Apologies in the discourse of politicians: a pragmatic approach

354 Pages·2014·1.57 MB·English

by  James Murphy

Apologies in the discourse of
politicians: a pragmatic approach
AthesissubmittedtoTheUniversityofManchesterforthedegreeofDoctorof
PhilosophyintheFacultyofHumanities
2014
James MURPHY
SCHOOL OF ARTS, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES
Contents
ListofFigures 6
ListofTables 7
ListofTranscriptionConventions 8
Abstract 9
DeclarationandCopyrightRules/Statement 10
Acknowledgements 11
1 Introduction 14
1.1 Whatisapoliticalapology? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.2 Thenatureofthestudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3 Structureofthethesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2 Whatisanapology? Theoreticalconsiderations 22
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2 Apologiesintermsofface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.1 Faceworkandoffence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2.2 Apologiesastheperformanceoffacework . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2.3 Howthisisrelevanttopoliticallanguage . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.4 Problemswithpolitenesstheory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2.4.1 Issueswithdefiningapologiesintermsofface . . . 27
2.2.4.2 Criticismsofpolitenesstheory . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3 Apologiesasspeechacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.1 Whatisaspeechact? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.2 Previousworkonapologiesasspeechacts . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.3.3 Felicityconditionsoftheapology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.3.3.1 Propositionalcontent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.3.3.2 Preparatorycondition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.3.3.3 Sinceritycondition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.3.3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.3.4 Thelimitationsofthespeechactapproach . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.4 Apologiesasconversationalactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.4.1 Conversationanalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4.1.1 Theoreticalfoundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4.1.2 Turn-taking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
–2–
3
2.4.1.3 Sequentialstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.4.1.4 Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4.1.5 Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.4.2 PreviousCAworkonapologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.4.3 CA’slimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.5 Howpeopleapologise: Theimportanceofatheoryofimplicature . . 48
2.5.1 AnintroductiontoGCItheory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.5.1.1 Griceandimplicature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.5.1.2 Neo-GriceanworkonGCIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.5.2 Apologystrategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3 Parliamentaryapologies 58
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.2 Parliamentarybusinessandthedata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.3 Parliamentarylanguage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.3.1 Theparliamentarytimetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.3.2 Turn-taking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.3.3 Addressterms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3.4 ParticipationintheCommons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.4 Strategiesusedinparliamentaryapologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.4.1 Overallresults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.4.2 Influenceofoffencetype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.4.3 Theroleofparticipationstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4 LevesonInquiry 84
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.2 Apologiesinquotidianconversation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.3 InteractionattheInquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.4 Typesofoffence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.4.1 Talkoffences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.4.2 Misspeaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.4.3 Documentoffences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.4.4 Clarificationrequests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.4.5 Evidenceoffences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.5 Apologiesandsequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.5.1 Triggersfortheapology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.5.2 Reactiontoanapology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.5.3 Absenceofreactiontoanapology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.5.4 Apologiesperformingrepair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5 Newsinterviews 106
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.2 Backgroundanddataselection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.3 Apologiesinsequentialstructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.3.1 Apologiesasresponsestotriggers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.3.2 Uptakeandapologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4
5.4 Refusaltoanswer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.5 Participationstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.5.1 Footingofcomplaintsandresponses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.5.2 Participationandspeechacttheory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.5.3 Rolereversal: ThecaseofChrisBryant . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.6 Refusaltoapologise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5.6.1 Prompted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.6.1.1 Questioningthe‘apologisability’ofanaction . . . 123
5.6.1.2 Highlightingpreviousapology . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.6.1.3 Straightrefusal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.6.2 Unprompted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
6 Historicalapologies 128
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.2 Arehistoricalapologieslegitimate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.2.1 Apologiser(cid:54)=transgressor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.2.2 Thestatusoftheoffence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.2.3 Engagingwithresponsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.2.4 Victimhoodandtheabsentvictims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
6.3 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
