The Sequential Organization of "Explicit" Apologies in Naturally Occurring English

41 Pages·2004·0.28 MB·English

Research on Language and Social Interaction
ISSN: 0835-1813 (Print) 1532-7973 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hrls20
The Sequential Organization of "Explicit" Apologies
in Naturally Occurring English
Jeffrey D. Robinson
To cite this article: Jeffrey D. Robinson (2004) The Sequential Organization of "Explicit"
Apologies in Naturally Occurring English, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37:3,
291-330, DOI: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_2
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_2
Published online: 14 Jun 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 467
View related articles
Citing articles: 38 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hrls20
Download by: [Portland State University] Date: 22 October 2015, At: 13:44
Research on Language and Social Interaction,37(3),291–330
Copyright ©2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
The Sequential Organization of “Explicit”
Apologies in Naturally Occurring English
5
1
0
2 Jeffrey D. Robinson
r
e Department of Communication
b
o
ct Rutgers University
O
2
2
4
4
3: Inthisarticle,IusethemethodofconversationanalysisanddatafromAmerican-and
1
at British-English conversation to analyze the sequential organization of “explicit”
] apologies(e.g.,I’msorry,andImustapologize).Idemonstratethat(a)apologiescan
y
sit occupyanumberofdifferentsequentialpositions,withdifferentramificationsforthe
r
e organization of apologizing as an action; (b) apologies can be first parts of adja-
v
ni cency-pairsequences;(c)apologiesindexparticularoffensesandembodyaclaimto
U
e haveoffendedsomeone;(d)Asfirst-pairparts,apologieshaveapreferenceorganiza-
at tionsuchthatpreferredresponsesmitigateorundermine,anddispreferredresponses
d St endorse,apologies’claimstohavecausedoffense;and(e)apologytermscanbeused
n toaccomplishnonapologyactions.Inthisarticle,Icontributetoourunderstandingof
a
rtl thesocialandsequentialorganizationoftalkininteractionaswellascommunication
o
P practices dealing with the maintenance of social/relational harmony.
[
y
b
d
de “Whetheronerunsoveranother’ssentence,time,dog,orbody,oneismoreorless
a
o reduced to saying some variant of ‘I’m sorry’” (Goffman, 1971, p. 117).
nl
w
o
D In interpersonal relationships—from the merest civil relationship be-
tweenstrangers(Goffman,1963)totheclosestromanticrelationship—the
negotiation of personal (moral) responsibility (Goffman, 1971) for offen-
sivebehavioranditsthreattoface(Brown&Levinson,1987)isintegralto
successfulrelationalmanagement.1Apologizingisanessentialcomponent
IthankStevenClayman,JohnHeritage,andMannySchegloffforcommentsonanearlierdraftof
this article, and Paul Drew for the use of data.
CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbesenttoJeffreyD.Robinson,Departmentof
Communication, Rutgers University, 4 Huntington Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901–1070.
E-mail: [e-mail]
292 Jeffrey D. Robinson
ofthemaintenanceofsocialharmonybecauseitcommunicatesawareness
andacceptanceofmoralresponsibilityforoffensivebehaviorandinitiates
theprocessofnegotiatingabsolution(Blumstein,1974;Edmondson,1981;
Goffman, 1971; Holmes, 1990; Leech, 1983; McCullough et al., 1998;
Obeng,1999).2Inthisarticle,Iexaminethesequentialorganizationof“ex-
plicit” apologies in naturally occurring English3and demonstrate that
1. Apologies can occupy a number of different sequential positions
5 otherthanfirstpartsofadjacency-pairsequences,withdifferentim-
1
0 plications for the organization of apologizing as an action.
2
er 2. When apology units initiate a sequence of action and when apolo-
b
cto gizingistheprimaryactionbeingaccomplished,apologiesarefirst
O parts of adjacency-pair sequences (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973).
