Knowledge types and presuppositions: An analysis of strategic aspects of public apologies
Jocelyn A. S.Navera and LeahGustilo
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.
In a world where social media reigns, every small action is documented. What was once private, only for those who are close enough to be privy to one’s littlest movements, is now public, where one’s remotest acquaintance can get a glimpse and even comment on any move one makes. It is no surprise then that apologies, which used to be interpersonal events that happen in the most private of spheres, have now gone public. From motorists who err on the highway to presidents who sin on the national stage, public apologies are even more relevant now than when they first became an important focus of investigation in the 1980s among discourse analysts and sociolinguists (Gonzalez-Cruz 2012, 543; Kampf 2013, 148; Maclachlan 2015; Zhanghong and Li 2020).
Ancarno, Clyde S.
2015 “When are Public Apologies ‘Successful’? Focus on British and French Apology Press Uptakes.” Journal of Pragmatics 84: 139–153.
1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Beaver, David I.
2001Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Bekalu, Mesfin A.
2006 “Presupposition in News Discourse.” Discourse & Society 17: 147–172.
Benoit, William L.
1997 “Image Repair Discourse and Crisis Communication.” Public Relations Review 23: 177–186.
Bentley, Joshua M.
2015 “Shifting Identification: A Theory of Apologies and Pseudo-apologies.” Public Relations Review 41: 22–29.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain
1984 “Requests and Apologies: A Cross-cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics 5: 196–213.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boyd, David P.
2011 “Art and Artifice in Public Apologies.” Journal of Business Ethics 104: 299–309.
2015 “Interpreting Political Apologies: The Neglected Role of Performance.” Political Psychology 36: 351–360.
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 34: 252–257.
2016 “Sorry Sorries: Image Repair After Regretted Apologies.” Public Relations Review 42: 353–358.
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 6: 29–44.
1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Gonzalez-Cruz, Maria Isabel
2012 “Apologizing in Spanish: A Study of the Strategies Used by University Students in Las Palmas De Gran Canaria.” Pragmatics 22:543–565.
2009 “Public (non-)apologies: The Discourse of Minimizing Responsibility.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2257–2270.
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.
Harris, Sandra, Karen Grainger, and Louise Mullany
2006 “The Pragmatics of Political Apologies.” Discourse & Society 17: 715–737.
2004 “Apology Strategies Perceived to be Appropriate by Filipino-speaking Couples.” Philippine Journal of Linguistics 34: 27–40.
2015 “Revisiting the Apology as a Speech Act: The Case of Parliamentary Apologies.” Journal of Language and Politics 14: 175–204.
2016 “Apology, Sympathy, and Empathy: The Legal Ramifications of Admitting Fault in U.S. Public Relations Practice.” Public Relations Review 42: 176–183.
2008The Politics of Official Apologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
2009On Apologising in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2014 “Saying ‘Sorry’: Corporate Apologies Posted on Twitter.” Journal of pragmatics 62: 30–45.
Papi, Marcella B.
2003 “Implicitness.” In Handbook of Pragmatics Online, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2008 “Persuasive Presuppositions in OECD and EU Higher Education Policy Documents.” Discourse Studies 10: 341–359.
1999 “Ideology and the Persuasive Use of Presupposition.” In Language and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference Vol. 1, ed. by Jef Verschueren, 492–509. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
1979Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John, and Daniel Vanderveken
1985Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirde Wilson
1986Relevance: Communication & Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirde Wilson
1995Relevance: Communication & Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
Stephen, Matthew D.
2015 “ ‘Can You Pass the Salt?’ The Legitimacy of International Institutions and Indirect Speech.” European Journal of International Relations 21: 768–792.
Towner, Emil B.
2010 “Truly Public Apologies: Third-party Participation in Rwandan Apologetic Rhetoric.” Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 11: 63–69.
2006The Study of Language (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2004 “Knowledge and News.” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 49:71–86.
Van Dijk, Teun A.
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.
Weyeneth, Robert R.
2001 “The Power of Apology and the Process of Historical Reconciliation.” The Public Historian 23 (3): 9–38.
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.