Promises in French
Academic Resources for Apologizing in French
Resources in this section curated by: Mathilde Bégu, Aurélie Bertin, Aleya Elkins
Beeching, K. (2019). Apologies in French and English: An insight into conventionalisation and im/politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 281-291. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216618302224
This article traces the evolution of common illocutionary force indicating device (IFIDs) related to the function of apologizing. The study surveys the etymology of expressions like je suis désolé, pardon, excusez-moi, sorry, I’m sorry, excuse me, using a sub-titling corpus of French films and analyzing the subtitles translation for American, British and Canadian audiences.
The study shows that Canadian French uses more intensifiers while apologizing, where French French uses more justifications. Overall, there appears to be a shift towards fewer variants in more recent corpora of spoken French. Additionally, the Quebec data shows a preference for more anglicized choices than the more old-fashioned pardon and regret from the European French corpora. The authors conclude by noting the influence of the translator, who is more influenced by “the semantics of the Source Language etymon (sorry = désolé(e)(s)) than by how the speech act is normally performed in the Target Language."
Borkin, A., & Reinhart, S. M. (1978). Excuse me and I'm sorry. TESOl Quarterly, 57-69. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3585791
The use of the English expressions excuse me and I am sorry are discussed in this paper. The authors view these "as [a possible] step in which the offender or potential offender acknowledges something has gone wrong or may go wrong, accepts responsibility of state of affairs, and attempts to make things right". According to the authors, the difference between the two expressions is that I am sorry is not only used to apologize, but also to express sympathy or regret, while excuse me is used to interrupt someone, which is still part of the apologetic function.
The authors argue that miscommunication around these expressions happens between learners of English and native speakers (as well as teachers) - there is a need for a more precise pragmatic instruction in ESL classes. They suggest comparing the differences between the two apologetic expressions in a teaching unit for intermediate level students, who already learned these expressions, but do not know how to distinguish them or use them appropriately. As part of the activities for the lessons, the authors suggest dialogs and role plays.
Center for Applied Research on Language Acquisition (2021, March 3rd). American English Apologies. https://carla.umn.edu/speechacts/apologies/american.html
Even though this web page describes five possible strategies to make an apology in American English, the authors argue that the strategies are available across cultures and languages, but each culture group and/or language might favor one over the other depending on the situation.
In American English apologies are used for a variety of reasons and contexts, but all can fall under at least one of these strategies. The first consists of using an expression of an apology like sorry, excuse me, which are favored orally, as well as I apologize which is more common in writing. These expressions can be intensified with adverbs like very, sincerely, etc. The second strategy is the acknowledgement of responsibility with different degrees of recognition, from the highest level with it's my fault, to the lowest level with I didn't mean to, or even blaming the hearer with it's your own fault. The third strategy is to provide an explanation or account by describing the situation that led to the offense, as an indirect way to apologize for it (the bus was late to apologize for being late to a meeting, for instance). The fourth strategy is to offer repair by providing a payment for some kind of damage or by making a bid to carry out an action, like asking to reschedule a meeting. The last strategy is a promise of non-recurrence where the apologizer commits to not let the offense happen again.
Claudel, C. (2015). Apologies and thanks in French and Japanese personal emails: a comparison of politeness. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 19(4), 127-145.
This article examines how "politeness" is used in thanks and apologies in French and Japanese emails between correspondents based on characteristics like gender, age, and relationship (which maps onto +- power and +- solidarity). The author takes a broader look at the concepts of "politeness" in the two cultures, before exploring how politeness appears in different features of language. Claudel ultimately advocates for a differentiation between "politeness" as a result of personal choice and "civility" as a result of "obligation to respect social norms" (p. 127).
Notable content from the article as it relates to French apologies include observations that: 1. Apologies may be used instead of thanks, for example, "Il ne fallait pas" or "Vous n'auriez pas dû", which denotes a degree of embarrassed apology to the addressee for the benefit they have given, 2. But attention to the speaker/writer tends to lead to the use of thanks, 3. Apologies were absent from emails sent between family, 4. Apologies are more common between student and teacher, and in such cases, the student uses a form marked for distance "Je vous prie de bien vouloir m'excuser", 4. Thanks and apologies occurred primarily in the opening sequence of emails, with thanks reiterated at the end.
Cohen, A., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134.
This study focuses on the ability to use appropriate sociocultural rules of speaking, focusing on the speech act of "apology", by reacting in a culturally acceptable way in context and by choosing stylistically appropriate forms for that context.
