Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 17 (2026) Issue 2
Exploring the Relationship between Study Level and Pragmatic Competence in Yemeni EFL Learners: Insights from Apology Strategies
Abdullah Al-Eryani & Abeer Al-Yaremi (Thamar University, Yemen)
Abstract
This study investigates the pragmatic competence of Yemeni learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in producing apologies, focusing on how academic level relates to pragmatic performance. Using a descriptive research design, we analysed the apology strategies of 61 Yemeni EFL students (27 second-year and 34 fourth-year students) alongside those of 27 American English Native Speakers (American ENSs). Data were gathered through a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) with nine hypothetical apology scenarios and coded using Olshtain and Cohen's (1983) framework. The Yemeni EFL students demonstrated limited pragmatic competence, with their selection and structure of semantic formulas differing markedly from American ENS norms. Specifically, the groups diverged in formula frequency, reliance on binary semantic structures, explanation depth, and repair patterns. Notably, academic level did not correlate positively with pragmatic competence: second-year students adhered more closely to American ENS norms than fourth-year students, demonstrating that longer academic exposure does not automatically yield greater pragmatic competence.
Keywords: pragmatic competence, apology strategies, Yemeni EFL learners
1 Introduction
Pragmatics forms a core dimension of communicative competence (Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980), though its development as a distinct empirical domain is relatively recent (Purpura, 2004). Scholars define pragmatic competence in several complementary ways: mastery of the sociocultural code governing language use (Canale, 1983), the knowledge required to achieve interactive goals within a given sociocultural context (Kasper, 1997), and the ability to convey and interpret intended messages alongside their contextual nuances (Fraser, 2010).
Across these frameworks, pragmatic competence encompasses four main abilities: producing and interpreting language appropriately across social settings (Bialystok, 1993; Kasper, 1997); applying contextual conventions of politeness and appropriateness (Koike, 1989); processing and producing pragmatic features accurately (Ellis, 1994); and inferring speaker intentions effectively (Sperber & Wilson, 1986).
In second language (L2) acquisition, pragmatic competence involves knowing speech acts, executing them, and adjusting language based on social variables (Kasper, 1997; Kasper & Roever, 2005). However, grammatical growth does not guarantee pragmatic development; even advanced learners frequently struggle to convey or perceive subtle interactive meanings (Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1998). As Olshtain and Blum-Kulka (1985) note, L2 learners must master target-language sociocultural rules alongside grammar. Central to this process is recognizing when an utterance is situational appropriate and choosing suitable forms accordingly (Cheng, 2005; Kasper & Rose, 2002).
L2 pragmatic competence is frequently evaluated through speech act performance. Although speech acts serve universal functions across languages, their realization depends heavily on community-specific norms. Consequently, pragmatic failures often stem from speech act missteps (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984), particularly in face-threatening or harmony-maintaining contexts such as apologies (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Fukushima, 1996).
Apologies function to repair social harmony when a norm has been breached (Olshtain & Cohen, 1983). Yet communities vary in how they evaluate offences, who must apologize, which strategies to use, and what counts as an effective repair. L2 learners must acquire these target norms to apologize successfully. Without them, learners fall back on L1 speech conventions, leading to inadvertent social missteps even when their grammar is accurate (Beebe et al., 1990; Blum-Kulka, 1982; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Cohen et al., 1986; Kasper, 1990; Koike, 1989).
Studies tracking how learner proficiency relates to apology performance yield mixed results (e.g., Al-Hozali, 2023; İstifçi, 2009; Jung, 2004; Khorshidi et al., 2016; Mohebali & Salehi, 2016; Qorina, 2012; Rastegar & Yasami, 2014), likely due to differences in learning environments and instructional focus. To help clarify these relationships in an understudied context, this study addresses two central questions:
To what extent does Yemeni EFL students' use of apology strategies correspond to that of American English native speakers (American ENSs)?
Is there a correlation between Yemeni EFL students' academic study level and their pragmatic performance in producing apologies?
2 Literature Review
Like other speech acts, apologies vary in their realisation across languages and cultures (Chakrani, 2007; Kachru, 1998; Kalisz, 1993; Meier, 2010). Different communities maintain distinct repertoires of apology strategies shaped by their underlying cultural values. Cultures also differ regarding which events necessitate an apology and which strategies are appropriate in specific situations. According to Gries & Peng (2002), substantial differences exist between Eastern and Western traditions regarding causal reasoning and responsibility attribution. For instance, while Chinese individuals may focus primarily on the outcome of an event, Americans tend to emphasise identifying the responsible party. Similarly, Al-Zumor (2003) argues that in Arab culture, admitting personal fault to repair a situation is less face-threatening than in Anglo-Saxon culture, where individuals place greater emphasis on personal autonomy and defence of face. Furthermore, in the Persian context, apologies are highly formulaic and culture-specific, emphasising interpersonal sensitivity, face-saving, and communal solidarity (Shariati & Chamani, 2009).
