Intercultural communication: educational manual 9786010429635

The purpose of the manual is to develop the skills of intercultural communication necessary for professional communicati

743 90 2MB

English Pages [126] Year 2017

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Intercultural communication: educational manual

Table of contents :
Printed in the printing office of the «Kazakh university» publishing house.

Citation preview


Y. А. Аkhapov A. S. Dairova


Almaty «Qazaq university» 2017


UDC 80 (8) LBC 81.2-923 А 29 Recommended for publication by the decision of the Academic Council of the Faculty of Oriental Studies, Editorial and Publishing Council of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (Protocol №2 dated 03.11.2017)

Reviewers: Ph.D., visiting professor T. Ninomiya Ph.D., Leading Researcher N.Zh. Shaimardanova

А 29

Akhapov Y.A. Intercultural communication: educational manual / Y.A. Akhapov, A.S. Dairova. – Almaty: Qazaq university, 2017. – 125 p. ISBN 978-601-04-2963-5 The purpose of the manual is to develop the skills of intercultural communication necessary for professional communication based on the knowledge of linguistic and style features of scientific speech, the laws of constructing the text and the development of information in it. The manual contains theoretical material, representing three thematic blocks. The manual also contains questions for self-examination and assignments that help to consolidate the knowledge gained and to develop the practical skills required in intercultural communication. Addressed to students studying the specialties of the humanitarian direction of higher educational institutions of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the bachelor's program. It can be used both in practical exercises and SRSP, and extrabudgetary. Published in authorial release.

UDC 80 (8) LBC 81.2-923 ISBN 978-601-04-2963-5

© Akhapov Y.A., Dairova A.S., 2017 © Al-Farabi KazNU, 2017


TABLE OF CONTEXT Introduction ............................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER I Main linguistic questions within the intercultural communication The theme № 1 The speech act of apologizing.................................................................... 7 The theme № 2 The main speech act theories ..................................................................... 9 The theme №3 The act of apologizing ............................................................................... 16 The theme №4 Politeness theories ..................................................................................... 18 The theme №5 P. Brown and S. Levinson’s model of politeness ....................................... 22 The theme №6 Apology components across disciplines .................................................... 35 The theme №7 Apology strategies ..................................................................................... 37 The theme №8 Japanese ways to say «sorry» as an example of intercultural communication .......................................................................................... 45 CHAPTER II Apology in the intercultural communication The theme №1 World corporate culture ............................................................................. 57 The theme №2 History of corporate culture ....................................................................... 59 The theme №3 Cultural Studies: The corporate public apology as a cultural text .............. 63 The theme №4 Apologizing in Japan: Sorry seems to be the hardest word........................ 67 The theme №5 Some conclusions from apology speeches ................................................. 78 The theme №6 Open-Ended Role Plays ............................................................................. 81


CHAPTER III Project study The theme №1 Apology as a way to solve the conflict ...................................................... 91 The theme №2 Apology and Culture.................................................................................. 98 The theme №3 The «Age of Apology» ............................................................................. 100 The theme №4 Survey study .............................................................................................. 106 The theme №5 The apology formula: The right way to apologize ..................................... 118 List of recommended literature .................................................................. 124


INTRODUCTION The study of the practical discipline «Intercultural Communication» enables the student of the humanitarian direction to learn rational methods of mastering knowledge in the professional sphere, express their thoughts accurately, clearly, logically, with observance of existing stylistic norms and features of intercultural communication. The skills acquired in the learning process will also help you navigate the flow of scientific information, independently transform it into the desired form (written or oral), depending on the communicative situation and taking into account genre features. The main objectives of the benefits are as follows: 1) studying the basics of the theory of intercultural communication using the example of using the category of apology; 2) consolidate the acquired knowledge in practice, using materials for consolidation and self-control. The subject of the training is the basics of intercultural communication, which increases the effectiveness of studying the disciplines on the profile and broadens the professional horizon through working with sources in English, whose possession at the second level allows to use unlimited information resources. The manual consists of three chapters, each of which is a separate block of topics for the basic course. In the first chapter of «Main linguistic questions within the intercultural communication», the fundamentals of linguistics and the theory of intercultural communication are discussed, using the example of the work of well-known researchers. The second chapter reveals the practical significance of this manual, namely, on specific examples, various ways of apology are presented. Particular attention is paid to linguistic features and qualities, clearly explicated in the text of the text. The third chapter examines the results of a questionnaire survey, which reveals the main and additional information, establishes the semantic links between parts of the text. Moreover, based on a questionnaire survey, the student can independently perform a similar study. 5

Thanks to the system of practical assignments, the skills of independent search for information, its processing, creation of one's own work on a given topic and the transmission of its content orally are inoculated and worked out for the modern student. In the manual there is a list of recommended literature and two applications: 1) the body of texts on the specialty, which can be used to perform the various tasks proposed in the book; 2) tasks for the CDS in different versions.





The phenomenon of apology attracted the attention of researchers in our country and abroad for many years. By studying the different aspects of communication linguists trying to understand how the use of certain words and expressions can help to correct the situation. On the one hand, such an approach focuses our attention on such questions as: when we apologize (in what kind of situations), how we apologize, what is the result of apologizing and what is the role of apology in our society. On the other hand, it causes a difficulty to analyze the meanings of apology phrase, because in real speech they can express not only apology, but also other meanings. Thus, there is a whole range of problems related to the analysis of apology’s meaning, ways of apologizing in different cultures. Over the past twenty five years linguists have investigated the realization strategies of speech acts across a number of languages and cultures. When thinking about Speech Act Theory, we have in mind first of all the findings of J. Austin and J. Searle and the studies by their followers, traditionally quoted and referred to in any relevant study. Both the philosophers have touched upon the question of politeness, considering linguistic communication not just to be a means of conveying information, but a tool people use to achieve a variety of goals. Their conception could be summarized as follows: 7

when people use language, they do things or have others do things for them. They apologize, promise, request, thank, etc. For example, by saying «I am sorry», a speaker is not only uttering a phrase in English but is also performing an act, that of apologizing. Speech acts that have been frequently investigated in the literature include apologies, requests, compliments, compliment responses, complaints, and expressions of gratitude, disagreements. In the field of speech act research, a number of theories and concepts have formed the theoretical framework for the empirical investigation of speech acts cross-culturally. The work of language philosophers such J. Austin and J. Searle has formed the basis of our understanding of speech acts. Task № 1 1. Explain the lexical meaning of the word «speech act». Write down the interpretations of its meanings from any explanatory dictionary. 2. Tell to other students what you know about J. Austin and J. Searle.



We have expanded on J. Austin’s speech act theory so that «the total speech situation in the total speech situation» can be better understood. Unlike other speech act theorists who essentially describe how illocutionary acts differ from one another in terms of intentionality, we have proposed an alternative scheme: to describe illocutionary acts in terms of different aspects of the speech situation. After initially discussing the speech situation and its theoretical import and subsequently using J. Austin’s felicity conditions as a starting point, we illustrated three aspects of the speech situation, conventionality, actuality, and intentionality, according to which a purported act succeeds or fails. And next we explained the performance of an illocutionary act as follows: by uttering a sentence, the speaker indicates, as the present speech situation, a certain speech situation, which is substantiated by an associated intention. The purpose of the present paper is merely to provide a theoretical framework, through an analysis of illocutionary acts, which gives a clearer and more concise description of the speech situation on which communication is based. Other important concepts and theories include communicative competence, pragmatic competence, theories of politeness, and to some extent theories of culture and intercultural communication. Speech acts have been investigated for a number of reasons. E. Olshtain and S. Blum-Kulka explain that the empirical investigation of speech acts can provide a better understanding of how human communication is carried out through the use of linguistic behavior. In addition, a major objective of cross-cultural speech act research is to describe similarities and differences in the way communicative interactions are carried out under similar circumstances across different languages and cultures. Speech act research can also have an important role in identifying the social and cultural norms and beliefs that inform speech act 9

realization in a given speech community. In addition, it can provide empirical data against which theories of politeness and of intercultural communication can be evaluated. Finally, cross-cultural speech act research is particularly important in the field of foreign and second language teaching and learning. Findings from speech act studies can be an invaluable source for foreign language teachers and developers of teaching materials. It has been observed that teaching these pragmatic aspects of language can minimize intercultural communication breakdowns and help reduce cultural stereotyping. According to B. Allan there are two ways of classifying speech acts. One is what he calls a lexical classification, which distinguishes among speech acts according to the illocutionary verbs they express. The second approach classifies them according to the act they express, such as requesting, apologizing, promising, and so on. Nonetheless, J. Austin first classified speech acts into five categories: 1) verdictives, which represent acts that give a verdict; 2) exercitives, which express power on the hearer; 3) commissives, which commit the speaker to doing something; 4) behabitives, which express different social behaviors such as apologizing; 5) congratulating, the like, and explositives, which are conversation or argument related, such as «I assume» or «I concede». However, this categorization had several problems, such as the fact that the categories are not mutually exclusive, and that there is an assumption that speech acts and speech act verbs correspond exactly. Consequently, over the years, many researchers have attempted to devise taxonomy of speech acts that would be generally accepted. Communicative approaches to speech act theory mostly categorize speech acts according to what they communicate to the hearer. Thus, R. Searle proposed five types of speech acts, namely: 1) representatives and assertives (present the way things are); 2) directives (instruct somebody to do something); 3) commissives (when one commits oneself); 4) expressives (express feelings and attitudes); 5) declarations (that bring about changes with the use of utterances). 10

Following this classification, G. Leech distinguished speech acts by the verbs that express them, as he believed that it was impossible to create taxonomy of illocutionary acts. Thus, speech act verbs can be divided into the following categories: assertive verbs, directive verbs, commisive verbs, rogative verbs, and expressing verbs. A very similar taxonomy, but one that differentiates more subtly between the types of illocutions the acts entail was given by K. Bach and R. Harnish. They classified speech acts in terms of the illocutionary act entailed into four major types. The most important problem with these early taxonomies is that, again, they are too closely linked to the verb that expresses the respective illocutionary act. However, as will be made clear in the following chapter in the case of apologies, speech acts can be expressed by other means as well, not only by illocutionary verbs. Also, not all illocutionary verbs express the speech act that one would expect from their basic meaning. Thus, R. Searle found that a certain illocutionary act can be «performed indirectly by way of performing another». R. Searle called this type of illocutionary act an indirect speech act, as opposed to a direct speech act. While in the case of a direct speech act the content of the utterance is the same as the intention of the speaker, in indirect speech act content and intention are different. T. Holtgraves has clarified this difference even further by claiming that indirect speech acts not only use a certain illocutionary act to express another, but rather provide multiple meanings, as opposed to only one meaning expressed by direct speech acts. On the other hand, D. Geishas argued against a distinction between direct and indirect speech acts. He believes that, due to the fact that it is impossible to create what he called a mapping between the verbal forms and the speech act they convey, such a distinction is not useful at all. However, we believe that such a distinction is important, because it is the only way one can account for the use of certain apology strategies that apparently might seem inappropriate, but which are used to actually suggest something different from their literal meaning. This is the case with the present study as well; the chapters presenting the results will discuss examples of indirect speech acts. Another approach to classifying speech acts is from the perspective of P. Brown and S. Levinson’s theory of politeness, more 11

precisely according to the way the function that the speech act expresses threatens face, as well as according to the relationship that the act has with the speaker or the hearer. Thus, J. Staab differentiated between four categories of face threatening acts: 1) threats to a speaker's negative face: expressing thanks, excuses, or the making of an unwilling promise or offer; 2) threats to a speaker's positive face: apologies, self-contradicting, or confessions; 3) threats to a hearer's negative face: orders, requests, suggestions, and warnings; 4) threats to a hearer's positive face: criticism, insults, contradictions, and complaints. Based on many of the taxonomies presented above, A. Cohen devised his own classification of 14 speech acts grouped into 5 major categories. The first one is representatives, and contains the speech acts assertions, claims, and reports; the second is represented by directives: suggestions, requests, commands; the next one groups under expressives the acts of apology, complaint, and thanks; commissives represent the fourth groups that contains promises, threats, and offers; finally, decrees and declarations are grouped under declaratives. While the names of these groups may vary in other classifications given by different scholars, the names of the speech acts from A. Cohen’s taxonomy seem to have been more widely accepted. As this section has shown, there are many ways of classifying speech acts by making use of different criteria. As with defining speech acts, there is no taxonomy which is considered the best, each of them having advantages and disadvantages. For example, it seems to be clear that speech acts can be expressed by other means as well, not just using the illocutionary verb that conveys the respective act. Also, we believe it is necessary to account for non-verbal ways to expressing speech acts, as communication is much more than the use of verbal language; it also involves body language, the use of which can influence the meaning of the respective speech act. Consequently, elements such as illocutionary verbs, indirect speech acts, and even non-verbal elements should all be included when devising a good taxonomy of speech acts. This situation has led to scholars 12

creating their own categorization of speech acts that would fit best the specific needs of their study. Task №2 1. Compare different theories of the speech act. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of them? 2. Read the following texts. Give each of them a tittle.

