f apologies to provide remedy for an offense and restore social equilibrium or harmony (Edmonson 1981, p. 280, leech, 1983, p. 25) (cited in Holmes, 1990, p. 159). Holmes(1990) defines an ‘apology’ is a speech act addressed to B’s face needs and intended to remedy an offense for which it takes responsibility , and thus to restore equilibrium between A and B (where A is the apologizer and B is the person offended). Apologies, like compliments, are primarily aimed at maintaining on supporting the addressee’s and in some cases the apologizer’s “face” (Goffman 1967). According to Brown and Levinson (1987), apologies are negative politeness strategies because they are face treating to the apologizer.”
Olshtain (1985, p.184) defines an apology as “a speech act which to intended to provide support for the hearer who was actually or potentially affected by violation”. when one offers an apology ,one shows willingness to humiliate oneself to an extent that make an apology a face-saving act for the hearer and face-threatening act for speaker. Apologies fall under expressive speech acts in which speakers attempt to indicate their attitude. In order for an apology to have an effect, it should reflect true feelings. One cannot effectively apologize to another and truly reach him/her unless one portrays honest feelings of sorrow and regret for whatever one has done (Gooder and Jacobs, 2000).
Apologies fall under expressive speech acts in which speaker attempt to indicate their state or attitude. In order for an apology to have an effect, it should reflect true feelings. One cannot effectively apologize to another and truly reach him/her unless one portrays honest feelings of sorrow and regret for whatever one has done” (fahmi, R. & fahmi, Rula, 2006, p.193).
An apology for Goffman (1971, p.140) is one type of ‘remedy’ among other. For Holmes (1995, p.155) it is a speech act that is intended to remedy the offense for which the apology take responsibility and as a result, to rebalance social relation between interlocutors”( Holmes 1995, cited in Nureeden 1993, p.281).
According to Olshtain and Cohen (1983, p.20) an apology is called for when social norms have been violated whether the offense is real or perceived. Every society has its own socio-cultural and communicative behaviors that relate to face (Goffman,1967) and politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1987) cognizant of the fact that interlocutors would under normal circumstances want to maintain the social face and be friendly and thus be liked (positive politeness). Interlocutors pay extra attention to their face need as well as the face-needs of all other international participants, interacts thus make every effort to save the face of all possible interactional participants. Leech (1983) labels this communicative strategy’ the tact maxim ? and notes that it is a strategy for avoiding conflict, specifically the goal of an apology as communicative strategy is the maintenance of harmony between interlocutors (Obeng 1999, p.712).
Olshtain and Cohen (1983, p.22) perceive apology as a social event when they point out that is performed when social norms are violated. Bergman and kasper (1993, p. 82) emphasize this view as they see that the purpose of apology is to reestablish social relation harmony after the offense is committed.
For her part, Lakoff (1997) notes that politeness and apologies are devices employed by interactants to help reduce friction in interpersonal communication. Thus, apologies provide a remedy for an offense and help restore harmony as well as social equilibrium (Holmes, 1995: Edmondson, 1981: Leech, 1993).
“Apologies are like other speech acts in that they are often performed through conventionalized or ritualized utterances. According to Hudson (1980:52) conventionalizing any linguistic pattern is a matter of historical accident. Once expressions are selected in preference to others to be used to perform certain acts, it becomes a necessity that they be used and interpreted as such. Certain forms are more conventional used more often others, such as (I am sorry) means “forgiveness” (Blum Kulka and Olshtain, 1984).
Blum-Kulka and Kasper (1993, p.59) state that speech acts differ in the extent to which conventionalized linguistic form are used; some speech acts, such as apologizing and thanking, exhibit more conventional usage than others do.
It is in the area of negative and positive politeness strategies that deviated from Brown and Levinson’s framework begin to appear. Leech (1983), for example, would classify apologies as positive politeness strategies. Holmes (1990) argues that apologies can address both positive and negative face needs.
