	
  English	
  suggests	
  the	
  application	
  of	
  L1	
  (Australian	
  English)	
  knowledge	
  to	
  the	
  L2	
  
(Italian).	
  There	
  are	
  three	
  principle	
  areas	
  in	
  which	
  this	
  intercultural	
  negotiation	
  was	
  evidenced:	
  (i)	
  the	
  way	
  in	
  
which	
   the	
   social	
   variables	
  within	
   the	
   scenarios	
  were	
   evaluated	
  by	
  participants,	
   (ii)	
   the	
  participants’	
   use	
  of	
  
formal	
  terms	
  of	
  address,	
  and	
  (iii)	
  the	
  modification	
  of	
  explicit	
  expressions	
  of	
  apology.	
  These	
  findings	
  will	
  now	
  
be	
  detailed.	
  	
  

	
  
5.1.	
  The	
  social	
  variables	
  

As	
   outlined	
   previously,	
   following	
   each	
   scenario,	
   participants	
   were	
   asked	
   to	
   evaluate	
   the	
   social	
  
distance	
  between	
  the	
  interlocutor	
  and	
  themselves,	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  the	
  interlocutor	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  their	
  own,	
  and	
  
the	
  severity	
  of	
  the	
  offence	
  hypothetically	
  committed.	
  The	
  three	
  variables	
  were	
  clarified	
  to	
  the	
  students	
  in	
  the	
  
DCT,	
  as	
  mentioned	
  above.	
  	
  

The	
  number	
  of	
  participants	
  who	
  chose	
  each	
  of	
   the	
   five	
  ratings	
  of	
   the	
   three	
  variables	
   in	
   the	
  chosen	
  
scenario	
  are	
  demonstrated	
  in	
  the	
  table	
  and	
  graph	
  below:	
  
	
  

Table 1 
Participants’ ratings of variables in email to friend’s mother 

Variables Rating of the variables 
1 (Low) 2 3 4 5 (High) 

Social distance 2 14 18 7 1 
Status of interlocutor 1 1 16 24 0 
Severity of offence 8 17 13 4 0 

	
  
It	
   is	
   notable	
   that	
   the	
   two	
   social	
   variables	
   (distance	
   and	
   status)	
   as	
   rated	
   by	
   participants	
  were	
   not	
  

always	
   interdependent.	
  Most	
  participants’	
  perceptions	
  of	
   the	
   social	
  distance	
  between	
   themselves	
  and	
   their	
  
friend’s	
  mother	
  were	
  concentrated	
  around	
  the	
  2	
  –	
  3	
  rating	
  on	
  the	
  scale	
  (demonstrated	
  in	
  bold),	
  whereas	
  all	
  
but	
  two	
  ratings	
  for	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  the	
  mother	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  the	
  participant	
  were	
  between	
  the	
  higher	
  3	
  –	
  4	
  range.	
  
In	
   fact,	
   in	
   assessing	
   the	
   individual	
   responses	
  of	
   participants,	
   it	
   emerged	
   that	
  many	
  participants	
   reported	
   a	
  
relationship	
   in	
  which	
   the	
   status	
  of	
   the	
  mother	
  was	
  higher	
   than	
   their	
   own,	
   but	
   the	
   social	
   distance	
  between	
  
them	
  was	
  low	
  or	
  average.	
  Specifically,	
  12	
  participants	
  gave	
  equal	
  ratings	
  to	
  the	
  social	
  distance	
  between	
  the	
  
mother	
  and	
  themselves	
  and	
  to	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  the	
  mother,	
  27	
  gauged	
  the	
  social	
  distance	
  as	
  being	
  lower	
  than	
  the	
  
status	
  of	
   the	
  mother,	
   and	
  only	
  3	
  participants	
   rated	
   the	
   status	
  of	
   the	
  mother	
  as	
  being	
   lower	
   than	
   the	
   social	
  
distance.	
  

That	
  27	
  participants	
  (over	
  64%)	
  reported	
  low	
  social	
  distance	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  mother’s	
  status	
  (1	
  –	
  
2	
   on	
   the	
   scale)	
   aligns	
  with	
   the	
  Australian	
   principles	
   of	
   equality	
   and	
  mateship,	
   even	
   in	
   socially	
   imbalanced	
  
interactions	
  (Dyrenfurth,	
  2015;	
  Formentelli	
  &	
  Hajek,	
  2013;	
  Sinkeviciute,	
  2014).	
  One	
  can	
  therefore	
  gather	
  that	
  
the	
  participants	
  tend	
  to	
  adhere	
  to	
  an	
  Australian	
  understanding	
  of	
  this	
  relationship.	
  	
  



WALKER	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

35	
  

However,	
   it	
   should	
   also	
   be	
   acknowledged	
   that	
   this	
   familiarity	
   between	
   the	
   participants	
   and	
   the	
  
interlocutor	
  may	
  be	
  a	
  situational	
  effect	
  of	
  having	
  lived	
  together	
  (as	
  it	
  was	
  specified	
  in	
  the	
  scenario	
  description	
  
that	
  the	
  participant	
  was	
  a	
  guest	
  in	
  the	
  mother’s	
  home)	
  or	
  may	
  be	
  influenced	
  by	
  participants’	
  experiences	
  with	
  
their	
  own	
  friends’	
  families	
  in	
  Australia.	
  	
  

	
  
5.2.	
  The	
  use	
  of	
  formal	
  terms	
  of	
  address	
  

Italian	
  has	
   two	
  principle	
   formal	
  personal	
  pronouns,	
  Lei	
   and	
  Loro,	
  which	
  are	
  used	
  when	
  addressing	
  
individuals	
  who	
  are	
  not	
  well-­‐known	
   to	
   the	
  speaker,	
  or	
  are	
  of	
  higher	
  status	
  or	
  hold	
  greater	
  power	
   than	
   the	
  
speaker.	
  For	
  example,	
  individuals	
  who	
  possess	
  titles	
  such	
  as	
  Doctor	
  or	
  Professor	
  should	
  always	
  be	
  addressed	
  
using	
   these	
   forms	
   (Musumeci,	
   1991,	
   p.	
   445),	
   and	
   titles	
   are	
   often	
   used	
   in	
   addressing	
   such	
   individuals.	
  
However,	
   today	
   Loro	
   is	
   rarely	
   used.	
   These	
   choices	
   of	
   terms	
   of	
   address	
   also	
   impact	
   upon	
   one’s	
   verbal	
  
conjugation,	
  whereby	
  the	
  verbs	
  adopt	
  the	
  conjugation	
  of	
   the	
  third	
  person	
  rather	
  than	
  the	
  second	
  person	
   in	
  
order	
  to	
  achieve	
  grammatical	
  agreement.	
  	
  

In	
  contrast,	
  formal	
  terms	
  of	
  address	
  are	
  uncommon	
  in	
  Australian	
  English,	
  while	
  solidarity	
  pronouns	
  
of	
  address	
  and	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  first	
  names	
  are	
  conventional	
  and	
  expected	
  (Brick,	
  2004,	
  p.	
  39;	
  Clyne,	
  2003,	
  p.	
  217).	
  
Thus,	
   engagement	
  with	
   grammatical	
   formality	
   has	
   been	
   previously	
   evidenced	
   as	
   an	
   element	
   of	
   politeness	
  
with	
  which	
  Australian	
   learners	
  of	
   Italian	
  experience	
  difficulty	
   (Formentelli	
  &	
  Hajek,	
  2013),	
  a	
   finding	
  which	
  
was	
  also	
  evidenced	
  in	
  the	
  present	
  study.	
  	
  

While	
   some	
   participants	
   did	
   attempt	
   to	
   adapt	
   their	
   level	
   of	
   grammatical	
   formality	
   to	
   the	
   Italian	
  
context	
  of	
  the	
  interactions	
  presented	
  in	
  the	
  DCT	
  scenarios,	
  there	
  was	
  at	
  times	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  consistency	
  in	
  the	
  use	
  
of	
  formal	
  terms	
  of	
  address.	
  Some	
  students	
  were	
  able	
  to	
  use	
  these	
  terms	
  without	
  issue,	
  while	
  others	
  did	
  not	
  
engage	
  with	
   them,	
   and	
   others	
   still	
   made	
   attempts	
   to	
   use	
   the	
   forms	
   but	
  made	
   errors	
  when	
   doing	
   so.	
   This	
  
variability	
  thus	
  provides	
  a	
  salient	
  area	
  of	
  investigation	
  in	
  the	
  intercultural	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  study.	
  

In	
  the	
  specified	
  scenario	
  investigated	
  in	
  this	
  paper,	
  35.14%	
  of	
  all	
  responses	
  provided	
  made	
  use	
  of	
  the	
  
formal	
   pronouns	
   and	
   related	
   verbal	
   conjugations,	
   which	
   are	
   fundamental	
   elements	
   of	
   Italian	
   politeness	
  
(Musumeci,	
   1991;	
   Nuzzo	
   &	
   Rastelli,	
   2009).	
   The	
   social	
   variables	
   of	
   the	
   interaction	
   –	
   specifically,	
   the	
   social	
  
distance	
  and	
  status	
  differentiation	
  between	
  the	
  participant	
  and	
  their	
   interlocutor	
  –	
  seemed	
  to	
   impact	
  upon	
  
the	
  use	
  of	
  these	
  polite	
  terms	
  of	
  address.	
  

When	
  participants	
  judged	
  their	
  interlocutor	
  (the	
  mother)	
  to	
  be	
  of	
  an	
  equal	
  or	
  higher	
  status	
  than	
  their	
  
own	
  (4	
  –	
  5	
  on	
  the	
  scale),	
  formal	
  Italian	
  terms	
  of	
  address	
  were	
  used	
  more	
  frequently.	
  This	
  is	
  demonstrated	
  in	
  
bold	
  in	
  the	
  table	
  below:	
  when	
  responses	
  were	
  allocated	
  higher	
  ratings,	
  particularly	
  4,	
  they	
  included	
  a	
  higher	
  
number	
  of	
  formal	
  pronouns	
  and	
  verbal	
  conjugations.	
  	