Text №1 Making a statement may be the paradigmatic use of language, but there are all sorts of other things we can do with words. We can make requests, ask questions, give orders, make promises, give thanks, offer apologies, and so on. Moreover, almost any speech act is really the performance of several acts at once, distinguished by different aspects of the speaker's intention: there is the act of saying something, what one does in saying it, such as requesting or promising, and how one is trying to affect one's audience. The theory of speech acts is partly taxonomic and partly explanatory. It must systematically classify types of speech acts and the ways in which they can succeed or fail. It must reckon with the fact that the relationship between the words being used and the force of their utterance is often oblique. For example, the sentence 'This is a pig sty' might be used nonliterally to state that a certain room is messy and filthy and, further, to demand indirectly that it be straightened out and cleaned up. Even when this sentence is used literally and directly, says to describe a certain area of a barnyard, the content of its utterance is not fully determined by its linguistic meaning – in particular, the meaning of the word «this» does not determine which area is being referred to. A major task for the theory of speech acts is to account for how speakers can succeed in what they do despite the various ways in which linguistic meaning underdetermines use. In general, speech acts are acts of communication. To communicate is to express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act being performed corresponds to the type of attitude being expressed. For example, a statement expresses a belief, a request expresses a desire, and an apology expresses regret. As an act of communication, a 13

speech act succeeds if the audience identifies, in accordance with the speaker's intention, the attitude being expressed. Some speech acts, however, are not primarily acts of communication and have the function not of communicating but of affecting institutional states of affairs. They can do so in either of two ways. Some officially judge something to be the case, and others actually make something the case. Acts of both kinds can be performed only in certain ways under certain circumstances by those in certain institutional or social positions. When trying to project apologies into Bach and Harnish’s classification, we found out that more speech acts participate in the apologizing. In the overt language manifestation of apology, as can be illustrated by the following example: I’m sorry for

what happened this

will never happen again




And this is most probably the reason why the traditional model has been extended to take not only speech acts but also speech-actsets into consideration. Text №2 In recent years, a number of cross-cultural studies in apologies have thrown light on different realizations of apology as a speech act in different languages and an increased attention has been paid to the problem of pragmatic transfer. The following chart may illustrate the conception in a more transparent way: IFID

anapologetic account

expressing responsibility

offers of repair

promise of forbearance

One of the drawbacks of their otherwise thought-provoking theory seems to be in the constructed situations, mostly with instances of personally offensive acts, while socially offensive acts mostly remained untouched (which does not correspond to real life situations). Another drawback, also revealed by the corpus-based analysis, 14

is the regularity of the above mentioned sequences within the speech act set, which is not supported by natural language corpus. Different researchers are trying to give definition to communicative action «apology» from different theoretical positions. At the same time, all the authors note that an apology is playing an important role in social life. One of the most crucial approaches is to classify apology strategies, such as in A. Cohen and E. Olshtain where they created a classification of universally occurring apology speech acts. These classifications are generally referred to as taxonomies or coding schemes and are used by many other researchers. Researchers have used the classifications to further examine apology patterns in languages and provide more consistency across studies. One of the cornerstone studies in the area of apology use, focusing only on English, was conducted by J. Holmes. R. Raytmar mentioned that, a speech act of apology consists of three components: the speaker, who apologizing for his wrong behavior; person who has been harmed and the made damage. Also, the author notes the importance of the following dependence: the serious damage the more complex apology. N. Tavuchis offers a wider vision on our research problem. He looks on apology from sociological view and said that apology coming from the one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one, and finally, from many to many. Each of these types of apology, according to N. Tavuchis, has its own distinctive features and characteristics, which can be grouped into three main: private vs. public, personal vs. institutional, and specific vs. general. Apologies have been referred to as accounts. Other authors have considered apologies as speech acts, standing in the tradition of Austin, who had suggested this understanding of apologies. In the current literature both categorization of apologies, those that refer to them as accounts and those that consider them as speech-acts, can still be found. The speech act of apology in one culture is not the same thing in a different sociocultural context. That is why, the same social conditions, with the same contextual features, with the same level damage are various in different countries. For example, the phrases of apology and gratitude in the Japanese language often interchangeable. A great importance of moral duty, responsibilities in Japan leads to existence a large the number of apology words and phrases. 15


The act of apologizing – contrary to P. Brown and S. Levinson's conception of it as a face-threatening act to the speaker's positive face and a face-supporting act for the addressee's negative face – may benefit both the apologizer and the apologize it may be used to save the face of the other or that of the self as well as to threaten them. This chapter will accordingly discuss theories relating to face and politeness phenomena arising within the aegis of either linguistic pragmatics or sociolinguistics. Politeness theories within these fields are to some extent consistent, in the sense that they explicitly or implicitly highlight the role of politeness as a link between language and the social world. They are, however, different in the way they define politeness. The discussion in the present chapter will pivot around E. Goffman’s notion of face, R. Lakoff's theory of politeness, P. Brown and S. Levinson. More recent approaches, such as R. Arundale, M. Haugh, J. O’Driscoll, H. Spencer-Oatey, and M. Terkourafi take a very different approach from B. Brown and Levinson (and from each other in various aspects), but are also ultimately interested in finding terms with which one can interpret and predict all face-related activity, not only participant understanding of that activity. R. Arundale, for instance, works within the framework of interpersonal communication and argues that face is co-constituted by participants through interaction. Face is inherently a dyadic phenomenon and is part of the social self, which is the person-in-relationship-to-other-persons. The social self exists only in relation to other social selves, and that social self is created through relationships. Politeness involves managing the connection and separation between participants in interaction. H. Spencer-Oatey places a universal concept of identity at the heart of facework, emphasizing how positive and negative faces are included 16

within the identity concept. M. Terkourafi focuses upon approach and withdrawal between the self and the other, while Terkourafi proposes a frame based politeness where politic linguistic behavior is that which matches expectations of linguistic to extra-linguistic event pairings. All of these approaches to politeness theory can be considered politeness. M. Locher and R. Watts, on the other hand, argue that politeness is a worthy object of study in itself and «...what is polite (or impolite) should not be predicted by analysts». This post-modern approach has highlighted the possible imposition of an external theory upon a particular interaction with researchers presupposing a universally valid concept of politeness and then fitting their data to the theory. M. Haugh and M. Terkourafi reject the idea that analysts should not predict, but agree that one should not force a theory on data. M. Haugh states that the analyst’s interpretation should be consonant or analogous with the participant’s understanding. R. Arundale states that the analyst must provide the participants’ face meanings and actions, not the analysts. Task №3 1. What is the act of apologizing? Give the definition. 2. Name some modern popular authors who works on the apology. 3. How do you understand the next word combination «person-in-relationshipto-other-persons»?



Apologizing is a common speech act that has received much attention from sociologists, psychologists, and linguists. In relation to this, E. Goffman explains that the function of remedial or ritual work, of which apologies form an essential part, is concerned with transforming what could be conceived of as unpleasant into what might be viewed as suitable. His discussion of remedial work encompasses both accounts and apologies. Of these acts, the one to receive the most attention is apology. In an attempt to define apology, Goffman suggests that an apology is a gesture through which an individual divides herself into two main parts: the part that is guilty of the offence and the part that dissociates itself from the delict and affirms a belief in the offended rule. E. Goffman believes that remedial work embodies two different, independently occurring processes, one is ritualistic and the other is restitutive. In the former, the virtual offender projects her current relationship to rules which her actions seem to have violated, and to the audience present whose territories should have been protected by these rules. In the latter, the offended person receives some compensation for what has been done to both him and to the rules that are assumed to protect him. This is evidenced by the fact that minor offences elicit a brief apology, whereas much more elaborated apologies are required when the offence is perceived as serious. E. Goffman deems apologies to form an integral part of remedial interchange; they are thus a main component of social interaction in general, and as such, the apology speech act should be handled in conjunction with «face» or «face wants». He claims that within social encounters each participant is assumed to adopt a «line» of behavior which functions as a social identity by which she expresses her views, and through which other participants' behaviors are assessed by: «the term face may be defied 18

as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self-delineated in terms of approved social attributes – albeit an image that others may share, as when a person makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good showing for himself». E. Goffman's notion of face is explained in terms of rituals. That is to say, participants in social interaction are bound by moral rules that monitor the flow of events. The importance of these rules, when followed by participants, stems from their ability to give a person the power to evaluate her and fellow-participants in social interchanges. This means that the person's contribution to the social circle and the practices she will employ are designed in accordance with the line she has initiated for herself since the beginning of the social interaction. When doing so, the person involved in a social encounter will achieve a good level of «ritual equilibrium». There are, however, according to, other occasions where the person appears to be «in wrong face», or «out of face». In the former, the person − whilst interacting with others − follows a line that is different from the one she has adopted for herself, whereas in the latter the person gets herself engaged in an interaction without having a line similar to the one other participants are expected to take. Contrary to the two aforementioned cases, a person − having sustained a non-changeable line or face during the social encounter – will behave confidently, and proudly present herself to the others. Face-saving acts, Goffman states, largely depend on the «traffic rules» of social encounters. These rules are derived from the main repertoire of face-saving rules that each person or society seems to have. In relation to this, Goffman distinguishes between two types of points of view that a person will have: «a defensive orientation» and «a protective orientation». In the former, the person is mainly concerned with saving his own face, while in the latter the person's efforts are devoted to saving others' face. A further distinction was made by Goffman to clarify three types of offence. First, he talks about unintended offences where the offender is perceived as innocent by others. Second, intended offences are marked with the offender's intention to cause insult. Finally, there are offences that could be 19

anticipated although they are not planned. These offences may be of different directions; initiated by herself or others: from the point of view of a particular participant, these three types of threat can be introduced by the participant himself against own face, by himself against the face of others, by the others against their own face, or by the others against himself. Thus the person may find himself in many different relations to a threat to face. If he is to handle himself and others well in all contingencies, he will have to have a repertoire of face-saving practices for each of these possible relations to threat. He argues that face-work embodies two main processes: «the avoidance process» and «the corrective process». The avoidance strategy is usually followed by a person who avoids being involved in social encounters as a way not to receive face threats. Contrary to this, the corrective process implies the person's contribution to social encounter where she is vulnerable to committing events that are inconsistent with the social line maintained by other members of the social circle. At this point, the person in question tries to correct such unacceptable events as a way to establish «ritual equilibrium». In order for the face of others to be saved and maintained, E. Goffman suggests that «corrective interchange» needs to pass through a circle involving different primary moves. This corrective circle starts with the offender's acknowledgement of responsibility for the insult caused by her, followed by the offer of repair, which is viewed as an attempt on the part of the offender to correct the offence and restore the broken social equilibrium. The third move is concerned with the offended party, who will be in a position to accept or reject the offering. Finally, in the last phase of corrective interchange, the offending person − if forgiven − expresses a sign of gratefulness to those who have forgiven her. R. Lakoff is often claimed to be the founder of modem politeness theory, as she was the first to explore it within the realm of pragmatics. R. Lakoff defines politeness as a set of «interpersonal relations» aimed at making communication smooth through keeping the possibility of conflict and confrontation, which are innate in human communication, to the minimum. R. Lakoff’s theory of politeness stems from Grice's cooperative principle, which lays down a set of principles of conversation and proposes a framework for 20

language use. R. Lakoff claims that grammatical rules are not enough to explain speaker's deviation and flouting of conversation's main principles. She contends that pragmatic rules 17 should be considered, as they will be of help in detecting deviant utterances. Integrating H. Grice's conversational postulates with her own rules of politeness, R. Lakoff comes out with two rules of pragmatic competence: be clear and be polite. R. Lakoff considers that the first rule should apply if the conversation participants place emphasis on getting the message communicated. However, the second rule be polite may be prioritized over the first be clear when communication partners are attaching importance to social issues, such as the status of interact ants. R. Lakoff states that H. Grice’s conversational maxims may be subsumed under her first rule are clear as they all invite communication partners to be clear in conversation. R. Lakoff further divides her second rule into three sub-rules: 1. Don’t impose. 2. Give options. 3. Make a feel good – be friendly. R. Lakoff’s theory of politeness has been contested by a number of scholars. P. Brown states that the main problem with R. Lakoff’s theory is that «she offers no integrating theory which places these rules of politeness in a framework that makes them non-arbitrary, that explains their form in terms of social relationships and expectations about humans as interact ants». As a conclusion for R. Lakoff’s theory of politeness it can be mentioned that she was one of the first who studied that question and further researches would use R. Lakoff’s theory as a base for their own works. Task №4 1. What is a politeness theory? 2. What is the name of E. Goffman’s work? Tell to the other students the main idea of that work.



Taking E. Goffman’s notion of face as a point of departure, P. Brown and S. Levinson propose the deepest as well as the most comprehensive account of politeness. They consider that politeness is a universal phenomenon; such a claim is evidenced by their observation of similarities in the linguistic strategies employed by speakers of different languages. For the purpose of having a good account of the linguistic similarities in language use, they refer to a Model Person who, as they describe, is a fluent speaker of a natural language that is provided with some special 64 features, of which the most important are rationality and face. They go on to define these features, showing that rationality refers to the Model Person's ability of reasoning from ends to the means that will fulfill those ends. With regard to face, they mainly mean that the same Model Person is equipped with two specific needs: the want to be unimpeded and the want to be liked by others. As related to «face», P. Brown and S. Levinson consider that every «competent adult member» of society attaches some importance to «face», the self-image presented to other members of the society. In this case, a distinction is made between the two main constituents of face that represent the person's desire in any social interaction: «negative face» and «positive face». Negative face refers to the person's desire to be free from imposition and not to be impeded by others. Positive face, on the other hand, refers to the person's wish to be desirable to others and that the self-image is appreciated and approved of P. Brown and S. Levinson consider that face is «something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction». This in fact indicates that preserving face constitutes a major concern for all conversation participants – a point 22

already raised by E. Goffman who considers that the rule of «selfrespect» and the rule of «considerateness» imply that any person in any social encounter will act in a way that saves both his face and the face of the other communication partners. In addition to self-image, competent adult members of a society are assumed to be endowed with some rational capacities, epitomized by selecting, on their part, appropriate means to have their goals fulfilled successfully. P. Brown and S. Levinson consider that some kinds of acts inherently threaten face, especially those that by their nature go against the face wants of the addressee and the speaker. In this case, a distinction is made between acts that threaten negative face and those that threaten positive face. Orders, requests, suggestions, advice, threats, and warnings are all samples of acts that threaten the negative face, in the sense that the speaker tries to influence the addressee to do or not to do some act. Offers and promises also fall into the category of face-threatening acts directed towards the speaker's negative face, as the speaker, in doing these acts, puts some pressure on the hearer to accept or reject them. Apologies and acceptance of compliments are assumed to be face-threatening acts to the speaker's positive face in that in the first case, the speaker indicates regret doing the threatening act. Consequently, this will incur a face loss to some degree on the part of the speaker. In the second case, the speaker may feel compelled to compliment the hearer in turn. P. Brown and S. Levinson assume that any social encounter involves communicative acts that could be threatening to the face of the speaker or the addressee. P. Brown and S. Levinson, like G. Leech, propose a scale that is concerned with assessing the degree of politeness needed in a certain situation. They point to three socio-cultural variables that contribute to the assessment of the seriousness of face threatening acts. The first factor is social distance, which represents a symmetric social dimension of similarity or difference within which the speaker and the hearer stand for the purpose of this act. The second factor is power, which forms an asymmetric social dimension of relative power. Power is defined as the extent to which the hearer can impose his own plans and his face at the cost of the speaker's plans and face. 23

The third factor is the absolute ranking of impositions in a particular culture. This variable, P. Brown and S. Levinson claim, is culturally and situationally-dependent, in the sense that cultures classify acts according to their degree of imposition, and as such, there will be differences in this regard from one culture to another. They claim that it is the degree of face-threat that determines the use of these strategies. Climbing the scale from I to 5 increases the degree of politeness; more polite strategies are employed when the risk is greater. In addition to avoiding face-threatening acts, any rational speaker will employ certain strategies to lessen the degree of threat. P. Brown and S. Levinson place these strategies on a continuum of doing or refraining from doing the face threatening act, as shown in the chart below: 1. without redressive action on record Do the FTA 1

with redressive action off record 2. positive politeness 3. negative politeness

Don’t do the FTA

Figure 1. P. Brown and S. Levinson’s model of politeness

The first strategy, without redressive action, baldly, is employed when the speaker doesn't expect to receive face loss from the addressee or to impose face-loss on the addressee. As such, this strategy is consistent with the specifications of Grice's maxims supporting the cooperative principle. P. Brown and S. Levinson claim that this strategy is usually adopted when the act performed does not constitute a danger to the hearer's face or when the relationship holding the conversation participants is asymmetrically upward with one acting as a superior and the other is subordinate. 1

Face-threatening acts (=FTA).


