Apology
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Apology | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Chase Wesley Raymond (University of Colorado, Boulder, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4353-7345) |
| To cite: | Raymond, Chase Wesley (2024). Apology. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [1] |
An apology is a social action whereby the producer enacts a claim to have offended the recipient, thereby implicitly admitting personal responsibility for the offense (Robinson 2004). Importantly, as Goffman (1971) clarifies, the offense in question may be “virtual” in that the apology can be issued before any demonstration of ‘being offended’ on the part of the recipient; the apologizer thereby reflexively constructs the offensiveness of the event through the very production of the apology (Heritage, et al. 2019).
Apologies are closely related to other so-called ‘offense-remedial actions’, such as accounts and accepting blame, and for this reason, as Robinson (2004) reviews, these action types have been much conflated in various traditions of research. However, because apologies can indeed be distinguished as such by participants, researchers adopting interactional approaches have found it useful to focus on apologies as social actions in their own right (see, e.g., Björk-Willén 2018; Drew 2024; see also Haugh & Chang 2019 and Holtgraves 1989 for experimental approaches).
Since the 1980s, there has been a proliferation of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural studies on apologies, especially as part of what has been referred to as a “testing ground” (Kádár & Mills 2011) for “Eastern” vs. “Western” theories of politeness (cf. Brown & Levinson 1987). In their influential paper, Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), for instance, compared apology realization patterns between native and non-native speakers across eight languages, inspiring decades of focus on such comparisons, including across acquisition proficiency levels (e.g., Chang 2010; Chang & Ren 2020; Liu & Chen 2021; Liu & Wang 2022). Research in Conversation Analysis contributes to these and other longstanding themes in apology research by focusing on apologies as they are produced in naturally-occurring social-interactional contexts of various sorts. Specifically, CA scholars have been interested in (i) the design of apology turns themselves, and (ii) the sequential environments, sequelae, and implications associated with apology turns. (On the use of apologies as a pedagogical tool for teaching CA methods, see Drew 2024; Drew, et al. 2024; for an overview of other discursive approaches to apologies, see Lakoff 2015 and Owen 1983.)
With regard to design, it has been noted that apology turns vary with regard to their compositional structure. Some are brief and minimal, composed of just a bare “sorry” in English, for instance; while others are more complex, composed of multiple units, e.g., I’m [intensifier] sorry + account + promise of future action (see Cirillo, et al. 2016; Fatigante, et al. 2016; Galatolo, et al. 2016; Margutti, et al. 2016). Taking inspiration from Goffman’s (1971) ‘principle of proportionality’, Heritage and Raymond (2016) and Heritage, Raymond, and Drew (2019) illustrate that English apologies with more minimal designs reflexively construct more ‘minimal’ virtual offenses (e.g., other-initiated repair; see below), whereas more maximal designs reflexively construct the virtual offense as more offensive. For more on the design components involved in implementing apology actions, see, e.g., Pino, et al. (2016) on the use of change-of-state tokens to preface apologies, and Greer (2022) on embodied practices.
Research on the design of apologies is intimately related to research on the sequential dimensions of such turns. When constituting first-pair parts, apologies embody a preference organization such that “preferred responses mitigate or undermine” the apologizer’s claim to have caused offense, whereas “dispreferred responses endorse” the claim to having caused offense (Robinson 2004:292). Apologizers have therefore been shown to shift the design of their apology turn in pursuit of a preferred response (e.g., absolution), typically by extending the apologizing turn and sequence to incorporate more of the aforementioned components. This again relates to Goffman’s (1971) principle of proportionality’, in that absolution can be withheld until an apology that is deemed sufficiently proportional to the offense caused is produced; the participants thereby collaboratively and reflexively constitute the offensiveness of the event in question (Heritage, et al. 2019).
