1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 32, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 32, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Public apologies are so prevalent in our social lives that they have become a subject of scholarly investigation all over the globe. The present study, which involves coding, frequency counting, and qualitative analysis, examines the strategic aspects of 16 public apologies issued to Filipino apologizees. The results of our analysis indicate that apologizers often choose varied knowledge types and draw upon presuppositions to strategically omit details that can negatively influence their credibility and the reception of their apology. More specifically, apologizers use the audience’s presuppositions to avoid presenting common knowledge of the offense that may incriminate them further; they also omit the mention of future action that may hold them more accountable for their transgressions. Our present analysis bolsters the view that although the sincerity of public apologies cannot be exactly measured, they are still performed as part of image repair and management of interpersonal relationships.

© International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20043.nav
2021-08-27
2023-11-29

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.20043.nav
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/prag.20043.nav.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20043.nav&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ancarno, Clyde S.
    2015 “When are Public Apologies ‘Successful’? Focus on British and French Apology Press Uptakes.” Journal of Pragmatics84: 139–153. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.015 [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, John
    1962 How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Beaver, David I.
    2001 Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bekalu, Mesfin A.
    2006 “Presupposition in News Discourse.” Discourse & Society17: 147–172. 10.1177/0957926506060248
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060248 [Google Scholar]
  5. Benoit, William L.
    1997 “Image Repair Discourse and Crisis Communication.” Public Relations Review23: 177–186.   10.1016/S0363‑8111(97)90023‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90023-0 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bentley, Joshua M.
    2015 “Shifting Identification: A Theory of Apologies and Pseudo-apologies.” Public Relations Review41: 22–29. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.011 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain
    1984 “Requests and Apologies: A Cross-cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics5: 196–213. 10.1093/applin/5.3.196
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
    1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  9. Boyd, David P.
    2011 “Art and Artifice in Public Apologies.” Journal of Business Ethics104: 299–309. 10.1007/s10551‑011‑0915‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0915-9 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cels, Sanderijn
    2015 “Interpreting Political Apologies: The Neglected Role of Performance.” Political Psychology36: 351–360. 10.1111/pops.12092
     https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12092 [Google Scholar]
  11. Coombs, Timothy, and Sherry Holladay
    2008 “Comparing Apology to Equivalent Crisis Response Strategies: Clarifying Apology’s Role and Value in Crisis Communication.” Public Relations Review34: 252–257. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.04.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Compton, Josh
    2016 “Sorry Sorries: Image Repair After Regretted Apologies.” Public Relations Review42: 353–358. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  13. De La Rosa, John Paul O., and Lorna B. Castro
    2016 “Is It Too Late Now to Say Sorry? The Language of Public Apologies in the Contexts of American and Philippine Television.” i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching6: 29–44. 10.26634/jelt.6.2.5979
     https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.6.2.5979 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goffman, Erving
    1967 Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gonzalez-Cruz, Maria Isabel
    2012 “Apologizing in Spanish: A Study of the Strategies Used by University Students in Las Palmas De Gran Canaria.” Pragmatics22:543–565. 10.1075/prag.22.4.01gon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22.4.01gon [Google Scholar]
  16. Kampf, Zohar
    2009 “Public (non-)apologies: The Discourse of Minimizing Responsibility.” Journal of Pragmatics41: 2257–2270. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.11.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2013 “The Discourse of Public Apologies: Modes of Realization, Interpretation and Mediation.” InPublic Apology Between Ritual and Regret, ed. byDaniël Cuypers, Daniel Janssen, Jacques Haers, and Barbara Segaert, 145–165. Netherlands: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401209533_009
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401209533_009 [Google Scholar]
  18. Harris, Sandra, Karen Grainger, and Louise Mullany
    2006 “The Pragmatics of Political Apologies.” Discourse & Society17: 715–737. 10.1177/0957926506068429
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506068429 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hays, Jeffrey
    2008 “Filipino Character and Personality: Hiya, Amor Propio, Emotions, and the Influences of Catholicism, Asia, and Spain.” March20 2020 Http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Philippines/sub5_6c/entry-3867.html
  20. Huang, Yan
    2007 Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hunston, Suzanne, and Thompson, Geoffrey
    (eds.) 2000 Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  22. Lasquety-Reyes, Jeremiah
    2016 “In Defense of Hiya as a Filipino Virtue.” Asian Philosophy: An International Journal of the Philosophical Traditions of the East26: 66–78. 10.1080/09552367.2015.1136203