The second and third strategies, positive politeness and negative politeness, include regressive action in the sense that the speaker tries to alleviate the potential threat of the act, and endeavors to save her face as well. Related to this, P. Brown and S. Levinson suggest that negative politeness is satisfied when «conventionalized indirectness» is employed; for example, many indirect requests are conventionalized in English and they are on record (for example: can you pass the salt?). The fourth strategy, off record, is followed when the speaker anticipates great face loss. When the speaker goes off record in doing the act, she is leaving the implied message to be interpreted by the addressee. Off-record strategies could be linguistically realized through the use of metaphor and irony, rhetorical questions, understatement, tautologies, and all kinds of hints and non-conventional indirectness. This strategy is related to the flouting of Grice's maxims in that the speaker wants to communicate in an indirect way, and thus the meaning is to some degree still open to discussion. The fifth strategy, don’t do the FTA, is employed when the risk of the face loss is potentially so great, that no linguistic strategy is sufficient to manage the face threat. Thus, the speaker decides not to do the act. P. Brown and S. Levinson highlight the importance of negative and positive politeness. Positive politeness expresses appreciation of the addressee's personality through making him part of the in-group. Negative politeness focuses on the addressee's face wants which represented by his wish not to be imposed upon by others. Positive politeness, P. Brown and S. Levinson claim, could take the form of expressing care to the addressee, use of in-group 67 identity markers, and showing sympathy. Negative politeness, on the other hand, could take the showing respect and deference, etiquette, use of indirect requests, etc. On defining apologies, P. Brown and S. Levinson state that apologies are used to communicate regret or reluctance to do an FTA. They believe that there are four ways through which the apology speech act can be fulfilled: first, by admitting the intrusion by which the speaker admits that she is infringing upon the hearer's face using certain expressions, like «I am sure you must be very busy, but..». Second, by indicating reluctance which could be seen as an attempt on the part of the speaker to demonstrate her unwillingness 25

to impinge on the hearer with the use of expressions, like «I normally wouldn't ask you this, but ..». Third, by giving overwhelming reasons. In this case, the speaker claims that she has unavoidable reasons for doing the face-threatening act, therefore indicating that normally she wouldn't impose on the hearer's negative face. P. Brown and S. Levinson’s perception of apologies as communicating regret or reluctance to do face-threatening acts appears to be consistent with that proposed by Owen. However, some areas of differences appear: whereas P. Brown and S. Levinson perceive apologies themselves as strategies for performing other acts, Owen views primary remedial moves of which apologies are essential parts, as acts in their own right. Although P. Brown and S. Levinson’s distinction between negative politeness and positive politeness seems to conform to that of E. Goffman between avoidance processes and corrective processes, they have different conceptualizations about what face is. Whereas P. Brown and S. Levinson define face as the self-oriented image -a definition, which it has been argued, suits the Western interactional system and is incompatible with the non-western context – Goffman perceives face to be a public or interpersonal image. Although the distinction between negative and positive politeness has been extensively used by researchers to study politeness norms in different languages, the validity of its universal applicability has not been agreed upon by many researchers and scholars. P. Brown and S. Levinson’s claim, for example, that China and Japan are categorized as negative politeness cultures has been refuted by L. Mao, Y. Matsumoto, and S. Ide who all go against P. Brown and S. Levinson’s model and argue its irrelevance to Chinese and Japanese cultures. In spite of this critique regarding the universality of the two main face wants, P. Brown and S. Levinson’s contribution to the theory of politeness is still invaluable, as it lays the foundations for comparing politeness cross-culturally. P. Brown and S. Levinson’s distinction between positive and negative politeness strategies and the way they classify cultures as positive or negative politeness societies are of help in carrying out further research into the perceptions of politeness phenomena in different cultures. 26


Speaker Face

Hearer Face





excuse thanking

apology crying

request complaint compliment boasting

Figure 2. P. Brown and S. Levinson’s FTA construction

In conclusion, it is necessary to mention that there are a lot of different theory works about apology and politeness theory and we used some main works in original for our research study. We analyzed some of the theories and made some very short summarizes in the chapter number one. Task №5 1. Tell to other students about P. Brown and S. Levinson’s FTA construction. 2. Read the following texts and give the titles.

Text №1 Apology studies conducted in cross-cultural pragmatics focus on remedial apologies and, following G. Leech, define them as beneficial to the hearer and inherently polite. This definition is generally adopted along with P. Brown and S. Levinson’s classification of apologies as negative politeness strategies, for example, strategies oriented towards the hearer’s right to non-distraction. Combining these two definitions suggests that a speech act which benefits the hearer and restores social harmony is based on an avoidance-based type of politeness. Since P. Brown and S. Levinson’s classification is strongly influenced by their viewing apologies in their anticipatory disarming 27

function, this chapter’s objective is to examine whether and how their framework can be applied to remedial apologies. J. Holmes’ defines remedial apologies as negative politeness strategies on the grounds that their primary purpose is redressive action, thus focusing on the damage caused by the offence necessitating the apology rather than that occurring to S’s face when performing the apology. J. Holmes does take into account S’s face, however, when she notes that apologies including an explanation redress the loss of positive face incurred by the speaker. Whereas linguists tend to see them as oriented towards the hearer’s face needs, or even as face-supportive acts, sociologists discuss apologies as devices used for image restoration, benefiting the speaker. Considering all the contradictions found across and even within apology definitions offered in previous research, the most promising approach to determining whose face and which face is affected in what way by the apology is to consider all the possibilities. M. Deutschmann suggests that when analyzing apologies «both negative and positive face needs should be to be [sic] taken into account» and «these should be viewed from both hearer and speaker perspectives». What makes it problematic to apply P. Brown and S. Levinson’s framework to apologies is that, although it is meant to be applicable to all kinds of FTAs alike, the majority of their examples and many of the sub strategies presented in their charts apply exclusively to requests. The association of politeness with avoiding imposition and the focus on speech acts threatening H’s negative face lead to the association of indirectness with politeness. The fact that this does not apply to apologies, whose polite realizations adhere to rather than flout the CP, has been noticed by W. Edmondson, who points out that with regard to apologies «gushing is socially acceptable». Text №2 A. Meier asks herself the question: «And, what do we do if we maintain that indirectness implicates politeness in the case of I apologies, which, containing a performative verb, is unambiguous, therefore direct and must be dubbed non-polite, impolite and informal. All of these are intuitively untenable» [63]. Speech acts that are bene28

ficial to the hearer generally do not constitute an imposition on the beneficiary’s face. This is why direct offers, such as: «Have a chocolate» are fully acceptable and this is why polite apologies take the form of bare performatives, such as «I apologies» or even bald on record requests such as «forgive me». They are not only beneficial to the hearer, but since they are preceded by an offence, their performance is expected. The hearer’s face has already been damaged by the offence and the function of the apology is to restore it, so that failure to fulfil this expectation is likely to be interpreted as another offence. One could, of course, argue that certain apologies may also threaten H’s face, for instance, when the offence was so grave that the victim does not want to be reminded of it even in the form of an apology or when the very sight of the offender makes them sick. In such cases, an apology would do more harm than good – but they can be safely dismissed as marginal On the whole then, it can be concluded that when performing a speech act which is beneficial to the hearer and expected by him or her, no redress of their negative face is necessary, and hedges on the illocutionary force will not make it more polite. We disagree, however, with W. Edmondson who claims that in the case of apologies «there is no cause for not being explicit», for this would mean that apologies are always performed in their most direct form, which is clearly not the case. Given the following set of strategies, the more an act threatens S’s or H’s face, the more S will want to choose a higher-numbered strategy; this by virtue of the fact that these strategies afford payoffs of increasingly minimized risk. In their subsequent argumentation, the focus is almost exclusively on the hearer’s face. Apologies are, however «essentially threats to S’s face», and it is the damage to the speaker’s face that can be minimized: In the case of apologies, the use of a higher-numbered strategy results in redress of S’s and not H’s face. Basically, by choosing a higher-numbered strategy, we are being more polite to ourselves, or rather more protective towards our own face. Applying P. Brown and S. Levinson’s chart to a speech act threatening the speaker’s face clearly shows that face-work rather than politeness lies at the heart of their theory. Since most crosscultural apology studies focus on politeness phenomena, they do not 29

discuss the speaker’s face needs and the function of indirectness in apologizing. At the same time, several researchers point out the increasing popularity of public apologies. Some discuss their effectiveness in image restoration, has shifting the focus to the apologizer’s positive face needs. Studies analyzing the role of apologies in restorative and criminal justice have, on the one hand, demonstrated that apologies serve as a means of empowering the victims and may even lead to reduced recidivism. On the other, they have been shown to play a crucial role in settlement negotiation as well as in sentencing and parole hearings, where the acceptance of responsibility and show of remorse can reduce the sentence or even make the offended party drop the charges. However, the apologizer’s positive face needs are central to all apologies, for if we did not care about what others think of us, we would see no reason for putting things right and humiliating ourselves by doing so. P. Brown and S. Levinson only briefly mention remedial apologies, and they categories them as FTAs that damage S’s positive face, which is explained as follows: S indicates that he regrets doing a prior FTA, thereby damaging his own face to some degree – especially if the apology is at the same time a confession with H learning about the transgression through it, and the FTA thus conveys bad news. This definition depicts a very specific type of apology, namely one including a confession. A confession, however, is a separate speech act within a remedial interchange, which may or may not accompany an apology. Indeed, most offences on Apologizing happen with both parties present, while situations in which H has to be told that he or she has been offended are the exception rather than the rule. While we agree that apologies affect S’s positive face, the apology is not the part of the remedial interchange that damages it, but the one used to restore it. It is the offence that damages S’s positive face because, obviously, we do not approve of people who offend us. Consequently, S’s positive face – the desire to be liked by and share wants with others – is not damaged by the apology but the factor motivating it. The damage to S’s positive face caused by the offence is sometimes delayed by the necessity to verbalize it. There seem to be two cases in which one of the parties involved needs to be made aware of the offence: either S’s confession informs 30

H that he or she has been harmed, or H’s complaint tells S that his or her behavior has been interpreted as offensive. Having defined apologies as speech acts restoring the speaker’s positive face; I would like to turn to the speaker’s negative face needs, specifically the want «that his actions be unimpeded by others». What is problematic about this definition is that it applies to speech acts which are performed by one person and threaten the face of another. When apologizing, however, the speaker is the one who performs the speech act and simultaneously the one whose face is threatened. Apologies have been described as humiliating and as a «painful experience», and some even regard the suffering of the offender as an important contribution to the healing process, which shows why we are reluctant to apologies. Text №3 The only way of explaining this reluctance in terms of P. Brown and S. Levinson’s conceptualization of face seems to be that by performing an act which is humiliating and unpleasant to them, apologizers restrict their own freedom of action, i.e. threaten their negative face. Unless other human needs, not included in P. Brown and S. Levinson’s model, are used to explain why people are reluctant to apologies, one could argue that since they are certainly not worried that the apology will make them less likeable, which is what threat to positive face would imply, the threat involved in apologizing must concern their negative face. Damage to positive face has already been caused by the offence and will be even greater if no apology takes place. We do not risk our positive face when apologizing but attempt to restore it, which is why apologies are oriented towards satisfying S’s positive face needs, at the expense of S’s negative face. Although most researchers agree that apologies are meant to restore H’s damaged face, usually no distinction is made between positive and negative face needs. The last question to be addressed is, therefore, whether it is H’s positive or negative face which the apology aims at restoring. The speech act of apologizing largely determined by the type of offence necessitating the apology: While offences that damage the 31

hearer’s positive face require apologies which are directed to this face type, damage to negative face is most effectively remedied by addressing the hearer’s negative face needs. Hence, the type of offence determines whether positive or negative politeness strategies are more likely to placate the hearer. Damage to H’s positive face is likely to occur when S’s behavior indicates that he or she «does not care about the addressee’s feelings, wants, etc». Examples of such offences include disappointing H by not keeping a promise or forgetting an appointment. Since positive face needs tend to be reciprocal – for we generally like people by whom we want to be liked – they mainly matter in relationships based on low social distance. In the case of offences taking place between strangers, in contrast, negative face is more likely to be at stake. A typical offence restricting H’s basic claim to territories is a space offence. While such offences also occur between friends, the low social distance characterizing friendships makes them less offensive. Ultimately, some offences cause damage to both face types, and with the speaker and the hearer both having a positive and a negative face, a remedial interchange can affect up to four faces. Although P. Brown and S. Levinson recognize that the threat underlying the performance of an FTA may involve H’s and S’s and even both interlocutors’ face, and that damage can occur to both positive and negative face, their chart of strategies available for performing an FTA does not account for all these possibilities: The calculation of the necessary amount of face-redress is determined by risk to face (singular). Typically, the focus is on the negative face of the hearer, which is threatened by a speech act invading his or her private territory, such as a request. Through the use of higher-numbered strategies, the threat is minimized; the speech act becomes less direct and more polite. Whereas it would be exceedingly difficult to develop a chart that is applicable to all speech acts alike and takes into account S’s and H’s face as well as the tension between their positive and negative face needs, Figure 2 represents an attempt at capturing all the face considerations involved in the performance of an apology. The offence, sometimes followed by a complaint or a confession, damages both H’s and S’s face. In the case of H, it may be either positive or negative face that is harmed, depending on the offence. In 32

S’s case, it is positive face that is damaged, for committing an offence makes S’s wants less desirable. Positive face is especially important in relationships characterized by low social distance; with both parties willing to maintain social harmony and continue the relationship, S’s and H’s positive face wants can be regarded as mutual. H’s negative face is more central in offences between strangers, though brief encounters involving space offences generally require ritual rather than substantial apologies. The apology restores H’s negative and / or positive face as well as S’s positive face, but some damage to S’s negative face is unavoidable. The apologizer not only has «two points of view – a defensive orientation toward saving his own face and a protective orientation toward saving the other’s face», but is also caught in a conflict between his or her positive and negative face needs. Lazare makes yet another distinction when explaining an offender’s reasons for apologizing, namely that between psychological concepts, such as empathy, guilt and shame and external circumstances, such as avoidance of abandonment, damage to reputation and retaliation. His approach shows that in many cases it will not be possible to tell apart all the factors motivating an apology and that there is more at stake than Brown and Levinson’s negative and positive face. The restoration of both interlocutors’ face and their reconciliation are completed with the apology reaching its per location, i.e. with H forgiving S or at least expressing apology acceptance. Strategy choice oriented more towards S’s than H’s face needs, in contrast, can lead to a rejection of the apology. As is evident from the above argumentation, both parties’ positive face needs are crucial in performing an apology. While damage to the hearer’s positive as well as negative face can necessitate it, without the speaker’s positive face needs, there might be no apology, which is uttered despite threat to negative face. Hence, whenever an apology takes place, positive face needs can be said to supersede negative face needs. Considering that remedial apologies are not likely to be successful when verbalized reluctantly, and that there is virtually no need to redress H’s negative face when performing an act from which H benefits and which he or she expects, it seems that the function of apologies as negative politeness devices is largely restricted to disarming apologies. 33

One of the objectives of this study is to find out how the preference for negative politeness in British culture, and that for positive politeness in Polish and Russian cultures influences apology behavior. On the basis of the above discussion, one could hypothesize that Poles and Russians focus on both parties’ positive face when apologizing: S will want to signal H that H’s wants are still desirable to S and to ensure that, despite the offence, also S’s wants remain desirable to H. In doing so, Polish and Russian speakers are more likely to disregard their negative face needs than members of a negative politeness culture. People with an Anglo-Saxon cultural background, on the other hand, might be more reluctant to allow threat to their negative face, more likely to apologies indirectly or avoid the confrontation than members of positive politeness cultures. At the same time, they might apologies more readily in situations involving damage to H’s negative face; situations which may not require an apology in positive politeness cultures. One might also hypothesize that the function of apologies is culture-specific and that the general agreement on viewing apologies as negative politeness strategies is related to the fact that most apology studies have been conducted by researchers with a Western cultural background. While members of individualist cultures seem to view apologies as a post factum acknowledgement of the hearer’s right to non-distraction, thus focusing on the past, in collectivist cultures, the future relationship seems to be central, a precondition of which is that S’s wants are still desirable to H. Furthermore, while both Polish and Russian cultures have been classified as positive politeness cultures, the stronger individualist tendency.


