Cite this article as: Zubairu, H. M. (2026). The pragmatic functions of ‘Sorry’beyond blame in Nigerian everyday interaction. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 2(1), 313-323. https://doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2026.v02i01.028
By
Hauwa
Muhammad Zubairu
Department
of English and Literary Studies
Ahmadu
Bello University, Zaria
mrshzshafa@gmail.com
Abstract
This
study re-examines the speech act of apology by exploring how the expression “Sorry”
is used in everyday Nigerian English contexts. Classical speech act theory
describes apology as an admission of responsibility for an offence. However,
everyday interactions in Nigeria reveal a broader range of meanings. Using a
qualitative descriptive research design, the study samples 40 naturally
occurring instances collected through participant observation in formal
settingswithin Zaria, Kaduna State, and documented using field notes. This
qualitative study investigates how “sorry” functions beyond the domain of
apology. Data were selected through purposive sampling and analysed through a
pragmatic framework. The analysis shows that, in many contexts, “sorry” works
less as an acceptance of blame and more as a marker of empathy, solidarity,
condolence, and relational alignment. Rather than indexing guilt, it frequently
signals emotional support and social connectedness. Drawing on Speech Act
Theoryand Politeness Theory, this study argues that Nigerian English
pragmatically extends the meaning of apology into a culturally embedded
practice of relational maintenance. By foregrounding everyday usage, the study
contributes to cross-cultural pragmatics and highlights how global English
forms are locally reshaped through social practice.
Keywords: Speech Act Theory, Apology, Politeness Theory, Cross-Cultural
Pragmatics, Nigerian English
1.0 Introduction
Classical
speech act theory, developed by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), posits
language as a tool for performing actions through illocutionary acts. The
meaning associated with an utterance is the user’s intention, not simply the
meaning of words in the utterance. “The study of user intention focuses on the
actions performed with words in both speech and writing.” Austin (1962)
postulates that when an individual makes an utterance, they perform some
“speech acts” such as requesting, questioning, pronouncing, informing,
apologising etc. The theory frames apology as a remedial act performed by a
speaker who acknowledges responsibility for an offence and seeks to restore
social equilibrium. Apology is therefore tied to guilt, repair, and the
management of face. These accounts are more closely tied to Euro-American norms
and may not have the same meanings that apology-related expressions take in
other sociocultural backgrounds.
In
everyday Nigerian English usage, the expression “sorry” sometimes exceeds this
standard definition. It is frequently uttered in situations where the speaker
bears no responsibility for any wrongdoing. For example, people use sorry when
someone stumbles, sneezes, falls ill, chokes while eating or drinking,
experiences misfortune, feels sad, or recounts a difficulty. In these contexts,
“sorry” does notfunction as an admission of fault, it goes beyond that and
performs relational work (Locher & Watts, 2005), and it is used to display
empathy, show solidarity, or align with another person’s emotional state. Its
frequent and seemingly automatic deployment as a face-saving act shows that it
plays a significant role in maintaining social cohesion within Nigerian
sociocultural life.
Despite
growing scholarshipin cross-cultural pragmatics in recent years, relatively
limited research addresses the pragmatics of apology forms in Nigerian English
(Unuabonahet al.,2025, p. 1). Studies often focus on strategies for expressing
regret, mitigating responsibility, or negotiating face. Contexts in which
apology-related forms are detached from blame are less explored and instead,
mobilised as routine markers of communal belonging and affective support. This
research gap therefore necessitates closer investigation into how globally
circulating English expressions acquire locally grounded meanings.
This
paper therefore examines the speech act of apology by analysing the pragmatic
functions of “sorry” in everyday Nigerian English interaction. Drawing on 40
naturallyoccurring instances collected throughparticipant observationconducted
in formaleducational settings, the paper analyses the pragmatic functions of
“sorry” beyond blame.