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2015.1136203 [Google Scholar]
  23. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lewis, David
    1979 “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic8: 339–359. 10.1007/BF00258436
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436 [Google Scholar]
  25. MacLachlan, Alice
    2015 “‘Trust Me, I’m Sorry’: The Paradox of Public Apology.” The Monist98 (4): 441–456. 10.1093/monist/onv023
     https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onv023 [Google Scholar]
  26. Marrus, Michael R.
    2006 Official Apologies and the Quest for Historical Justice. Toronto: University of Toronto.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Merriam-Webster
    Merriam-Webster (2021) S.v. “Public Figure.” https://www.merriam/webster.com/dictionary/public%20figure
  28. Mojica, Leonisa
    2004 “Apology Strategies Perceived to be Appropriate by Filipino-speaking Couples.” Philippine Journal of Linguistics34: 27–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Murphy, James
    2015 “Revisiting the Apology as a Speech Act: The Case of Parliamentary Apologies.” Journal of Language and Politics14: 175–204. 10.1075/jlp.14.2.01mur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.14.2.01mur [Google Scholar]
  30. Myers, Cayce
    2016 “Apology, Sympathy, and Empathy: The Legal Ramifications of Admitting Fault in U.S. Public Relations Practice.” Public Relations Review42: 176–183. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  31. Nobles, Melissa
    2008 The Politics of Official Apologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   10.1017/CBO9780511756252
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511756252
  32. Oclaret, Venjie N.
    2013 “Apology Strategies of Filipino and Filipino-Chinese Third Year High School Students.” (Unpublished research paper) Philippine Normal University–Manila, Manila, Philippines.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Ogiermann, Eva
    2009 On Apologising in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.191
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.191 [Google Scholar]
  34. Page, Ruth
    2014 “Saying ‘Sorry’: Corporate Apologies Posted on Twitter.” Journal of pragmatics62: 30–45. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  35. Papi, Marcella B.
    2003 “Implicitness.” InHandbook of Pragmatics Online, ed. byJan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   10.1075/hop.3.imp2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.3.imp2 [Google Scholar]
  36. Saarinen, Tania
    2008 “Persuasive Presuppositions in OECD and EU Higher Education Policy Documents.” Discourse Studies10: 341–359. 10.1177/1461445608089915
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608089915 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sbisà, Marina
    1999 “Ideology and the Persuasive Use of Presupposition.” InLanguage and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics ConferenceVol.1, ed. byJef Verschueren, 492–509. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Searle, John
    1979 Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  39. Searle, John, and Daniel Vanderveken
    1985 Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Sperber, Dan, and Deirde Wilson
    1986  Relevance: Communication & Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 1995 Relevance: Communication & Cognition. 2nd ed.Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Stalnaker, Robert C.
    2002 “Pragmatic Presupposition.” InPragmatics: Critical Concepts, Vol. IV: Presupposition, Implicature and Indirect Speech Acts, ed. byAsa Kasher, 46–62. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Stephen, Matthew D.
    2015 “‘Can You Pass the Salt?’ The Legitimacy of International Institutions and Indirect Speech.” European Journal of International Relations21: 768–792. 10.1177/1354066114563417
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066114563417 [Google Scholar]
  44. Towner, Emil B.
    2010 “Truly Public Apologies: Third-party Participation in Rwandan Apologetic Rhetoric.” Qualitative Research Reports in Communication11: 63–69. 10.1080/17459430903582228
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17459430903582228 [Google Scholar]
  45. Yule, George
    2006 The Study of Language (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    2000 “Cognitive Discourse Analysis.” March10 2021 www.discursos.org/unpublished%20articles/cogn-dis-anal.htm
  47. 2004 “Knowledge and News.” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses49:71–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 2005 “Contextual Knowledge Management in Discourse Production: A CDA Perspective.” InA New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity, ed. byRuth Wodak and Paul Chilton, 71–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.13.07dij
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.13.07dij [Google Scholar]
  49. Weyeneth, Robert R.
    2001 “The Power of Apology and the Process of Historical Reconciliation.” The Public Historian23 (3): 9–38. 10.1525/tph.2001.23.3.9
     https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2001.23.3.9 [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhanghong, Xiu, and Yanan Li
    2020 “A Pragmatic Study of Apologies Posted on Weibo by Chinese Celebrities.” International Journal of Literature and Arts8 (2): 52–61. 10.11648/j.ijla.20200802.14
     https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijla.20200802.14 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20043.nav
Loading
Knowledge types and presuppositions
Pragmatics 32, 274 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20043.nav
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20043.nav
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20043.nav
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): apologies; presuppositions; speech acts

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error