The theme №6 APOLOGY COMPONENTS ACROSS DISCIPLINES The way apologies are classified depends very much on the way they are defined. Thus, the diversity in definitions of apologies also brings about diversity in classification. There are certain types of apologies that are common across different categorizations, while other types are unique. Several studies have argued that the expression of sympathy must be coupled with a statement of responsibility. Table 1 Apology components across disciplines Article 1 E. Goffman

Published Field of year Study 2 3 1972 Sociology

B. Schlenker and B. Darby


H. Wagatsuma and A. Rosett


Apology components

4 1. Expression of concern for the victim’s suffering. 2. Acknowledgment of the rule being violated. 3. Approval of sanctions. 4. No approval of one’s own behavior. 5. Dissociation from the misdeed. 6. Affirmation of obeying the rule in the future. 7. Offer of compensation for the deed. Psychology 1. Statement of apologetic intent. 2. Expression of remorse, sorrow, etc. 3. Offer of compensation. 4. Self-castigation. 5. Direct requests for forgiveness. Law 1. Acknowledgement that the hurtful act happened, caused injury, and was wrongful. 2. Acknowledgement that the apologizer was at fault and regrets participating in the act. 3. Acknowledgement that the apologizer will compensate the injured party.




S. BlumKulka


N. Tavuchis


S. Scher and J. Darley


A. Cohen


O'Hara and Yarn


B. Lazare


D. Schmitt



4 4. Acknowledgement that the act will not happen again. 5. Acknowledgement that the apologizer intends to work for good relations in the future. Psychology 1. Illocutionary force indicating device. 2. Responsibility expression «affirms a belief in the offended rule». 3. Offer of repair. 4. Promise of forbearance. 5. Explanation or account of the event. Sociology 1. Acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the violated rule. 2. Admission of fault and responsibility for its violation. 3. Expression of genuine regret and remorse for the harm done. Psychology 1. Illocutionary force indicating device (I’m sorry). 2. Responsibility expression «affirms a belief in the offended rule». 3. Offer of repair. 4. Promise of forbearance. Law 1. Admission of fault. 2. Expression of regret for the injurious action. 3. Expression of sympathy for the victim’s injury. Law 1. Identification of the wrongful act. 2. Expression of remorse. 3. Promise to forbear. 4. Offer to repair. Psychiatry 1. Acknowledgement of the offense. 2. Expression of genuine remorse. 3. Offer of appropriate reparations. Psychology 1. Admission of fault. 2. Admission of damage. 3. Expressing Remorse. 4. Asking for Pardon. 5. Offering Compensation.

Task №6 1. What is the main idea of this theme? 2. Complete the chart with new authors.



According to A. Cohen, if there is an expression of sympathy alone, it could be worse than saying nothing at all where there is clear responsibility for an incident. This indicates that mere expression of sympathy might be perceived as some kind of insult to victims when an organization should admit its fault. On the contrary, J. Robbennolt found that apologies can be more effective in producing a favorable reaction from victims when the statement of sympathy is combined with a statement of responsibility compared to the statement of responsibility without sympathy. Accordingly, an expression of sympathy would make apologies more effective when it is coupled with the statement of responsibility than when it is not. S. Nadler and Liviatan pointed out that the dual role of responsibility and sympathy has not fully investigated in corporate apology studies although two components were independently studied as core components for effective corporate apology under crisis. Further, the effect of an apology on anger relief with different levels of sympathy and its interaction effect with two types of responsibility have not previously been examined. To contribute to the literature on the dual role of responsibility and sympathy, this study will investigate the interaction effects of different levels of 19 responsibility and sympathy. G. Bergman and F. Kasper distinguished seven different apology categories. According to them, the most commonly used seems to be the Illocutionary Force Indicating Device such as in «I’m sorry». A categorization of apology strategies that would be constantly revisited by many other scholars was made by A. Cohen and E. Olshtain. They proposed seven categories, as well, but divided into two parts. The first part contains five main categories of apologies in cases where the offender feels the need to apologize, namely an expression of apology, an explanation or account of the situation, an acknowled37

gement of responsibility, an offer of repair, and a promise of forbearance. Each of these categories has several sub-categories in order to make a further delimitation of strategies. The second part contains two strategies for the case when the speaker does not feel the need to apologize. These are a denial of the need to apologize and a denial of responsibility. In this paper we are going to deal with different theories concerning apology strategies. As there exists a variety of different theories, so we chose just some of them for this paper. We will introduce their concepts, compare their differences and try to give a final evaluation of the concepts. B. Fraser’s apology strategies (1980) Bruce Fraser deals with the matter of apologies in much the same way as Blum-Kulka or Olshtain do. First he gives a classification of apology concerning speech act categories. He afterwards analyzes the apology situation generally and then lists a number of strategies possible. He afterwards outlines the distinctive differences between the different strategies and gives an analysis of social factors. Fraser states that, in general, an offence means a violation of social norms. B. Fraser suggested nine apology strategies: 1. Announcing that you are apologizing (e.g. I’m hereby apologizing for…). 2. Stating one’s obligation to apologize (e.g. I must apologize for…). 3. Offering to apologize (e.g. I hereby offer my apology for…). 4. Requesting the hearer to accept an apology (e.g. Let me apologize for…). 5. Expressing regret for the offence (e.g. I’m so/truly/very apologizing for…). 6. Requesting forgiveness for the offence (e.g. Forgive me for…). 7. Acknowledging responsibility for the offending act (e.g. That was my fault). 8. Promising forbiddance from a similar offending act (e.g. I promise you that it will never happen again). 9. Offering redness (e.g. Please let my pay for the damage I’ve done). 38

While some of the strategies above are recurrent in several studies on apologies, what makes Fraser’s taxonomy different is that he distinguishes several categories that other scholars would place under the category illocutionary force indicating device. While this might be useful when studying IFIDs, a very minute differentiation of the different types of IFIDs may not be too useful when studying all the categories one uses to apologize. The importance of cultural influence on apologizing also needs to be reflected in the taxonomy of this speech act, and this can sometimes lead to some categories that would seem surprising, or even strange, to western cultures. As we can mention, Bruce Fraser’s work on apology strategies was one of the first works, so that is why it wasn’t complicated. A.J.Meier’s apology strategies A.J.Meier also created some apology elements. Actually her apology strategies cover the same elements as the previous works, but it excludes the category of «intensifiers» in A. Cohen, E. Olshtain’s works. 1. Speaker→hearer. This category consists from some small elements: emotive, expressing empathy, expressing negative feeling, explicit acceptance of blame, explicit statement of bad performance, redness, statement of act, thanking. 2. Hearer←speaker. This category consists of excuses, justifications, statement of inconsistency, joking. 3. Speaker↔hearer The third category consists of routine formula, expressing hope for continuation of status quo, expressing hope for return to status quo. We couldn’t use A.J. Meier’s system in our survey sample, because in our case we analyzed only respondent’s speech. That means that we couldn’t use the third case in system above. As a conclusion, there are many different categorizations of apologies. However, as presented earlier in the part of definitions of apologies that this type of speech act is culture – oriented, so not all the categories in these taxonomies would be effective for all cultures. Therefore, when creating the taxonomy for a study, the researchers 39

should choose the suitable categories which are employed mostly in the respective culture. Finally, categories such as avoiding and postponing apologies should also be part of the taxonomy, because not to apologize or apologize later is considered strategies when saying «sorry» is required. Therefore, the researchers combine some strategies that are mostly used in daily conversation as a framework. They are Illocutionary Force Indicating Device (IFID): the explicit speech act, Intensified IFID or IIFID which is an element that shows the degree of the intensity of the IFID (such as «I’m terribly sorry»); Providing a justification: trying to give an explanation of why the situation that required the apology happened’; Acknowledgment of responsibility: the offender takes responsibility by overtly admitting that the situation is his or her fault; Offer of repair: usually used to offer a remedy for the physical or moral damage that the speaker has caused; Promise of non-recurrence, and Pleading for understanding. Andrew Cohen, Elite Olshtain and Rosenstein’s apology strategies (1986) This categorization is a very important one and useful for the present studies because, unlike G. Bergman and F. Kasper’s taxonomy, it takes into account situation when even though the hearer believes the speaker should apologize, the latter does not. I would even include another category in the second part, namely postponing an apology, as in this case there is no apology given at the moment of speaking, either. A. Olshtain and S. Blum-Kulka carried out a study on requests and apologies with native speakers of Hebrew 2 and learners of Hebrew. They found that the learners of Hebrew approached native speaker norms when they had the same rules in their native languages and deviated from native speakers when they had language-specific rules. They also found that nonnatives’ length of stay in the target language community affected their choice of the formulas. A very similar taxonomy was the basis of the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (= CCSARP), and it comprises seven strategies to perform apologies: using an illocutionary force 2

Is a language native to Israel.


indicating device, taking on responsibility, explanation or account of what happened, offer to repair the offending act, promise of forbearance. These strategies can be used, according to the authors, by themselves, or in any combination or sequence. The categorization of A. Cohen, E. Olshtain and Rosenstein looks like: 1. An expression of apology (Illocutionary Force Indicating Device IFID). a) an expression of regret (e. g. I’m sorry). b) an offer of apology (e.g. I apologize). c) a request for forgiveness (e.g. excuse me, forgive me). 2. An offer of repair/redress (e.g. I’ll pay for your damage). 3. An explanation of an account (e.g. I missed the bus). 4. Acknowledging responsibility for the offense (e.g. It’s my fault). 5. A promise of forbearance (e.g. I’ll never forget it again). A. Olshtain and A. Cohen’s taxonomy was also modified by J. Holmes, who believed that it was necessary to rearrange these strategies in order to make them clearer. Thus, she divided apologies into four main categories, each category having sub classifications. The first one is an explicit expression of apology and contains the subcategories offer apology, express regret, request forgiveness. The second main category is represented by an explanation or account, an excuse or justification. The largest group, an acknowledgment of responsibility, contains accept blame, express self-deficiency, recognize as entitled to an apology, express lack of intent, offer repair/ redress. Finally, the last category is a promise of forbearance». While most of these categories are present in other taxonomies, as well, one can note that most of the ones in the «acknowledgment of responsibility group are unique to Holmes. A slightly different taxonomy was proposed by A. Trosborg, who distinguished five categories. She found that apologetic strategies can be divided according to whether the speaker considers that an action that requires an apology occurred or not. The first two categories come from the speaker’s not accepting that an apology is necessary, and are explicit denial and implicit denial. The remaining three categories are the result of the speaker accepting the fact that there is a need for an apology: giving a justification, blaming some41

one else, or attacking the complainer. In accordance with his own definition of apologies discussed earlier in this paper in the section on definitions of apologies, M. Owen classified apologies by the type of utterance they incorporate. Thus, he identified three types of apologies: one that incorporates apology, apologies, or apologize; one that incorporates «sorry;» and finally, the one that is created by the phrase «I’m afraid» followed by a sentence. M. Owen incorporated apologies in the broader context of primary remedial moves. Thus, there are seven strategies for primary remedial moves: assert imbalance or show deference, assert that an offence has occurred, express attitude towards offence, request restoration of balance, give an account, repair the damage, and provide compensation. The first four are grouped under non-substantive strategies, giving an account is considered a semi-substantive strategy, while the last two are substantive strategies. S. Blum-Kulka’s apology strategies (1989) The category named «Intensifies of the apology» consists of six sub-categories: 1. Intensifying adverbials (e.g. I’m so/truly/very apologizing for…). 2. Emotional expressions (e.g. Oh/ Oh no/ God). 3. Expressions marked for register (e.g. I do apologize). 4. Double intensifier (e.g. I’m very, very sorry). 5. Please (e.g. Please forgive me). 6. Concern for the hearer (e.g. I hope I didn’t upset you). The category named «Taking on responsibility» also consists of six sub-categories: 1. Explicit self-blame (e.g. My mistake). 2. Lack of intent (e.g. I didn’t mean to upset you). 3. Justify hearer (e.g. You are right to be angry). 4. Expression of embarrassment (e.g. I feel awful about it). 5. Admission of facts but not responsibility (e.g. I forgot about it). 6. Refusal to acknowledge guilt (e.g. I wasn’t my fault). The third category named as «Explanation or account» covers any external mitigating circumstances offered by the speaker. The 42

fourth category is «Offer of repair» and the last one is «Promise of forbearance». As we can mention from the information above there are a lot of apology strategies in a linguistic science. So that is why we mixed them all and created our own apology strategies for our survey sample. All the categories copy the previous works with some correction. We divided all the role plays' answers into some categories, let’ look on the in the detail. Five apology strategies: a. Apology: b. Explanation: c. Responsibility 1. Explicit self-blame (e.g. My mistake). 2. Lack of intent (e.g. I didn’t mean to upset you). 3. Justify hearer (e.g. You are right to be angry). 4. Expression of embarrassment (e.g. I feel awful about it). 5. Admission of facts but not responsibility (e.g. I haven’t read it). 6. Refusal to acknowledge guilt (e.g. I wasn’t my fault). d. Repair: e. Promise of forbearance (I propose it won’t happen again) Combination of/absence of apology strategies: a. Combination of strategies: b. No apology strategy: Modifications of apology strategies a. Intensify of apology (e.g. really, very) b. Minimizing responsibility c. Denial of responsibility (e.g. It’s your fault) d. Emotionals (e.g. Oh/ Oh no/ God) e. Minimizing offense (e.g. ok, no harm done) 7. Expressions marked for register (e.g. I do apologize). f. Please (e.g. Please forgive me). g. Concern for the hearer (e.g. I hope I didn’t upset you). As a conclusion, it is necessary to say that there are many different categorizations of apologies. However, as already mentioned in the section on Definitions of Apologies, this speech act is culture specific, so not all the categories in these taxonomies would work for all the cultures. Thus, when creating the taxonomy for a study one should choose those categories that are used in the respective culture. 43

Also, one should account both for explicit and implicit 24 apologies. Finally, categories such as avoiding and postponing apologies should also be part of the taxonomy, as choosing not to apologize or apologize later is also a strategy used when an apology is required. In this paper, we have attempted to explore both the forms and functions of the speech act of apology in an earlier period, and in doing so, have exhibited that apologies, as manifested in the pauper letters, consist mostly of routinized and formulaic expressions identifiable through IFIDs such as «I am sorry» or «It is with regret that…». As to their functions, I have suggested that in the context under investigation, most apologies are not polite expressions intended as repairs in the way Brown and Levinson’s model of politeness suggests. More likely, the function of apologies comes to light only when distinctions are made between politics and polite behavior, as suggested by Watts’s model of politeness. Under this view, conventional apologies are best viewed as a politic behavior that, when adopted, turns out to be a strategy that the writers used in negotiating and constructing a smooth, harmonious interpersonal relationship with their interlocutors. Task №7 1. What is the different between apology strategies? 2. Give your own apology strategies.



