Difference between revisions of "Heritage-etal2019"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=John Heritage; Chase Wesley Raymond; Paul Drew; |Title=Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offenses |...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | |Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | ||
|Volume=142 | |Volume=142 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=185–200 |
| − | |URL=https:// | + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216618300559 |
| − | |Abstract=Goffman (1971) proposed that apologies are, or at least should be, proportional to the | + | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.001 |
| − | + | |Abstract=Goffman (1971) proposed that apologies are, or at least should be, proportional to the offenses they are designed to remediate. In a previous quantitative study (Heritage & Raymond 2016), we found mixed support for such a principle of proportionality. The present article aims to unpack some of the difficulties encountered in that largely positivistic analysis, by adopting a constitutive approach to the design, deployment, and negotiation of apologies in sequences of interaction. We begin by examining cases of self-correction, in which participants can be seen to be orienting to the (in)appositeness of apology formulations to deal with particular offenses. We then offer an in-depth comparison of two cases involving what is ostensibly the ‘same’ virtual offense, but in which the stance of the apologizer in each is quite different. After discussing three possible approaches to the divergence between these two cases, we conclude by arguing that the principle of proportionality is best conceived of as a normative structure to which participants orient even in the context of departing from it, thereby providing for its maintenance. Data come from everyday conversation amongst American and British speakers of English. | |
| − | 2016), we found mixed support for such a principle of proportionality. The present article | ||
| − | aims to unpack some of the | ||
| − | adopting a constitutive approach to the design, deployment, and negotiation of apologies in | ||
| − | sequences of interaction. We begin by examining cases of self-correction, in which | ||
| − | |||
| − | with particular offenses.We then offer an in-depth comparison of two cases involving what | ||
| − | is ostensibly the ‘same’ virtual offense, but in which the stance of the apologizer in each is | ||
| − | quite different. After discussing three possible approaches to the divergence between these | ||
| − | two cases, we conclude by arguing that the principle of proportionality is best conceived of | ||
| − | as a normative structure | ||
| − | thereby providing for its maintenance. Data come from everyday conversation amongst | ||
| − | American and British speakers of English. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 01:23, 19 January 2020
| Heritage-etal2019 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Heritage-etal2019 |
| Author(s) | John Heritage, Chase Wesley Raymond, Paul Drew |
| Title | Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offenses |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation analysis (CA), Social interaction, Apologies, Accounts, Social relations, Accountability |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2019 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 142 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 185–200 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.001 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Goffman (1971) proposed that apologies are, or at least should be, proportional to the offenses they are designed to remediate. In a previous quantitative study (Heritage & Raymond 2016), we found mixed support for such a principle of proportionality. The present article aims to unpack some of the difficulties encountered in that largely positivistic analysis, by adopting a constitutive approach to the design, deployment, and negotiation of apologies in sequences of interaction. We begin by examining cases of self-correction, in which participants can be seen to be orienting to the (in)appositeness of apology formulations to deal with particular offenses. We then offer an in-depth comparison of two cases involving what is ostensibly the ‘same’ virtual offense, but in which the stance of the apologizer in each is quite different. After discussing three possible approaches to the divergence between these two cases, we conclude by arguing that the principle of proportionality is best conceived of as a normative structure to which participants orient even in the context of departing from it, thereby providing for its maintenance. Data come from everyday conversation amongst American and British speakers of English.
Notes