2.0 Literature
Review
2.1 Apology
as a Speech Act
Searle
(1969) places speech acts at the very crux of the study of language, meaning,
and communication given that the speech act is the basic unit of communication.
He proposes terms that are commonly used for speech acts such as request,
promise, apology, compliment, complaint, or invitation. These descriptive terms
for different kinds of speech acts apply to the speakers’ communicative
intention in producing an utterance.
Apology
has traditionally been analysed within the framework of Speech Act Theory. In
this tradition, apology is classified as an expressive act through which a
speaker acknowledges responsibility for an offence and expresses regret.
According to Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), the illocutionary force of an
apology lies in recognising a social breach and attempting to restore
equilibrium between interlocutors. Felicity conditions associated with apology
typically include the existence of an offence, speaker responsibility, and the
expression of remorse. The act of apologizing is called for when there is some
behaviour which violates social norms. When an action or utterance results in
the fact that one or more persons perceive themselves as offended, the culpable
person or persons need to apologize. Therefore, this means that there are two
parties involved: an apologizer and an apologize (Daftari & Tavil, 2015).
Subsequent
pragmatic research has elaborated on the strategies through which apologies are
realised. This includes explicit expressions of regret (“I’m sorry”),
acceptance of responsibility, offers of repair, and promises of forbearance
(Holmes, 1995; Olshtain, 1989). These studies often conceptualise apology as
inherently remedial and closely linked to culpability. Even indirect forms are
assumed to presuppose some degree of wrongdoing.
The act
of apologizing requires an action or an utterance which is intended to “set
things right” (Olshtain, 1983). As Marquez-Reiter (2000) states, an apology is
a “compensatory action for an offense committed by the speaker which has
affected the hearer”. According to Bataineh and Bataineh (2006), apologies fall
under expressive speech acts in which speakers attempt to indicate their state
or attitude. As Searle (1976) states, a person who apologizes for doing A
expresses regret at having done A so the apology act can take place only if the
speaker believes that some act A has been performed prior to the time of
speaking and that this act A resulted in an infraction which affected another
person who is now deserving an apology (Olshtain, 1983).
However,
this canonical framing is challenged by occurrences in which apology-related
forms appear in contexts lacking offence. If apology is defined primarily
through responsibility and repair, then cases of uses that deviate from these
conditions should be reconsidered. That is, analysts should consider whether
apology expressions retain their original illocutionary force or undergo
pragmatic extension in specific sociocultural environments.
2.2 Politeness,
Face, and Relational work
The study
of apology intersects closely with the theories of politeness and face. Brown
and Levinson’s (1987) influential model frames interaction around the
protection of positive and negative face. Within this framework, apology
functions as redressive actions. That is, they attend to the hearer’s face
after it has been threatened, mitigating damage and restoring social harmony.
Despite
highly influential, the model has been critiqued for being individualistic in
its orientation and grounding on western assumptions. Later studies have
expanded the concept of face to include relational and communal dimensions (Gu,
1990; Locher& Watts,2005). The notion of ‘face’ is derived from that of
Goffman (1967) and the English folk term, which ties face up with notions of
being embarrassed, humiliated, or ‘losing face’. Thus, face is something that
is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained or enhanced, and must
be constantly attended to in interaction (Brown & Levinson, 1987). In
general, people cooperate (and assume each other’s cooperation) in maintaining
face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability
of the face. Politeness, therefore, is not merely a strategy for avoiding offence
but a means of sustaining social bonds and enacting solidarity.
From this
perspective, apology expressions may be understood not only as a repair
mechanism but also as a resource for relational work. An utterance such as
“sorry” may function less as an admission of guilt and more as an alignment
move. This signals empathy, shared affect, or social closeness. Such uses
challenge narrow definitions of apology and point toward a flexible
understanding of expressive acts in context.