The findings showed that it is possible to identify culturally and stylistically inappropriate L2 utterances in apology situations. However, all participants were not native speakers of English and the authors acknowledge that judging the nonnative speakers under native standards might have penalized the research. They concluded by saying that speakers of English as a foreign language use, for the most part, the same semantic formulas as native English speakers only when their proficiency level permits it. For lower proficiency levels, the influence of native language patterns was too significant.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1985). Comparing apologies across languages. In K. R. Jankowsky (Ed.), Scientific and humanistic dimensions of language (pp. 175-184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
In their cross-cultural analysis, the authors observe young Hebrew speakers who learned English as their L2. They put the speakers in a situation in which they bumped into a woman at a store. After analyzing the responses from the participants, the authors argue that in the case of apologies, there is often a transfer from the L1 to the L2. They refer to "the learners' strategy of incorporating native language-based elements in target language production and behavior." These transfers could happen either because of a knowledge gap regarding L2 social norms, or because the learner does not even think that such differences could occur.
This claim relates to the transfer by English speakers of I am sorry to situations in which the speaker wants to express sympathy in French, that would not require an apologetic expression, possibly resulting in confusion. Thus, pragmatic instruction (such as the IPIC model) is a way to limit transfer from L1 to L2 while educating the learners on the appropriate speech acts to use in the target culture.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1994). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1). doi:10.2307/3586950
The difficulty with the apology speech act is that there are nuances and potential modifications to the intensity or the sincerity of the apology. According to the authors, speech acts are continuously varying since they are conditioned by social, cultural and situational factors. This study investigates the processes (assessing, planning and executing) involved in the production of speech acts in L2 learners. The authors are also interested in knowing if grammar and pronunciation are involved in the production of speech act utterances.
The results show that the majority of participants planned the speech act they would use (apologizing for example), but did not plan specific vocabulary or grammar. It also looks like the language they used to plan their role play was English, which is their L2, although a lot of the participants think in another language as well.
The authors argue that "learners may have a more difficult time in producing complex speech forms than teachers believe, whether they be speech acts or other language forms of comparable complexity". For that reason, planning matters, and teachers should teach learners how to successfully process information. Learners who have time to plan before entering a situation generally show better complexity of language and more vocabulary than learners who do not have that time.
Edmonds, A. (2010b). “Je suis vraiment désolé” ou comment s’excuser en interlangue. In B. de Buran-Brun (Ed.), Altérité, identité, interculturalité (pp. 69-82). Paris : L’Harmattan.
This study examines the use of illocutionary force indicating devices ("mécanisme pour indiquer la force illocutionnaire," or MIFI), which formally indicate the speaker's intended purpose, by native speakers in Southwest France and native English-speaking learners of French. MIFIs are one of the five main apology strategies commonly used in a number of languages. Results indicated that learners were neither more explicit nor more creative than their native counterparts in their apologies (though there was some discrepancy), but they did show exaggeration in their patterns. In other words, learners followed the same patterns as native speakers in the use of MIFIs, but the degree to which they demonstrated the patterns was more pronounced; they amplified subtle differences in usage. Edmonds suggests this is common among language learners, regardless of their native language or language of study.
Edmond's classifications of apology expressions into genres of MIFI was also noteworthy. The author organized the expressions as follows: Expressions de regret (ex : je suis désolé, je suis navré), demandes de pardon (ex : excusez-moi, je vous prie de m’excuser, je vous demande pardon) et offres d’excuses (ex : je m’excuse, pardon, toutes mes excuses). Edmonds also noted that learners seemed to transfer temporal orientation of certain English apology expressions (I'm sorry and excuse me) to their requests for forgiveness and expressions of regret in French, which connects to the consistent phenomenon of native language influence on the studied-language apology system.
Grossmann, F. Krzyżanowska, A. (2018). Comment s’excuser en français et en polonais : étude pragma-sémantique. Neophilologica, 30, 88-107.
This article shows the variety of expressions used to apologize in French and Polish. The authors refer to levels of politeness or formality to explain the parameter of power. They conducted research on the use of apologies in emails sent to parents, friends and colleagues, focusing on expressions that contain the word excuse and pardon.
