Apology Strategies

  RQWHQWW LVW  

  QWURGXFWLRQ  

  OXPP XONDD2OVKWDLQ  

  SRORJ DVDVSHHFKDFWFODVVLILFDWLRQ  

3UHFRQGLWLRQVIRUUDQDSRORJ\WRWDNHSODFH   

  SRORJ VWUDWHJLHV  

2.3.1  Coding of an apology  7

2.3.2  Subcategories of the IFID  7

2.3.3  Subcategories of 7DNLQJRQQ5HVSRQVLELOLW  8

2.3.4  Explanation offer of repair promise of forbearance  8

2.3.5  Apology intensification  9

2.3.6  Factors for the choice of a specific apology intensity  9

  UXFH)UDVHU  

  SRORJ DVDVSHHFKDFWFODVVLILFDWLRQ  

  SRORJ :KDWWGRZHEHOLHYHWREHWUXHDERXWWWKHVSHDNHU  

  3UHFRQGLWLRQVIRUUDQDSRORJ  

  SRORJ VWUDWHJLHV  

  )DFWRUVLQIOXHQFLQJJWKHFKRLFHRIDQDSRORJ VWUDWHJ  

  QQDD7URVERUJ  

  SRORJ FODVVLILFDWLRQDVDDVSHHFKDFW  

  )DFWRUVLQIOXHQFLQJJWKHFKRLFHRIDQDSRORJ  

3

  SRORJ FDWHJRULHV  

4.3.1  Complainee does not take on responsibility  17

4.3.2  Minimizing the degree of offence  18

4.3.3  Acknowledgement of responsibility  19

4.3.4  Explanation or account  19

4.3.5  Expression of apology  20

4.3.6  Offer of repair  20

4.3.7  Promise of forbearance  20

4.3.8  Expressing concern for hearer  20

  RPSDULVRQDQGHYDOXDWLRQQRIWKHWKUHHPRGHOV  

  ODVVLILFDWLRQDVDVSHHFKDFW  

  3UHFRQGLWLRQVIRUUDQDSRORJ  

  SRORJ VWUDWHJLHV  

  SRORJ LQWHQVLILFDWLRQ  

  )DFWRUVLQIOXHQFLQJJWKHFKRLFHRIDSRORJ  

  (YDOXDWLRQRIWKHWKUHHPRGHOV  

  LEOLRJUDSK  

4

^{,QWURGXFWLRQQ} In this paper we are going to deal with different theories concerning apology strategies. As there exists a variety of different theories, I chose just three of them for this paper. I will introduce their concepts, compare their differences and try to give a final evaluation of the three concepts.

I will begin with the model of Shoshana Blum–Kulka and Elite Olshtain. They first of all classify apology as a speech act, name preconditions that are inevitable for an apology to take place and then list different strategy types.

$SRORJ\DVDDVSHHFKKDFWFODVVLILFDWLRQQ

The apology belongs to the post-event-acts, i.e. it signals that a certain type of event has already taken place. Moreover, the speaker recognizes the fact that a violation of a social norm has been committed and that the speaker is at least partially involved in its cause. The involvement means a loss of face (= face threatening) for the speaker and is hearer-supportive. 2

3UHFRQGLWLRQVIRUUDQQDSRORJ\WRRWDNHHSODFHH

There are three preconditions that are inevitable for an apology to take place:

• 6 (= speaker) did ; ( = event in question) or abstained from doing ^;; (or is about to do it).

• ; is perceived by 6 only, by + (= hearer) only or by both 6 and + or by a third party as a break of a social norm.

¹ Blum-Kulka, S., Olshtain, E.; “Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech

² ebenda, p. 206

5

• ; is perceived by at least one of the parties involved as offending, harming or affecting + in some way.

6 must be aware of all three preconditions and infer the need for him / her to apologize. As a consequence, the apology takes place. 6 pays tribute to the social norms and attempts to placate the hearer.

The authors mention another possible case. This is the situation in which ⁶ recognizes an offence before + is aware of it. This variety is not subject to Blum-Kulka’s and Olshtain’s study. They study the cases, in which the offence is known to both participants. For these cases they figured out two main strategy types, which will be introduced in the following chapter about apology strategies.

$SRORJ\VWUDWHJLHV

First we have the explicit Lllocutionary Iorce Lndicating Gevice (= ^,),'). This is a routinized, formulaic expression of regret, like VRUU\, WRDSRORJL]H, WR H[FXVH, WRUHJUHW etc. The function of the ,),' is to signal regret on 6’s part for ;, in order to placate +. Within the ,),'s we find a certain scale of conventionality. In the English language, “to be sorry” is the most common expression of all ,),'s. ³ The second strategy type of stating an apology is the use of an utterance which contains reference to one or more elements from a closed set of specified propositions. In contrast to the ,),', which is a direct way of apologizing, the use of these utterances is an indirect way.