2.3 Cross-Cultural
Pragmaticsand the Concept of Apology in Nigerian English
Cross-cultural
communication is a field of study that examines how people from different
cultural backgrounds interact and communicate with each other. An important
aspect of pragmatics in cross-cultural communication is the recognition of
cultural variations in speech patterns and conversational styles(Scollon &
Scollon, 2001; House, 2006). Pragmatic analysis helps individuals navigate
these differences and adapt their communication style accordingly to facilitate
mutual understanding (Scollon & Scollon, 2001). Cross-cultural pragmatics
also involves examining how language and culture shape perceptions of
politeness, respect, and social distance. Pragmatics plays a crucial role in
cross-cultural communication by providing insights into how language use is
shaped by cultural norms, values, and context. Through the analysis of speech
acts, politeness strategies, cultural scripts, and frames, individuals can
navigate cultural differences and communicate effectively in diverse cultural
settings. Studies in cross-cultural pragmatics consistently show that speech
acts areshaped by sociocultural norms,that is, semantic equivalents across
languages often exhibit differences in pragmatic force, frequency, and
conditions of appropriate use (House, 2006; Blum-Kulka &Olshtain, 1984).
Some
scholars (Kachru, 1985; Mesthrie, 2008) argue that global English forms within
the framework of world Englishes, are appropriated and reshaped to reflect
local communicative practices.English, a well-established variety, shows
pragmatic features that reflect the sociocultural realities of its speakers.
However, most of the studies focus on phonology, lexis, and syntax, with
comparatively less attention to everyday pragmatic routines.
The
prevalent use of “sorry” in the Nigerian communication behaviour (which
includes situations of illness, misfortune, or accidental harm unrelated to the
speaker), suggests pragmatic repurposing. Saying “sorry” not only signals
apology, it also functions as a culturally embedded marker of empathy and
communal identification.
2.4 Research
Questions
The study
is guided by the following research questions:
1. What
are the pragmatic functions of ‘sorry’ in everyday Nigerian English?
2. How is
‘sorry’ used beyond apology and speaker culpability?
3. What
is the role of ‘sorry’ in relational communication?
2.5 Aim
and Objectives of the Study
The study
aims to examine the pragmatic functions of ‘sorry’ in everyday Nigerian English
interaction beyond its conventional role as an apology. The specific objectives
of the study are to:
1. identify
the pragmatic functions of ‘sorry’ in everyday Nigerian English interaction.
2. analyse
the use of ‘sorry’ beyond apology and speaker culpability.
3. examine
how the expression ‘sorry’ contributes to relational communication.
3.0 Methodology
The study
adopted Speech Act Theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969) and Politeness Theory
(Brown & Levinson, 1987). The study relied on already published studies and
reports, which form the secondary data. The primary data were collected through
participant observation of naturally occurring interactions in formal settings
within the Department of English and Literary Studies, Ahmadu Bello University,
Zaria. This setting includes classrooms, offices, and other places around the
Department.
Forty
naturally occurring instances of “sorry” were documented in situations where
the speaker bore no responsibility for wrongdoing. Purposive sampling was used
to collect data for the study, and only naturally occurring speech was included
in the analysis. Ethical considerations were addressed where necessary, verbal
consent was obtained where feasible, and the anonymity of participants was
strictly observed to avoid identifying details.
A
qualitative, observation-based research method was used for the analysis to
capture authentic usage, allow context-sensitive analysis, and explore
culturally embedded functions. This ensures that the findings of the study are
empirically grounded while providing a robust foundation for interpreting
“sorry” as a pragmatically extended form of relational work.
4.0 Theoretical
Framework
This work
is anchored in Austin’s (1962) and Searle’s (1969) Speech Act Theory, and Brown
and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory. These two theories together provide a
framework for understanding the pragmatic functions of the use of “sorry”
within the language context.