  
	
  

Table 2 
Use of formal Italian terms of address in relation to ratings of the mother’s status 

Rating of status of 
the interlocutor 

Total 
responses 

Responses using formal 
terms of address 

Percentage 
(%)5 

1 (Low) 0 0 - 
2 1 0 0.00 
3 14 2 14.29 
4 22 11 50.00 

5 (High) 0 0 - 
	
  

This	
   trend	
  was	
  echoed	
   in	
  the	
  results	
   for	
  the	
  social	
  distance	
  of	
   the	
   interlocutor.	
  As	
  demonstrated	
   in	
  
bold	
   in	
   Table	
   3,	
   the	
   percentage	
   of	
   responses	
   which	
   included	
   formal	
   Italian	
   terms	
   of	
   address	
   rose	
   in	
  
correspondence	
   with	
   an	
   increase	
   in	
   the	
   social	
   distance	
   between	
   the	
   participant	
   and	
   their	
   interlocutor.	
  
Evidently,	
   participants’	
   recognition	
   of	
   the	
   social	
   distance	
   between	
   themselves	
   and	
   their	
   friend’s	
   mother	
  
influenced	
  their	
  choice	
  of	
  formal	
  pronouns	
  and	
  verbal	
  conjugations.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
5	
  The	
  percentage	
  of	
  responses	
  in	
  which	
  formal	
  terms	
  of	
  address	
  were	
  used.	
  



POLITENESS	
  NORMS:	
  APOLOGIES	
  BY	
  LEARNERS	
  OF	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

36	
  

Table 3 
Use of formal Italian terms of address in relation to ratings of the mother’s social distance  

Rating of social distance Total responses 
Responses using 

formal terms of address Percentage (%) 
1 (Low) 2 0 0.00 

2 10 2 20.00 
3 18 7 38.89 
4 7 4 57.14 

5 (High) 0 0 - 
	
  

Hence,	
   similarly	
   to	
   the	
  association	
  between	
  social	
  distance	
  and	
   the	
  use	
  of	
   formal	
   Italian,	
   there	
   is	
  a	
  
connection	
   between	
   the	
   participants’	
   perceptions	
   of	
   status	
   and	
   their	
   choices	
   of	
   formal	
   Italian	
   forms	
   of	
  
address.	
  This	
  thus	
  follows	
  Italian	
  norms	
  and	
  evidences	
  an	
  awareness	
  on	
  the	
  part	
  of	
  participants	
  of	
  the	
  Italian	
  
cultural	
  context	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  were	
  writing.	
  	
  

However,	
   while	
   some	
   participants	
   used	
   formal	
   Lei	
   pronouns	
   and	
   conjugations,	
   most	
   participants	
  
gravitated	
  towards	
  informal	
  grammar	
  and	
  terms	
  of	
  address.	
  It	
  was	
  also	
  more	
  common	
  for	
  participants	
  to	
  use	
  
formal	
  pronouns	
  than	
  formal	
  verbal	
  conjugations	
  and	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  either	
  was	
  not	
  always	
  accurate	
  throughout	
  
their	
   responses.	
   This	
   variability	
   may	
   be	
   attributed	
   to	
   factors	
   both	
   internal	
   and	
   external	
   to	
   the	
   Italian	
  
language.	
  For	
  example,	
  there	
  is	
  at	
  times	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  distinction	
  between	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  formal	
  and	
  informal	
  terms	
  of	
  
address	
  even	
  in	
  Italian	
  contexts,	
  and	
  this	
  can	
  cause	
  difficulty	
  in	
  ascertaining	
  how	
  to	
  appropriately	
  use	
  these	
  
forms	
  (Fivela	
  &	
  Bazzanella,	
  2014,	
  p.	
  114;	
  Nuzzo	
  &	
  Rastelli,	
  2009,	
  p.	
  22;	
  Rebelos	
  &	
  Strambi,	
  2009,	
  p.	
  61).	
  	
  

This	
  uncertainty	
  was	
  evidenced	
  by	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  some	
  participants’	
  conjugations	
  of	
  the	
  verb	
  scusare	
  
did	
   not	
   seem	
   to	
   relate	
   to	
   their	
   use	
   of	
   formal	
   address.	
   The	
   verb	
   should	
   be	
   conjugated	
   as	
   scusi	
   when	
   using	
  
formal	
   Italian,	
   while	
   scusa	
   is	
   reserved	
   for	
   informal	
   situations.	
   However,	
   some	
   participants	
   confused	
   the	
  
conjugated	
  forms,	
  using	
  informal	
  conjugations	
  of	
  scusare	
  while	
  using	
  formal	
  Italian	
  pronouns	
  and	
  vice	
  versa,	
  
as	
  in	
  the	
  following	
  example:	
  

	
  
(i)	
   Scusa	
  ma	
  penso	
  che	
  ho	
  messo	
  la	
  sua	
  caricabatteria	
  nella	
  mia	
  valigia	
  (2632.6)6	
  

	
   Sorry	
  (informal)	
  but	
  I	
  think	
  that	
  I	
  put	
  your	
  (formal)	
  charger	
  in	
  my	
  luggage	
  
	
  
Although	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  possible	
  to	
  ascertain	
  whether	
  a	
  participant’s	
  use	
  of	
  informal	
  terms	
  of	
  address	
  was	
  

due	
  to	
  their	
  conscious	
  choice	
  to	
  do	
  so	
  or	
  due	
  to	
  an	
  inability	
  to	
  use	
  formal	
  terms	
  of	
  address,	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  both	
  
informal	
   and	
   formal	
   forms	
   within	
   the	
   one	
   response—particularly	
   within	
   the	
   same	
   sentence—is	
  
grammatically	
   incorrect.	
   These	
   observations	
   hence	
   suggest	
   learner	
   difficulty	
   in	
   distinguishing	
   formal	
   and	
  
informal	
   grammatical	
   forms.	
   This	
   is	
   reminiscent	
   of	
   what	
   has	
   been	
   reported	
   by	
   previous	
   scholars,	
   in	
   that	
  
learners	
   of	
   Italian	
   are	
   often	
   uncertain	
   as	
   to	
   how	
   to	
   accurately	
   construct	
   and	
   use	
   polite	
   forms	
   of	
   address	
  
(Nuzzo	
  &	
  Rastelli,	
  2009;	
  Rebelos	
  &	
  Strambi,	
  2009).	
  

As	
  previously	
  mentioned,	
  all	
  students	
  who	
  participated	
  in	
  the	
  study	
  were	
  enrolled	
  in	
  levels	
  at	
  which	
  
they	
  should	
  have	
  been	
  aware	
  of	
  how	
  to	
  correctly	
  use	
  formal	
  terms	
  of	
  address.	
  Thus,	
  one	
  possible	
  reason	
  for	
  
the	
  lack	
  of	
  proficiency	
  in	
  these	
  forms	
  may	
  be	
  the	
  infrequent	
  use	
  of	
  formal	
  Italian	
  within	
  the	
  foreign	
  language	
  
classroom,	
   particularly	
   in	
   Australian	
   university	
   contexts	
   (Formentelli	
   &	
   Hajek,	
   2013).	
   In	
   fact,	
   upon	
  
completing	
  the	
  DCT,	
  one	
  participant	
  of	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  expressed	
  difficulty	
  in	
  remembering	
  when	
  to	
  use	
  the	
  
formal	
   Lei	
   as	
   “it’s	
   not	
   something	
   that’s	
   really	
   drilled	
   into	
   us	
   much,	
   because	
   we	
   don’t	
   have	
   a	
   Lei	
   form	
   in	
  
Australia”	
  (personal	
  communication,	
  8	
  August,	
  2016).	
  Hence,	
  lack	
  of	
  practice	
  during	
  language	
  instruction	
  may	
  
account	
  for	
  the	
  difficulty	
  experienced	
  by	
  participants	
  in	
  using	
  formal	
  Italian	
  forms,	
  thus	
  encouraging	
  them	
  to	
  
gravitate	
  –	
  intentionally	
  or	
  unintentionally	
  –	
  towards	
  the	
  less	
  grammatically	
  marked	
  formal	
  Australian	
  norms	
  
with	
  which	
  they	
  are	
  familiar.	
  

Another	
  trend	
  which	
  emerged	
  from	
  the	
  data	
  was	
  the	
  common	
  use	
  of	
  first	
  names	
  when	
  greeting	
  the	
  
interlocutor.	
  12	
  participants	
  addressed	
  the	
  interlocutor	
  by	
  a	
  first	
  name,	
  such	
  as	
  in	
  the	
  following	
  examples:	
  

	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
6	
  The	
  numbers	
  in	
  the	
  brackets	
  correspond	
  to	
  each	
  participants’	
  unique	
  identification	
  code.	
  For	
  analytical	
  purposes,	
  each	
  
participant	
  was	
  assigned	
  an	
  identification	
  number	
  comprising	
  of	
  the	
  unit	
  of	
  study	
  code	
  of	
  the	
  Italian	
  class	
  followed	
  by	
  a	
  
numeral.	
   For	
  example,	
   the	
   code	
  2632.3	
   refers	
   to	
   the	
   third	
   student	
   in	
   class	
   ITLN2632	
   (Senior	
   Italian	
  4)	
   to	
   submit	
   their	
  
completed	
  DCT.	
  These	
  numbers	
  were	
  used	
  to	
  identify	
  the	
  authors	
  of	
  the	
  examples	
  included	
  in	
  this	
  paper.	
  



WALKER	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

37	
  

i) Ciao	
  Alessia	
  (3612.8)	
  	
  
Hi	
  Alessia	
  

iii) Ciao	
  Maria!	
  (2632.4)	
  	
  
Hi	
  Maria!	
  

iv) Cara	
  Maia	
  (2612.3)	
  	
  
Dear	
  Maia	
  
	
  

This	
  informal	
  means	
  of	
  address	
  is	
  characteristic	
  of	
  Australian	
  communicative	
  norms	
  (Brick,	
  2004,	
  p.	
  
39;	
  Clyne,	
  2003,	
  p.	
  217).	
  The	
  use	
  of	
  first	
  names	
  expresses	
  a	
  fellowship	
  between	
  interlocutors	
  (Clyne,	
  Norrby	
  &	
  
Warren,	
  2009,	
  p.	
  69)	
  and	
  this	
  aligns	
  with	
  the	
  high	
  Australian	
  regard	
  for	
  mateship.	
  	