2
2 3. Apologiesindexparticularoffensesandembodyaclaimtohaveof-
4
4 fended someone, which implicitly includes an admission of per-
3:
1 sonal responsibility for the offense.
at
] 4. Asfirst-pairparts,apologieshaveapreferenceorganization(regard-
y
sit ing preference, see Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, 1987; for review, see
r
ve Heritage,1984b;Schegloff,inpress)suchthatpreferredresponses
ni
U mitigate or undermine, and dispreferred responses endorse, apolo-
ate gies’claims to have caused offense.
St 5. Apology terms can be used to accomplish nonapology actions.
d
n
a
rtl Inthisarticle,Ibeginbydiscussingtheplaceofapologiesinpriorresearch
o
[P and providing a rationale for studying “explicit” apologies.
y
b Priorresearchhasfocusedlessonapologiesthemselvesandmoreon
d
e (a) how they are affected by variables that are exogenous to interaction,
d
a
o such as degree of relational closeness, degree of offense, type of offense,
nl
w socialstatus(includingage),power,andgender(Brown&Levinson,1987;
o
D Holmes, 1990; Meyerhoff, 1999; Obeng, 1999); and (b) how they inform
theory, such as that of politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1987), impression
regulation (Schlenker & Weigold, 1992), and image restoration (Benoit,
1995).Whenexaminingapologiesthemselves,priorresearchhastendedto
conflate them with accounts (i.e., excuses and justifications; Scott &
Lyman,1968)andotheroffense-remedial-relatedactions,suchasaccept-
ing blame (e.g., It’s my fault), promising forbearance (e.g., I promise it
won’t happen again), requesting forgiveness (e.g., Forgive me, and I beg
yourpardon),andrequestingtobeexcused(e.g.,Excuseme)andpardoned
(e.g., Pardon me). For example, some researchers have considered apolo-
Apologies 293
giestobetypesaccounts,aswithSchonbach’s(1980)much-usedaccount
typology(forreview,seeCody&McLaughlin,1990).Othershaveconsid-
eredaccountstobetypesofapologies(e.g.,Fraser,1981;Olshtain&Co-
hen, 1983), and yet others have considered apologies to be subtypes of
largerorderphenomena,suchasface-threatening/supportingactions(e.g.,
Trosborg, 1987) and image-restoration strategies (Benoit, 1995).
There is no question that apologies and other types of offense-reme-
dial-relatedactionsfrequentlyco-occur,atleastinthesensethattheycan
5 besaidtoprecedeorfollowtheotherwithinrelativelyclosespatesofinter-
1
0 action (Cody & McLaughlin, 1985; Holmes, 1990; Obeng, 1999; Owen,
2
er 1983;Sugimoto,1997).Itisimportanttonote,though,theyarenotalways
b
cto adjacentnoralwayspartofthesameturnorsequenceoftalk,andmuchof
O theirconflationisduetoresearchers’lackofsensitivitytoprocessesofturn
2
2 taking (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) and sequence organization
4
4 (Schegloff,inpress).Thereisevidencethat,asasocialaction,apologizing
3:
1 is different and separate from other offense-remedial-related actions. For
at
] example,Holtgraves(1989)experimentallydemonstratedthatpersonsare
y
sit able to differentiate between apologies and accounts, as well as between
r
ve differenttypesofaccounts(i.e.,excusesandjustifications).Forthisreason
ni
U andothers,bothGoffman(1971)andOwen(1983)havedistinguishedbe-
ate tween apologies and other offense-remedial-related actions and restricted
St the termapologyto “explicit” apologies.4
d
n “Explicit”apologiesincludeSorry-basedunitsoftalk(e.g.,I’msorry)
a
rtl and offers of apology, or what Olshtain and Cohen (1983) termed illocu-
o
[P tionaryforceindicatingdevices(e.g.,Imustapologize).5Thereisdata-in-
y
b ternalevidencethatmembersorienttoatleasttheseexplicitformsasmeth-
d
e odsforapologizing.Forexample,seeExtract1.Fourfriends,allofwhom
d
a
o attend the same U.S. college, are preparing to play a board game. While
nl
w Tim,Max,andKimaresettinguptheboard,Don(whoisstandingacross
o
D theroom)purposefullythrowsaminisoccerballatMaxandhitshiminthe
forehead.
