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.
Blum-Kulka/Olshtain1
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.
Apologie als 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
1 Blum-Kulka, S., Olshtain, E.; “Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns”
in: Applied Linguistics, 5 / 1984. (p. 196-213)
2 ebenda, p. 206
Table of Contents
1.Introduction
2.Blum – Kulka / Olshtain
2.1 Apology as a speech act: classification
2.2 Preconditions for an apology to take place
2.3 Apology strategies
2.3.1 Coding of an apology
2.3.2 Subcategories of the IFID
2.3.3 Subcategories of Taking on Responsibility
2.3.4 Explanation, offer of repair, promise of forbearance
2.3.5 Apology intensification
2.3.6 Factors for the choice of a specific apology intensity
3. Bruce Fraser
3.1 Apology as a speech act: classification
3.2 Apology: What do we believe to be true about the speaker?
3.3 Preconditions for an apology
3.4 Apology strategies
3.5 Factors influencing the choice of an apology strategy
4. Anna Trosborg
4.1 Apology: classification as a speech act
4.2 Factors influencing the choice of an apology
4.3 Apology categories
4.3.1 Complainee does not take on responsibility
4.3.2 Minimizing the degree of offence
4.3.3 Acknowledgement of responsibility
4.3.4 Explanation or account
4.3.5 Expression of apology
4.3.6 Offer of repair
4.3.7 Promise of forbearance
4.3.8 Expressing concern for hearer
5.Comparison and evaluation of the three models
5.1 Classification as a speech act
5.2 Preconditions for an apology
5.3 Apology strategies
5.4 Apology intensification
5.5 Factors influencing the choice of apology
6. Evaluation of the three models
Research Objectives and Topics
This paper examines various theoretical frameworks regarding apology strategies to understand how speakers perform this specific speech act. The primary research goal is to compare the models provided by Shoshana Blum-Kulka/Elite Olshtain, Bruce Fraser, and Anna Trosborg, evaluating their respective classifications, preconditions, and strategy taxonomies.
- Speech act classification of apologies
- Preconditions for the necessity of an apology
- Taxonomies of apology strategies and intensification methods
- Social and contextual factors influencing the choice of strategy
Excerpt from the Book
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.
Summary of Chapters
1.Introduction: This chapter outlines the scope of the paper, focusing on the selection and evaluation of three major theories regarding apology strategies.
2.Blum – Kulka / Olshtain: The chapter introduces the model developed by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, detailing their classification of apologies as post-event speech acts and their systematic approach to strategy coding.
3. Bruce Fraser: This section analyzes Fraser’s contribution to the theory of apologies, highlighting his focus on speaker beliefs and nine distinct strategies for performing an apology.
4. Anna Trosborg: The chapter presents Trosborg’s classification system, specifically focusing on the interactional dynamics between the complainee and the complainer and the variety of response categories.
5.Comparison and evaluation of the three models: This chapter provides a critical analysis of the similarities and differences between the three models regarding speech act classification, strategy usage, and influential social factors.
6. Evaluation of the three models: The author concludes by offering a final assessment, pointing out the strengths and limitations of each theoretical model while advocating for a combined analytical approach.
Keywords
Apology strategies, Speech acts, Pragmatics, Blum-Kulka, Bruce Fraser, Anna Trosborg, IFID, Face-saving, Social norms, Hearer-supportive, Complainee, Complainer, Remedial work, Mitigation, Intercultural communication.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper deals with various linguistic theories regarding apology strategies, specifically examining how different models conceptualize and categorize the act of apologizing.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
Key areas include the classification of apologies as speech acts, the preconditions required for an apology, strategies for strategy implementation, and factors influencing the intensity of an apology.
What is the core research objective?
The objective is to introduce the concepts developed by Blum-Kulka/Olshtain, Fraser, and Trosborg, compare their differences, and provide a final evaluation of their applicability.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The paper uses a comparative theoretical analysis approach, reviewing existing academic literature on speech act theory to contrast different frameworks.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the theoretical models of each author individually, focusing on their specific classifications, preconditions for apologies, and their detailed strategy taxonomies.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Keywords include apology strategies, speech acts, pragmatics, IFID, face-saving, and social norms.
How do the authors define the role of the 'IFID'?
Blum-Kulka and Olshtain define the IFID (Illocutionary Force Indicating Device) as a formulaic, routinized expression of regret, such as "to be sorry," which serves as a direct way of apologizing.
What is the distinction between a sincere and a ritual apology in Fraser's model?
Fraser distinguishes between an apology driven by a genuine feeling of regret versus a ritual apology, where the speaker merely fulfills social expectations, though the author questions the feasibility of identifying these internal states through text alone.
- Quote paper
- Maritta Schwartz (Author), 1999, Apology Strategies, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/5107