The speech act of apology has been investigated from diverse theoretical perspectives. For instance, Cohen et al. (1986) compared apology structures in English and Hebrew, establishing the apology speech act set comprising five primary strategies. Among these, Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs) have been identified as central components of apologies across numerous languages (Holmes, 1990; Robinson, 2004; Suszczynska, 1999). Comparative studies between native and non-native speakers generally reveal that L2 learners tend to apologize using realisation patterns influenced by their native cultural norms (Olshtain & Cohen, 1983; Parsa, 2015; Qorina, 2012; Suszczynska, 1999; Thijittang, 2010).
Extensive research has also examined the relationship between language proficiency and pragmatic competence. On the one hand, İstifçi (2009) observed that higher-proficiency Turkish EFL learners utilised a broader range of apology strategies and constructed more complex apology patterns. Similarly, Qorina (2012) reported marked development in Indonesian EFL students' apology strategy usage across higher academic semesters. Furthermore, Rastegar and Yasami (2014) identified significant differences between Iranian EFL learners of higher and lower proficiency, with the higher-proficiency group producing more varied and elaborate apology structures. On the other hand, Jung (2004) observed that even advanced Korean EFL learners lacked sufficient sociolinguistic awareness to perform apologies successfully in English. Similarly, Khorshidi et al. (2016) and Mohebali and Salehi (2016) found no significant differences in strategy selection between Iranian EFL learners of varying proficiency levels. Additionally, Al-Hozali (2023) observed no linear relationship between linguistic proficiency and pragmatic proficiency among Saudi EFL learners. These inconclusive findings highlight the need for further investigation into how academic level and language proficiency influence apology realisation.
In foreign language (FL) settings, pragmatic competence is typically developed within classroom environments (Webb, 2013), where opportunities for authentic, real-life interaction remain constrained (LoCastro, 2012). In many EFL contexts, language is treated primarily as an academic subject rather than a tool for communication (Cook, 2001), with instructional focus directed toward grammatical precision rather than pragmatic appropriateness (Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1998). This limitation is particularly pronounced in the Yemeni context, where EFL learners have minimal opportunities to practise English out of class, and instructional attention to sociocultural norms remains limited. Furthermore, the potential influence of academic study level on pragmatic development in this context remains under-researched. Accordingly, this study examines the impact of academic study level on the apology strategies of Yemeni EFL students, comparing their performance with that of native English speakers to inform curriculum design and pedagogical practices in Yemen and comparable settings.
3 Methodology
3.1 Research Design
The study used a comparative descriptive design, incorporating quantitative and qualitative analyses of data elicited through a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) on the apology strategies formulated by Yemeni EFL students, compared with those used by American ENSs. This design facilitated a comprehensive understanding of the similarities and differences in how the two groups realised the speech act of apology and of the relationship between academic study level and pragmatic competence.
Quantitatively, a comparative statistical analysis examined the extent to which Yemeni EFL students' apology strategies aligned with those of American ENSs. A further comparison was made between second-year and fourth-year Yemeni EFL students to evaluate the correlation between academic study level and pragmatic competence. The quantitative analysis focused on the frequency and distribution of apology strategies across the participant groups, with chi-square tests used to determine the statistical significance of differences in strategy frequencies.
Qualitatively, the DCT responses were subjected to a detailed linguistic and pragmatic analysis to complement the quantitative findings. The qualitative analysis involved examining the linguistic realisation of the apology responses in their contextualised forms, with particular attention to elements such as illocutionary force indicating devices (IFIDs), explanations, mitigation strategies, intensifiers, and modifiers used to realise apology strategies. This analysis provided contextual and interpretive insights into how participants linguistically formulated their apologies and helped explain patterns identified through the quantitative analysis.
Combining quantitative frequencies with qualitative analysis offers a complete view of how participants formulated apologies. While statistical tests identify broader strategy patterns and group differences, qualitative evaluation illuminates how these strategies were constructed in specific interactional contexts.
3.2 Participants
This study involved 88 participants divided into two main groups: 61 Yemeni EFL students and 27 American ENSs. The unequal size of the two groups reflected their different roles in the study rather than an attempt to achieve equal group sizes. The 61 Yemeni EFL students constituted the principal learner sample for examining the relationship between academic study level and pragmatic competence. The 27 American ENSs were included as a native-speaker reference group against which the Yemeni students' apology strategies could be compared. Thus, the American participants provided a baseline for examining the extent to which the pragmatic performance of the Yemeni EFL students corresponded to or differed from native-speaker patterns.