Their corpus results show that the word excuse is used in the majority of apologies via email, whether politely or not so politely. They also noticed that je m'excuse is used very rarely in emails. The normal forms are veuillez m'excuser or excusez-moi. It is more polite for the writer to ask the reader to excuse them rather than to present their apologies directly. Pardon was also used in emails, but not only to apologize. Indeed, pardon carries different functions such as expressing guilt and regret.
Iftime A. (2019). L'approche de l'excuse dans les manuels de FLE publiés en Roumanie. Revue Roumaine d'Études Francophones, 11, 356-368. http://arduf.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Iftime-2.pdf
This study analyzes the presence or absence of apologies in four Romanian textbooks designed for learners of French. Out of the four, only three mention apologies and define the expressions "je vous présente mes excuses", "je m’excuse", and "excusez-moi" as marks of politeness in French, without explaining how to apologize using each one. Moreover, the analysis shows that apologies are not nuanced in the textbooks (in terms of power, severity and solidarity), but that learners simply have to remember the expressions.
According to the article, the textbooks do not mention ways to apologize implicitly (which is very common in French). For example, recognizing one's offense ("je suis en retard !") would be more of an apology than just saying pardon, and yet, these nuances are not taught in these textbooks. Moreover, in these textbooks, there are only positive responses to the excuses ("ce n'est pas grave, ce n'est pas de ta faute") rather than other negative responses that are also common in discourses.
Finally, this article contains an interesting definition of apologies in French. Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2005) defines an apology as an “act by which a speaker tries to obtain from his addressee that he grant him forgiveness for an offense for which he is in some capacity responsible towards him”. This definition confirms the assumption that apologies in French are truly necessary when the speaker is the cause of the offense (contrarily to English).
Lakoff, R. T. (2005). Nine ways of looking at apologies: The necessity for interdisciplinary theory and method in discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton (Eds.),The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 197–214). Blackwell Publishers Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753460.ch11
According to the author, in American English, the single form I am sorry can function variously as an apology as well as a way to express sympathy, and also to deny an apology. By using I am sorry, "an apologizer with power can, by making use of an ambiguous form, look virtuous while saving face". For example, an American speaker who needs to apologize in a public space could easily use I am sorry as a legitimate and accepted apology, even though he might not mean it.
Thus, we can see that the functions of apologies differ in French and in American English, confirming the need for clarifications of apologetic expressions for American learners of French.
Sanae, H. (2007). Pour une discussion métapragmatique en classe de FLE. Revue japonaise de didactique du français 2(1), 53-70.
This study shows the difference in apologies between Japanese and French speakers, which often leads to confusion in the L2 French classroom in Japan. The author researched the way that apologies were introduced in four French textbooks and noticed that only a few expressions (pardon madame, excusez-moi !, and oh pardon !) were mentioned. Similarly to the research done by Iftime (2019), the apologies are not very contextualized in the French textbooks, and there are very few examples of speakers arguing.
The author also looked at French textbooks used in France, highlighting that the apologies were mentioned more often, and presented in authentic dialogs. Another interesting difference is that the apologies in the textbooks in Japan always happen between friends, whereas they happen in various contexts in the textbooks used in France (with colleagues, friends, and in public spaces).
The author thus calls for more diversity in pragmatic functions of French in textbooks destined for Japanese learners and teachers. She also suggests adding more nuances to role plays in the classroom, in order to help learners communicate efficiently and naturally with French speakers, rather than regurgitating the textbook's information.
Xiaomin M. (2007). Les formules d'excuse et leur enseignement. Synergies Chine, 2, 173-179. https://www.gerflint.fr/Base/Chine2/meng.pdf
This article compares French and Chinese apology systems to highlight social differences surrounding apologies, which lead to confusion and miscommunication for Chinese learners of French. The frequency and type of employment of apologies differ between French and Chinese, which, in addition to causing misunderstandings, can lead to poor impressions of Chinese learners (for example, being a "bad student" or being rude). It is noted that Chinese learners seem to interpret apologies in reference to their own apology system, attempting to translate apologies directly between their L1 and L2.
The author also discusses some of the ways in which pardon is used frequently for small daily faux-pas, like bumping into someone. Xiaomin emphasizes that apologies in French act as reparation for a face-threatening act or offense, but that a lack of response from the recipient of the apology can also be a face-threatening act to the apologizer; thus it is important not only to know how to apologize, but also to know cultural expectations surrounding responses to apologies. This confirms that it is vital to include the Awareness student learning outcomes described in the IPIC model. The article concludes by stating these different systems for apologizing are not sufficiently taught in language classrooms and must be given more attention.