Extract 1: BOARD GAME [JL Game:SB Corpus]
01 TIM: hOH::::::::::. ((A response to Don’s assault))
02 (0.4)
03 TIM: DO::N,
04 (0.3)
05 DON: My bad. ((slang for ‘My fault’))
06 KIM: ↑Is she taping al(ready)?↓
294 Jeffrey D. Robinson
07 (1.0)
08 DON: [( )
09 KIM: [( )
10 TIM: ‘T’s=alright apologi:ze.((addressed to Don))
11 a-> DON: I’m sorr[y]. ((addressed to Max))
12 b-> MAX: [I]t’s coo(l).
In response to being chastised by Tim with “DO::N,” (line 3), Don pro-
duces “My bad” (line 5), which is slang for My fault and admits guilt
5 for his offense. After some unintelligible, overlapping talk by Don and
1
20 Kim (lines 8–9), Tim commands Don to “apologi:ze” (line 10), which he
er doeswith“I’msorry”(line11),therebydisplayinghisunderstandingthat
b
o
ct the Sorry-based unit is a method for apologizing. Relative to the Sorry-
O
based unit, offers of apology (e.g., I must apologize) are rare, perhaps
2
4 2 due to their formality (Meier, 1998; Owen, 1983; see Extracts 4 and 12
3:4 following).
1
at
]
y
sit
r
ve A SOCIAL-ACTION APPROACH
ni
U TO STUDYING APOLOGIES
e
at
St Fortworeasons,thisarticletakesasocial-actionapproachtostudying
d
n apologies (for review, see Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Heritage, 1984b),
a
rtl eschewingquestionsofwhetherornotapologiesarevalidrepresentations
o
[P of actual psychological states, such as self-blame (Blackman & Stubbs,
y
b 2001) and self-guilt (Cody & McLaughlin, 1985; McLaughlin, Cody, &
d
e O’Hair,1983),aswellasquestionsofwhetherornoteventsbeingapolo-
d
a
o gized for are objectively offensive. First, although researchers have tried
nl
w (Holmes,1990;Wolfson,Marmor,&Jones,1989),itisprobablynotpossi-
o
D ble to specifically operationalize or exhaustively codify participants’no-
tionsofanoffense,whichusuallyendsupbeingdefinedextremelygener-
allyintermsofaviolationofsocialnorms,particularlywhenitthreatens
another’s face or identity (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Fraser, 1981; Goff-
man,1971;Meier,1995;Olshtain&Cohen,1983;Scott&Lyman,1968;
Wolfson et al., Jones, 1989; see also Cody & McLaughlin, 1985; Schlen-
ker,1980; Schonbach, 1980). Second, according toGoffman(1971), per-
sons constantly monitor acts, retrospectively and prospectively, for their
possibleoffensiveness.AsGoffman(1971)putit,actors“imagine…one
or more ‘worst possible readings,’ that is, interpretations of the act that
Apologies 295
maximizeeitheritsoffensivenesstoothersoritsdefamingimplicationsfor
theactor”(p.108).Thisisatleastpartiallywhytheworkofremedyingan
offense,includingapologizing,strategicallytendstooccurbeforepartici-
pantsovertlyorienttoanactasbeingoffensive,forexample,bysanction-
ingtheoffender(Goffman,1971,p.95;notethatthisiswhycasessuchas
Extract 1 are relatively rare). Because of this, apologies tend to address
merelypossible,orwhatGoffman(1971)calledvirtual,offenses.Follow-
ing Goffman (1971), a social-action approach treats apologies as social
5 claims to have offended someone. As such, in this article, I focus on mo-
1
0 ments when participants orient to events as being offensive and produce
2
er apologies for such events.