To investigate the relationship between academic study level and pragmatic competence, the Yemeni EFL students were further subdivided into two groups: 27 Level 2 students and 34 Level 4 students. The participants were purposely selected from the Department of English at the Faculty of Education, Thamar University, based on their voluntary participation. Level 2 students represented an earlier stage of their English degree program, whereas Level 4 students were at an advanced stage approaching completion of the program. As a result of their academic progression, Level 4 students potentially had greater opportunities to encounter English-language academic content, linguistic knowledge, and sociocultural aspects of target language use. Comparing these two learner groups allowed the study to assess whether higher academic progression correlates with more effective pragmatic performance.
The American ENSs were recruited to establish a reference point for native English pragmatic norms. The 27 participants were native speakers of English from the United States who had never been to Yemen, providing a comparison group with a different linguistic and sociocultural background from that of the Yemeni EFL learners. Their responses provided insights into differences between native and non-native speakers in the range, complexity, and sociocultural appropriateness of apology strategies. The American participant group was heterogeneous in educational background, which helped provide a broader representation of native-speaker pragmatic performance and reduce the potential influence of a single academic or disciplinary background.
3.3 Instrument
A Discourse Completion Task (DCT) was used to collect data on apology strategies. According to Kasper & Dahl (1991), DCTs consist of "written questionnaires including several brief situational descriptions, followed by a short dialogue with an empty slot for the speech act under study" (p. 9). The DCT in this study comprised nine incomplete discourse scenarios representing various hypothetical apologizing situations. Each scenario included a description of the offense and the social relationship between interlocutors, followed by an incomplete dialogue. The scenarios were adapted from Al-Adaileh (2007), Thijittang (2010), and Tuncel (2011). Participants were instructed to write their apologies after reading each situational description, treating the scenarios as real-life situations and providing convincing responses.
The DCT was selected because it is the standard instrument in interlanguage pragmatics for examining learners' pragmatic competence and development. Research establishing the pragmatic features of an interlanguage requires substantial data, for which the DCT is particularly suited as it generates comparable and systematically varied speech act corpora (Ogiermann, 2018). Furthermore, because DCTs can be administered to large participant samples efficiently, they offer significant methodological advantages for contrastive speech act studies (Aston, 1995; Barron, 2003; Billmyer & Varghese, 2000; Johnston et al., 1998; Kasper, 2000; Sasaki, 1998). DCTs also elicit multiple occurrences of a speech act across varied contexts, capturing a wide range of semantic formulas (Beebe & Cummings, 1996; Kasper, 2000).
Nevertheless, certain limitations of DCTs should be noted. Rintell & Mitchell (1989) pointed out that DCTs may elicit more formal responses than spoken interactions because writing is inherently a more formal medium. Similarly, Beebe & Cummings (1996) observed that while DCTs reveal stereotypical speech act patterns, they do not fully replicate natural speech features such as turn-taking, repetition, response length, or emotional depth.
3.4 Data Coding and Analysis
Following Olshtain & Cohen's (1983) taxonomy, the collected data were coded based on the semantic formulas identified in each response. This taxonomy categorises apology strategies into five primary types:
1. Explicit Expression of Apology (IFID): Comprising three sub-formulas: (a) expression of regret (REGR) (e.g., "I'm sorry"), (b) offer of apology (APLG) (e.g., "I apologize"), and (c) request for forgiveness (FORG) (e.g., "Excuse me").
2. Acknowledgement of Responsibility (RESP): Comprising four sub-formulas: (a) accepting the blame (ACBL) (e.g., "It's my fault"), (b) expressing self-deficiency (EXSD) (e.g., "I was confused"), (c) recognising the deserving party (RECG) (e.g., "You're right"), and (d) expressing lack of intent (EXLI) (e.g., "I didn't mean to...").
3. Explanation or Account (EXPL): Providing an explanation or justification for the offense (e.g., "I got caught in traffic.").
4. Offer of Repair (REPR): Offering compensation or redress for the offense (e.g., "I'll pay the bill.").
5. Promise of Forbearance (FORB): Expressing a commitment not to repeat the offense (e.g., "It won't happen again.").
To evaluate overall pragmatic competence, the frequency of semantic formulas produced by Yemeni EFL students was compared with that of American ENSs. To examine the correlation between academic level and pragmatic performance, responses from Level 2 students were compared with those from Level 4 students. Frequencies and percentages were calculated using SPSS, and chi-square tests were performed to determine the statistical significance of differences across groups.