6.4 Historicalapologiesasanactivitytype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.4.1 Whatisanactivitytype? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.4.2 Participantsandsetting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.4.3 Structureoftheactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.4.3.1 Openingsandclosings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.4.3.2 Sub-division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.4.4 Conversationalmaxims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.4.4.1 Questionsinthedebate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.4.5 Toneorstyleofdebate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.5 Participationstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
6.6 Contentsoftheapologystatement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.6.1 Descriptionofoffence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.6.2 ReportabilityandCredibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
6.6.3 Justifyingtheapology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
6.6.4 Redressandnon-recurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
6.6.5 Givingpraise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.6.6 Theapologyproper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
7 Metapragmaticsofthepoliticalapology 164
7.1 Gettinganapologywrong: ThecaseofRonBrown . . . . . . . . . . 165
7.1.1 The‘apology’statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
7.1.2 Instancesofresistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
7.1.3 Thefall-out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
7.1.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
7.2 Pursuinganapology: ThecaseofEdBalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
5
7.2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
7.2.1.1 TheLIBORScandal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
7.2.1.2 Osborne’sallegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
7.2.2 Theparliamentarydebate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
7.2.2.1 Restatingtheoffence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
7.2.2.2 Seekingawithdrawalandapology . . . . . . . . . 176
7.2.2.3 Refusingtoapologise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
7.2.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
7.3 Participants’beliefsonthenecessarycontentsofanapology . . . . . 181
7.3.1 Whoistheapologiser? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
7.3.2 Thecontentsandperformanceofanapology . . . . . . . . . 182
7.4 Usingapologytokensintheperformanceofotheractions . . . . . . . 185
7.4.1 Amarkerofdissent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
7.4.2 Amarkeroffacethreat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
7.4.3 ‘I’msorry’onaclineofpragmaticalisation . . . . . . . . . . 189
7.4.3.1 Pragmaticalisationandsympathy . . . . . . . . . . 189
7.4.3.2 TheoptionalityofI’msorry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
7.4.3.3 TherangeoffunctionsofI’msorry . . . . . . . . . 192
7.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
8 Conclusion 196
8.1 Summaryoffindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
8.2 Ontheprototypicalityofapologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
8.2.1 Previousworkonprototypicalityandspeechacts . . . . . . . 199
8.2.2 Parametersofprototypicalityfortheapology . . . . . . . . . 200
8.2.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
8.3 Futureresearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Bibliography 206
AppendixA:Transcriptsofparliamentaryapologies 215
AppendixB:TranscriptsofapologiesattheLevesonInquiry 244
AppendixC:Transcriptsofapologiesinnewsinterviews 265
AppendixD:TranscriptofJonathanSumptionradiolecture 295
AppendixE:EditedHansardtranscriptsofhistoricalapologydebates 299
AppendixF:CopyoftheHansardreportoftheRonBrowncensuredebate 333
Wordcount: 70,182
List of Figures
2.1 RelativestrengthofNTRIs,adaptedfromSidnell(2010:118) . . . . . 45
3.1 Thestructureofsimple,dyadicapologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.2 ParticipationstructureofSirAnthonyMeyer’sapology . . . . . . . . 69
3.3 ParticipationstructureofRichardHickmet’sapology . . . . . . . . . 70
3.4 Participationstructureofagenericpersonalstatementapology . . . . 71
4.1 ApathwayforapologisingattheInquiry,dashedelementsareoptional. 103
5.1 Participationstructureofacomplaintatnewsinterviews . . . . . . . 117
5.2 Participationstructureofanapologyatnewsinterviews . . . . . . . . 118
–6–
List of Tables
2.1 APsandtheirdis/preferredsecondpairparts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.2 Apologystrategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.1 MPs’useofeachstrategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.2 Theeffectofoffencetypeonapologystrategyusage . . . . . . . . . 78
4.1 showing whether a complaint is the trigger for an apology for each
offencetype(rawfiguresinbrackets) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.2 The uptake received by apologies based on their sequential position
andoffencetype. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6.1 Historicalapologiesanalysedforthischapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.2 Redressandnon-recurrenceinhistoricalapologies . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.3 Explicitandconventionalapologytokensfoundinhistoricalapologies 160
7.1 ThefunctionsofI’msorry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
7.2 Theinteractionbetweensense,emotionandaction . . . . . . . . . . 193
–7–
List of Transcription Conventions
Symbol Use
xxx Emphasisedwordorsyllable
x:(:) Elongatedsound
xxx- Abruptstop
xxx= Latchedutterance
<xxx< Deliveredslowly(withrespecttoneighbouringtalk)
>xxx> Deliveredquickly(w.r.t. neighbouringtalk)
◦xxx◦ Deliveredquietly(w.r.t. neighbouringtalk)
XXX Deliveredloudly(w.r.t. neigbouringtalk
(0.3) Timedpause(inseconds)
(.) Micropause(lessthan0.2seconds)
xxx? Risingintonation(notnecessarilyaquestion)
xxx. Finalintonation
xxx! Emphaticintonation
h(hh) Audibleoutbreath(numberofhsindicatesrespectivelength)
.h(hh) Audibleinbreath(numberofhsindicatesrespectivelength)
{xxx} Talkwhichoverlaps
{{xx}} Talk which overlaps (used when there is more than instance of overlap
inaturn
[xxx] Talkfromanotherpartywithinamonologue
((xxx)) Transcriber’snote
⇒ Indicatespartofextractunderdiscussion
–8–
Abstract
Inthisthesis,IanalyseapologiesproducedbyBritishpoliticalfiguresfromapragmatic
perspective. In particular, I seek to explain the function of political apologies and
describe the form they take. In order to give a thorough account of the speech act
of apologising in the public sphere, I look to a variety of genres for data. The set of
remedial acts scrutinised in this study come from debates and statements in the House
ofCommons,theLevesonInquiryandnewsinterviews.
