Difference between revisions of "Murphy2016"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
m (published) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=J. Murphy | |Author(s)=J. Murphy | ||
|Title=Apologies made at the Leveson Inquiry: Triggers and responses | |Title=Apologies made at the Leveson Inquiry: Triggers and responses | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Apologies; Courtroom; Political communication; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Apologies; Courtroom; Political communication; remedial work; Needs Review; |
|Key=Murphy2016 | |Key=Murphy2016 | ||
|Year=2016 | |Year=2016 | ||
|Journal=Pragmatics and Society | |Journal=Pragmatics and Society | ||
| − | |URL=http:// | + | |Volume=7 |
| + | |Number=4 | ||
| + | |Pages=595-617 | ||
| + | |URL=http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.7.4.04mur | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1075/ps.7.4.04mur | ||
|Abstract=This paper discusses apologies made by politicians at a recent UK public inquiry, The Leveson Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press. I use the freely available data from the Inquiry to explore how politicians apologise in this interactional setting, contrasting it with more usual monologic political apologies. Firstly, I identify the sorts of actions which may be seen as apologisable. I then take a conversation analytic approach to explore how the apologies can come as a result of an overt complaint and how the apologies are reacted to by counsel and the Inquiry chair. I show that, unlike in everyday conversation, apologies are not the first pair parts of adjacency pairs (cf. Robinson, 2004), but rather form action chains (Pomerantz, 1978) where the absence of a response is unmarked. I conclude with some observations on how apology tokens may be losing their apologetic meaning. | |Abstract=This paper discusses apologies made by politicians at a recent UK public inquiry, The Leveson Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press. I use the freely available data from the Inquiry to explore how politicians apologise in this interactional setting, contrasting it with more usual monologic political apologies. Firstly, I identify the sorts of actions which may be seen as apologisable. I then take a conversation analytic approach to explore how the apologies can come as a result of an overt complaint and how the apologies are reacted to by counsel and the Inquiry chair. I show that, unlike in everyday conversation, apologies are not the first pair parts of adjacency pairs (cf. Robinson, 2004), but rather form action chains (Pomerantz, 1978) where the absence of a response is unmarked. I conclude with some observations on how apology tokens may be losing their apologetic meaning. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 10:12, 6 August 2017
| Murphy2016 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Murphy2016 |
| Author(s) | J. Murphy |
| Title | Apologies made at the Leveson Inquiry: Triggers and responses |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Apologies, Courtroom, Political communication, remedial work, Needs Review |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2016 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Pragmatics and Society |
| Volume | 7 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 595-617 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1075/ps.7.4.04mur |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper discusses apologies made by politicians at a recent UK public inquiry, The Leveson Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press. I use the freely available data from the Inquiry to explore how politicians apologise in this interactional setting, contrasting it with more usual monologic political apologies. Firstly, I identify the sorts of actions which may be seen as apologisable. I then take a conversation analytic approach to explore how the apologies can come as a result of an overt complaint and how the apologies are reacted to by counsel and the Inquiry chair. I show that, unlike in everyday conversation, apologies are not the first pair parts of adjacency pairs (cf. Robinson, 2004), but rather form action chains (Pomerantz, 1978) where the absence of a response is unmarked. I conclude with some observations on how apology tokens may be losing their apologetic meaning.
Notes