4 Results and Discussion
4.1 Yemeni EFL Students' Pragmatic Competence
Data collected from the DCT revealed that Yemeni EFL students produced a total of 413 semantic formulas, compared with 224 produced by American ENSs. A component analysis yielded 63 structural formula sets shared across the two groups. To ensure analytical validity, formulas with a frequency below 1% were excluded, resulting in 15 primary formula sets for comparative analysis (Table 1 below):
Table 1 shows that the semantic formula [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXSD)] was used 167 times (46.4%) by Yemeni EFL students, compared with 25 times (13.2%) by American ENSs. The chi-square test (p < .05) indicates a statistically significant difference between the groups. The learners' overuse of this formula reflects a strong inclination to mitigate offences by explicitly acknowledging self-deficiency. The two groups also differed in situational distribution, as the highest frequencies occurred in distinct scenarios for each group. For instance, American ENSs used this formula most frequently in Scenario 1 (e.g., "Sorry to call you back again, but I saw something on the menu that looked more interesting..."), whereas Yemeni EFL students used it most often in Scenario 4 (e.g., "I am sorry, my friend, I did forget").
Conversely, the formula [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXSD) + REPR] was used 50 times (13.9%) by Yemeni EFL students and 47 times (24.7%) by American ENSs, a statistically significant difference (p < .05). Although both groups utilised this strategy across various situations, they showed similar concern in Scenario 2 by combining self-deficiency acknowledgements with offers of repair when breaking a promise. For example, an American ENS responded: "I am really sorry man. I was all set to meet up with you, but I just got sidetracked between work and school... I will make it up to you tomorrow. Lunch is on me." In contrast, a Yemeni student responded: "I am sorry. I am busy now. I will take you another time, I promise you."
The formula [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXLI) + REPR] accounted for 1.9% of all formulas used by Yemeni EFL students, compared with 9.5% (18 occurrences) among American ENSs, representing a statistically significant difference (p < .05). American ENSs employed this strategy most frequently in Scenario 5 (e.g., "I am so sorry. I know how important it was for you to have it... If you want, I can help you with the class so that you can catch up"), whereas Yemeni students used it mainly in Scenario 6 (e.g., "I am so sorry I didn’t see you. I was absent-minded. I will take your things from the floor"). Overall, Acknowledgement of Responsibility (RESP) featured prominently across 11 formula structures in both groups, indicating a shared general tendency to admit offences explicitly.
Similarly, the formula [IFID (REGR) + REPR] was used less frequently by Yemeni EFL students (45 occurrences, 12.5%) than by American ENSs (38 occurrences, 20%), yielding a statistically significant difference (p < .05). American ENSs favoured this structure in Scenario 6 (e.g., "I am terribly sorry for bumping into you. Let me accompany you to the doctor..."), whereas Yemeni students used it most frequently in Scenario 5 (e.g., "I am really sorry for this. I will return it to you tomorrow").
The formula [RESP (EXSD) + REPR] was also employed less frequently by Yemeni EFL students (13 occurrences, 3.6%) than by American ENSs (15 occurrences, 7.9%), with p = .01 indicating statistical significance. Notably, this was the only formula produced without an IFID by either group. Neither group utilised it in situations characterised by social distance, and its use was rare in equal-status interactions. For example, in Scenario 5, an American ENS noted: "It’s just that I really enjoyed the book and I wanted to take my time reading it. I will make it up to you don’t worry," while in Scenario 4, a Yemeni student responded: "Oh my dear, I am very busy. Can we meet another time?" This suggests that explicit IFIDs may be omitted in equal-status contexts where repair can be negotiated less formally.
The formula [RESP (EXSD) + IFID (REGR) + REPR] was rarely used by Yemeni students (0.8%), whereas American ENSs used it in 4.7% of instances (p < .05). American ENSs used this structure primarily in Scenarios 7 and 8, where the apologizer held lower social power (e.g., "I got into a fender-bender on the way back from the airport. I am extremely sorry. I will make sure to have the car repaired as soon as possible...").
The formulas [IFID (FORG + REGR) + RESP (EXSD) + REPR], [RESP (EXSD) + REPR + IFID (REGR)], and [IFID (FORG + REGR) + REPR] accounted for 1.1%, 0.3%, and 0.6% of responses among Yemeni EFL students, compared with 4.2%, 2.6%, and 2.6% among American ENSs, respectively. Chi-square analyses confirmed statistically significant differences across all three formulas (p < .05).
The remaining five formulas – [IFID (FORG + REGR) + RESP (EXSD)], [RESP (EXSD) + IFID (REGR)], [REPR + IFID (APLG)], [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXLI)], and [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXSD) + FORB] – showed higher relative frequencies among Yemeni EFL students, with the exception of the last formula. However, p-values exceeded .05 in all five cases (0.14, 0.67, 0.90, 0.79, and 0.68, respectively), indicating no statistically significant differences between the groups.
