Apology Strategies

by Maritta Schwartz

Content List

1. Introduction 5

2. Blum - Kulka / Olshtain 5

2.1 Apology as a speech act: classification 5
2.2 Preconditions for an apology to take place 5

2.3 Apology strategies 6
2.3.1 Coding of an apology 7
2.3.2 Subcategories of the IFID 7
2.3.3 Subcategories of Taking on Responsibility 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

3. Bruce Fraser 10

3.1 Apology as a speech act: classification 11
3.2 Apology: What do we believe to be true about the speaker? 12
3.3 Preconditions for an apology 12
3.4 Apology strategies 12
3.5 Factors influencing the choice of an apology strategy 14

4. Anna Trosborg 15

4.1 Apology: classification as a speech act 15
4.2 Factors influencing the choice of an apology 16

4.3 Apology categories 17
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

5. Comparison and evaluation of the three models 21

5.1 Classification as a speech act 21
5.2 Preconditions for an apology 21
5.3 Apology strategies 22
5.4 Apology intensification 23
5.5 Factors influencing the choice of apology 23

6. Evaluation of the three models 23

7. Bibliography 26

1. Introduction

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.

2. Blum - Kulka / Olshtain

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.

2.1 Apology as a speech act: classification

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.

2.2 Preconditions for an apology to take place

There are three preconditions that are inevitable for an apology to take place:
· S (= speaker) did X ( = event in question) or abstained from doing X (or is about to do it).
· X is perceived by S only, by H (= hearer) only or by both S and H or by a third party as a break of a social norm.
· X is perceived by at least one of the parties involved as offending, harming or affecting H in some way.
S must be aware of all three preconditions and infer the need for him / her to apologize. As a consequence, the apology takes place. S pays tribute to the social norms and attempts to placate the hearer.
The authors mention another possible case. This is the situation in which S recognizes an offence before H 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.

2.3 Apology strategies

First we have the explicit illocutionary force indicating device (= IFID). This is a routinized, formulaic expression of regret, like sorry, to apologize, to excuse, to regret etc. The function of the IFID is to signal regret on S′s part for X, in order to placate H. Within the IFIDs we find a certain scale of conventionality. In the English language, "to be sorry" is the most common expression of all IFIDs.
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 IFID, 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 X, b) S′s responsibility for X or c) S′s willingness to offer repair for X or d) S′s promise of forbearance.
In other words, we have the IFID and four potential strategies of performing an apology, namely the explanation of the cause that brought about the offence, an expression of S′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 IFID 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.

[...]