  Traditionally	
  in	
  Italian,	
  the	
  
use	
  of	
  first	
  names	
  is	
  a	
  sign	
  of	
  solidarity	
  and	
  intimacy	
  reserved	
  for	
  interlocutors	
  with	
  whom	
  you	
  are	
  familiar,	
  
rather	
  than	
  an	
  expected	
  communicative	
  norm	
  to	
  be	
  used	
  with	
  all	
  interlocutors.	
  

Informal	
  greetings	
  such	
  as	
  those	
  evidenced	
  above	
  contrast	
  against	
  the	
  more	
  formal	
  terms	
  of	
  address	
  
chosen	
  by	
  other	
  participants:	
  

	
  
v) Cara	
  signora	
  (2632.1)	
  	
  

Dear	
  madam	
  
vi) Cara	
  Signora	
  Ambrogio	
  (H.3)	
  	
  

Dear	
  Mrs	
  Ambrogio	
  
	
  

These	
   formal	
   terms	
   of	
   address	
   are	
   more	
   appropriate	
   in	
   Italian	
   for	
   this	
   communicative	
   situation.	
  	
  
However,	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   titles	
   and	
   formal	
   greetings	
   did	
   not	
   always	
   correspond	
   with	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   formal	
   verbal	
  
conjugations.	
  For	
  example:	
  

	
  
vii) Buongiorno	
  signora!	
  

	
  	
  	
  Come	
  stai?	
  (2612.3)	
  	
  
Good	
  morning	
  madam!	
  
How	
  are	
  you	
  (informal)?	
  
	
  

These	
  tendencies	
  –	
  specifically,	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  first	
  names	
  and	
  inconsistencies	
  in	
  formal	
  terms	
  of	
  address	
  
–	
   are	
   at	
   odds	
   with	
   the	
   rigid	
   realisations	
   of	
   social	
   distance	
   and	
   status	
   which	
   characterise	
   formal	
   Italian	
  
language	
   use	
   (Formentelli	
  &	
  Hajek,	
   2013),	
   thus	
   indicating	
   a	
   pragmatic	
   transfer	
   of	
   Australian	
   norms	
   to	
   the	
  
Italian	
  context.	
  	
  Such	
  adaptation	
  of	
  L1	
  norms	
  to	
  L2	
  language	
  realisation	
  is	
  quite	
  common	
  among	
  learners,	
  as	
  
has	
  been	
  evidenced	
  in	
  previous	
  studies	
  (Keshavarz,	
  Eslami,	
  &	
  Ghahraman,	
  2006;	
  Žegarac	
  &	
  Pennington,	
  2000,	
  
p.	
   167).	
   	
   The	
   inconsistencies	
   in	
   participants’	
   responses	
   also	
   indicate	
   a	
   lack	
   of	
   competence	
   in	
   using	
   the	
  
linguistic	
   forms	
   necessary	
   for	
   expressing	
   formality,	
   which	
  may	
   have	
   caused	
   this	
   reliance	
   upon	
   Australian	
  
English	
  norms.	
  	
  
	
  
5.3.	
  The	
  explicit	
  expressions	
  of	
  apology	
  

Explicit	
  expressions	
  of	
  apology	
  are	
  those	
  which	
  use	
  routine	
  formula	
  such	
  as	
  I’m	
  sorry,	
  I	
  apologise	
  or	
  
excuse	
   me.	
   The	
  most	
   common	
   explicit	
   expression	
   of	
   apology	
   in	
   the	
   data	
   was	
  mi	
   dispiace	
   (‘I’m	
   sorry’)	
   (37	
  
instances	
   in	
   total	
   across	
   28	
   responses).	
   Several	
   different	
   forms	
   of	
   the	
   verb	
   scusare	
   (‘to	
   excuse’	
   or	
   ‘to	
  
apologise’)	
  were	
  also	
  used	
  (5	
  instances)	
  and	
  two	
  explicit	
  apologies	
  involved	
  the	
  adjective	
  spiacente	
  (‘sorry’).	
  
When	
   scusare	
   was	
   used,	
   it	
   was	
   usually	
   conjugated	
   informally	
   (scusa)	
   and	
   in	
   some	
   instances	
   were	
  
accompanied	
  by	
  modifiers.	
  Chiedo	
   i	
   suoi	
   scusi	
   (‘I	
   ask	
  your	
   (formal	
  pronoun)	
  pardon’)	
  was	
  also	
  used	
  by	
  one	
  
participant	
  as	
  a	
  very	
  formal	
  expression	
  of	
  apology.	
  Examples	
  of	
  these	
  apology	
  forms	
  include:	
  

	
  
viii) Mi	
  dispiace	
  tanto	
  (2632.9)	
  	
  

I	
  am	
  very	
  sorry	
  
ix) Mi	
  scusi	
  (H3)	
  	
  

Excuse	
  me	
  (formal)	
  
x) Sono	
  molto	
  spiacente	
  (3612.14)	
  	
  

I	
  am	
  very	
  sorry	
  
	
  



POLITENESS	
  NORMS:	
  APOLOGIES	
  BY	
  LEARNERS	
  OF	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

38	
  

Native	
   Italian	
   speakers	
   generally	
   prefer	
   to	
   use	
   explicit	
   apologies	
   which	
   are	
   expressed	
   through	
  
conjugations	
   of	
   the	
   verb	
   scusare	
   (‘to	
   excuse’)	
   (Lipson,	
   1994,	
   p.	
   25;	
   Nuzzo,	
   2007).	
   In	
  my	
   data,	
   participants	
  
instead	
  clearly	
  favoured	
  mi	
  dispiace	
  over	
  other	
  forms.	
  I’m	
  sorry	
  has	
  been	
  previously	
  recognised	
  as	
  the	
  most	
  
common	
  explicit	
  expression	
  of	
  apology	
  in	
  English	
  (Lipson,	
  1994,	
  p.	
  25;	
  Olshtain	
  &	
  Cohen,	
  1983,	
  p.	
  22;	
  Owen,	
  
1983,	
  p.	
  65;	
  Robinson,	
  2004,	
  p.	
  322);	
  thus,	
  it	
  seems	
  that	
  the	
  prevalence	
  of	
  mi	
  dispiace	
  in	
  the	
  data	
  is	
  a	
  product	
  
of	
   the	
   participants’	
   English-­‐language	
   background	
   and	
   that	
   the	
   tendency	
   of	
   English	
   speakers	
   to	
   use	
   this	
  
expression	
  has	
  been	
  incorporated	
  into	
  their	
  Italian	
  language	
  use.	
  

In	
   the	
   intercultural	
   context	
   of	
   the	
   investigation,	
   the	
   participants’	
   modification	
   of	
   these	
   apology	
  
structures	
  was	
  also	
  salient.	
  	
  

Two	
  types	
  of	
  modification	
  were	
  identified	
  in	
  the	
  data:	
  

− Intensification	
   –	
   achieved	
   by	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   adjectives	
   and	
   adverbs	
   which	
   strengthen	
   the	
   force	
   of	
   the	
  
apology;	
  

− Reiteration	
  –	
  achieved	
  by	
  a	
  phrase	
  whereby	
  the	
  repetition	
  of	
  the	
  apology	
  is	
  made	
  explicit.	
  
	
  
In	
  the	
  data	
  collected	
  from	
  the	
  specified	
  scenario,	
  54.05%	
  of	
  the	
  explicit	
  apologies	
  were	
  modified	
  with	
  

intensifying	
  or	
  reiterating	
  adverbs.	
  	
  
As	
   it	
  was	
  by	
   far	
   the	
  most	
   commonly	
  used	
  explicit	
   expression	
  of	
   apology,	
   the	
  phrase	
  mi	
  dispiace	
   in	
  

particular	
  experienced	
  frequent	
  modification,	
  as	
  shown	
  in	
  the	
  table	
  below:	
  
	
  

Table 4 
Modifiers of mi dispiace (‘I’m sorry’) used in this scenario 

Modifiers Gloss Frequency 
molto much 4 
moltissimo very much 3 
tanto much 3 
tantissimo very much 1 
di nuovo once again 1 
ancora again 4 
ancora & tanto again & much 1 
troppo too much 1 
un sacco a lot (colloquial) 2 

	
  
Examples	
  of	
  modified	
  explicit	
  expressions	
  of	
  apology	
  include:	
  
	
  

xi) Mi	
  dispiace	
  tantissimo!	
  (3612.9)	
  	
  
I	
  am	
  very	
  very	
  sorry!	
  

xii) Mi	
  dispiace	
  ancora	
  per	
  il	
  disagio	
  (3612.9)	
  
Again,	
  I	
  am	
  sorry	
  for	
  the	
  inconvenience	
  

xiii) Scusami	
  tanto	
  (3612.8)	
  
Excuse	
  me	
  very	
  much	
  

xiv) Sono	
  molto	
  spiacente	
  (3612.14)	
  	
  
I	
  am	
  very	
  sorry	
  

	
  
The	
  first	
  of	
  the	
  above	
  explicit	
  apologies	
  involves	
  a	
  particularly	
  strong	
  intensifier,	
  tantissimo,	
  and	
  the	
  

exclamation	
  mark	
  emphasises	
  the	
  force	
  of	
  the	
  modifier.	
  In	
  the	
  second	
  example,	
  the	
  apology	
  is	
  strengthened	
  
with	
  a	
  marker	
  of	
  reiteration.	
  This	
  participant	
  also	
  added	
  the	
  phrase	
  per	
  il	
  disagio	
  (‘for	
  the	
  inconvenience’)	
  as	
  a	
  
means	
  of	
  increasing	
  the	
  force	
  and	
  specificity	
  of	
  the	
  apology.	
  The	
  other	
  two	
  examples	
  both	
  use	
  intensifiers	
  –	
  
tanto	
  and	
  molto	
  –	
  which	
  have	
  the	
  effect	
  of	
  increasing	
  the	
  force	
  of	
  the	
  apology.	
  	
  

The	
  participants’	
   ratings	
  of	
  social	
  distance	
  and	
  severity	
  of	
  offence	
  did	
  not	
  seem	
  to	
  connect	
   to	
   their	
  
use	
  of	
  modifiers.	
   	