Several key findings emerge from these results:
Yemeni EFL students differed significantly from American ENSs in 10 of the 15 analyzed formulas, reflecting limitations in pragmatic competence. Specifically, learners produced a narrower range of formulaic combinations, aligned with findings by Al-Khadhmi et al. (2021), who observed that American ENSs produced nearly double the number of refusal strategies compared to Yemeni EFL learners.
IFIDs were central to most formula structures in both groups, supporting Olshtain's (1989) view of IFIDs as cross-culturally conventionalised apology components. However, Yemeni EFL students differed in their execution by frequently repeating IFIDs or stacking intensifiers (e.g., "I'm sorry, I'm sorry" and "I am so so so sorry"). This pattern reflects pragmatic transfer from L1 norms, consistent with Aydin's (2013) findings regarding Turkish EFL learners' overuse of intensifiers relative to native speakers.
Ungrammatical structures – such as (*"I am not give you your homework because I need them to remember you") and (*"Why not remember me?") – occurred frequently among Yemeni students, pointing to linguistic gaps that further constrain pragmatic expression. Whereas American ENSs regularly constructed three-part formulas, Yemeni students relied predominantly on binary structures. For instance, the binary combination [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXSD)] frequent among learners was typically expanded by native speakers through an offer of repair (REPR). Furthermore, even when learners constructed three-part formulas, their utterances remained brief (e.g., "Oh dear. I forgot it, but I will get it tomorrow"), whereas native speakers provided more elaborate context (e.g., "Let me start off by saying I have not finished grading your papers. If that's the only reason you're here, feel free to go... I am sorry for falling behind."). These findings mirror Jung (2004), who attributed Korean EFL learners' pragmatic limitations to a lack of target linguistic resources.
Offers of Repair (REPR) played a marginal role in Yemeni students' responses (23.7% of total strategies) compared to American ENSs (60.5%). Native speakers relied heavily on repair to mitigate offences and maintain relational harmony, echoing İstifçi's (2009) observation that native speakers offer broader, more varied repair strategies than EFL learners.
Formula types such as Rejection of Responsibility (*"It is not my wrong") and hearer blame (*"Why not remember me?") occurred exclusively among Yemeni EFL students. These non-standard formulations are absent from Olshtain & Cohen's (1983) framework and were not produced by American ENSs, underscoring the influence of native cultural expectations on L2 speech act production (Afghari, 2007; Al-Momani et al., 2017; Eslami & Mardani, 2010).
Yemeni EFL students used alerters – such as ("Oh"), ("my God"), ("Oh, no"), and ("Oh, my dear") – more frequently than native speakers. This finding contrasts with Cenoz (2003), who reported a higher usage of alerters and politeness markers among native English speakers (Fukushima, 1996; Trosborg, 1987).
4.2 Correlation between Level of Study and Pragmatic Competence
This section examines the relationship between academic level and pragmatic competence in issuing English apologies. The performance of Level 2 and Level 4 Yemeni EFL students was evaluated separately against the American ENS baseline, as summarised in Table 2:
Table 2: Frequency of Semantic Formulas Used by American ENSs, Level Two Yemeni EFL Students, and Level Four Yemeni EFL Students
Based on strategy frequencies and chi-square statistics, the results fall into four descriptive categories.
The first category includes formulas showing significant differences between Level 2 students and American ENSs. Level 2 students differed significantly from native speakers in only three formulas: [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXSD)], [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXLI) + REPR], and [IFID (FORG + REGR) + RESP (EXSD) + REPR] (p < .05 in all cases). Additionally, Level 2 students used [IFID (REGR) + FORB] in 6.3% of responses, whereas native speakers never used it. Conversely, native speakers used [RESP (EXSD) + REPR + IFID (REGR)] in 2.6% of instances, while Level 2 students did not employ it at all.
The second category comprises formulas showing differences between Level 4 students and American ENSs. Unexpectedly, Level 4 students differed significantly from native speakers across eight formula types: [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXSD)], [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXLI) + REPR], [IFID (FORG + REGR) + RESP (EXSD) + REPR], [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXSD) + REPR], [IFID (REGR) + REPR], [RESP (EXSD) + REPR], [IFID (REGR) + FORB], and [IFID (FORG + REGR) + RESP (EXSD)] (p < .05). Furthermore, [IFID (FORG + REGR) + REPR] and [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXSD) + FORB] were used by native speakers (2.6% and 1.6%, respectively) but were absent in Level 4 responses, whereas [IFID (REGR) + FORB] was used by Level 4 students (6.3%) but absent among native speakers.