5.0 Data
Presentation and Analysis
A total
of 40 instances of the use of the expression “sorry” were collected from
everyday interactions in formal settings (specifically, Department of English
and Literary Studies,
Ahmadu
Bello University, Zaria). Though the scope of the study is within a specific
institutional context, the interactional patterns reflect broader communicative
practices characteristic of Nigerian English in formal settings.The analysis
focuses on recurring interactional patterns, contextual features, and pragmatic
functions that were observed across the collected data.Only selected
conversational excerpts are presented due to space constraints; however, the
discussion highlights representative patterns that consistently emerged across
the different interactions. Also, each conversational turn is line-numbered
forease of reference and analytical clarity.
5.1 Table
1: Pragmatic Functions of “sorry” in Nigerian English Interaction
|
S/NO |
Pragmatic Function |
Excerpt |
Pragmatic
Interpretation |
Theoretical
Alignment |
|
1 |
Empathy |
Lecturer A: I have
been down with body pains since yesterday. I had to cancel some of my
classes. Lecturer B: Eiyya,sorry.
You need to rest o. |
‘Sorry’ isused here
toexpress concern and emotion rather than culpability. |
Searle (1969)
Expressives; Brown and Levinson (1987) positive politeness |
|
2 |
Empathy |
Student A: I missed
the test again. Student B: Hey!
Sorry! How will you explain to the lecturer now? |
Signals emotional
support and encouragement rather than apology. |
Speech Act Theory
(extended expressives) |
|
3. |
Solidarity/
Relational Bonding |
Student: (drops
cup) Ah!...sorry ma,it has broken. Lecturer: Sorry,
sorry, it’s okay. I hope you are not hurt. |
Reinforces
interpersonal closeness and reduces tension after a minor mishap. |
Brown &
Levinson (1987); Positive Face |
|
4. |
Solidarity/
Relational Bonding |
Lecturer: I just
missed aluta (school bus)… I have to walk to the gate to
get keke(commercial tricycle) Security man: Ah!
Sorryo ma! that will be really stressful o. |
Indicates shared
affect and relational alignment. |
Locher & Watts
(2005) – relational work |
|
5. |
Condolence /Sympathy |
Staff: I lost my
mother-in-law last week. Lecturer:…Ah! I’m really sorry about your loss. |
Formulaic
expression of sympathy without speaker responsibility. |
Olshtain (1983);
expressive speech acts |
|
6. |
Condolence
/Sympathy |
Professor: My
wife’s shop was also destroyed in the fire. Lecturer: Ye! Sorrysir, that’s really painful. |
Communicates
emotional support in serious misfortune contexts. |
Politeness Theory;
Expressives |
|
7. |
Phatic/
Interactional Management |
Staff: Sorry, what did you just say? Secretary: I said
the meeting has been postponed to next week. |
Softens
interruption and maintains conversational flow. |
Face-saving
strategies; discourse pragmatics |
|
8. |
Phatic/
Interactional Management |
A1: Sorry ma, we
can’t hear you well from the back. Lecturer: Ok. Let
me go over it again. |
Functions as
politeness marker for clarification requests. |
Brown &
Levinson (1987); Interactional alignment |
5.2 Analysis
Every
instance of “sorry” was examined according to the following categories:
Contextual
Features: social relationships, setting, and conversational cues.
Function:
pragmatic role in showing empathy, solidarity, condolence, and phatic
alignment.
Alignment
with theory: reflection of canonical apology, politeness strategies, or
relational work.
The
analysis revealed four overlapping pragmatic functions of “sorry”in the
Nigerian English data collected for the study.
Empathy: “Sorry” (Excerpt 2: line 3) was used as an empathetic
response to personal difficulty or discomfort. This was particularly observed
during lecturer-student, student-student, and lecturer-lecturer
interactions.There weremany instances which conveyed understanding or emotional
resonance without implying responsibility. Examples:
When
someone, probably a student or another lecturer is down with an illness,
interlocutors responded with “sorry”, or “Eiyya, sorry” (Oh dear, sorry)
(excerpt 1: line 3). This signals compassion, and shared affect. The use of
“sorry” indicates an expressive alignment move. That means, shifting from fault
to emotional connection.