  However,	
  all	
  participants	
  who	
   included	
  modifiers	
   in	
   their	
  explicit	
  expressions	
  of	
  apology	
  
identified	
   the	
   status	
  of	
   the	
   interlocutor	
   as	
   a	
  3	
  or	
  4	
  on	
   the	
   scale.	
   	
  Although	
   these	
   ratings	
  were	
   also	
  used	
   in	
  



WALKER	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

39	
  

responses	
  which	
  did	
  not	
  include	
  modifiers,	
  no	
  responses	
  which	
  identified	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  the	
  interlocutor	
  as	
  2	
  
included	
  modified	
  explicit	
  apologies.	
  	
  	
  

Thus,	
   it	
   emerged	
   that	
   the	
   modification	
   of	
   apologies	
   was	
   perceived	
   by	
   many	
   participants	
   to	
   be	
  
appropriate	
  and	
  necessary	
  despite	
   the	
   fact	
   that	
   they	
  perceived	
  the	
  social	
  distance	
  between	
  themselves	
  and	
  
the	
  interlocutor	
  to	
  be	
  low,	
  a	
  trend	
  common	
  in	
  Australian	
  English.	
   	
  This	
  appears	
  to	
  align	
  with	
  the	
  findings	
  of	
  
previous	
  scholars	
  who	
  evidenced	
  the	
  relatively	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  apology	
  modification	
  with	
  which	
  native	
  English	
  
speakers	
   engage	
   and	
   the	
   orientation	
   of	
   this	
   trend	
   towards	
   appeasing	
   the	
   negative	
   face	
   of	
   the	
   interlocutor	
  
(Bettoni	
  and	
  Rubino,	
  2007,	
  p.	
  491;	
  Márquez	
  Reiter,	
  2000,	
  p.	
  147;	
  Suszczyńska,	
  1999,	
  pp.	
  1060-­‐1061).	
  	
  

	
  
6.	
  Discussion	
  and	
  conclusions	
  
6.1.	
  Main	
  findings	
  	
  

This	
   paper	
   has	
   explored	
   the	
   politeness	
   strategies	
   used	
   by	
   learners	
   of	
   Italian	
   while	
   performing	
  
apologies.	
  These	
  apologies	
  were	
  accomplished	
  in	
  the	
  defined	
  context	
  of	
  an	
  Australian	
  visitor	
  to	
  Italy	
  who	
  had	
  
accidentally	
  packed	
  and	
  taken	
  away	
  with	
  them	
  two	
  chargers	
  which	
  belonged	
  to	
  their	
  host	
  family.	
  	
  

As	
   previously	
   mentioned,	
   all	
   participants	
   in	
   this	
   study	
   were	
   enrolled	
   in	
   levels	
   at	
   which	
   they	
   had	
  
already	
  studied	
  formal	
  and	
  informal	
  Italian	
  forms	
  of	
  address.	
   	
  However,	
  it	
  is	
  possible	
  that	
  the	
  results	
  of	
  this	
  
study	
   were	
   impacted	
   by	
   a	
   lack	
   of	
   competence,	
   particularly	
   pragmatic	
   competence,	
   on	
   the	
   part	
   of	
   the	
  
participants,	
  and	
  that	
  this	
  possibly	
  influenced	
  their	
  responses.	
  	
  	
  

While	
   some	
   participants	
   engaged	
  well	
  with	
   Italian	
   pragmatic	
   norms,	
   Australian	
   English	
   politeness	
  
norms	
  were	
  evidenced	
   in	
   the	
  apology	
  performance	
  of	
   the	
  participants.	
   	
  This	
   suggests	
   an	
   interaction	
  of	
   the	
  
Italian	
  and	
  Australian	
  English	
  linguistic	
  systems,	
  thus	
  indicating	
  a	
  negotiation	
  of	
  the	
  intercultural	
  context	
  and	
  
transfer	
  of	
   linguistic	
   features	
  of	
  the	
  L1	
  into	
  the	
  L2	
  (Blum-­‐Kulka,	
  1983;	
  Koike,	
  1989;	
  Trosborg,	
  1995).	
  There	
  
were	
  three	
  principle	
  areas	
  in	
  which	
  this	
  negotiation	
  was	
  demonstrated,	
  as	
  presented	
  below.	
  	
  

Firstly,	
  the	
  way	
  in	
  which	
  participants	
  responded	
  to	
  the	
  social	
  variables	
  of	
  the	
  scenario	
  reflected	
  the	
  
Australian	
  tendency	
  towards	
  egalitarianism	
  and	
  mateship,	
  as	
  social	
  distance	
  was	
  often	
  evaluated	
  as	
  being	
  low	
  
even	
  when	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  the	
  interlocutor	
  was	
  recognised	
  as	
  being	
  higher	
  than	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  participant.	
  

Secondly,	
  despite	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  the	
  formal	
  Lei	
  pronouns	
  and	
  verbal	
  conjugations	
  were	
  used	
  by	
  some	
  
participants	
  in	
  situations	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  would	
  be	
  required	
  of	
  a	
  native	
  Italian	
  speaker,	
  this	
  use	
  was	
  not	
  always	
  
consistent,	
  and	
  most	
  participants	
  gravitated	
  towards	
  informal	
  terms	
  of	
  address	
  and	
  verbal	
  conjugations.	
  This	
  
reflects	
   the	
   informality	
   of	
   Australian	
   English,	
   rather	
   than	
   the	
   linguistic	
   realisation	
   of	
   social	
   constructs	
  
expected	
  of	
  native	
   Italian	
  speakers.	
   	
  However,	
  as	
  mentioned	
  above,	
   the	
   limited	
  competence	
  of	
   the	
  students	
  
may	
  have	
  contributed	
  to	
  this	
  trend.	
  

Finally,	
   the	
  modification	
   of	
   apology	
   strategies,	
   particularly	
   intensification,	
  was	
   frequent	
   across	
   the	
  
data.	
   	
   As	
   such	
   apology	
   intensification	
   is	
   a	
   feature	
   of	
   English	
   varieties	
   (Bettoni	
   &	
   Rubino,	
   2007,	
   p.	
   491;	
  
Márquez	
   Reiter,	
   2000,	
   p.	
   147;	
   Suszczyńska,	
   1999,	
   pp.	
   1060-­‐1061),	
   it	
   suggests	
   that	
   Australian	
   English	
  
politeness	
  structures	
  were	
  incorporated	
  into	
  the	
  participants’	
  performance	
  of	
  Italian	
  apologies.	
  	
  	
  

	
  
6.2.	
  Limitations	
  	
  

Such	
  findings,	
  however,	
  must	
  be	
  taken	
  with	
  caution	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  limitations	
  of	
  this	
  study.	
  	
  Indeed,	
  this	
  
is	
  quite	
  a	
  small	
  study,	
  with	
  only	
  42	
  participants.	
  	
  A	
  reduplication	
  of	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  with	
  a	
  higher	
  number	
  of	
  
participants	
  would	
   thus	
  be	
  beneficial	
  and	
  provide	
  more	
  reliable	
  data.	
   	
  Furthermore,	
  due	
   to	
   time	
  and	
  space	
  
constraints,	
  an	
  Italian	
  control	
  group	
  was	
  not	
  used	
  and	
  the	
  DCT	
  was	
  administered	
  only	
  to	
  Australian	
  students	
  
studying	
  Italian,	
  although	
  the	
  data	
  was	
  compared	
  to	
  findings	
  of	
  previous	
  studies.	
  	
  	
  

Another	
  limitation	
  is	
  that	
  although	
  the	
  three	
  variables	
  that	
  were	
  considered	
  were	
  clearly	
  explained	
  
to	
  participants	
  and	
  definitions	
  of	
  the	
  phrases	
  social	
  distance,	
  status	
  of	
  the	
  interlocutor	
  and	
  severity	
  of	
  offence	
  
were	
   provided,	
   participants	
  may	
   still	
   have	
   varying	
   perceptions	
   of	
   the	
   situations	
   of	
   the	
  DCT.	
   	
   For	
   example,	
  
some	
  participants	
  may	
  have	
  considered	
  the	
  “several	
  months”	
  specified	
  in	
  the	
  scenario	
  presented	
  in	
  this	
  paper	
  
as	
  a	
  sufficient	
  period	
  of	
  time	
  to	
  become	
  familiar	
  with	
  the	
  interlocutor	
  and	
  thus	
  use	
  informal	
  terms	
  of	
  address.	
  	
  
On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  other	
  participants	
  may	
  have	
   felt	
   it	
  more	
  appropriate	
   to	
  continue	
  to	
  use	
   formal	
   terms	
  of	
  
address	
  as	
  the	
  interlocutor	
  was	
  an	
  older	
  adult.	
  

Finally,	
   individuals	
  may	
  gravitate	
   towards	
  certain	
  apology	
  strategies	
   regardless	
  of	
   their	
   cultural	
  or	
  
linguistic	
   background,	
   and	
   a	
   possible	
   criticism	
   of	
   this	
   study	
   is	
   that	
   the	
   analysis	
   does	
   not	
   account	
   for	
   the	
  
possible	
   influence	
   of	
   personal	
   preference	
   upon	
   one’s	
   realisation	
   of	
   speech	
   acts.	
   	
   Both	
   Cheng	
   (2013)	
   and	
  
Lipson	
  (1994)	
  held	
  interviews	
  with	
  participants	
  following	
  data	
  collection	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  explore	
  their	
  linguistic	
  



POLITENESS	
  NORMS:	
  APOLOGIES	
  BY	
  LEARNERS	
  OF	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

40	
  

choices.	
   	
  Applied	
  to	
   this	
  study,	
  post-­‐task	
   interviews	
  would	
  be	
  an	
   insightful	
  element	
  of	
  analysis	
  which	
  could	
  
provide	
  an	
  enhanced	
  understanding	
  of	
  participants’	
   linguistic	
  awareness	
  and	
  allow	
   for	
   the	
   individuation	
  of	
  
idiosyncratic	
  trends.	
  	
  

	
  
6.3.	
  Conclusions	
  	
  

In	
   spite	
  of	
   such	
   limitations,	
  overall,	
   the	
  data	
  presented	
   in	
   this	
  paper	
  does	
  point	
   to	
   the	
   influence	
  of	
  
Australian	
  English	
  norms	
  in	
  the	
  accomplishment	
  of	
  apologies	
  by	
  Australian	
  learners	
  of	
  Italian.	
   	
