Chapter two: Literature review 2.1 Literature review.. 17 2.2.  The related empirical studies. 24 3.1. Introduction. 32 3.2.Research questions. 32 3.3. participants. 32 3.4. collection procedure 33 3.5. Data analysis. 34 4.1. Overview.. 36 4.2 .Demographic statistics. 36 4.2.1. Demographic statistics regarding the age of the participants. 36 4.2.2. Demographic statistics regarding the age of the participants. 37 4.2.3. Demographic statistics regarding the language of participants. 38 4.2.4. Demographic statistics regarding the education of the participants. 38 Table4.4: Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of education group. 39 4.3. Descriptive statistics. 39 4.3. Investigating the research hypotheses. 42 4.3.1. First hypothesis. 42 4.3.2. Second hypothesis: 46 4.3.4. Fourth hypothesis. 53 4.4. As stated in chapter one, in this study four main hypothesis were formulated which are. 56 4.4.1. First hypothesis. 56 4.4.2. Second hypothesis. 58 4.4.3. Third hypothesis. 60 4.4.4. Fourth hypothesis. 61 4.4.Discussion. 62 5.1. Overview.. 66 5.2. Summary of the study. 66 5.3. Conclusion. 67 5.4. Implication for practice. 68 5.5. Limitations of study. 68 5.6. Suggestion for further research. 69 References. 71 Appendix. 78 List of Tables Table4.1: Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of Gender 36 Table4.2. Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of Age group. 37 Table4.3. Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of language. 38 Table4.4: Frequency distribution of respondents in terms of education group. 39 Table4.5. the average and standard deviation of intensification scores used by all groups  39 Table 4.6.The average and standard deviation of explanation scores used by all groups: 40 Table 4.7.the average and standard deviation of all groups’ scores on taking responsibility  40 Table4.8: The average and standard deviation of all groups’ scores on concern for the hearer 41 Table 4.9: The average and standard deviation of all groups’ scores on denial of responsibility. 41 Table4.10: The average and standard  deviation of all groups’ score on offer of repair 42 Table 4.11: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and intensification strategy. 43 Table 4.12: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and explanation strategy. 43 Table 4.13: T- test for investigating the relationship between genders and taking responsibility. 44 Table 4.14: T-test for investigating the relationship between gender and concern for the hearer 44 Table 4.15: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and denial of responsibility. 45 Table .4.16: T- test for investigating the relationship between gender and offer responsibility. 45 Table 4.17: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and intensification strategy. 46 Table 4.18: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and explanation strategy  47 Tabl4.19: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and taking responsibility strategy. 47 Table 4.20: T-test for investigating relationship between age and concern for the hearer strategy. 48 Table 4.21: T- test for investigating the relationship between age and denial of responsibility. 48 Table 22.4: T-test for investigating relationship between age and offer of repair strategy  49 Table 23-4: T- test for investigating the relationship between language and intensification strategy. 50 Table 24.4: T- test for investigating relationship between language and explanation strategy. 50 Table 25-4: T- test for investigating relationship between language and taking responsibility. 51 Table 4.26: T- test for investigating relationship between language and concern for the hearer. 51 Table 4.27: T- test for investigating relationship between language and denial of responsibility. 52 Table 4.28: T- test for the investigating the relationship between language and offer of repair strategy. 52 Table 4.29: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and intensification strategy. 53 Table4.30: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and explanation strategy. 54 Table4.31: T- test for investigating relationship between education and taking responsibility. 54 Table 4.32: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and concern for the hearer strategy. 55 Table 4.33: T- test for investigating the relationship between education and denial of responsibility strategy. 55 Table 4.34: T-test for investigating the relationship between education and offer of repair strategy. 56 Table 4.35. T- Test for investigating the relationship between gender and apology strategy  56 Table 4.36. T-test for investigating the relationship between age and apology strategy  58 Table 4.37. T- Test for investigating the relationship between language and apology strategies. 60 Table 4.38.To- Test for investigating the relationship between education and apology strategies. 61 List of figure Figure 4.1. Frequency of respondents based on gender 37 Figure 4.2. Frequency of participants based on age. 37 Figure4.3. Frequency of respondents based on language. 38 Figure4.4. Frequency of participants based on education. 39

Abstract