The differences in communicative practices between these data sources mean that
the types of apology that come about within each genre are varied. Many of
the parliamentary apologies are monologic, whereas the apologetic actions found
at the Leveson Inquiry and in news interviews are dialogic and, to some extent,
co-constructed between participants. These differences mean that a variety of
theoretical approaches are taken in analysing the data – speech act theory (Austin,
1962; Searle, 1969) and generalised conversational implicature theory (Levinson,
2000) feature heavily in the discussion of monologic apologies. Apologies produced
within an interactive, ‘conversational’ setting are treated using developments in
conversation analysis (amongst others see: Sacks, 1992; Schegloff, 2007). I attempt
to reconcile these two, quite different, approaches to discourse at various points in
the thesis, arguing that conversation analysis lacks a theory of how interlocutors
understand what actions are happening in interaction (and this is provided by speech
act theory) and speech act theory lacks a detailed focus on what actually happens in
languageasinteraction(providedbyconversationanalysis).
On the basis of the apology data scrutinised in the thesis, I propose a set of felicity
conditions for the speech act of apology (chapter 2) and discuss how the apology (and
speechactsbroadly)shouldbeconsideredasprototypeentities(chapter8).
I show that when apologising for actions which they have committed, politicians are
morefulsomeintheirapologiesthanweareineverydayconversation. Ialsoshowthat
theyusemoreexplicitapologytokensthanisfoundinquotidiantalk(chapter3). When
apologisingforhistoricalwrongs,Idemonstratethatapologisingisabackgroundedact
and the focus of the statement is on being clear and unequivocal about the nature of
theoffencesforwhichthegovernmentisapologising(chapter6).
I also argue that political apologies in interactive settings are best thought of as action
chains (Pomerantz, 1978). That is to say, apologies in these environments may elicit a
responsefromaninterlocutor,butdonotneedto(chapters4&5). Thisisquiteunlike
everydaytalk(cfRobinson,2004).
I discuss how apology tokens may be used in the performance of other acts, including
introducingdissentandundertakingseriousfacethreat. Isuggestthatthiscomesabout
becauseapologytokensexistonaclineofpragmaticalisation(chapter7).
–9–
Declaration and Copyright
Statement
Declaration
No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an
application for another degree of qualification of this or any other university of other
instituteoflearning.
Copyright statement
1. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this
thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the“Copyright”) and s/he
has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright,
includingforadministrativepurposes.
2. Copiesofthisthesis,eitherinfullorinextractsandwhetherinhardorelectronic
copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate,
in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to
time. Thispagemustformpartofanysuchcopiesmade.
3. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and other
intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of
copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables “Reproductions”),
whichmaybedescribedinthisthesis,maynotbeownedbytheauthorandmay
be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot
and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of
theowner(s)oftherelevantIntellectualPropertyand/orReproductions.
4. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and
commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property
and/orReproductionsdescribedinitmaytakeplaceisavailableintheUniversity
IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=487),
in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University
Library,TheUniversityLibrary’sregulations(seehttp://www.manchester.ac.uk/
library/aboutus/regulations) and in The University’s policy on Presentation of
Theses.
–10–