Solidarity
and Relational Bonding: several occurrences
established emotional alignment. Speakers offered “sorry” (excerpt 3: lines 2
and 3; and excerpt 4: line 4) in response to minor misfortunes. This could
include, spilling food or drink, tripping or stumbling, minor traffic delays,
getting wetin the rain, even when not involved. In classroom settings, this
politeness strategy is used as a face-saving act between lecturer-student,
student-student interactions. For example, when a student is unable to respond
accurately to a question. Thisacknowledges the other’s experience and
reinforces social cohesion, extending Brown and Levinson’s (1987) model to
include relational maintenance.
Condolence
Formula: during serious
misfortunes, like death, illness, or loss of property, “sorry” is used to
signal sympathy. Utterances like “I’m really sorry about your loss” (excerpt 5:
line 4) or “Sorry sir, that’s really painful.” (excerpt 6: line 3) communicates
care efficiently. These expressions are structurally similar to canonical
apologies, also they are pragmatically distinct. This means thatthey express
empathy without personal responsibility. Lecturers and students used “sorry” in
these instances as immediate response to serious misfortune. They are used as
condolences rather than admission of fault.
Phatic
and Interactional Alignment: speakers
used “sorry” to politely make clarification, acknowledge minor interruptions,
in casualgreetings, conversation fillers, smooth misunderstandings, and even
digital discourse.These are instances where “sorry” serves as a phatic
function, facilitating conversation and maintaining rapport. Both staff and
students use sorry within and outside the classroom setting for correcting
misunderstandings, seeking clarifications or explanations; for example, “Sorry,
what did you just say?” (excerpt 7: line 1),or “sorry ma, we can’t hear you…”
(excerpt 8: line 1). Therefore, these instances, saying “sorry” does not
express any emotions but softens interaction and maintains relational alignment
between interlocutors.
6.0 Discussion
of Findings
The
findings from this study reveal that “sorry” in Nigerian English functions
beyond traditional apology. Rather than focusing on culpability, it serves as a
relational resource. While Speech Act Theory conceptualises apology as an
expressive act requiring acknowledgement of wrongdoing (Austin, 1962; Searle,
1969), the Nigerian data complicate this assumption. This is used in expressing
solidarity, condolence, empathy, and conversational alignment. This cultural
recalibration prioritises communal harmony and effective connection over fault
admission.
These
findings can be meaningfully situated against recent investigations into
apology and the pragmatic extension of apology-related expressions. Aijmer
(2019), in a corpus-based study of British English teenagers’ use of apology
expressions, found that “sorry” frequently extends beyond its canonical
illocutionary function to serve ironic, phatic, and non-culpability purposes,
demonstrating that even within a single variety of English the expression
resists reduction to a single speech act type. Rieger (2017), arguing from a
discursive pragmatics perspective, similarly emphasised that apologies are best
understood as relational work. Rieger argues that apology is co-constructed and
co-negotiated in situated interaction rather than as fixed illocutionary acts
defined by speaker responsibility alone. Most directly relevant is Unuabonah et
al. (2025), whose account of apologising in Nigerian English identifies
nativised forms shaped by indigenous Nigerian languages and shows that the
linguistic realisation of apology is systematically conditioned by
communicative situation. The present study both complements and extends these
findings. While Unuabonah et al. (2025) document the forms and situational
conditioning of apologies in Nigerian English broadly, the present study
foregrounds the specific pragmatic functions of “sorry” in contexts where
speaker culpability is entirely absent. This demonstrates that the expression
has been pragmatically reoriented into a primary resource for empathy,
solidarity, condolence, and interactional alignment. The gap bridged by this
study lies in this systematic, empirically grounded account of “sorry” as a
culturally embedded marker of relational maintenance in Nigerian English.
Crucially, this function operates independently of the felicity conditions that
canonical speech act theory associates with apology.
