Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 32:2 (2022) ► pp.274–298

Knowledge types and presuppositions

An analysis of strategic aspects of public apologies

| De La Salle University
ORCID logo | De La Salle University
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.
Keywords: speech acts, apologies, presuppositions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical and empirical backgrounds
    • 2.1Presupposition
    • 2.2Presupposition and knowledge types
    • 2.3The speech act of apology
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Data source and data gathering
    • 3.2Data analysis
  • 4.Results and analysis
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 27 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20043.nav
References (50)
References
Ancarno, Clyde S. 2015. “When are Public Apologies ‘Successful’? Focus on British and French Apology Press Uptakes.” Journal of Pragmatics 841: 139–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, John. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, David I. 2001. Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bekalu, Mesfin A. 2006. “Presupposition in News Discourse.” Discourse & Society 171: 147–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benoit, William L. 1997. “Image Repair Discourse and Crisis Communication.” Public Relations Review 231: 177–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Joshua M. 2015. “Shifting Identification: A Theory of Apologies and Pseudo-apologies.” Public Relations Review 411: 22–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain. 1984. “Requests and Apologies: A Cross-cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics 51: 196–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, David P. 2011. “Art and Artifice in Public Apologies.” Journal of Business Ethics 1041: 299–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cels, Sanderijn. 2015. “Interpreting Political Apologies: The Neglected Role of Performance.” Political Psychology 361: 351–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coombs, Timothy, and Sherry Holladay. 2008. “Comparing Apology to Equivalent Crisis Response Strategies: Clarifying Apology’s Role and Value in Crisis Communication.” Public Relations Review 341: 252–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Compton, Josh. 2016. “Sorry Sorries: Image Repair After Regretted Apologies.” Public Relations Review 421: 353–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Teaching 61: 29–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Kampf, Zohar. 2009. “Public (non-)apologies: The Discourse of Minimizing Responsibility.” Journal of Pragmatics 411: 2257–2270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “The Discourse of Public Apologies: Modes of Realization, Interpretation and Mediation.” In Public Apology Between Ritual and Regret, ed. by Daniël Cuypers, Daniel Janssen, Jacques Haers, and Barbara Segaert, 145–165. Netherlands: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Sandra, Karen Grainger, and Louise Mullany. 2006. “The Pragmatics of Political Apologies.” Discourse & Society 171: 715–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hays, Jeffrey. 2008. “Filipino Character and Personality: Hiya, Amor Propio, Emotions, and the Influences of Catholicism, Asia, and Spain.” March 20, 2020. [URL]
Huang, Yan. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, Suzanne, and Thompson, Geoffrey (eds.), 2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasquety-Reyes, Jeremiah. 2016. “In Defense of Hiya as a Filipino Virtue.” Asian Philosophy: An International Journal of the Philosophical Traditions of the East 261: 66–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 81: 339–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacLachlan, Alice. 2015. “‘Trust Me, I’m Sorry’: The Paradox of Public Apology.” The Monist 98 (4): 441–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marrus, Michael R. 2006. Official Apologies and the Quest for Historical Justice. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster. (2021). S.v. “Public Figure.” [URL]
Mojica, Leonisa. 2004. “Apology Strategies Perceived to be Appropriate by Filipino-speaking Couples.” Philippine Journal of Linguistics 341: 27–40.Google Scholar
Murphy, James. 2015. “Revisiting the Apology as a Speech Act: The Case of Parliamentary Apologies.” Journal of Language and Politics 141: 175–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Cayce. 2016. “Apology, Sympathy, and Empathy: The Legal Ramifications of Admitting Fault in U.S. Public Relations Practice.” Public Relations Review 421: 176–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nobles, Melissa. 2008. The Politics of Official Apologies . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Ogiermann, Eva. 2009. On Apologising in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Page, Ruth. 2014. “Saying ‘Sorry’: Corporate Apologies Posted on Twitter.” Journal of pragmatics 621: 30–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papi, Marcella B. 2003. “Implicitness.” In Handbook of Pragmatics Online, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saarinen, Tania. 2008. “Persuasive Presuppositions in OECD and EU Higher Education Policy Documents.” Discourse Studies 101: 341–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 1999. “Ideology and the Persuasive Use of Presupposition.” In Language and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference Vol. 11, ed. by Jef Verschueren, 492–509. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John, and Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirde Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication & Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1995. Relevance: Communication & Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 2002. “Pragmatic Presupposition.” In Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, Vol. IV: Presupposition, Implicature and Indirect Speech Acts, ed. by Asa Kasher, 46–62. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stephen, Matthew D. 2015. “‘Can You Pass the Salt?’ The Legitimacy of International Institutions and Indirect Speech.” European Journal of International Relations 211: 768–792. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Towner, Emil B. 2010. “Truly Public Apologies: Third-party Participation in Rwandan Apologetic Rhetoric.” Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 111: 63–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yule, George. 2006. The Study of Language (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2000. “Cognitive Discourse Analysis.” March 10, 2021. [URL]
2004. “Knowledge and News.” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 491:71–86.
2005. “Contextual Knowledge Management in Discourse Production: A CDA Perspective.” In A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Paul Chilton, 71–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weyeneth, Robert R. 2001. “The Power of Apology and the Process of Historical Reconciliation.” The Public Historian 23 (3): 9–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhanghong, Xiu, and Yanan Li. 2020. “A Pragmatic Study of Apologies Posted on Weibo by Chinese Celebrities.” International Journal of Literature and Arts 8 (2): 52–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Jadow, Muhammed Raad
2024. Presupposition as a Manipulation Strategy in President Biden's Reference to the War on Gaza. JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE STUDIES 8:8 ► pp. 298 ff. DOI logo
Anggraini, Merliyani Putri & Ratih Novita Sari
2023. Teacher Talk: A Pragmatic Analysis of Presupposition in English Teaching Classroom. In Proceedings of the 20th AsiaTEFL-68th TEFLIN-5th iNELTAL Conference (ASIATEFL 2022) [Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 749], ► pp. 410 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.