Many observers of Japan communication point out that Japanese are more «apologetic» than others. For example, one study found that this may result from the fact that Japanese are often held accountable for offenses committed by a far greater number of others who belong to their group. On the contrary, U.S. Americans typically apologize for wrongdoing of only themselves and a few others such as spouse, young children, and pets. If we turn to the history, we will notice some interesting facts. For example, the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has issued a much-anticipated statement marking the 70th anniversary of the end of World War Two. He gave a «heartfelt apology», but as the BBC's M. Oi explains, that is only one of the many ways you can express remorse in Japanese. In English, you either say «sorry» or «apologies». In Japanese, there are at least 20 different ways. Apologetic expressions such as those including «sorry» are clearly distinguished from those with «thanks» in the English language and therefore least likely to be employed in these situations. In Japan, by contrast, people typically see (or at least, act as if they see) the same situation as they inconvenienced the other by putting him or her in a position of having no choice but to pick up the pen. In this view, the act of picking up the pen is imposition caused by the pen owner’s careless act rather than the autonomous other’s voluntary favor. In Japan, it is perfectly acceptable, if not desirable, for the owner of the pen to negatively attribute the imposition to himself or herself as it nicely fits the «polite fiction» in the culture, «I’m your inferior». Just like English, the Japanese language has phrases distinctively associated with apology such as ごめんなさい (gomen'nasai) and 45

申し訳ない (moshiwakenai) as well as those identified with thanks such as ありがとう (arigatō). In situations like above, however, Japanese are most likely to use すみません (sumimasen). The expression is not the most typical fixed expression for either apology or thanks, but can be used for both and Japanese often take advantage of this elusiveness to maneuver through tricky norms of communication in their culture. Yet, at the same time, it is this elusiveness which complicates the issue of principles and applications of apology and thanks in various situations in Japan. Japanese most typically use す み ま せ ん (sumimasen) when saying ありがとう(arigatō) would risk sounding arrogant or less appreciative, even when the other’s act was apparently voluntary: saying ありがとう (arigatō) sounds as if the speaker considers himself/herself as deserving of the favor because it lacks the «lowering» function of apology. As such, ありがとう (arigatō) is reserved for situations involving those very close to the speaker. Even its politer form, ありがとうございます (arigatō gozaimasu) is used in only a few situations which distinctively call for expressions of gratitude to those not very close to the speaker. To Japanese, すみません (sumimasen) is a convenient linguistic tool to avoid risky use of ありがとう (arigatō) as described above. す み ま せ ん (sumimasen) can be used in these situations because the phrase literally means «it never ends» with «it» referring to the on or indebtedness felt by the speaker to the other. This indebtedness can be either positive (incurred by a favor done by the other) or negative (incurred by an offense endured by the other), both of which can be dealt with by sumimasen. Without such a common expression in English, the former is acknowledged by thanks and the latter by apology in the U.S. In fact, in casual conversation, Japanese go so far to try to get by with just どうも (dōmo), an intensifier just like «much» in English or mucho in Spanish. Since both すみません (sumimasen) and ありがとう (arigatō) are intensified by どうも (dōmo). Saying どうも (dōmo) alone enables the speaker to strategically leave it ambiguous and let the listener interpret it anyway he or she considers appropriate for the context. By doing so, the speaker can 46

avoid the risk of committing a linguistic gaffe. すみません(sumimasen) and the subsequent use of どうも(dōmo) alone is very convenient yet it also contributes to the perception, even by Japanese themselves that they apologize when they should thank the other. That is because, in the lay notion, すみません (sumimasen) is associated with apology far more strongly than with thanks. Going back to the illustration in the beginning, even Japanese would rarely use most typical apology expressions, ごめんなさい (gomen'nasai) or 申し訳 (moshiwakenai) but opt for the elusive すみません(sumimasen), because it is the safest way to respond to the situation. But if confronted to identify the function of the expression, they would name apology as that is what すみません(sumimasen) is (though loosely) associated with, and they perhaps conclude, after acknowledging that the situations might be equally dealt with by thanks, that they tend to apologize when they should express gratitude. Cultural Perceptions of Language not only the frequency, but also the style of apology seems to contribute to the perception that Japanese are more apologetic than are U.S. American.Japanese tend to castigate themselves, emphasize negative aspects of the situation, and promise to repair damage and/or not to repeat the same offense, all of which create the image of profuse apologies. As we can see すみません (sumimasen) is a multiple function expressions that are why we would like to find out some main functions of that word. So we can use すみません (sumimasen) in such cases as: 1. You would like to express sincere apology. Originally the expression すみません (sumimasen) was used only as an expression of apology, such as other apology expressions. Therefore, using すみません (sumimasen) as a sincere apology is pretty straight forward. We can use it when you’ve really messed up and you want to make a legitimately apology. Let’s pay attention on the example below: Friend: Hey, you ate all my Kit-Kats again, didn’t you!? You: すみません (sumimasen) The speaker above means that he sincerely regrets this. Therefore, using sumimasen is a perfectly viable option. 47

2. Thanks and apology. While one use of すみません (sumimasen) is a flat out sincere apology, it can also be used to express a sense of mixed regret and thankfulness. Say what? Perhaps you’ve run into this situation in Japan, or any other place for that matter: You’re in line at seven eleven patiently waiting to purchase your dinner, a pack of Take no Ko (chocolate covered cookies) and a bottle of Calpis. You get to the front of the line, and the clerk rings up your selections to a total of 310 yen, so you hand her 400. «You don’t have 10 yen?» she asks hesitantly. «Oh, yes, I do». you reply, digging in your wallet and then eventually dumping over your entire book bag to scrounge up the change. すみません (sumimasen), the clerk repeats over and over again. If you’ve been in this situation in Japan before, you might have thought the clerk apologized one too many times for a favor as small as requesting exact change. However, in this context, while the clerk may regret making you scrounge for an extra 10 yen, she is most likely expressing her gratitude to you for going through the trouble to help her out. In this sense, すみません (sumimasen) has the ability to express both a sense of regret and thankfulness. In fact, using sumimasen in situations involving debt to another like the one above could be regarded as a more polite thank you than ありがとう (arigato), as it shows the speaker’s awareness of the other person’s trouble and also adds a tone of humbleness. 3. Making a request. すみません (sumimasen) can also be used prior to making a request of someone. This use of sumimasen is similar to «excuse me» in English, as in «Excuse me, but could you please pass me the biscuits? They look so swell». You might come across this in Japanese if you are required to pay a fee for something, or if someone asks to barrow money from you. Using sumimasen to make a request would classify it as a remedial expression in that it attempts to downplay any offense someone might feel in the given situation. In this way, it is also similar to the English expressions «do you mind if» or «could you please». So, if you need to ask someone a favor and you want to be a bit more subtle than «DO THIS OR DIE» you might consider using すみません (sumimasen). 48

4. Getting attention. Hey! Heeeey! Do I have your attention? Up until now all the uses of すみません (sumimasen) we’ve discussed have been related to feelings of regret and thankfulness. However, using sumimasen does not always denote one’s pouring out of emotions. Sumimasen can function as an attention-getter. While there are many other conversation starters in Japanese such as あのう、こんにちは(ano, konnichiwa), or even clearing your throat, すみません (sumimasen) is often used between people who are not familiar with each other, making it the polite way to get someone’s attention. This is the same sumimasen we used in the story at the beginning of this post when the woman dropped her wallet, and it is identical to English’s «excuse me» used when talking to a stranger. 5. Taking leave. Opposite of getting someone’s attention, sumimasen is also used when ending a conversation or taking leave. A typical conversation closing might look like this: A: じゃ、すみません (Ja, sumimasen) B: あ、お大事に (A, odaiji ni) A: Well then, I’m off. B: Oh, take care then. When using sumimasen as either a conversation opener or closer, how grateful or regretful you feel becomes somewhat irrelevant. At this point, sumimasen is more of a routine expression than anything else. And since it is being used as a greeting and no offense is involved, it has become a supportive expression rather than a remedial one. However, since there is other greetings used to open and close conversations such as こんにちは (konnichiwa) or さよな ら(sayonara), すみません (sumimasen) does still display a slight sense of thankfulness or regret for the attention that the speaker received in conversation. 6. Affirmative response. As すみません (sumimasen) leans more and more on the side of a supportive expression rather than a remedial expression, the meaning of すみません(sumimasen) becomes more and more vague, making it difficult to translate and understand if you haven’t been marinated in Japanese culture. 49

Another function of すみません (sumimasen) is to confirm something or respond to someone in an affirmative manner. Here’s an example: Imagine that you are at the bank, sitting with a group of people waiting to be served at the counter. Suddenly, the man next to you is called. «A-san! お待たせいたしました。(Omataseitashimashita)!» the clerk shouts, and the man responds with す み ま せ ん (sumimasen). すみません (sumimasen)? The first thing you would be thinking is «what in the world has this man done wrong?!» Absolutely nothing. Saying すみません (sumimasen) in this context allows the man to respond to the clerk in a face-to-face situation while also acknowledging the fact that she is going through the trouble to call him and give him service. In other words, using sumimasen here is the polite way to respond «OK» or «yes». Honestly, this can be tricky to wrap your mind around if you’re not too familiar with Japanese culture, but it’s not uncommon to hear. 7. Ritual greeting. At this point, we are the furthest distance away from a sincere apology, the original function of すみません (sumimasen), that we can get. It’s all ritualistic yakking from here on out. Imagine the following: A woman goes to the department store to buy a new bicycle which requires her to fill out a registration card. After she fills it out, and the clerk assisting her checks it, the clerk returns it saying すみ ません (sumimasen), and of course, she replies, すみません(sumimasen). So much すみません (sumimasen). Does it even mean anything anymore? The first すみません (sumimasen) is similar to number six, an affirmative response, as he acknowledges the fact that the registration card is complete. The second す み ま せ ん (sumimasen)? Perhaps a polite way of a receiving the card. Whatever it is, the most basic way of looking at すみません (sumimasen) in this context is as a «symbolic gesture of concern». We guess awkward silences have to be filled somehow, and すみま せん (sumimasen) just happens to be the way to do it. In a way, you could compare this use of sumimasen to high school students greeting each other in the hallway with «sup?» in the sense that it is only a symbol of acknowledgment and has no real meaning. 50

Alright, so we are sure that you get it by now: すみません (sumimasen) is used heavily in Japanese communication. As you can see from the examples above, this one word is used to express many ideas besides «I’m sorry». As a conclusion, it necessary to say, that all functions of すみま せん(sumimasen) do have one thing in common: the acknowledgment of indebtedness to others in society. Understanding this, we can clearly see how some Japanese societal values are reflected linguistically in the term すみません (sumimasen). Japanese society is highly concerned with indebtedness towards others and also the individual’s social role in public. Even very small favors have the effect of forming mutual debts and responsibilities between members of the society. The priority put on public appearance and debt in Japanese society is perhaps the reason why the term sumimasen is used so often in public interactions; it allows Japanese speakers to put themselves in a humble position and show their «debt» in many circumstances. Could this high prioritization of «debt» be the reason why the term sumimasen is more polite in places where alternative expressions such as «thank you» would normally be said in English and many other languages? Further, we collected some expressions, which mean «sorry» on Japanese language. In order to collect the material below, we used soma apology speeches on the news’ magazines, Internet web-sites and other resources. Table 2 List of expressions, which means «sorry» in Japanese Apology expressions on Japanese 1 すみません すみませんでした

Example 2 お手数をおかけしてすみません – I am sorry to trouble you. すみません、今忙しいんです – I am sorry, I am busy. 本当にすみません-I’m so sorry. 遅れてしまって本当にすみません – I’m sorry for being late. すみません。本当に申し訳なく思います – I’m sorry. I feel awful.


1 失礼 失礼いたしました ごめんください ごめんなさい ごめん ごめんね

申し訳ありません 申し訳ありませんで した 大変申し訳ありませ ん 多大なご迷惑をおか けして、心から申し 訳なく存じます. お詫び申し上げます

お詫びの申し上げよ うもございません 陳謝いたします 幾重にもお詫び申し 上げます お詫びの言葉もあり ません お詫びの言葉に苦し んでおります お詫びの申しあげよ うもありません 大変ご迷惑をおかけ いたしました ご心配をおかけいた しまして 大変ご心配をおかけ いたしました

2 失礼します – I apologies. 失 礼 を 、 お 許 し く だ さ い – Please forgive my rudeness. そのことはごめんなさいね-Sorry about that. ごめんなさい、大丈夫?-Sorry, are you OK? 遅れてしまって、ごめんなさい – I am sorry, I am late. 行けなくて、ごめんなさい – I am sorry, I couldn’t come. ご迷惑をかけて申し訳ありません. – I apologies for the trouble.