  This	
   in	
  turn	
  
suggests	
   that	
   this	
   may	
   be	
   an	
   area	
   of	
   pragmatics	
   in	
   which	
   students	
   require	
   further	
   support.	
   Numerous	
  
scholars	
   have	
   expressed	
   the	
   need	
   for	
   more	
   explicit	
   instruction	
   of	
   speech	
   acts	
   and	
   intercultural	
  
communication	
  within	
  the	
  language	
  classroom,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  a	
  change	
  in	
  how	
  these	
  phenomena	
  are	
  presented	
  in	
  
textbooks	
  (Biesenbach-­‐Lucas,	
  2007,	
  p.	
  75;	
  Nguyen,	
  2011,	
  pp.	
  26-­‐27;	
  Vaezi,	
  Tabatabaei	
  &	
  Bakhtiarvand,	
  2014,	
  
pp.	
   171-­‐172).	
   As	
   discussed	
   previously,	
   lack	
   of	
   practice	
   during	
   language	
   instruction	
   was	
   nominated	
   by	
   a	
  
participant	
   as	
   a	
   point	
   of	
   difficulty;	
   this	
   may	
   unintentionally	
   encourage	
   students	
   to	
   continue	
   to	
   use	
   more	
  
familiar	
  but	
  less	
  formal	
  Australian	
  English	
  constructions.	
  Therefore,	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  polite	
  forms	
  in	
  the	
  Australian	
  
Italian	
  language	
  classroom	
  may	
  be	
  another	
  way	
  to	
  aid	
  students	
  to	
  understand	
  not	
  only	
  the	
  application	
  of	
  the	
  
Italian	
  grammatical	
   forms	
  which	
  communicate	
  politeness,	
  but	
  also	
   Italian	
   interpersonal	
  norms	
  and	
  cultural	
  
understandings	
  of	
  social	
  distance	
  and	
  status.	
  

Further	
   studies	
   specifically	
   targeted	
   towards	
   understanding	
   the	
   negotiation	
   of	
   politeness	
   norms	
  
while	
   apologising	
   would	
   provide	
   a	
   more	
   comprehensive	
   understanding	
   of	
   how	
   language	
   learners	
  
linguistically	
   navigate	
   intercultural	
   contexts.	
   Specifically,	
   further	
   investigation	
   of	
   apology	
  modification	
   and	
  
the	
  introduction	
  of	
  an	
  Italian	
  control	
  group	
  would	
  indicate	
  the	
  extent	
  to	
  which	
  the	
  presence	
  these	
  structures	
  
in	
   participants’	
   responses	
   are	
   in	
   fact	
   an	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   L1.	
   Such	
   investigations	
   would	
   allow	
   an	
   enhanced	
  
understanding	
   of	
   how	
   it	
   is	
   that	
   the	
   L1	
   impacts	
   upon	
   speech	
   act	
   performance	
   when	
   using	
   an	
   L2,	
   a	
  
consideration	
  which	
   is	
  quite	
   important	
  when	
  discussing	
  a	
   speech	
  act	
  which	
   is	
   as	
   culturally	
   complex	
  as	
   the	
  
apology.	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

References	
  

Austin,	
  John	
  L.	
  (1975	
  [1962]).	
  How	
  to	
  do	
  things	
  with	
  words:	
  the	
  William	
  James	
  Lectures	
  delivered	
  at	
  Harvard	
  
University	
  in	
  1955	
  (J.	
  O.	
  Urmson	
  &	
  Marina	
  Sbisà	
  (Eds.),	
  2nd	
  ed.).	
  Oxford,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Clarendon	
  
Press.	
  

Allan,	
  Keith,	
  &	
  Jaszczolt,	
  Kasia	
  M.	
  (Eds.).	
  (2012).	
  The	
  Cambridge	
  handbook	
  of	
  pragmatics.	
  Cambridge,	
  United	
  
Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Baker,	
  Will	
  (2015).	
  Culture	
  and	
   identity	
  through	
  English	
  as	
  a	
   lingua	
  franca:	
  Rethinking	
  concepts	
  and	
  goals	
   in	
  
intercultural	
   communication	
   (Vol.	
   8).	
   Berlin	
   and	
   Boston,	
   MA:	
   Mouton	
   de	
   Gruyter.	
   Retrieved	
   from	
  
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/lib/usyd/detail.action?docID=2077
558	
  	
  

Bataineh,	
  Ruba	
  F.,	
  &	
  Bataineh,	
  Rula	
  F.	
  (2006).	
  Apology	
  strategies	
  of	
  Jordanian	
  EFL	
  university	
  students.	
  Journal	
  
of	
  Pragmatics,	
  38(11),	
  1901-­‐1927.	
  doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.11.004	
  

Bardovi-­‐Harlig,	
  Kathleen,	
  Félix-­‐Brasdefer,	
  César,	
  &	
  Omar,	
  Alwiya	
  S.	
   (Eds.).	
   (2006).	
  Pragmatics	
  and	
   language	
  
learning	
  (Vol.	
  11).	
  Mānoa,	
  Hawai’i:	
  National	
  Foreign	
  Language	
  Resource	
  Center,	
  University	
  of	
  Hawai’i	
  
Press.	
  

Benoit,	
  William	
  L.	
   (1995).	
  Accounts,	
   excuses,	
   and	
  apologies:	
  a	
   theory	
  of	
   image	
   restoration	
   strategies.	
  Albany,	
  
New	
  York:	
  State	
  University	
  of	
  New	
  York	
  Press.	
  

Bettoni,	
  Camilla	
  (2006).	
  Usare	
  un’altra	
   lingua:	
  guida	
  alla	
  pragmatica	
   interculturale.	
  Rome,	
   Italy:	
  GLF	
  Editori	
  
Laterza.	
  

Bettoni,	
   Camilla,	
   &	
   Rubino,	
   Antonia	
   (2007).	
   Reacting	
   to	
   complaints:	
   Italians	
   vs	
   Anglo-­‐Australians.	
   Studi	
  
italiani	
  di	
  linguistica	
  teorica	
  ed	
  applicata,	
  3,	
  483-­‐498.	
  	
  

Biesenbach-­‐Lucas,	
   Sigrun	
   (2007).	
  Students	
  writing	
  emails	
   to	
   faculty:	
   an	
  examination	
  of	
  e-­‐politeness	
  among	
  
native	
  and	
  non-­‐native	
  speakers	
  of	
  English.	
  Language	
  Learning	
  &	
  Technology,	
  11(2),	
  59-­‐81.	
  Retrieved	
  
from	
  http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/biesenbachlucas/	
  



WALKER	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

41	
  

Blum-­‐Kulka,	
  Shoshana	
  (1983).	
  Interpreting	
  and	
  performing	
  speech	
  acts	
  in	
  a	
  second	
  language:	
  A	
  cross-­‐cultural	
  
study	
   of	
   Hebrew	
   and	
   English.	
   In	
   Nessa	
  Wolfson	
  &	
   Elliot	
   Judd	
   (Eds.),	
   Sociolinguistics	
   and	
   language	
  
acquisition	
  (pp.	
  36-­‐55).	
  Rowley,	
  Massachussets:	
  Newbury	
  House.	
  

Blum-­‐Kulka,	
  Shoshana,	
  House,	
  Juliane,	
  &	
  Kasper,	
  Gabriele	
  (Eds.).	
  (1989a).	
  Cross-­‐cultural	
  pragmatics:	
  requests	
  
and	
  apologies.	
  Norwood,	
  New	
  Jersey:	
  Ablex	
  Publishing	
  Corporation.	
  

Blum-­‐Kulka,	
   Shoshana,	
  House,	
   Juliane,	
  &	
  Kasper,	
   Gabriele	
   (1989b).	
   Investigating	
   cross-­‐cultural	
   pragmatics:	
  
An	
   introductory	
  overview.	
   In	
  Shoshana	
  Blum-­‐Kulka,	
   Juliane	
  House	
  &	
  Gabriele	
  Kasper	
   (Eds.),	
  Cross-­‐
cultural	
   pragmatics:	
   requests	
   and	
   apologies	
   (pp.	
   1-­‐34).	
   Norwood,	
   New	
   Jersey:	
   Ablex	
   Publishing	
  
Corporation.	
  

Blum-­‐Kulka,	
  Shoshana,	
  &	
  Olshtain,	
  Elite	
  (1984).	
  Requests	
  and	
  apologies:	
  A	
  Cross-­‐Cultural	
  Study	
  of	
  Speech	
  Act	
  
Realization	
  Patterns	
  (CCSARP).	
  Applied	
  Linguistics,	
  5(3),	
  196-­‐213.	
  doi:10.1093/applin/5.3.196	
  

Brick,	
   Jean	
   (2004).	
  China:	
   A	
   handbook	
   in	
   intercultural	
   communication	
   (2nd	
   ed.).	
   Sydney,	
  New	
  South	
  Wales,	
  
Australia:	
  National	
  Centre	
  for	
  English	
  Language,	
  Teaching	
  and	
  Research,	
  Macquarie	
  University.	
  

Brown,	
  Penelope,	
  &	
  Levinson,	
   Stephen	
  C.	
   (1987).	
  Politeness:	
   some	
  universals	
   in	
   language	
  usage.	
   Cambridge,	
  
United	
  Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Chang,	
  Yuh-­‐Fang	
  (2010).	
  ‘I	
  no	
  say	
  you	
  say	
  is	
  boring’:	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  pragmatic	
  competence	
  in	
  L2	
  apology.	
  
Language	
  Sciences,	
  32(3),	
  408-­‐424.	
  doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2009.07.002	
  

Cheng,	
  Dongmei	
  (2013).	
  Student-­‐instructor	
  apologies:	
  How	
  are	
  they	
  produced	
  and	
  perceived?	
  (Doctoral	
  thesis,	
  
Northern	
  Arizona	
  University,	
  USA).	
  Available	
  from	
  ProQuest	
  Dissertations	
  &	
  Theses	
  Global	
  database.	
  