The third category comprises formulas showing significant differences between the two groups of Yemeni EFL students (Level 2 vs. Level 4). Based on the chi-square statistics in Table 2, these two groups differed significantly in three formulas: [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXSD) + REPR] (p = .01), [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXLI) + REPR] (p = .03), and [RESP (EXSD) + REPR] (p = .04). In all three cases, Level 2 students' usage frequencies aligned more closely with the American ENS norms than Level 4 students' frequencies.
The fourth category includes formulas showing no statistically significant differences between native speakers and either student group. Both Level 2 and Level 4 students aligned with native speakers in four formulas: [RESP (EXSD) + IFID (REGR) + REPR], [RESP (EXSD) + IFID (REGR)], [REPR + IFID (APLG)], and [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXLI)] (p > .05). All four formulas were characterized by low overall frequencies across groups.
Level 2 Yemeni EFL students made pragmatic choices closer to American ENS norms than Level 4 students. Level 2 responses differed significantly from native patterns in only three semantic formulas, whereas Level 4 responses differed in eight. This outcome demonstrates that advanced academic standing does not guarantee higher pragmatic competence, supporting findings by Tajeddin and Masoomeh (2012), Cedar (2017), Khorshidi et al. (2016), and Mohebali and Salehi (2016). It contrasts, however, with studies reporting steady pragmatic gains across proficiency levels (Altheeby, 2018; Elmas et al., 2021; Katchamart & Cedar, 2018; Rastegar & Yasami, 2014; Sağdıç, 2021; Taguchi & Roever, 2017).
Although both learner groups exhibited similar overall preferences for certain strategy types, they differed in strategy frequency. For example, [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXSD)] was used more frequently by Level 4 students, whereas [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXSD) + REPR] was preferred by Level 2 students. In both instances, Level 2 responses aligned more closely with native speaker frequencies. Furthermore, several formulas – [RESP (EXSD) + REPR + IFID (REGR)], [IFID (FORG + REGR) + REPR], and [IFID (REGR) + RESP (EXSD) + FORB] – were used exclusively by one of the two learner groups. These variation patterns align with Cedar (2017), who noted that EFL learners' strategy choices vary in frequency and structural type across instructional levels.
5 Conclusions
This study investigated the pragmatic competence of Yemeni EFL learners in producing English apologies and examined how academic level relates to pragmatic performance.
Overall, Yemeni EFL students exhibited limited pragmatic competence in formulating English apologies. Their strategy choices and semantic formula distributions differed markedly from those of American ENSs. Key areas of divergence included heavy reliance on formulaic intensification, a strong preference for binary semantic formulas, brief overall expressions, concise explanations, and repetitive repair structures. Multiple factors likely drive these pragmatic gaps. First, explicit instruction in pragmatics remains minimal in Yemeni higher education (Al-Sanhani, 2007; Nassar, 2021). Second, negative pragmatic transfer from native L1 conventions appears to play a strong role, as reflected in non-standard expressions involving responsibility denial or hearer blaming. Finally, constrained opportunities for authentic target-language interaction restrict the acquisition of nuanced pragmatic skills (Mokoro, 2024).
Comparing academic levels revealed clear differences between student cohorts. Second-year students aligned more closely with American ENS norms than fourth-year students: they differed significantly from native speakers across only three semantic formula types, whereas fourth-year students showed significant differences across eight. This pattern emerged largely because second-year learners tended to compensate for lower linguistic confidence by constructing longer, multi-clause apology combinations. Although these attempts contained more grammatical errors, their structural complexity approximated native speaker patterns more closely. Conversely, fourth-year students prioritized grammatical correctness over pragmatic elaboration, favoring concise expressions that diverged further from native norms. Consequently, academic study level and pragmatic competence share a non-linear relationship, demonstrating that higher academic standing does not automatically yield greater pragmatic proficiency.
These findings contribute to interlanguage pragmatics by detailing the speech act performance of Yemeni EFL learners. The observed gaps between learner responses and native speaker benchmarks underscore the need for targeted pragmatic instruction in university EFL curricula. Furthermore, the results highlight how L1 cultural transfer shapes speech act realization, while the non-linear relationship between academic progression and pragmatic growth challenges the assumption that general language instruction sufficiently fosters pragmatic competence.
Future research could build on these findings in several ways. Longitudinal designs could track pragmatic development over time to observe how pragmatic awareness evolves alongside general proficiency. Experimental studies might evaluate specific pedagogical interventions, such as structured role-plays or discourse awareness tasks. Further research could also investigate how digital communication, instructional materials, or teacher feedback affect pragmatic growth. Finally, examining sociolinguistic variables—such as gender, social distance, and power dynamics—would offer deeper insights into speech act realization across diverse communicative settings.