この度は、多大なご迷惑をおかけして、心から心 から申し訳なく、深くお詫びいたします。 – I deeply apologies for disturbing you. 皆様には大変ご迷惑おかけしました事を深くお詫 び 申 し 上 げ ま す 。 – I deeply apologies for inconvenience to everybody. 再度のミスをおかし、お詫びの申し上げようもご ざいません。– I apologies for my mistake. 今回の件を厳粛に受け止め、陳謝いたします。 – I apologies for the trouble. ご配慮を無にしましたこと、幾重にもお詫び申し 上げます。– I deeply apologies for disturbing you. ご迷惑をおかけした皆様には、本当にお詫びの言 葉もありません。– I deeply apologies for disturbing you. とんだ不始末をしでかしまして、お詫びの言葉に 苦 し ん で お り ま す 。 – I apologies for misunderstanding. 店舗改装期間中は、大変ご迷惑をおかけいたしま した。– I apologies for the store remodeling period. ご心配をおかけいたしまして、申し訳ありません でした。– I deeply apologies. この度の報道では、皆様に大変ご心配をおかけい た し ま し た 。 – I deeply apologies for worrying everyone.


As we can see there are a lot of expressions which means «sorry» in Japanese language, that is why we had an interview with Japanese students and found out the most frequently used apology expressions and some more useful information. The online survey sample was posted on Facebook on the 29th of February and took place for some period of time. It necessary to mention, that it was author’s first experience. As a result, the questions of survey sample were simple. But it was good experience for further research. So, let’s look on the survey sample: アンケート表 私はアイジャンと申します。アル・ファラビ名称カザフ国立 大学大学院の修士課程学生です。本アンケート調査では皆さ んのお詫びに関する見方・意見を検討したいです。御協力お 願いします。 ご記入に当たってのお願い: (1)ご回答は、研究目的のみのために使わせていただきま す。また、回答は統計処理を施して総 括的に公表しますので、個別の回答を公表することはありま せん。 (2)ご回答の方法は、各質問項目について異なりますので、 各質問項目の指示にご注意ください。 (3)お名前を書く必要はありません。 日時:2016 年月日 ID:_________大学年齢: 性別:男性・女性 学部/学科: The next step for the respondent was to write down the date, sex and place of study. This information was useful for statistics and data analyze. №1 お詫びをするということは何だと思いますか。ご意見 を述べてください。 53

№2 あなたはどんな時にお詫びをしますか。例を述べてく ださい。 №3 お 詫 び を す る 時 ど ん な 言 葉 を 使 っ て い ま す か ? _______________________________________________________ The questions from 1 to 3 were free choice questions. The respondents had to answer on the questions and give their own opinion on it. №4 以下の言葉の中で一番多く使っているのを選んでくだ さい。 o 本当に申し訳ありません o すいません o 申し訳ありません o すみません o 失礼しました o ごめん o ごめんなさい o 悪い o 申し訳ない On the question number 4 the respondents had to choose the most frequently used apology expressions. №5 架空のケースです。あなたは友達の書類にインクをこ ぼしてしまった時に何を言いますか。 ____________________________________________________ №6 架空のケースです。あなたは宿題を忘れてしまいまし た。先生に何を言いますか。 ____________________________________________________ 54

№7 架空の話です。学生(あなた)が教授から本を借りた。 今日返すべきなのに、忘れてしまった」学生(あなた): 先生:大丈夫だよ。明日必ず持ってきてね。 №8 架空のケースです。あなたは授業に遅れてしまいまし た。先生に何を言いますか。 ____________________________________________________ The questions from number 5 to number 8 were case study questions. We gave to the respondents some daily situations. The respondents had to read the text and image some situations. As a result, they had to write down their answers on the sheet of paper. №9 架空の話です。Aさんは友達からプレゼントをもらっ た時に:「すみません、どうも。。。」と言いました。この 例では、「すみません」は何を表していますか。 №10 架空のケースです。あなたは道にまよってしまいま した。何をしますか。 №11 架空のケースです。あなたは「すみません。。。」 とどんな時に言いますか。 №12「すみません」と「ごめん」の間に違いがありますか。 あったら、どんな違いですか。 ご協力ありがとうございます! Survey results So, the question number 4 was: Please choose from the following words expressions, which you use more often than others. There were seven different words and expressions, which are: 本当 に申し訳ありませんすいません (hontoni moshiwakearimasen suimasen), 申し訳ありません (moshiwakearimasen), すみませ ん (sumimasen), 失 礼 し ま し た (shitsureishimashita), ご め ん (gomen), 悪い(warui) and 申し訳ない (moshiwakenai). 55

All expressions means «sorry», but used in a different situations. So, let’s look to the graph:

Graph 1. The most frequently used apology expressions

As we can see from the chart above the words are simple and actually they are from the «speaking words group». That is why we can suppose that students use simple words much often than older generation because they didn’t have work experience. In conclusion it is necessary to say that expressions we mentioned above not all. There are much more expressions in Japanese language which express apology. There are different in different situations and differ from person who use them. Task №8 1. Continue the list of expressions which means «sorry». 2. How this lecture can be used in the intercultural communication?





After the oil spills and ethics scandals, big corporate public apologies have become a norm. They spark debates in rooms where business executives meet, all the way to online forums where consumers tweet their two cents. In the headlines, the apologies are often lauded as an admission of corporate guilt, or accused of being a cheap corporate ploy. They are also usually reported in the context of decreased trust in business and the increased power of the consumer vis-à-vis 3 the corporation. Meanwhile, a separate debate goes on about the merits of capitalism – a system that depends on the success of corporate interests. Is there a connection between the drama of corporate apologies and the drama of capitalism? Apologies are known for rehabilitating social order. Which social order are corporate public apologies rehabilitating? So far, research on apologies has focused primarily on their short-term effects on reputation and crisis communications. However, corporate interests play big cultural and economic roles in capitalist systems, necessitating far more critical investigation into what their apologies mean. This research asks how corporate public apologies resist or reaffirm those corporate roles and their capitalist framework. It is situated in the field of media and communications, 3

Face to face.


drawing upon cultural studies and political economy analytical approaches to answer this question. Before we start analyzing apology cases in a corporate culture, we would like to give some definitions and useful tips to corporate culture. It means what corporate culture actually is, history and some mane rules. Corporate culture refers to the beliefs and behaviors that determine how a company's employees and management interact and handle outside business transactions. Often, corporate culture is implied, not expressly defined, and develops organically over time from the cumulative traits of the people the company hires. A company's culture will be reflected in its dress code, business hours, office setup, employee benefits, turnover, hiring decisions and treatment of clients, client satisfaction and every other aspect of operations. Task №1 1. What is the corporate culture? 2. Give some examples on corporate culture rules.


The theme №2 HISTORY OF CORPORATE CULTURE While awareness of corporate or organizational culture in businesses and other organizations such as universities emerged in the 1960s, the term corporate culture was developed in the early 1980s and widely known by the 1990s. Corporate culture was used at this time by managers, sociologists and other academics to describe the character of a company, not only through generalized beliefs and behaviors, but also through company-wide value systems, management strategies, employee communication and relations, work environment, attitude, and even company origin myths via charismatic CEOs 4, as well as visual symbols such as logos and trademarks. By 2015, corporate culture was not only created by the founders, management and employees of a company, but also influenced by national cultures and traditions, economic trends, international trade, company size and products produced. A well-cited historical example of distinctions between corporate cultures is the traditional business practices of the Japanese, and the American individualistic and entrepreneurial corporate culture of the 1960s. There are a variety of terms that relate to companies affected by multiple cultures, especially in the wake of globalization and the increased international interaction of today's business environment. As such, cross culture refers to the interaction of people from different backgrounds in the business world; culture shock refers to the confusion or anxiety people experience when conducting business in a society other than their own; and reverse culture shock is often experienced by people who spend lengthy times abroad for business and have difficulty readjusting upon their return. To create positive cross-culture experiences and facilitate a more cohesive and productive corporate culture, companies often devote in-depth resources to combating the occurrence of the above, including specialized training that improves cross-culture business interactions. 4

A chief executive officer, the highest-ranking person in a company or other institution, ultimately responsible for taking managerial decisions.


Task №2 1. How you understand CEO? 2. What is a cross-culture business interaction? 3. Read the following text and answer to the question: «When should a Leader apologize-or not?»

Text №1 The question of whether leaders should apologize publicly has never been more urgent. During the last decade or so, the United States in particular has developed an apology culture – apologies of all kinds and for all sorts of transgressions is extended far more frequently than before. In his book On Apology, A. Lazare offers sample evidence that the number of apologies is on the rise, also pointing out that they have become grist for our collective mill: «Newspaper columnists covering the national and international scene have written about the growing importance of public apologies, while articles, cartoons, advice columns, and radio and television programs have similarly addressed the subject of private apologies». Members of various professions hardly known in the past as exemplars of humility have begun to discuss what role apology play in their professional practice. Many physicians, for instance, now at least consider apologizing to a patient for a medical mistake; and within the medical profession generally, there is discussion about when an apology is in order. In addition, new laws have made it significantly easier for medical providers to apologize to their patients. In 2003, Colorado enacted a law stating that an apology extended by a health care provider would, in any civil action, «be inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability». (Several other states deem expressions of sympathy inadmissible in court – though for them, full apologies are another matter). While, in the past, fear of a malpractice suit nearly always precluded health care providers from admitting a mistake, University of Florida law professor Jonathan R. Cohen observes in «Toward Candor After Medical Error» (Harvard Health Policy Review, Spring 2004), it is «precisely that silence – that failure to admit a mistake and apologize for it – that can prompt a lawsuit». 60

The rise in the number of leaders publicly apologizing has been especially remarkable. Apologies are a tactic leaders now frequently use in an attempt to put behind them, at minimal cost, the errors of their ways. So many corporate executives expressed regret for one or another offense in the summer of 2000 that some business writers called it the «summer of apologies». The transgressions for which leaders begged pardon included unreliable flights, bad phone service, and tire blowouts. Since then, the pattern has continued. The CEO of Health Care IT Company Cerner insulted his management team in an e-mail; when the company’s stock took a dive, he apologized for the e-mail he’d sent. Etienne Rachou, head of Air France’s European and North African operations, apologized to an Israeli businessman after an Air France pilot referred to the Tel Aviv destination as «IsraelPalestine». John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems, asked service providers for their forgiveness because the company hadn’t made their needs enough of a priority. Sometimes leaders even apologize for sins to which they personally have no connection. On a state visit to Poland in 1970, German chancellor Willy Brandt extended a wordless apology for crimes committed three decades earlier by the Nazis against Polish Jews. (Apparently filled with emotion, Brandt dropped to his knees as he approached a Warsaw war memorial.) In 1995, Helge Wehmeier, then president and CEO of Bayer, similarly expressed his deepest regret on behalf of Bayer’s original parent company, for its having been complicit in the Holocaust. And just recently, in 2005, Ken Thompson, chairman and CEO of Wachovia, revealed that two of its acquired companies had owned slaves. He added: «On behalf of Wachovia Corporation, I apologize to all Americans, and especially to African-Americans and people of African descent. We are deeply saddened by these findings». Leaders outside the corporate world have also been doing an impressive amount of breast-beating. In the last several years, former U.S. secretary of defense Robert McNamara apologized repeatedly for his poor judgment during the Vietnam War. Republican U.S. senator Trent Lott apologized for suggesting that the country would have averted many problems if onetime segregationist Strom Thurmond had won the 1948 presidential race. Vicente Fox, the president of Mexico, apologized for saying that Mexicans were willing to take jobs in the United States «that not even blacks want to 61

do». Evangelist Pat Robertson apologized for saying that the United States should kill Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, and for suggesting that the stroke suffered by Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon was divine retribution for «dividing God’s land». Cardinal Bernard Law apologized for sexual abuse by priests in the Boston Archdiocese – for «the rupturing of that sacred trust». Oprah Winfrey, who presides over a great media empire and American culture more generally, apologized for defending (and being duped by) James Frey’s «memoir» – for leaving «the impression that the truth does not matter». And Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, apologized for suggesting that «intrinsic aptitude» might explain the low number of women in science and engineering. The case of Summers is a striking example of the lengths to which leaders will go to say they’re sorry. Having created a firestorm, on campus and beyond, the president apologized again and again. A few days after the incident, Summers sent a letter to every member of the Harvard community that read, in part, «I deeply regret the impact of my comments and apologize for not having weighed them more carefully». At a faculty meeting one month later, Summers said: «I deeply regret having sent a signal of discouragement to people in this room and beyond who have worked very hard for many years to advance the progress of women in science and throughout academic life». And in another letter, this one sent to Harvard faculty two days after that meeting, Summers wrote, «If I could turn back the clock, I would have spoken differently on matters so complex…I should have left such speculation to those more expert in the relevant fields. I especially regret the backlash directed against individuals who have taken issue with aspects of what I said» (Summers did not apologize right away, and there is evidence that he did so reluctantly. Obviously, it is impossible to know whether a prompt expression of regret would have forestalled the firestorm, which led to his resignation, effective at the end of June 2006). Of course, apologies are like everything else: They reflect the cultures within which they are embedded. In Japan, for example, a leader’s apology is not nearly so remarkable a gesture as it is in most other countries. One observer went so far as to describe Japan as the «apologetic society par excellence». Still, it is not too much to say that the apology as a form of social exchange is growing in international importance. 62