(Record	
  No.	
  3562116)	
  

Clyne,	
   Michael	
   G.	
   (1994).	
   Inter-­‐cultural	
   communication	
   at	
   work:	
   cultural	
   values	
   in	
   discourse.	
   Cambridge,	
  
United	
  Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Clyne,	
  Michael.	
  G.	
  (2003).	
  Dynamics	
  of	
  language	
  contact:	
  English	
  and	
  immigrant	
  languages.	
  Cambridge,	
  United	
  
Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Clyne,	
  Michael	
  G.,	
  Norrby,	
  Catrin,	
  &	
  Warren,	
  Jane	
  (2009).	
  Language	
  and	
  human	
  relations:	
  Styles	
  of	
  address	
  in	
  
contemporary	
   language.	
   Cambridge,	
   United	
   Kingdom:	
   Cambridge	
   University	
   Press.	
   doi	
  
10.1017/CBO9780511576690	
  

Coulmas,	
  Florian	
  (Ed.).	
  (1981a).	
  Conversational	
  routine:	
  explorations	
  in	
  standardized	
  communication	
  situations	
  
and	
  prepatterned	
  speech	
  (Vol.	
  2).	
  The	
  Hague	
  &	
  New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Mouton	
  de	
  Gruyter.	
  

Coulmas,	
   Florian	
   (1981b).	
   “Poison	
   to	
   your	
   soul”:	
   Thanks	
   and	
   apologies	
   constratively	
   viewed.	
   In	
   Florian	
  
Coulmas	
   (Ed.),	
   Conversational	
   routine:	
   explorations	
   in	
   standardized	
   communication	
   situations	
   and	
  
prepatterned	
  speech	
  (Vol.	
  2,	
  pp.	
  69-­‐91).	
  The	
  Hague	
  &	
  New	
  York,	
  NY:	
  Mouton	
  de	
  Gruyter.	
  

Department	
  of	
  Italian	
  Studies	
  (2016a).	
  ITLN2612	
  Syllabus.	
  Sydney,	
  NSW,	
  Australia:	
  The	
  University	
  of	
  Sydney.	
  
Department	
  of	
  Italian	
  Studies	
  (2016b).	
  ITLN2632	
  Syllabus.	
  Sydney,	
  NSW,	
  Australia:	
  The	
  University	
  of	
  Sydney.	
  
Department	
  of	
  Italian	
  Studies	
  (2016c).	
  ITLN3612	
  Syllabus.	
  Sydney,	
  NSW,	
  Australia:	
  The	
  University	
  of	
  Sydney.	
  
di	
   Luzio,	
   Aldo	
   (2003).	
   Presenting	
   John	
   J.	
   Gumperz.	
   In	
   Susan	
   L.	
   Eerdmans,	
   Carlo	
   L.	
   Prevignano	
   &	
   Paul	
   J.	
  

Thibault	
  (Eds.),	
  Language	
  and	
  interaction:	
  discussions	
  with	
  John	
  J.	
  Gumperz	
  (pp.	
  1-­‐6).	
  Amsterdam	
  and	
  
Philadelphia,	
  Pennsylvania:	
  John	
  Benjamins	
  Publishing	
  Company.	
  

di	
   Luzio,	
   Aldo,	
   Günthner,	
   Susanne,	
   &	
   Orletti,	
   Franca	
   (Eds.).	
   (2001).	
   Culture	
   in	
   communication:	
   analyses	
   of	
  
intercultural	
   situations.	
   Amsterdam	
   and	
   Philadelphia,	
   Pennsylvania:	
   John	
   Benjamins	
   Publishing	
  
Company.	
  

Duranti,	
  Alessandro	
  (1997).	
  Linguistic	
  anthropology.	
  New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  
Dyrenfurth,	
  Nick	
   (2015).	
  Mateship:	
  a	
  very	
  Australian	
  history.	
  Brunswick,	
  VIC:	
  Scribe	
  Publications.	
  Retrieved	
  

from	
  http://USYD.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1912275	
  	
  
Edmondson,	
   Willis	
   J.	
   (1981).	
   On	
   saying	
   you’re	
   sorry.	
   In	
   Florian	
   Coulmas	
   (Ed.),	
   Conversational	
   routine:	
  

explorations	
  in	
  standardized	
  communication	
  situations	
  and	
  prepatterned	
  speech	
  (Vol.	
  2,	
  pp.	
  273-­‐288).	
  
The	
  Hague	
  &	
  New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Mouton	
  de	
  Gruyter.	
  

Eerdmans,	
   Susan	
   L.,	
   Prevignano,	
   Carlo	
   L.,	
   &	
   Thibault,	
   Paul	
   J.	
   (Eds.).	
   (2003).	
   Language	
   and	
   interaction:	
  
discussions	
   with	
   John	
   J.	
   Gumperz.	
   Amsterdam	
   and	
   Philadelphia,	
   Pennsylvania:	
   John	
   Benjamins	
  
Publishing	
  Company.	
  



POLITENESS	
  NORMS:	
  APOLOGIES	
  BY	
  LEARNERS	
  OF	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

42	
  

Fine,	
  Jonathan	
  (Ed.).	
  (1988).	
  Second	
  language	
  discourse:	
  a	
  textbook	
  of	
  current	
  research.	
  Norwood,	
  New	
  Jersey:	
  
Ablex	
  Publishing	
  Corporation.	
  

Fivela,	
  Barbara	
  G.,	
  &	
  Bazzanella,	
  Carla	
  (2014).	
  The	
  relevance	
  of	
  prosody	
  and	
  context	
  to	
  the	
  interplay	
  between	
  
intensity	
   and	
   politeness.	
   An	
   exploratory	
   study	
   on	
   Italian.	
   Journal	
   of	
   Politeness	
   Research,	
   10(1),	
   97-­‐
126.	
  doi:10.1515/pr-­‐2014-­‐0005	
  

Formentelli,	
  Maicol,	
  &	
  Hajek,	
  John	
  (2013).	
  Italian	
  L2	
  address	
  strategies	
  in	
  an	
  Australian	
  university	
  setting:	
  A	
  
comparison	
  with	
  L1	
   Italian	
  and	
  L1	
  English	
  practice.	
   In	
  Bert	
  Peeters,	
  Kerry	
  Mullan	
  &	
  Christine	
  Béal	
  
(Eds.),	
  Cross-­‐culturally	
  speaking,	
  speaking	
  cross-­‐culturally	
  (pp.	
  77-­‐106).	
  Newcastle	
  upon	
  Tyne,	
  United	
  
Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  Scholars	
  Publishing.	
  

Goffman,	
   Erving	
   (2003).	
   On	
   face-­‐work:	
   An	
   analysis	
   of	
   ritual	
   elements	
   in	
   social	
   interaction.	
  Reflections:	
   The	
  
Society	
  for	
  Organizational	
  Learning	
  Journal,	
  4(3),	
  7-­‐13.	
  doi:10.1162/15241730360580159	
  

Grice,	
  Paul	
  (1989).	
  Studies	
  in	
  the	
  way	
  of	
  words.	
  Cambridge,	
  Massachussets:	
  Harvard	
  University	
  Press.	
  
Gumperz,	
   John	
   J.	
   (1982).	
   Discourse	
   strategies.	
   Cambridge,	
   United	
   Kingdom,	
   and	
   New	
   York,	
   New	
   York:	
  

Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  
Jebahi,	
  Khaled	
   (2011).	
  Tunisian	
  university	
   students’	
   choice	
  of	
   apology	
   strategies	
   in	
   a	
  discourse	
   completion	
  

task.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Pragmatics,	
  43(2),	
  648-­‐662.	
  doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.008	
  
Kecskes,	
  Istvan	
  (2012).	
  Sociopragmatics	
  and	
  cross-­‐cultural	
  and	
  intercultural	
  studies.	
  In	
  Keith	
  Allan	
  &	
  Kasia	
  M.	
  

Jaszczolt	
  (Eds.),	
  The	
  Cambridge	
  Handbook	
  of	
  Pragmatics	
  (pp.	
  599-­‐616).	
  Cambridge,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  
Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Keshavarz,	
  Mohammad	
  H.,	
  Eslami,	
  Zohreh	
  R.,	
  &	
  Ghahraman,	
  Vahid	
  (2006).	
  Pragmatic	
  transfer	
  and	
  Iranian	
  EFL	
  
refusals:	
  A	
  cross-­‐cultural	
  perspective	
  of	
  Persian	
  and	
  English.	
  In	
  Kathleen	
  Bardovi-­‐Harlig,	
  César	
  Félix-­‐
Brasdefer	
   &	
   Alwiya	
   S.	
   Omar	
   (Eds.),	
   Pragmatics	
   and	
   Language	
   Learning	
   (pp.	
   359-­‐402).	
   Mānoa,	
  
Hawai’i:	
  National	
  Foreign	
  Language	
  Resource	
  Center,	
  University	
  of	
  Hawai’i	
  Press.	
  

Kiesling,	
  Scott	
  F.	
  (2015).	
  Cross-­‐cultural	
  and	
  intercultural	
  communication	
  and	
  discourse	
  analysis.	
  In	
  Deborah	
  
Tannen,	
  Heidi	
  E.	
  Hamilton	
  &	
  Deborah	
  Schiffrin	
  (Eds.),	
  The	
  handbook	
  of	
  discourse	
  analysis	
  (Vol.	
  2,	
  pp.	
  
620-­‐638).	
   Chichester,	
   United	
   Kingdom,	
   and	
   Malden,	
   Massachussets:	
   Wiley	
   Blackwell.	
   doi:	
  
10.1002/9781118584194.ch29	
  

Knoblauch,	
  Hubert	
   (2001).	
  Communication,	
  contexts	
  and	
  culture:	
  A	
  communicative	
  constructivist	
  approach	
  
to	
  intercultural	
  communication.	
  In	
  Aldo	
  di	
  Luzio,	
  Susanne	
  Günthner	
  &	
  Franca	
  Orletti	
  (Eds.),	
  Culture	
  in	
  
communication:	
   analyses	
   of	
   intercultural	
   situations	
   (pp.	
   3-­‐33).	
   Amsterdam	
   and	
   Philadelphia,	
  
Pennsylvania:	
  John	
  Benjamins	
  Publishing	
  Company.	
  