One of the most influential views on the classification of apologies is Goffman’s (1971), in which he distinguishes two type of compensations: ritual and substantive’ (Nureddeen, 2008, p.282). Following this distinction , Fraser (1981:265) provide two motivations associated with substantive and ritualistic apologies; in substantive apology the speaker want to remedy the damage or harm caused by the offense while the ritual may be produced as a kind of habit associated with certain routines or when the respondent is not responsible for the offense .
However, Obeng (1999) adds a compound apology (implicit apology+ explicit apology), which can be seen as a fourth type of apology within the same paradigm (cited in Nureddeen, 2008, p.282).
People usually apologize by means of semantically different types of expression; therefore, apology strategies are often described according to their semantic formulae. Different classifications provide by different scholars often overlap and while some lists are extended and detailed, other are rather broad. It is also worth mentioning here that newer classifications build on and consequently provide more comprehensive views than previous categorization models such as (Frasher, 1981; Olshtain and Cohen, 1983; Blum -Kulka and Olshtain, 1984; Holmes, 1989; Bergman and Kasper, 1993).
Bergman and Kasper (1993, p.94) used another model to analyze their data: IFID, downgrading (reducing the severity of offense, and reducing responsibility- including excuse and justification, claiming ignorance and denial); upgrading of use of adverbial (i. e. intensifying of IFID); taking on responsibility or admission of face); offer of repair; and verbal address (concern for the hearer and promise of forbearance).
The researchers found that the linguistic realization patterns of the act of apology can be performed in one of the two forms or a combination of both. The first and the most direct is done via explicit illocutionary force indicating device (IFID), which are per formative verbs expressing apology. Examples of these expressions include: “I ‘m sorry,” “excuse me”, “I apologize,” “Forgive me” “and pardon me”. “The other way for performing an apology is using four potential strategies (with or without IFID), (Goffman 1997). These strategies are (i) expression of responsibility; (ii) explanation or account of the cause brought about by the offense; (iii) an offer of repair and (iv) promise of forbearance. The first strategy, expression of responsibility was categorized to range from responsibility acceptance and explicit self-humbling to placate the complainer to a complete denial of the fault and evasive responses. The other three strategies were related to the type violation which occurred.
The apology strategies which are conducted by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984; Trosberg , 1988 can be categorize as follow :
An expression of apology: (an expression of apology / IFID; an expression of regret, and request for forgiveness. For in this category, an apology is done via an explicit illocutionary force indicating device (IFID) (Searle, 1969: 69). IFID is a category en compassing the explicit use of apology expressions that mean sorry, forgive me etc. (Blum- Kulka and Olshtain 1984, p. 206).
An explanation or account: Is an expression that gives an account of the cause of the offense. In other words, the speaker explains why violation or damage happened. Both explicit and implicit explanations have been considered.
An acknowledgement of responsibility: This term refer to expression in which the apologizer admits to having responsibility for the offense. The respondent explicitly takes responsibility for the offense, such as accepting the blame, regretting, committing, the apology, indicating lack of intent and for admitting the offense. Taking on responsibility is the most explicit, most direct and strongest apology strategy.
An offer of repair: S may attempt to repair or pay for damage caused by the offense. An offer of repair is usually expressed explicitly. While expressing an offer of repair is usually associated with the future time, expressing that show the repair has already been done.
Promise for forbearance: In certain situations, the speaker may promise not to repair the offense in future. While in most studies of apologies, promise of forbearance is a separate category. In Bergman and Kasper (1993) it is classified alongside ‘concern for the hearer’ as verbal redress. promise of forbearance is a clear confession being responsible for the offense and performing it damages S’s positive face wants, while concern for the hearer does not necessarily imply any sense of responsibility and carries no risk of damage to S’s face.
Intensification: Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) treated intensifications as an element within an apology strategy and not a separate strategy. However, the force of
to probe the relationship between education and apology strategies. Table 4.38. To- Test for investigating the relationship between education and apology strategies Test Value mean t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of بیشتر بخوانید...