References
Afghari, A. (2007). A socio pragmatic study of apology speech act realization patterns in Persian. Speech communication, 49, 177-185. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.01.003)
Altheeby, M. A. (2018). Differences in the Pragmatic Competence of Saudi EFL and ESL Learners. [Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff University]. Available at: https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/119180/1/Muhammed_Altheeby_Final_PhD.pdf (Accessed: 3 March 2025).
Al-Adaileh, B. A. (2007). The speech act of apology: a linguistic exploration of politeness orientation and Jordanian culture. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds]. Available at: https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/202/ (Accessed: 15 January 2025).
Al-Hozali, F. N. (2023). The role of pragmatic competence in the language proficiency of Saudi EFL learners. Education and Linguistics Research, 9 (1), 67-80. (https://www.doi:10.5296/elr.v9i1.20945)
Al-Khadhmi, A., Mirza, M. B., & Al-Eryani, A. (2021). Pragmatic competence of the Yemeni EFL learners. European Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistic Studies, 5 (3), 1-12. (https://doi.org/10.46827/ejlll.v5i3.281)
Al-Momani, H., Jaradat, A., Al-Khawaldeh, N., & Bani-Khair, B. (2017). Expressing gratitude in an EFL context: The case of Jordanian learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6 (4), 190-198. (https://journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/view/3266)
Al-Sanhani, H. (2007). The effect of instruction on the development of the pragmatic competence of EFL Yemeni learners. [Unpublished master's thesis, Sana'a University].
Al-Zumor, A. (2003). Apologies in Arabic and English: an inter-language and cross-cultural study. Journal of King Saud University. Languages and Translation, 23, 19-28.
Aston, G. (1995). Say “Thank you”. Some pragmatic constraints in conversational closings. Applied linguistics, 16, 57-86.
Aydin, M. (2013). Cross cultural pragmatics: A study of apology speech acts by Turkish speakers, American English speakers and advance nonnative speakers of English in Turkey. [Master's thesis, Minnesota State University]. Available at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds/269/ (Accessed: 8 February 2025).
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dornyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatics vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233-259. (https://doi.org/10.2307/3587583)
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. John Benjamins.
Beebe, L., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In: Susan M. Gass and Joyce Neu (eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language, 65-86. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss–Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In: Scarcella, R. C. Andresen, E. & Krashen, S. D. (Eds.): Developing communicative competence in a second language, 55-73. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In: G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.): Interlanguage pragmatics, 43-57. New York: Oxford University Press.
Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied linguistics, 21, 517-522.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.
Blum-kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and Apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns CCSARP. Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213. (https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196)
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In: Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.): Language and Communication, 2-27. London: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1-47.
Cedar, P. (2017). Apology strategies used by EFL undergraduate students in Indonesia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6 (6), 214-222. (https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.6p.214)
Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 71-87. (https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069030070010501)
Chakrani, B. (2007). Cultural context and speech act theory: A socio-pragmatic analysis of bargaining exchanges in Morocco. Texas Linguistics Forum, 51, 43-53.
Cheng, S. W. (2005). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development expressions of gratitude by Chinese learners of English. [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa]. Available at: https://iro.uiowa.edu/esploro/outputs/doctoral/An-exploratory-cross-sectional-study-of-interlanguage/9983776745802771 (Accessed: 7 December 2024).
Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E., & Rosenstein, D. S. (1986). Advanced EFL apologies: what remains to be learned? International Journal of Second Language, 62, 51-74. (https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1986.62.51)
Cook, H. M. (2001). Why can’t learners of JFL distinguish polite from impolite speech styles. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 80-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elmas, E., Öztüfekçi, A., & Özdemir, N. (2021). A comparison of Arab and Turkish EFL learners’ apology strategies. ELT Research Journal, 10 (1), 1-26.
Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Mardani, M. (2010). Investigating the effects of teaching apology speech act, with a focus on ıntensifying strategies, on pragmatic development of EFL learners: The Iranian context. Journal of Language Society and Culture, 103, 38-52. (https://journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/alls/article/view/1608)
Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In: G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.): New approaches to hedging, 1-31. Bingley: Emerald.
Fukushima, S. (1996). Request strategies in British English and Japanese. Language Sciences, 18(4), 671-688. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(96)000411)
Gries, P., & Peng, K. (2002). Cultural clash: Apologies East and West. Journal of Contemporary China, 11, 173-178. (https://doi.org/10.1080/106705601200912000)
Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in society, 19 (2), 155-199. (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500014366)
İstifçi, I. (2009). The use of apologies by EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 2 (3), 15-25. (https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n3p15)
Johnston, B., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1998). Effect of rejoinders in production questionnaires. Applied linguistics, 19 (2), 57-86.