The study
also contributes to ongoingcritiques of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) model,
highlighting collective and relational dimensions of face.The present study
supports this critique empirically, showing that in Nigerian English, 'sorry'
prioritises communal harmony and relational solidarity over individual
face-saving, a pattern consistent with Gu's (1990) communal orientation and
Locher and Watts' (2005) relational work framework. Nigerian usage foregrounds
social connectedness, while showing that expressions traditionally considered
remedial may routinely maintain relationships.While Gu (1990) reveals that
politeness in Chinese interaction is grounded in social norms and communal
expectations, Locher and Watts (2005) reframe politeness as relational work
embedded in social practice.
The
findings of the present study align with those of the above scholars but extend
them by empirical evidence from Nigerian English. The study also contributes to
cross-cultural pragmatics by showing the fluidity of English speech acts. The
extension of “sorry” illustrates how global English forms interact with local
norms, gaining context-specific functions, consistent with world Englishes
(Kachru, 1985; Unuabonah&Oyebola, 2025).
Lastly,
the work underscores the value of observing naturally occurring interactions.
Real-life contexts capture subtleties invisible in elicited data, including
emotional alignment and reinforcement of communal identity.
7.0 Conclusion
This work
re-examined apology in Nigerian English, focusing on “sorry” in everyday
interaction. The analysis shows that “sorry” often functions not as a marker of
responsibility, but as a tool for relational work that expresses empathy,
offers condolences, fosters solidarity and facilitating smooth interaction.
These findings challenge canonical definitions of apology and emphasise
cultural specificity. The study analysed 40 naturally occurring instances,
thereby contributing to a nuanced understanding of apology as a socially
negotiable, culturally embedded speech act. The study combined Speech Act
Theory and Politeness Theory with local sociocultural insight to provide a
framework for exploring pragmatic extension in other English varieties.
The
research thereforeshows that English expressions are shaped by the communities
that use them. In the Nigerian context, “sorry” exemplifies how a globally
familiar form adapts to serve empathy, solidarity, and relational cohesion,
expanding the understanding of apology across diverse contexts.
References
Aijmer,
K. (2019). 'Ooh whoops I'm sorry!': Teenagers' use of English apology
expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 258–269.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.017
Austin,
J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Bataineh,
R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2006). Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL
university students. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(11), 1901–1927.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.11.004
Blum-Kulka,
S., &Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of
speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5(3),
196–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196
Brown,
P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in
language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Daftari,
A., & Tavil, Z. M. (2015). Apology strategies in native and non-native
speakers of English. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199,
568–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.557
Goffman,
E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior.
Anchor Books.
Gu, Y.
(1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics,
14(2), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O
Holmes,
J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. Longman.
House, J.
(2006). Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of
English Studies, 10(3), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570600993339
Kachru,
B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English
language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English
in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp.
11–30). Cambridge University Press.
Locher,
M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal
of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
Márquez-Reiter,
R. (2000). Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A contrastive
study of requests and apologies. John Benjamins.
Mesthrie,
R. (2008). Varieties of English and contact. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Varieties
of English: Africa, South and Southeast Asia (pp. 1–17). Mouton de
Gruyter.
Olshtain,
E. (1983). Sociocultural competence and language transfer: The case of apology.
In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language
learning (pp. 232–249). Newbury House.
Olshtain,
E. (1989). Apologies across languages. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G.
Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp.
155–173). Ablex.
Rieger,
C. L. (2017). "I want a real apology": A discursive pragmatics
perspective on apologies. Pragmatics, 27(4), 553–590.
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.27.4.04rie
Scollon,
R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: A
discourse approach (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Searle,
J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language.
Cambridge University Press.
Searle,
J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in
Society, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837
Unuabonah,
F. O., Gut, U., &Oyebola, F. (2025). Apologising in Nigerian English. World
Englishes.https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12729
0 Comments