The semantic content of these propositions relates to the preconditions that are inevitable for an apology to take place. Therefore, the utterance relates to a) the cause for ;, b) 6’s responsibility for ; or c) 6’s willingness to offer repair for ; or d) 6’s promise of forbearance.

³ Blum-Kulka, Olshtain; p. 206

6

In other words, we have the ,),' and four potential strategies of performing an apology, namely the explanation of the cause that brought about the offence, an expression of 6’s responsibility for the offence, an offer of repair or a promise of forbearance. It is important to mention that the set of propositions is specified and closed, whereas the variety of utterances is open ended. They just have to refer to one of the propositions somehow.

The ,),' and the four additional strategies are not mutually exclusive. The IFID can go together with one of the four strategies, as well as it can stand alone or be left out. 4

2.3.1 Coding of an Apology

If we want to sort an apology into a certain category, we have to code it. In order to do so, we have to answer a specific series of independent, dichotomous questions:

1. Does the utterance in question contain an ,),'?

2. Does it contain an explanation?

3. Does it express 6’s responsibility?

4. Does it convey an offer of repair?

5. Does it contain a promise of forbearance?

If the answer to one of these questions is affirmative, then the utterance is sorted into this category according to a list of sub-classifications that will be presented in the following.

2.3.2 Subcategories of the IFID

For the ,),' Blum-Kulka and Olshtain give six different key-words, namely WREHVRUU\, WRH[FXVH, WRDSRORJL]H, WRIRUJLYH, WRUHJUHW and WRSDUGRQ.

⁴ Blum-Kulka, Olshtain; p. 206 f.

7

2.3.3 Subcategories of ^{7DNLQJJRQQ5HVSRQVLELOLW\} This strategy marks the attempt of 6 to placate + by taking on responsibility for the offence that caused the need for an apology. As 6 admits a fault the situation is face-threatening to 6 and intended to appease +. The subcategories for this strategy vary from self-humbling to strict denial of any responsibility on 6’s side. Thus, + would interpret the acceptance of responsibility as a kind of apology, whereas the denial of responsibility would mean the rejection of an apology. The authors give a list of some of the possible subcategories:

1. 6H[SUHVVHVVWUDLWWRIVHOIGHILFLHQF\(thus accepting responsibility) – I’m so forgetful.

– You know me, I’m never on time.

2. ^{([SOLFLWVHOIEODPH} – It’s my fault / mistake.

3. 'HQLDORIIDXOW(rejecting the need to apologize) – It’s not my fault that I fell down. 5

2.3.4 Explanation, offer of repair, promise of forbearance These three strategies are highly situation-dependent and therefore closely related to the type of offence that took place. If 6, for instance, illustrates external factors that he has no power over this can fulfill the function of an apology. In some cases repair can be offered, sometimes 6 chooses to promise forbearance. Blum-Kulka and Olshtain give the following examples:

1. ^{([SODQDWLRQQRUDFFRXQWRIFDXVH} explicit: The bus was late.

Implicit: Traffic is always so heavy in the morning.

⁵ Blum-Kulka, Olshtain; p. 207

8

2. ^{2IIHURIIUHSDLU} specified: I’ll pay for the damage.

Unspecified: I’ll see what I can do.

3. ^{3URPLVHRIIRUEHDUDQFH} This won’t happen again.

2.3.5 Apology intensification

An apology can be intensified. Again, there are several devices 6 can use to do so. First of all, 66can use an intensifying expression within the ,),'. As an alternative 6 can express explicit concern for + externally to the ,),'. The third opportunity is the use of multiple apology strategies ( +/- ,),' and one or more of the four other strategies).

The three different ways of apology intensification are not mutually exclusive and can be used all simultaneously.

,QWHQVLILFDWLRQZLWKLQWKH,),'

The intensification within the ,),' is usually expressed by the use of an intensifier. Such intensifiers can be adverbials (I’m YHU\ sorry) or repetitions (I’m terribly, terribly sorry).

,QWHQVLILFDWLRQQH[WHUQDOWRRWKH,),'

Externally to the ,),' the speaker can intensify his apology by an expression of concern for the hearer (Have you been waiting long?) or the use of multiple apology strategies. 6

2.3.6 Factors for the choice of a specific apology intensity

According to Blum-Kulka / Olshtain there are a number of factors that influence one’s decision to apologize and the choice, in which intensity it is done. Basically, three different levels of factors can be distinguished, namely

⁶ Blum-Kulka, Olshtain; p. 208 f.

9