J. Fiske outlines two definitions of communications: 1) an event involving a recipient's personal interpretation of a message; 2) an event by which a recipient is influenced by a message's sender. The cultural studies approach to media tends to uphold the interpretive definition. Many authors emphasize that cultural objects are standalone texts to be analyzed in their own right, in relation to a reader's active, unique reading. This camp of scholars developed out of an older tradition that was seen as elitist and reductionist because of its arguments that mass media and culture was primarily an extension of an economic superstructure. In response, cultural studies became awesomely broad in intellectual sweep as it drew upon other disciplines, such as race and gender studies, for more ways to analyze culture and audiences. By embracing the discursive character of everyday social practices, cultural studies theorists have been able to uncover the potential for complex, ambivalent and contested meanings attributed to texts across television, film, music and advertising. Still, media theorist S. Hallhas explained that texts can exhibit widely read dominant or preferred meanings because they have been imprinted by a society's institutional, political or ideological order. Such texts are decoded the way they were encoded, though Hall emphasized that such linear interpretation is still the reader's choice. Hall also explained that messages are known to carry two levels of meaning: denotative, which are literal and in a sense universal, and connotative, which are deeper, more associative and transformable. At both levels, though, a message can be saturated by a currently dominant ideology, even if no one realizes it. One example of these 63

stratified meanings could be R. Barthes' observation that margarine advertisements in France always started with an immediate cry of indignation about the strangeness of the product, before encouraging the viewer to let go of their progressive prejudices and see how digestible, economical, useful in all circumstances it actually was. This was a literal explanation of the advertisement. Crucially, though, R. Barthes found that this strategy was a common pattern of rhetoric in France – of neutralizing a weakness by first proclaiming it. It was a paradoxical but incontrovertible means of exalting’ various new products. Other authors have discovered that this happens over time, too, such that authentic resistance to authorities is co-opted by those authorities, gradually. Media theorist D. Hebdige’s trajectory of work is a good example of this: he first wrote about British punkсyouth cultures in the 1970s that used style to resist mainstream aesthetics, but later admitted «he had underestimated the power of commercial culture to appropriate, and indeed, to produce, counter-hegemonic styles. This is how culture can be used both to oppress minority groups or free minority groups in society». Yet recent changes in media technology may have strengthened the argument that communications are not so much coercive as cooperative and creative. Some sociologists and media theorists argue that the world has moved into a new historical age that has changed social hierarchies in an unprecedented way. J. Baudrillard’s questioning of the concept of «real» has been used to support many hypotheses that there are no permanently enforceable definitions or realities. Others believe that traditional, top-down models of power have been weakened by popular movements of resistance and upheaval that today's online media forms facilitate. Sociologist S. Lashhas proposed that the world is in fact post-hegemonic, meaning that modern communications has become so instantaneous and ubiquitous that traditional authority systems have given way to a world where anyone can vie for power in any everyday situation. The basic idea is that new media and communications have ushered in a more participatory world, one that is horizontal and not vertical. Other optimists about the new economy and society includes Y. Benkler and H. Jenkins, who see the Internet and social media fostering a revolution of users breaking down structures of top down authority. 64

Corporate public apologies occur in this arguably nonlinear media environment. Business journal and ethics studies over the last half-century have grown increasingly convinced that today's corporations commit themselves to «social contracts» with consumers that curtail their autonomy. The rise of corporate social responsibility policies seems to evidence this contract by showing corporate efforts to be more transparent or engage with NGOs 5 and stakeholders beyond their shareholders. These efforts suggest a constructive relationship between companies and consumers. Business management scholars Mark Lee Hunter, Marc Le Menestrel and Henri-Claude de Bettignies supported this idea in their studies of a boycott against dairyproduct corporation Danone in 2001 in France. They warned that businesses that use communications to unilaterally control public opinion only carry growing risks in terms of conflict because disgruntled consumers had become a powerful force on corporate profits that companies needed to address and engage. With the advent of more horizontal communications like the Internet and social media, attempts to manipulate the public single-handedly were unlikely to reap benefits. This view of corporate communications gives less credence to corporations as manipulative message makers. Recent analyses have insisted that a fixed, top-down view of corporate messages «neglects the interactive and often iterative process by which a company is defined, recognized and seen by its consumers. In other words, companies are not guaranteed survival in the marketplace, their owners not ensured wealth, and consumers devise their own representations of the product or the brand in question. This view echoes the cultural studies emphasis on the fluid and flexible nature of messages. Communications professor M. Karlberg has therefore brought nuance to the notion that PR is an instrument of commerce means of influencing consumer values and behavior; P. Curtin and G. Turner have also called for research that acknowledges PR as a synergistic, nonlinear, dynamic process. According to these views, a corporate public apology could resemble the J. Wihbey the way cultural studies theorists R. Gray analyzed it in their iconic 1997 study: an object of 5

A non-governmental organization (=NGO)


culture whose meaning for society is diverse, dynamic and different depending on the audience. Approaching corporate public apologies through cultural studies suggests it should not be automatically defined as a tool of public manipulation for corporate interests, but as possible evidence of organic public protest and uncontrollably defined. Conclusion In many protracted and deep-rooted conflicts, apology and forgiveness are essential for reconciliation and conflict resolution. As long as one side continues to blame the other (or both sides blame each other) for their problems, healing cannot occur, and normal relationships based on mutual acceptance and trust cannot be formed. Apology is often a difficult step, as it requires acknowledging guilt. However, the lack of apology suggests to the other side that its opponent thinks that its behavior was appropriate. This creates the fear that the opponent’s unjust or violent behavior will continue. An apology is a signal, more than anything, that the opponent regrets its actions and wants to rebuild a new relationship on a stronger foundation. Task №3 1. Retell the text. 2. Give your own conclusion on the topic.


The theme №4 APOLOGIZING IN JAPAN: SORRY SEEMS TO BE THE HARDEST WORD When we wrong someone we know, even unintentionally, we are generally expected to apologize. The person we hurt feels entitled to an admission of error and an expression of regret. We, in turn, try to ameliorate the situation by saying, «I’m sorry» and perhaps making restitution. But when we’re acting as leaders, the circumstances are different. Leaders are responsible not only for their own behavior but also for that of their followers, who might number in the hundreds, thousands, or even millions. The first question is who exactly is the guilty party? The degree of damage is an issue as well. When a leader feels obliged to apologize, especially for a trespass in which followers were involved, the harm inflicted was likely serious, widespread, and enduring. Since leaders speak for, as well as to, their followers, their apologies have broad implications. The act of apology is carried out not merely at the level of the individual but also at the level of the institution. It is not only personal but also political. It is a performance in which every expression matters and every word becomes part of the public record. For leaders to apologize publicly is therefore a high-stakes move: for themselves, for their followers, and for the organizations they represent. Refusal to apologize can be smart, or it can be suicidal. Conversely, readiness to apologize can be seen as a sign of strong character or as a sign of weakness. A successful apology can turn enmity into personal and organizational triumph-while an apology that is too little, too late, or too transparently tactical can bring on individual and institutional ruin. People from all over the world know the Toyota Company 6 . Moreover the world knows Toyota cars have experienced a rash of 6

Japanese automotive manufacturer headquartered in Toyota, Aichi, Japan.


mechanical failures: more than 9 million of these vehicles have been recalled across five continents. But much of the world didn’t know what was made at news conference in Toyota’s Nagoya headquarters. President Akio Toyoda 7 , grandson of the corporation’s founder, bowed low and apologized. «I deeply regret that I caused concern among so many people» he said. «We will do our utmost to regain the trust of our customers». Trading on a reputation for quality and reliability, Toyota had been one of the global economy’s winners, until malfunctioning accelerators and other mechanical flaws led to a series of accidents, including a fiery crash in Santee in August that killed a California Highway Patrol officer and three family members. This week, as its stock slid and its workings were scrutinized by U.S. congressional investigators, Toyota revealed new concerns over faulty brakes in its 2010 Prius. As the crisis mounted, Toyoda did what Japanese corporate leaders usually do. He apologized. Analysis of the motivations behind apology in Asia is primarily driven by Japanese political apologies as Japan is the only Asian country to offer apologies for conflict atrocities during the sample period. Applying the results to only Japan, the model suggests that Japan’s 60 losses in past conflicts have an increasing effect on the likelihood of apology while the passage of time has a similar positive effect. Depending on whether the administration in place at a given time has a positive or negative view of apology, this result implies a virtuous or vicious cycle for apology. Likewise for Asia as a whole, the likelihood of apology in additional Asian nations increases each time Japan offers a new apology for past atrocities. «The public apology is a part of how business is done in Japan» said Ulrike Schaede, a professor of Japanese business at the University of California San Diego. «But it doesn’t come easy. People don’t apologize for just anything, right and left». Still, this is an odd sight for Americans more accustomed to seeing corporate chieftains evading rather than apologizing. «The Japanese culture is more conducive to the concept of apology than Western culture has become, especially in recent years», said Jay Scovie, a spokesman for the North American division of Kyocera, a Japanese manufacturer of industrial ceramics. «The 7

The president of Toyota Motor Corporation.


Japanese people have an expectation that a leader is personally responsible». Moreover, American tycoons worry that any apology will be seen as an admission of guilt: and an invitation to a lawsuit. In Japan, executives can ritually abase themselves without fear of going to court. «The legal systems in Japan and the United States are so different» Schaede said. If these apologies are peculiarly Japanese, Toyota is well-versed in this custom. Two years ago, Toyoda’s predecessor apologized for quality defects. Last year, Toyoda himself issued an apology when CHP Officer Mark Saylor, his wife, daughter and brother-in-law died after the accelerator jammed in their Lexus. But if apology follows apology, yet serious design flaws still dog the automaker, why should anyone trust Toyoda’s pledges now? One reason, Schaede noted: This crisis strikes at Toyoda’s personal as well as professional honor. «He’s the grandson of the founder, and that’s why his apology is so genuine» she said. «It’s the family name. He will give this 150 percent or more». Japanese observers argue that the stakes are higher than the fate of one family or company, even one as wealthy as Toyota. In the English-language edition of today’s Yomiuri, Japan’s largest newspaper, an editorial blasts the company for trusting its technology more than its complaining customers. «Failure to properly deal with the current fiasco could deal a blow to the international trust in Japan’s manufacturing technology» the editorial warned. «We hope Toyota humbly accepts the criticism leveled against it and will do all it can to ensure the safety and high quality of its vehicles». Before news conference, Tokyo reporters had been so frustrated in their attempts to obtain a corporate statement that they had nicknamed Toyoda No-Show Akio. Yesterday, they asked him if he should have acted more quickly. «I will do my best» he replied. As we can see from the example above, corporate culture on contrition in Japan differs from that of the West, which tends to view an apology as an admission of guilt that potentially opens the guilty party up to civil lawsuits. Domestic firms place great emphasis on public apologies and it’s not unusual to see an individual utter the words 大変申しわけあ りませんでした (taihen moshi wake arimasendeshita) – «We are 69

deeply sorry» before bowing deeply for about three to five seconds as dozens of cameras flash incessantly at a news conference. «It’s essential to make this public apology as quickly as possible», says T. Asami, a lawyer who specializes in crisis management. «The apology that is made when the crisis erupts is critical» Asami says. «The company must show it is sorry for what has happened and is ready to provide whatever additional information may be necessary without hiding anything. Perhaps it is a Japanese thing, but making an apology is like a samurai dressing in white (before committing ritual suicide by disembowelment). It symbolizes coming clean and hiding nothing». Japan has had its share of company scandals, product recalls, food poisonings and other incidents requiring crisis communications skills. And while Japanese companies, organizations and politicians have developed a way of handling the public disclosure of these incidents in a way that is acceptable in Japan, they are often at a loss when it comes to facing people from different cultures. Apologizing plays a key role when Japanese companies respond to a crisis – an act that is often misunderstood by non-Japanese. Unlike in Western societies, where a public apology is taken as an admission of guilt, apologies are considered obligatory in Japan, and it is common to see Japanese men in dark suits at packed press conferences with grave expressions, their heads bowed deeply, apologizing to the Japanese public at large. But what exactly are they apologizing for? Often the apology is for creating a disturbance and is not meant to imply guilt or innocence. While this might be understood in Japan, apologizing in this manner clearly does not translate well to an overseas audience. It brings to mind an incident in 1990, when a Japanese-owned company, Bridgestone/Firestone, was in the spotlight in the United States. Then-CEO Masatoshi Ono was called before a congressional hearing to answer questions about Firestone tires on Ford Explorers. The tread separated from these tires, resulting in a number of fatalities. Ono began by apologizing, and when I heard it, I thought, «That is not something that is done in a public hearing in the United States». Toyota President and CEO Akio Toyoda appeared to have learned that lesson in his dealings with the U.S. press. And although 70

he did express his regret and state that he was sorry, it was not the main focus of the congressional hearing about the recent recall. But when Toyoda went to China this past March, his regret was the main point he stressed in most of his interactions with the Chinese press, to the extent that they started calling him «Mr. Apology». There are cultural similarities between Japan and China with respect to apologizing, and that translated well there. Bringing together all the information, it is clear that there are multiple influences on the decision by states to offer apologies. Just as apology is motivated by institutionalized social orders and accepted behavioral norms at the individual 35 level, political apology is motivated by the social orders to which the state belongs. The state first belongs to a domestic social order, where cultural norms towards apology play a prominent role in society’s expectations for government apology and where executives are personally motivated by similar cultural expectations to apologize for actions or not. The state then belongs to dyadic social orders. In this social order, diplomatic demands and pressures motivate a state to choose apology over other diplomatic options. Outside diplomacy, adversarial relationships between states can create environments where states are in positions to either force other states to apologize or be forced to apologize themselves for past crimes. Finally, the state is part of the social order of the international system where standards of behavior have developed over time due to the diffusion of norms. This creates an environment where transgressions can take place which call for apology. Similarly, apology as a course of action has spread along with norms as a viable method of handling state crimes of the past. Our next step was to find out some apology speeches for the incidents. We used different types of sources to find out necessary information for our study. We used some popular Japan’s newspapers such as Nikkei Asian Review, 朝日新聞 (Asahi shinbun), 日本経済新聞 (nihon keizai shinbun). The information we used was from 2011 to 2016 years. Furthermore all the information we divided into some part, such as: data, genre, region, source, headline and content. So, we will discuss apology speeches and accidents one by one, year to year. 71

Table 1 Apology speeches Data Genre Region Source Headline 1 2 3 4 5 14/08/2016 Life Japan Nikkei This time, and Asian SMAP’s arts Review breakup is for real

送 動 ト 見

Content 6 The group members of popular boy’s band apologized for not being able for reunion. («We feel extremely sorry for not being able to meet the support and expectations of fans» the release says. «We apologize for our lack of persuasion in this matter».) Lee Hae-Jin eventually decided that the Naver group should abandon Naver Talk and focus on helping Line succeed. «I feel very sorry for the members of the Naver Talk development team» he confessed. With the spread protests and complains in blogs and SNS the company stopped to broadcast an advertisement.

党 進 流 表 心 詫 謝

The leader of social democratic party Tadatomo Yoshida apologized for the confluence draft: «I gave the upset with great anxiety to the comrades to fight for the party. Sincerely say apologize»

松 表 な お

Representative of Kaito (Democratic Party) apologized for their speech: «everything that was said in the thought of the order to aim at the regime. Please, forgive me».

08/08/2016 Busin Japan ess/ Comp anies

Nikkei Line goes Asian its own way Review under Naver founder’s hands-off philosophy

01/08/2016 Life and arts

日本経 C M 放 済新聞 中 止 騒 ツイー 分析に る 日本経 社 民 済新聞 首 、 民 への合 断念を 明 「 からお び」と 罪 日本経 維 新 ・ 済新聞 野 元 代 「失礼 発言を 詫び」


18/05/2016 Policy Japan

27/03/2016 Policy Japan


1 2 3 17/03/2016 Policy Japan

4 5 日本経 清 原 被 済新聞 「 一 か 出直し 必ず更 す る 保釈談 全文

告 ら 、 生 」 話

6 Kazuhiro Kiyohara’s official apology: この度は、私の犯 した罪により、関係者の皆 様 、フ ァ ンの皆様を はじ め、たくさんの方々にご迷 惑とご心配をおかけしてし まったことを、心よりお詫 び申し上げます.