In the following example (1), taken from British English, Myra’s apology turns cast her lack of attendance at an upcoming meeting as a particularly grave offense, in addition to the offense of not calling to inform Leslie sooner. This is illustrated not only by the repeated “I’m [intensifier] sorry” units (bold), but also their concomitant production alongside additional units that offer accounts (e.g., lines 13-15), attempts to “get round” (line 36) the problem, and so on. Leslie, by contrast, through her responsive turns, consistently downplays the offensiveness of these events (lines 22, 28, 30, 33, 38, 53-54):
(1) [Field:C85:3] (Heritage, et al. 2019) 11 Les: ↑Are you thinkin:g of comin:g t'the meeting t'↓night 12 Myr: D'you know I'm: terribly ↓sorry. I wz gun' to ring you 13 in a short while hhh I've had a phone call fr'm ↓Ben, 14 he's down in Devon. 'n he's not gun' to get back 15 t'night, hh[hh 16 Les: [Ye[s. 17 Myr: [An' Mummy's goin' t'this khh-(.) ku-uh:m 18 Les: that[k-[yes of cou:rse I]think my husband's goin't'that= 19 Myr: [ca[r o l conce:rt.] 20 Les: =too↓:.= 21 Myr: =I'm dreadf'ly sorry,[ it's hhh ] hones]tly ah-ah- this= 22 Les: [That's ↑al]ri:ght] 23 Myr: =is why: I (.) almost gave up doing ev(h)rything khh 24 Les: [Yes. 25 Myr: [( ) in the evenings, bec[uz Ben is (.) well I'll= 26 Les: [Yes. 27 Myr: =not say he's unre↓liable I don't[mean that]b'y'know]wt= 28 Les: [ Oh (we) ]k n o :w]hhh 29 Myr: =I mean hh[hhhhh 30 Les: [This hap'n[s t'me ↓to]o 31 Myr: [U h : m] 32 Myr: Oh I'm dreadf'ly sorry ab[ou:t it I wz]ih-[in fac- 33 Les: [ N o n o ] [( ) 34 (.) 35 Myr: I've just been t'fetch Katherine f'm her piano l'sn I wz- 36 e-on the way back I wz thinking now how c'n I get round 37 ↓this. But I don't think I can Le[slie, 38 Les: [No: not to ↑worry[: 39 Myr: [I'm 40 sorry- ↑can I↑ (.) join in as from sort'v: January 41 onward[(s) 42 Les: [Yes[ y o u-]y-you-di-you] ↑don't haf to ↓go to= 43 Myr: [f'th'ne]w y e a :r,] 44 Les: every meeting, I[suppose li]ke the b-Evi↓kreech one˘ 45 Myr: [N o : : - ] 46 (.) 47 Myr: Ye:h no ih tha-:t's ri:ght. Th[at's how we use to= 48 Les: [Yes. 49 Myr: =org'nize it b't th:↑ank you very m'ch f'r asking me 50 a[n : d PLEASE]I uh I ↑am interested, but I(h)'m= 51 Les: [↓Ri::ght then] (cz it)- 52 Myr: =s:o(h)rry (h)abou(h)t t'ni(h)i[:ght. 53 Les: [Ye::s that u-that dzn't 54 Les: matter a[t a:ll.]°( )° 55 Myr: [ hehhh ]Alright= 56 Les: =[0 k a y] 57 Myr: =[thank you for] ↓ring[ing me] 58 Les: [ ↑BYE:]:[:, 59 Myr: [Bye bye
Importantly, while absolution can be given in response to an apology turn, absolution may also be offered up without any apology having first been issued. In such cases, the apology action itself can be interactionally cast as “absent” (Drew & Hepburn 2016).
Robinson (2004) highlights that apology-based formats can also be used in the design of actions that arguably do not accomplish apologizing as their primary social action. A bare “Sorry?”, for example, can be used as an ‘open-class’ repair initiator (Drew 1997), thereby making relevant a repeat of the problematic turn, as opposed to absolution. Compared to other ‘open-class’ repair initiators, though, Robinson (2006) argues that apology-based formats index repair-initiators’ stances that responsibility for the trouble belongs to themselves (i.e., their own mishearing or misunderstanding), rather than to their addressees (i.e., their addressees’ misspeaking) (see also Park & Duey 2020). Through the use of such repair initiators, apologizers thus construct a virtual offense that is ‘local’ or ‘endogenous’ to the interaction—namely a hindrance of progressivity for which they themselves claim to be at fault (cf. ‘distal/exogenous’ offenses; Heritage & Raymond 2016). The line between apologies as social actions in their own right, and apologies as vehicles to effectuate other actions, is a fuzzy one.
Finally, the specifics of apologies (both their design and their uptake) have been examined for their relevance to particular institutional participants, contexts, and the activities conducted therein. For instance, White, et al. (2024) describe Australian surgeons’ apologies for lateness in clinical settings (including the fact that such apologies are quite infrequent), and Murphy (2015) analyzes public apologies made by UK politicians (where offenses of a financial nature were found to be constructed as the most “offensive”) (see also Kádár, et al. 2018). Use of apologies by members of particular communities—e.g., L2 speakers (especially of English) (Kotani 2002), aphasic speakers (Rhys 2013)—have similarly been a locus of sustained research, where apology practices have been shown to serve distinct interactional functions, like “warranting interactional progress” for a speaker with aphasia (Rhys 2013). As a remedial action with social implications that are plainly oriented to by participants, apologies offer a worthwhile window into a range of context- and participant-specific negotiations of responsibility and morality.
Additional Related Entries:
- Assessment
- Change-of-state token
- Gap
- Incipient talk
- Micropause
- Pause
- Transition-relevance place (TRP)
- Turn-taking
Cited References:
Björk-Willén, P. (2018). Learning to apologize: Moral socialization as an interactional practice in preschool. Research on Children and Social Interaction, 2(2), 177–194.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3):196-213.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Chang, Y.F. (2010). 'I no say you say is boring': the development of pragmatic competence in L2 apology. Language Sciences, 32:408-424.