Koike,	
   Dale	
   A.	
   (1989).	
   Pragmatic	
   competence	
   and	
   adult	
   L2	
   acquisition:	
   Speech	
   acts	
   in	
   interlanguage.	
   The	
  
Modern	
  Language	
  Journal,	
  73(3),	
  279-­‐289.	
  doi:10.2307/327002	
  

Kuchuk,	
   Alexandra	
   (2012).	
   Politeness	
   in	
   intercultural	
   communication:	
   Some	
   insights	
   into	
   the	
   pragmatics	
   of	
  
English	
   as	
   an	
   international	
   language	
   (Doctoral	
   thesis,	
   University	
   of	
   Arizona,	
   USA).	
   Available	
   from	
  
ProQuest	
  Dissertations	
  &	
  Theses	
  Global	
  database.	
  (Record	
  No.	
  3518510)	
  

Leech,	
   Geoffrey	
   N.	
   (1983).	
   Principles	
   of	
   pragmatics.	
   London,	
   United	
   Kingdom,	
   and	
   New	
   York,	
   New	
   York:	
  
Longman.	
  

Liddicoat,	
  Anthony,	
  &	
  Scarino,	
  Angela	
  (Eds.).	
  (2013).	
  Intercultural	
  language	
  teaching	
  and	
  learning.	
  Chichester,	
  
United	
  Kingdom,	
  and	
  Malden,	
  MA:	
  Wiley	
  Blackwell.	
  

Lipson,	
  Maxine	
  (1994).	
  Apologizing	
  in	
  Italian	
  and	
  English.	
  IRAL:	
  International	
  Review	
  of	
  Applied	
  Linguistics	
  in	
  
Language	
  Teaching,	
  32(1),	
  19-­‐36.	
  

Márquez	
  Reiter,	
  Rosina	
  (2000).	
  Linguistic	
  politeness	
  in	
  Britain	
  and	
  Uruguay:	
  a	
  contrastive	
  study	
  of	
  requests	
  and	
  
apologies.	
  Amsterdam	
  and	
  Philadelphia,	
  Pennsylvania:	
  John	
  Benjamins	
  Publishing	
  Company.	
  

Meier,	
  Ardith	
   J.	
   (1995).	
  Defining	
  politeness:	
  Universality	
   in	
  appropriateness.	
  Language	
  Sciences,	
  17(4),	
  345-­‐
356.	
  doi:10.1016/0388-­‐0001(95)00019-­‐4	
  

Musumeci,	
  Diane	
  (1991).	
  Ciao,	
  professoressa!	
  A	
  study	
  of	
   forms	
  of	
  address	
   in	
  Italian	
  and	
  its	
   implications	
   for	
  
the	
  language	
  classroom.	
  Italica,	
  68(4),	
  434-­‐456.	
  doi:10.2307/479338	
  

Nguyen,	
   Minh	
   T.	
   T.	
   (2011).	
   Learning	
   to	
   communicate	
   in	
   a	
   globalized	
   world:	
   To	
   what	
   extent	
   do	
   school	
  
textbooks	
  facilitate	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  intercultural	
  pragmatic	
  competence?	
  RELC	
  Journal,	
  42(1),	
  17-­‐
30.	
  	
  



WALKER	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

43	
  

Nuzzo,	
  Elena	
   (2007).	
   Imparare	
  a	
   fare	
   cose	
   con	
   le	
   parole:	
   richieste,	
   proteste,	
   scuse	
   in	
   italiano	
   lingua	
   seconda.	
  
Perugia:	
  Guerra	
  Edizioni.	
  

Nuzzo,	
  Elena,	
  &	
  Rastelli,	
  Stefano	
  (2009).	
  “Didattica	
  acquisizionale”	
  e	
  cortesia	
  linguistica	
  in	
  italiano	
  L2.	
  
Cuadernos	
  de	
  Filología	
  Italiana,	
  16,	
  13-­‐30.	
  	
  
Retrieved	
  from	
  http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/CFIT/article/view/CFIT0909220013A	
  

Olshtain,	
  Elite,	
  &	
  Cohen,	
  Andrew	
  D.	
  (1983).	
  Apology:	
  A	
  speech-­‐act	
  set.	
  In	
  Nessa	
  Wolfson	
  &	
  Elliot	
  Judd	
  (Eds.),	
  
Sociolinguistics	
  and	
  language	
  acquisition	
  (pp.	
  18-­‐35).	
  Rowley,	
  Massachussets:	
  Newbury	
  House.	
  

Owen,	
  Marion	
  (1983).	
  Apologies	
  and	
  remedial	
  interchanges:	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  language	
  use	
  in	
  social	
  interaction.	
  Berlin	
  
and	
  New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Mouton	
  de	
  Gruyter.	
  

Park,	
  Hee	
  S.,	
  Lee,	
  Hye	
  E.,	
  &	
  Song,	
  Jeong	
  A.	
  (2005).	
  “I	
  am	
  sorry	
  to	
  send	
  you	
  SPAM”:	
  Cross-­‐cultural	
  differences	
  in	
  
use	
  of	
   apologies	
   in	
  email	
   advertising	
   in	
  Korea	
  and	
   the	
  U.S.	
  Human	
  Communication	
  Research,	
  31(3),	
  
365-­‐398.	
  doi:10.1093/hcr/31.3.365	
  

Peeters,	
   Bert	
   (2013).	
   Language	
   and	
   cultural	
   values:	
   Towards	
   an	
   applied	
   ethnolinguistics	
   for	
   the	
   foreign	
  
language	
  classroom.	
  In	
  Bert	
  Peeters,	
  Kerry	
  Mullan	
  &	
  Christine	
  Béal	
  (Eds.),	
  Cross-­‐culturally	
  speaking,	
  
speaking	
  cross-­‐culturally.	
  Newcastle	
  upon	
  Tyne,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  Scholars	
  Publishing.	
  	
  

Peeters,	
   Bert,	
   Mullan,	
   Kerry,	
   &	
   Béal,	
   Christine	
   (Eds.).	
   (2013).	
   Cross-­‐culturally	
   speaking,	
   speaking	
   cross-­‐
culturally.	
  Newcastle	
  upon	
  Tyne,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  Scholars	
  Publishing.	
  

Piller,	
   Ingrid	
   (2011).	
   Intercultural	
   communication:	
   a	
   critical	
   introduction.	
   Edinburgh,	
   United	
   Kingdom:	
  
Edinburgh	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Pütz,	
  Martin,	
  &	
  Neff-­‐van	
  Aertselaer,	
   JoAnne	
  (Eds.).	
  (2008).	
  Developing	
  contrastive	
  pragmatics:	
   interlanguage	
  
and	
  cross-­‐cultural	
  perspectives.	
  Berlin	
  and	
  New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Mouton	
  de	
  Gruyter.	
  

Rebelos,	
  Margareta,	
  &	
  Strambi,	
  Antonella	
  (2009).	
  Address	
  pronouns	
  in	
  Italian	
  CMC	
  exchanges:	
  A	
  ‘good	
  
example’	
  for	
  L2	
  learners?	
  Italica,	
  86(1),	
  59-­‐79.	
  	
  
Retrieved	
  from	
  http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/stable/40505860	
  

Robinson,	
  Jeffrey	
  D.	
  (2004).	
  The	
  sequential	
  organization	
  of	
  “explicit”	
  apologies	
  in	
  naturally	
  occurring	
  English.	
  
Research	
  on	
  Language	
  &	
  Social	
  Interaction,	
  37(3),	
  291-­‐330.	
  doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_2	
  

Rubino,	
  Antonia	
  (2011).	
  Changes	
  in	
  the	
  speech	
  act	
  of	
  complaint	
  in	
  a	
  migration	
  context:	
  Italo-­‐Australians	
  vs	
  
Italians	
  and	
  Anglo-­‐Australians.	
  Italica,	
  88(1),	
  115-­‐139.	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23070861	
  

Rubino,	
   Antonia,	
   &	
   Bettoni,	
   Camilla	
   (2006).	
   Handling	
   complaints	
   cross-­‐culturally:	
   Italians	
   vs	
   Anglo-­‐
Australians.	
  Studi	
  italiani	
  di	
  linguistica	
  teorica	
  ed	
  applicata,	
  2,	
  339-­‐358.	
  

Scarcella,	
  Robin,	
  &	
  Brunak,	
  Joanna	
  (1981).	
  On	
  speaking	
  politely	
  in	
  a	
  second	
  language.	
  International	
  Journal	
  of	
  
the	
  Sociology	
  of	
  Language,	
  27,	
  59-­‐75.	
  	
  

Schauer,	
   Gila	
   A.	
   (2009).	
   Interlanguage	
   pragmatic	
   development:	
   the	
   study	
   abroad	
   context.	
   London,	
   United	
  
Kingdom:	
  Continuum	
  International	
  Publishing	
  Group.	
  

Sinkeviciute,	
  Valeria	
  (2014).	
  “When	
  a	
  joke’s	
  a	
  joke	
  and	
  when	
  it's	
  too	
  much”:	
  Mateship	
  as	
  a	
  key	
  to	
  interpreting	
  
jocular	
  FTAs	
  in	
  Australian	
  English.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Pragmatics,	
  60,	
  121-­‐139.	
  
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.004	
  

Spencer-­‐Oatey,	
   Helen.	
   (Ed.)	
   (2000).	
   Culturally	
   speaking:	
   managing	
   rapport	
   through	
   talk	
   across	
   cultures.	
  
London,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Continuum	
  International	
  Publishing	
  Group.	
  

Suszczyńska,	
  Małgorzata	
  (1999).	
  Apologizing	
  in	
  English,	
  Polish	
  and	
  Hungarian:	
  Different	
  languages,	
  different	
  
strategies.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Pragmatics,	
  31(8),	
  1053-­‐1065.	
  doi:10.1016/S0378-­‐2166(99)00047-­‐8	
  

Tannen,	
  Deborah,	
  Hamilton,	
  Heidi	
  E.,	
  &	
  Schiffrin,	
  Deborah	
  (Eds.).	
  (2015).	
  The	
  handbook	
  of	
  discourse	
  analysis	
  
(Vol.	
   2).	
   Chichester,	
   United	
   Kingdom,	
   and	
   Malden,	
   Massachussets:	
   Wiley	
   Blackwell.	
   doi:	
  
10.1002/9781118584194	
  

Trosborg,	
   Anna	
   (1987).	
   Apology	
   strategies	
   in	
   natives/non-­‐natives.	
   Journal	
   of	
   Pragmatics,	
   11(2),	
   147-­‐167.	
  
doi:10.1016/0378-­‐2166(87)90193-­‐7	
  	
  

Trosborg,	
  Anna	
  (1995).	
  Interlanguage	
  pragmatics:	
  requests,	
  complaints,	
  and	
  apologies.	
  Berlin	
  and	
  New	
  York,	
  
New	
  York:	
  Mouton	
  de	
  Gruyter.	
  