Jung Euen, H. S. (2004). Interlanguage pragmatics: Apology speech acts. In: C. L. Moder & A. M. Zic (Eds.): Discourse across language and culture, 99-116. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kachru, Y. (1998). Culture and speech acts: Evidence from Indian and Singaporean English. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 28 (1), 79-98. (https://hdl.handle.net/2142/11551)
Kalisz, R. (1993). Different cultures, different languages, and different speech acts revisited. In: Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University, 27,107-118.
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistics politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2), 193-218.
Kasper, G. (1997). The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. In: K. Bardovi-Harlig & B.S. Hartford (Eds.): Beyond methods: Components of language teacher education, 113-136. New York: MacGraw-Hill.
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In: Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures, 316-334. London: Continuum.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies on Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215-247.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In: Eli Hinkel (Eds.): Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 317-334. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Katchamart, P., & Cedar, P. (2018). Apology strategies used by English major students at Naresuan University. Chophayom Journal, 29 (3), 25-40.
Khorshidi, S., Mobini, F., & Nasiri, M. (2016). Iranian English teaching applicants' request and apology speech acts: Special focus on language proficiency. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7 (3), 534-541. (https://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0703.14)
Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal, 73 (3), 279-289. (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb06364.x)
LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for language educators: A sociolinguistic perspective. New York: Routledge.
Meier, A. J. (2010). Culture and its effect on speech act performance. In: A. M. Flor & E. U. Juan (Eds.): Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues, 75-90. Amsterdam: John Benjamin's Publication.
Mokoro, E. (2024). Pragmatic competence in second language learners. European Journal of Linguistics, 3 (2), 15-28. (https://dx.doi.org/10.47941/ejl.2044)
Mohebali, S., & Salehi, N. (2016). The relationship between Iranian EFL students' language proficiency and their cross-cultural speech act knowledge. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6 (2), 378-400. (https://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0602.21)
Nassar, H. (2021). Reasons behind mis/understanding English conversational implicatures by university learners in Yemen. Studies in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis, 2 (1), 40–55. (https://dx.doi.org/10.48185/spda.v2i1.291)
Ogiermann, E. (2018). Discourse completion tasks. In: A. Jucker, K. Schneider, & W. Bublitz (Eds.): Methods in Pragmatics, 229 - 255. Mouton de Gruyter.
Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across languages. In: Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.): Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 155-173. New Jersey: Ablex.
Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior. In: S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.): Input in second language acquisition, 303-325. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In: N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.): Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, 18-35. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Parsa, H. (2015). Apology strategies of Iranian ESL students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4 (1), 139-150. (https://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.1p.137)
Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Qorina, D. (2012). Realization of apology strategies by English department students of Pekalongan University. Journal of Language and Literature, 7 (1), 93-105.
Rastegar, S., & Yasami, F. (2014). Iranian EFL learners' proficiency levels and their use of apology strategies. Proceedings of the international conference on current trends in ELT, 1535-1540. (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.575)
Rintell, E. M., & Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into method. In: Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, 248-272. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
Robinson, J. D. (2004). The sequential organization of "explicit" apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37 (3), 291-330. (https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_2)
Sağdıç, A. (2021). Comprehending implied meaning. Applied Pragmatics, 3 (2), 136-162. (https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.19008.sag)
Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457-484.
Shariati, M., & Chamani, F. (2009). Apology strategies in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 42 (6), 1689-1699. (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.007)
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Suszczynska, M. (1999). Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian: Different languages, different strategies. Journal of Pragmatics, 31 (8), 1053-1065. (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00047-8)
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Tajeddin, Z., & Masoomeh, P. (2012). Production of apologies in English: Variation by L2 proficiency and apology situations. TELL Journal, 6, 129-160. (https://dx.doi.org/10.22132/tel.2012.54905)
Thijittang, S. (2010). Pragmatics strategies of English of Thai University students. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania]. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/102.100.100/525932 (Accessed: 4 January 2025).
Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in native/non-native English. Journal of Pragmatics, 11. 147–167. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-pragmatics/vol/11/issue/2)
Tuncel, R. (2011). Apologizing and speech act realizations of Turkish EFL learners. Proceedings of the International Conference on Management, Economics and Social Sciences. Bangkok.
Webb, C. (2013). Teaching pragmatics to international students in private language schools in the UK. Contemporary English Teaching and Learning in Non-English Speaking Countries, 2(2), 27-41. http://www.Cetljournal.co.uk/ article/view/12171/8265
Authors:
Dr. Abdullah Al-Eryani
Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics
Faculty of Education
Thamar University
Thamar
Yemen
ORCID ID: 0009-0008-4417-9264
Email: abderian2002@gmail.com
Abeer Al-Yaremi
PhD Scholar
English Department
Faculty of Education
Thamar University
Thamar
Yemen
ORCID ID: 0009-0006-6175-8597
Email: ms.abeeer5@gmail.com