As we can see from the chart a leader’s apology in Japan is a performance in which every expression matters and every word becomes part of the public record. That is why the apology speeches so complicated and full of long expressions. Table 2 Apology speeches Data 18/06/2015

Genre Region Source Headline Economy Japan 日 本 経 週刊文春 済新聞 が 謝 罪 広 告を掲載 本社巡る 記事で

Content Nikkei and Tsuneo Kita president’s apology speech: 「 日 経新聞社長と美人デ スクのただならぬ関 係」と題する記事の 主要部分が「いずれ も事実に反する誤 報」だったとして 「記事を取り消すと ともに、深くお詫び 申し上げます」と記 載している。 page of 日 本 経 KADOKA Top was 済新聞 WA のサイ KADOKAWA ト が 改 ざ damaged. ん 7日 から1日 半


Economy Japan

Take Benesse Corp., for example. The correspondence education firm suffered the nation’s biggest data theft in history in June 2014 after a computer subcontractor leaked family members’ birth 73

dates, addresses and telephone numbers to third parties. The company launched an investigation into the leak at the end of June after customers started to complain they had received unsolicited advertising from a competitor. By June 30, the company had alerted the police. Instead of informing existing customers, however, Benesse waited until July 9 before the leak was made public at a news conference. The company’s executives, headed by Chairman Eiko Harada, apologized and bowed before reporters as usual but the tardy response triggered resentment from the public. At the news conference, Harada spoke as if Benesse was a victim, refusing to resign over the leak and even going so far as to say that customers would not be offered financial compensation because the data was «not sensitive information like credit card numbers» and so on. He later retracted this comment, and offered Benesse enraged customers the choice of a ¥500 gift certificate or a donation worth ¥500 that would be put toward the company’s newly established fund for children. In fact, Harada’s «victimized» stance was so blatant that when a reporter asked him whether he thought Benesse was «the offender or the victim». His response – «As of right now, we are the offender» – also drew criticism for implying that Benesse could also be a victim at some point in the future. As a result, a number of disgruntled customers decided to file a classaction lawsuit against Benesse. As of mid-February, about 2,000 people have joined the suit against the company for damages. «There are three key points in managing a crisis: responding quickly, taking a proactive approach to information disclosure and clearly informing the public about the problem at hand and the position of the company, what the company is sorry about and whether it’s an offender or a victim» Era says. What’s more, the public believed Benesse was trying to shirk its responsibilities because of the noted gap in perception, judging from the official statements». A number of other high-profile public apologies have been made in the past 12 months. In February 2014, composer Mamoru Samuragochi, who falsely claimed to be deaf, issued an apology for lying about his use of a ghostwriter to write scores that included «Hiroshima» and «Sonatina for Violin» which figure skater Daisuke Takahashi used for his performance at the Sochi Olympics. At a news conference in March, 74

he apologized again about the deceit and also for not being honest about his hearing ability. Later the same month, the government-backed Riken research institute delivered an apology over Haruko Obokata’s falsified papers on pluripotent stem cells. Table 3 Apology speeches Data Genre Region Source Headline 09/11/2012 Economy Japan 日本経済 米 ツ イ ッ 新聞 タ ー 謝 罪、パス ワードの リセット は「手違 い」

Content Network problems on Twitter 「侵害されたと思わ れるアカウントの数 を超えるパスワード を誤ってリセットし た。不便と混乱を招 いたことをお詫びす る」と述べている。

日本経済 一 流 ホ テ 新聞 ルに学ぶ 「すっき り心地よ い敬語」 日本経済 ド コ モ の 新聞 通 信 障 害、スマ ホ急増に インフラ 追いつか ず

Some problems in the hotel.

17/08/2012 Internatio Japan nal

26/01/2012 Economy Japan

同社の岩崎文夫取締 役常務執行役員は、 「 お 客 様 に多大 な る ご迷惑をおかけした ことをお詫びしま す」と謝罪。

In September, the newspaper was on the defensive again after it issued an apology concerning an erroneous article that alleged workers fled the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant during the meltdown crisis in March 2011.While Asahi President Tadakazu Kimura faced the music in front of reporters over both issues, several of the newspaper’s own staff writers posted their «personal views» on the scandals via Twitter, including criticism that was directed at management. 75

In principle, media organizations grant their reporters greater freedom to carry out their duties without censorship. Naoto Kan, Japan's former prime minister, has apologized for his role in the Fukushima nuclear crisis and said the government and its push for nuclear energy bore most of the responsibility for the disaster. «The nuclear accident was caused by a nuclear plant which operated as national policy» Naoto Kan said on Monday in front of a parliamentary inquiry into the cause of the world's worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl in 1986. «I believe the biggest portion of blame lies with the state» said Naoto Kan, who has come out strongly against nuclear power since the Fukushima disaster in March last year. «As the person who was in charge of the country at the time of the accident, I sincerely apologize for my failure to stop it» he added. Naoto Kan stepped down in September after 15 months in office in which he had faced intense criticism over the government's handling of the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant where several reactors went into meltdown after being struck by a massive earthquake and a tsunami. His administration was also lambasted for providing too little information to the public as reactors went into meltdown, apparently withholding computer models that showed how radiation from the venting reactors might spread. Tens of thousands of people were later evacuated from an area around the plant after it began spewing radiation. Many have still not been allowed home, with some areas expected to be uninhabitable for decades. Tokyo Electric Power, the operator of the plant, was seen as confused and slow to release information in a response widely thought to have been inept. Tokyo Electric Power, one of the world's largest utilities, whose tentacles of influence reach well inside Japan's huge government bureaucracy, has also been criticized for ignoring warnings about the potential dangers from quake-generated tsunamis. At the hearing on Monday, Kan attacked Tokyo Electric Power for its failure to keep the government informed about the accident. «I was thinking it was a battle against an invisible enemy. I thought, if the situation called for it, we might have to risk lives to contain it» he told the hearing. Kan’s public testimony came after a private panel probing the accident said in February the former prime 76

minister's aggressive involvement had averted a worse crisis. That panel said it was Kan who ordered Tokyo Electric Power, which refused to co-operate with the study, to keep men on site. Experts concluded that if he had not stuck to his guns, Fukushima would have spiraled further out of control, with catastrophic consequences. Andrew DeWit, professor of political economy at Rikkyo University's school of public policy studies, told Al Jazeera that transparency on the issues of nuclear energy was paramount. You're talking about an energy complex with potentially catastrophic consequences in the event of failure, and not to have greater public involvement in determining what the proper energy mix is, and how it's managed, seems to me to be very problematic. Kan's then-top government spokesman, Yukio Edano, testified on Sunday. Asked about Kan's visit to the Fukushima plant, Edano said the prime minister had gone to the site because the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and Tokyo Electric Power had seemingly backtracked and wavered. «We had this awareness that someone who is more important than a vice industry minister (who was already at the scene) should go and take hold of the situation» Yukio Edano said. Yukio Edano, now the industry minister, also said he had refused a US offer to station nuclear experts in the prime minister's office, citing sovereignty fears. Task №4 1. Retell the text. 2. Give your own conclusion on the topic. 3. Give some opinion on the charts.



As we can see, there are some differences in apology speeches, to say exactly there are differ from gender, social status and age of the speaker. Let’s discuss some mane points. 1. Apology and social status As we can see from the chart there are speeches from different social status. As we can mentioned ordinary people apologize in a simpler way rather than heads of companies. People from higher social status use more difficult apology combinations, there are more polite. 2. Apologies and gender The relationship between language and gender during childhood has been widely addressed in the literature. There are claims that girls are more likely than boys to use language to form and maintain connections (through the affiliative functions of showing support, expressing agreement, and acknowledging the contributions of others, to name a few) whereas boys are more likely to use language to assert their independence, establish dominance, and achieve goals (through, among others, the assertive functions of making directive statements, criticism, and giving information). Claims of distinct socialization patterns are made in the literature. For example, D. Tannen argued that «girls are socialized as children to believe that talk is the glue that holds relationships together» which is later reflected in their perceptions of conversations as «negotiations for closeness in which people try to seek and give confirmation and support, and to reach consensus». On the other hand, boys are taught to maintain relationships through their activities, which would later color a man’s perceptions of conversations as contests «in which he either one-up or onedown». Similarly, J. Holmes found that apologies between male and female respondents have differences, most important amongst which 78

are that women used more apologies than men did, women apologized most to hearers of equal power while men apologized to women irrespective of status, and women apologized most to female friends whereas men apologized most to socially distant women. R. Bataineh analyzed gender differences in troubles talk. They presented respondents with six troubles talk situations for which respondents were asked to rate the likelihood of using six communication strategies which correspond to those described by Tannen. They found significant gender differences for three of six message strategies used to provide support, for all seven emotional responses to advice, and for three of seven emotional responses to sympathy. C. Michaud and K. Warner concluded that many statistically significant differences were found in this study, and all were in the direction predicted by D. Tannen’s work although they admitted that «the effect sizes were very small, even for the differences that were statistically significant. Although S. Basow and K. Rubenfeld found that feminine speech styles were more associated with emotional responses to advice and sympathy, they found no gender differences in these responses. Along the same lines, E. Lukasik investigated forgiveness between 485 American male and female ninth- and twelfthgrade students and its relationship to coping strategies and attributional styles. Among other factors, the degree of hurt and whether or not the offender apologized were examined to determine their influence on adolescents’ use of forgiveness to cope with conflict in their friendships. Females were found more forgiving than their male counterparts. Forgiveness was found to be predicted from how deeply hurt participants were when the friendship conflict occurred and from receiving an apology from the offending friend. Participants who received an apology were more likely to forgive offenders and to cease having condemning thoughts about them. Using the framework of the two-culture theory which claims that men and women are so different that they comprise strikingly different cultures, Bataineh investigated potential gender effects on American university students’ use of apologies. The findings revealed that male and female respondents used the primary apology strategies of explicit statement of remorse, accounts, compensation, and reparation. 79

They were also found to use non-apology strategies such as blaming victim and brushing off the incident as not important to exonerate them from blame. The findings further revealed that male and female respondents used the same primary strategies but in different frequencies. In addition, while female respondents opted for non-apology strategies that veered towards avoiding the discussion of offense, male respondents used those which veered towards blaming the victim. The above discussion of apologies and gender suggests some controversy over the role of gender in language use. The empirical research discussed above seems to lend support to the premise that gender does affect language use. However, one should keep in mind the opposite argument which casts doubt on this argument due to inadequate evidence. Task №5 1. What do think about apology and gender. 2. What is non-apology strategies?



Today's linguistic studies, both basic and applied, show a marked tendency to become more and more data-oriented. So, in this chapter we will try to use our previous theoretical knowledge in practice and look on the «apology» from linguistic view using different types of resources. Data collection information One of the ways of collecting data information in this study was Enhanced Open-Ended Role Plays. This instrument is described in detail below. Before the role plays were acted out, background questionnaires were administered to all the participants to determine their eligibility for participation in the study. The following paragraphs provide a detailed description of the data elicitation instrument and how it was designed, and in addition to how results from the pilot study helped in refining it. The present study also used enhanced open role plays for data collection. The role plays in the present study consist of twelve situations and include different types of stimuli to apology. These situations also vary with regard to the setting, the status of the interlocutors relative to each other, as well as the object of the apology. These role plays were piloted in the winter 2016, and were found to be effective in eliciting the data. The role plays in the present study were created based on previous research because similar scenarios have been used in several previous refusal studies investigating learners of English, Spanish, Japanese, Korean, and German. The researcher modified these situations and changed them in some ways, as will be explained below, in order to meet the needs and the context of the present study. The researcher also created a number of new scenarios. These scenarios will be explained below. It is important to indicate here that previous research studies that elicited refusals using open role plays followed 81

the guidelines for designing role plays proposed by T. Hudson, E. Detmer, P. Brown, and these are the following: 1) person in addition to the researcher should avoid the overlap of researcher and role play roles; 2) a situation should not place too much burden in terms of conceptualization and actualization; 3) action should be kept to a minimum and should not involve drama to a large extent; 4) action scenarios at the expense of scenarios should be avoided; 5) props may be helpful. These guidelines, except one, were followed in the present study. The first guideline was not followed for three reasons. First, because these role plays are used to compare the realization of refusal in two cultures, it is particularly important to maintain a high level of consistency in the way the interaction is conducted. This can be achieved when the researcher is involved in this interaction in order to maintain a high level of consistency with regard to initiating the requests or offers, reaction to participant’s refusals, level of insistence, and in general by conveying a consistent tone and attitude in the interaction. This researcher’s participation in the pilot study also helped prepare him for this role since he became familiar with students’ responses and the nature and pace of the interaction. The second reason to note here is that the researcher believes that his role in enacting the role plays with the participants did not affect the validity of the study in any particular way. In other words, it did not bias the study in any major way since the study is descriptive, not confirmatory. The third reason is that other researchers were successful in participating in the role plays they conducted with respondents in their studies. The present researcher believes that suggestions and invitations can be considered as some type of offers in a sense; hence they can be included under the category of offers. Requests, on the other hand, represent a different category of stimuli to refusals: In a request, an interlocutor puts himself or herself in a position where he or she is in need of some help or assistance from the speaker, which is inherently different from a situation where he or she is making an offer to the speaker. Therefore, it was believed to be more consistent to focus on 82

these three types of distinct stimuli to refusal: apology, requests and offers. Role plays scenarios The table below shows the 12 role play situations that are used in the present study, and how they vary by refusal stimulus, status of interlocutors relative to each other, object of apology, and setting. This table is followed by a detailed description of each refusal situation and how it was designed. Table 4 Role plays scenarios role play Role play №1 Role play №2

Stimulus Apology Apology

object of apology Status Order mistake Low to high Spoiled book Equal status

Role play №3 Role play №4 Role play №5

Setting Restaurant University campus University Working place Teacher’s room

Apology Apology Apology

Role play №6



Role play №7

Company Apology meeting Home entrance Apology Work place Apology

Being late Low to high E-mail Equal status Working extra High to low hours Glance off Equal status someone leg Being late High to low

Role play №8 Role play №9

Role play №10 Escalator


Role play №11 Cinema Role play №12 Money exchange

Apology Apology

Wrong address Not reported on time Broken mobile phone Reserved seat Money

Low to high Low to high Equal status High to low High to low

We used some mathematical formulas to create our role play scenarios. There were some important facts for our research: status of speaker and hearer, do they know each other or not, status of speaker and hearer. So the speaker will be named as «X», the hearer will be «Y», if the status of speaker and hearer equal it will be written as «X=Y», if they are not equal it will be like «X>Y» or «X