Trosborg,	
   Anna	
   (Ed.)	
   (2010).	
   Pragmatics	
   across	
   languages	
   and	
   cultures.	
   Berlin	
   and	
   New	
   York,	
   New	
   York:	
  
Mouton	
  de	
  Gruyter.	
  



POLITENESS	
  NORMS:	
  APOLOGIES	
  BY	
  LEARNERS	
  OF	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

44	
  

Vaezi,	
  Rahim,	
  Tabatabaei,	
  Soudabeh,	
  &	
  Bakhtiarvand,	
  Morteza	
  (2014).	
  A	
  comparative	
  study	
  of	
  speech-­‐acts	
  in	
  
the	
  textbooks	
  by	
  native	
  and	
  non-­‐native	
  speakers:	
  a	
  pragmatic	
  analysis	
  of	
  new	
  interchange	
  series	
  vs.	
  
locally-­‐made	
   EFL	
   textbooks.	
   Theory	
   and	
   Practice	
   in	
   Language	
   Studies,	
   4(1),	
   167-­‐180.	
  
doi:10.4304/tpls.4.1.167-­‐180	
  

Wierzbicka,	
   Anna	
   (2005).	
   In	
   defense	
   of	
   ‘culture’.	
   Theory	
   &	
   Psychology,	
   15(4),	
   575-­‐597.	
  
doi:10.1177/0959354305054752	
  

Wierzbicka,	
  Anna	
  (2008).	
  A	
  conceptual	
  basis	
  for	
  intercultural	
  pragmatics	
  and	
  world-­‐wide	
  understanding.	
  In	
  
Martin	
   Pütz	
  &	
   JoAnne	
  Neff-­‐van	
  Aertselaer	
   (Eds.),	
  Developing	
   contrastive	
   pragmatics:	
   interlanguage	
  
and	
  cross-­‐cultural	
  perspectives	
  (pp.	
  3-­‐45).	
  Berlin	
  and	
  New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Mouton	
  de	
  Gruyter.	
  

Wierzbicka,	
   Anna	
   (2010).	
   Cultural	
   scripts	
   and	
   intercultural	
   communication.	
   In	
   Anna	
   Trosborg	
   (Ed.),	
  
Pragmatics	
  Across	
  Languages	
  and	
  Cultures	
  (pp.	
  43-­‐78).	
  Berlin	
  and	
  New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Mouton	
  de	
  
Gruyter.	
  

Wolfson,	
  Nessa	
  (1988).	
  The	
  Bulge:	
  A	
  theory	
  of	
  speech	
  behaviour	
  and	
  social	
  distance.	
  In	
  Jonathan	
  Fine	
  (Ed.),	
  
Second	
   language	
  discourse:	
  a	
   textbook	
  of	
   current	
   research	
   (pp.	
  21-­‐38).	
  Norwood,	
  New	
   Jersey:	
  Ablex	
  
Publishing	
  Corporation.	
  

Wolfson,	
   Nessa,	
   &	
   Judd,	
   Elliot	
   (Eds.).	
   (1983).	
   Sociolinguistics	
   and	
   language	
   acquisition.	
   Rowley,	
  
Massachussets:	
  Newbury	
  House.	
  

Yates,	
  Lynda	
  (2010).	
  Pragmatic	
  challenges	
  for	
  second	
  language	
  learners.	
  In	
  Anna	
  Trosborg	
  (Ed.),	
  Pragmatics	
  
across	
  languages	
  and	
  cultures	
  (pp.	
  287-­‐308).	
  Berlin	
  and	
  New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Mouton	
  de	
  Gruyter.	
  

Žegarac,	
   Vladimir,	
   &	
   Pennington,	
   Martha	
   C.	
   (2000).	
   Pragmatic	
   transfer	
   in	
   intercultural	
   communication.	
   In	
  
Helen	
   Spencer-­‐Oatey	
   (Ed.),	
  Culturally	
   speaking:	
  managing	
   rapport	
   through	
   talk	
   across	
   cultures	
   (pp.	
  
165-­‐190).	
  London,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Continuum	
  International	
  Publishing	
  Group.	
  	
  
	
  

	
   	
  



WALKER	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

45	
  

Appendix A 

The DCT 

DISCOURSE COMPLETION TASK 

In this task, you will be asked to respond to four different situations via email. In each situation, there will be two versions of the 
situation. You are asked to complete both versions, totalling eight responses. 

All scenarios are set in Italy. 

The following task is written in Italian and challenging terms will also be provided in English.  

 

At the end of each, you will be asked to rate the scenario in regards to the social distance between yourself and your 
interlocutor, your interlocutor’s status in relation to your own and the severity of your offence. 

In this task, the italicised terms are defined in the following ways: 

Social distance: how well known the participants are to each other, ranging from strangers to intimates 

Status of interlocutor: the degree of power held by the interlocutor, i.e. if their social position within the interaction is 
higher, equal to, or lower than the speaker 

Severity of offence: the ‘seriousness’ of and extent of damage caused by the offence for which the apology is being 
offered 

  

You should respond to the eight scenarios as per the example below: 

 

Example Scenario:  

You are not feeling well and so you will be absent from today’s lecture. You know that the student who sits beside you will be 
attending and that she always takes detailed notes. 

If you were to write an email to her, what would you write? 

 

Example Response: 

Hi Elena,  

Sorry to be a bother, but I wanted to ask you a favour. I won’t be in class today because I’m sick, so I was wondering if you 
could send me your notes from today’s lecture?  

Thank you so much! 

Jessica 

 

 

 

 



POLITENESS	
  NORMS:	
  APOLOGIES	
  BY	
  LEARNERS	
  OF	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

46	
  

Unpacking (Accidental Theft) 

You have just returned to Sydney after visiting a friend and his mother for several months in Verona. When unpacking, you 
discover two of their chargers caught up amongst your own.  

If you were to write an email to your friend’s mother, what would you write? 

Please write your email below, using as little or as much space as you feel to be necessary: 

o I would not write an email 

Would you rate the social distance in this situation as: 

1 2  3 4 5 

Low    High 

Would you rate your friend’s mother’s status in relation to your own as: 

1 2  3 4 5 

Low    High 

Would you rate the severity of your offence as: 

1 2  3 4 5 

Low    High 

 

Disfare le valigie 

Sei appena tornato/a a Sydney dopo un periodo a Verona dove stavi a casa di un amico e di sua madre. Mentre stai disfacendo 
le valigie (unpacking), scopri due dei loro caricabatterie (chargers) insieme ai tuoi. 

Se scrivessi un’email alla madre del tuo amico, cosa scriveresti 

Scrivi l’email sulle righe sotto, usando quante righe necessarie: 

o Non scriverei un’email 

Would you rate the social distance in this situation as: 

1 2  3 4 5 

Low    High 

Would you rate your friend’s mother’s status in relation to your own as: 

1 2  3 4 5 

Low    High 

Would you rate the severity of your offence as: 

1 2  3 4 5 

Low    High 

 



WALKER	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

47	
  

Appendix B 

Demographic questionnaire 

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 
 
Age: 
 
Gender: 
 
Degree: 
 
Unit of Study in the Department of Italian (language): 
 
Other Italian units studied at the University of Sydney, if any (either course name or course code): 
 
 
Have you studied Italian prior to commencing Italian Studies at university? 

If so, what level of Italian did you study and where did you study? 
 
 

Which cultural background(s) do you identify as? 
 
 
If you identify as Italian or as Italo-Australian, please specify your generation: 

o Born in Italy 
o Parent(s) born in Italy 
o Grandparent(s) born in Italy 

 
 
Do you rate your ability to read in Italian as 
  excellent  very good  good  average  basic 
 
Do you rate your ability to write in Italian as 
  excellent  very good  good  average  basic 
 
Do you rate your ability to understand spoken Italian as 
  excellent  very good  good  average  basic 
 
Do you rate your ability to speak in Italian as 
  excellent  very good  good  average  basic 
 
 
Have you ever spent time in Italy? 

If so, how long were you there? 

 

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  



POLITENESS	
  NORMS:	
  APOLOGIES	
  BY	
  LEARNERS	
  OF	
  ITALIAN	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  4(2)	
  (2017),	
  pp.	
  28-­‐48	
  
	
  

48	
  

	
  

Talia Walker, University of Sydney 
talia.walk@outlook.com 
  
EN Talia Walker is an English language teacher and Italian language teacher, and has also worked as a research assistant 

on a number of linguistic and sociology projects.  She completed her Honours thesis at the University of Sydney and 
graduated with a Bachelor of Arts (Languages) (Honours) in 2016.  Her field of interest is sociolinguistics, specifically, 
intercultural and cross-cultural communication. In 2018, she will commence her Doctoral project in the Department of 
Italian Studies at the University of Sydney. 
 

ES Talia Walker es profesora de lengua inglesa e italiana, y también ha trabajado como ayudante de investigación en una 
serie de proyectos de lingüística y sociología. Presentó su trabajo fin de grado en la Universidad de Sídney, con el que 
obtuvo el grado con mención en idiomas en 2016. Su campo de interés es la sociolingüística (específicamente, la 
comunicación intercultural y transcultural). 	
   En 2018, comenzará su proyecto de doctorado en el Departamento de 
Estudios Italianos de la University of Sydney . 
 

IT Talia Walker Talia Walker è insegnante di inglese e italiano, e ha collaborato in diversi progetti di ricerca in linguistica e 
sociologia. Ha scritto la sua tesi all’Università di Sydney e nel 2016 si è laureata col massimo dei voti in Discipline 
Umanistiche (Lingue). Il suo campo di ricerca è la sociolinguistica, in particolare la comunicazione interculturale e 
multiculturale. Nel 2018 inizierà un dottorato di ricerca presso il Dipartimento di Studi Italiani della University of Sydney.