Chang, Y.-F., & Ren, W. (2020). Sociopragmatic competence in American and Chinese children’s realization of apology and refusal. Journal of Pragmatics, 164:27-39.
Cirillo, Letizia, Carvajal, Isabel Colón de, & Ticca, Anna Claudia. (2016). “I’m Sorry + Naming the Offense”: A Format for Apologizing. Discourse Processes, 53(1–2), 83–96.
Cui, X. & J. L. (2012). 中日道歉言语行为对比——提出创新性分析框架解读说话人的语言表达 [Comparative study of Japanese-Chinese apologizing spoken language and behavior.] 东北师大学报 (哲学社会科学版) Journal of Northeast Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2012(1):101-104.
Drew, P. (1997). “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 69–101.
Drew, P. (2024). History of a Collection: Apologies. In Jeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick, & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Methods in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P., Ostermann, A.C., & Raymond, C.W. (2024). Conversation Analysis as a Comparative Methodology. In Jeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick, & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Methods in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P., & Hepburn, A. (2016). Absent apologies. Discourse Processes, 53(1–2), 114–131.
Fatigante, Marilena, Biassoni, Federica, Marazzini, Francesca, & Diadori, Pierangela. (2016). Responsibility and Culpability in Apologies: Distinctive Uses of “Sorry” versus “I’m Sorry” in Apologizing. Discourse Processes, 53(1–2), 26–46.
Galatolo, Renata, Biagio Ursi, & Ramona Bongelli. (2016). Parasitic apologies. Discourse Processes, 53(1–2), 97–113.
Greer, T. (2022). Multimodal Action Formation in Second Language Talk: Japanese Speakers’ Use of the Gassho Gesture in English Apology Sequences. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 5(1).
Haugh, M., & Chang, W.-L. M. (2019). “The apology seemed (in)sincere”: Variability in perceptions of (im)politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 207–222.
Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (2016). Are explicit apologies proportional to the offenses they address? Discourse Processes, 53(1–2), 5–25.
Heritage, J., Raymond, C. W., & Drew, P. (2019). Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offenses. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 185–200.
Kádár D.Z., & Mills, S. (2011). Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge University Press.
Kádár, D.Z., Ning, P., & Ran, Y. (2018). Public Ritual Apology – A Case Study of Chinese. Discourse, Context and Media, 26:21-31.
Kotani, M. (2002). Expressing Gratitude and Indebtedness: Japanese Speakers’ Use of “I’m Sorry” in English Conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(1), 39–72.
Lakoff, R. T. (2015). Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies The Necessity for Interdisciplinary Theory and Method in Discourse Analysis. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 290–308).
Liu, C.-T., & Chen, Y.-S. (2021). On the relationship between intrinsic saliency and implicit learning of apologetic strategies: The case of Taiwanese EFL learners. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(4):1310-1319.
Liu, J., & Wang, X. (2022). 汉语母语者与非汉语母语学习者言语行为的元语用评估—以请求和道歉为例 [Metapragmatic Assessment of Speech Acts by Native and Non⁃Native Chinese Speakers: A Case Study of Requests and Apologies]. 现代外语 Modern Foreign Languages, 2022 45(3):344-356.
Murphy, J. (2015). Revisiting the apology as a speech act: The case of parliamentary apologies. Journal of Language and Politics 14(2), 175–204.
Owen, M. (2019). Apologies and remedial interchanges: A study of language use in social interaction. De Gruyter.
Park, Innhwa & Duey, Margo. (2020). I’m sorry (to interrupt): The use of explicit apology in turn-taking. Applied Linguistics Review, 11(3): 377-401.
Pino, Marco, Pozzuoli, Loredana, Riccioni, Ilaria, & Castellarin, Valentine. (2016). “Oh” + Apology + Solution: A Practice for Managing the Concomitant Presence of a Possible Offense and a Problem-to-be-Solved. Discourse Processes, 53(1–2), 47–62.
Rhys, C. S. (2013). Choosing Not to Repair: Sorry as a Warrant for Interactional Progress. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(1), 84–103.
Robinson, J. D. (2004). The Sequential Organization of “Explicit” Apologies in Naturally Occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(3), 291–330.
Robinson, J. D. (2006). Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair. Communication Monographs, 73, 137–161.
White, S. J., Ho, K., Maini, K., & Liang, R. (2024). “Sorry for Holding You Up”: Surgeons’ Apologies for Lateness in Clinic Settings. Health Communication, 1–12.
Additional References:
Chen, R. (2023). Chinese Politeness: Diachrony, Variation, and Universals in Politeness Theory. Cambridge University Press. Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2):237-257.
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as Accounts: A Conversation Analytic Perspective. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Understanding Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods (pp. 127–144). Sage.
Yang, N., & Hu, J. (2023). Getting involved or acting in defence: How a corporation uses the ritual act of apology in response to public criticism. Pragmatics and Society, 14(3):410-433.