b
o
ct
O
2
2 DATA AND METHOD
4
4
3:
1 Dataweredrawnfromarangeofnaturallyoccurring,recordedinter-
at
] actions including ordinary American and British telephone calls; video-
y
sit tapes of persons talking during meals, games, and other social engage-
r
ve ments; videotapes of American physician–patient visits; and telephone
ni
U calls between British physicians and clients. All data I transcribed (or
ate retranscribed)usingJefferson’snotationsystem(seeAtkinson&Heritage,
St 1984),andtranscriptswerecheckedbyatleastoneothertrainedconversa-
d
n tion analyst to ensure their reliability (Roberts & Robinson, 2004). The
a
rtl method used is conversation analysis (for review, see Heritage, 1984). A
o
[P collectionofapology-relatedextractswasmade,andtheirsimilaritiesand
y
b differenceswereanalyzedqualitatively,includingtheformationofbound-
d
e ary cases (regarding method, see Schegloff, 1997) and deviant cases
d
a
o (Silverman, 2001). These extracts represent especially clear instances of
nl
w the phenomenon of explicit apologies but are not qualitatively different
o
D from other cases in the core collection.
ANALYSIS
Apologies Can Take Sequential Positions Other
Than First Parts of Adjacency-Pair Sequences
In this article, I primarily focus on the adjacency-pair organization
of apologies (as seen in Extract 1, lines 11–12) including their prefer-
296 Jeffrey D. Robinson
ence organization. However, that and how apologies can initiate first
parts of adjacency-pair sequences is better understood by recognizing
that not all do. Although space prevents an exhaustive account, in this
section, I describe three different sequential positions that apologies
can take and their relevance for the organization of apologizing as an
action.
Priorresearchhasshownthatsingleturnsoftalkcanbemobilizedto
accomplish multiple, distinct actions, which can themselves be hierarchi-
5 cally organized in terms of their centrality (and conditional relevance;
1
0 Schegloff, in press). One sequential position that apologies can take is
2
er the initial turn-constructional unit (Sacks et al., 1974) of a turn that is
b
cto part of an adjacency-pair sequence of action (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973)
O that is being mobilized to accomplish a different (i.e., nonapology) ac-
2
2 tion.Inthisposition,theactionofapologizingistypicallysubordinateto
4
4 the adjacency-pair action being pursued in the remainder of the turn; in
3:
1 this position, apologies prospectively index a possible offense embodied
at
] in the subsequent turn and its action or actions (see also Maynard, 2003;
y
sit Maynard & Schaeffer, 1997). For an example concerning a first-pair part
r
ve ofanadjacency-pairsequence,seeExtract2,whichisdrawnfromaBrit-
ni
U ish, out-of-hours, emergency telephone call between a mother and an
ate on-call physician:
St
d
n
rtla Extract 2: DIARRHEA [DEC: 1-1-03]
o
P
[ 01 MOM: Wha’I’m concerned about is do I give f:luids, or
y
b 02 DOC: .hhh[hYeah.]
d 03 MOM: [Or what.] I just don’t kno:[w. ]
e
d
a 04 a-> DOC: [>.h<] >Sorry< how
o
nl 05 a-> old is your daughter, >didyous[ay?<]
w 06 MOM: [ Sh]e:’s eightee:n.
o
D 07 DOC: Eightee:n.
Atline3,themother’s“Ijustdon’tkno:w”pursuesananswertoher
questionatline1:“Wha’I’mconcernedaboutisdoIgivef:luids,or”(re-
gardingIdon’tknow,seeRobinson,2003;Sacks,1992a;tenHave,1991).
In preparation for answering (regarding pre-sequences, see Schegloff,
1988c), the physician asks “>Sorry< how old is your daughter,” (lines
4–5).Thephysician’s“>Sorry<”(line4)claimsthathissubsequentques-
tion embodies a possible offense. Evidence that “>Sorry<” is a term of
apology per se is found in the physician’s “>did you say?<” (line 5),
Apologies 297
which displays his orientation to his initial question as being possibly in-
appropriate (i.e., possibly offensive) due to the fact that the patient might
have already provided such information (see Terasaki, 1976 [forth]). In
this case, the action of apologizing is produced and understood as being
subordinate to the primary action of this turn, which is requesting infor-
mation (for a related observation, see Bean & Johnstone, 1994); the phy-
sician’s turn is an apology-prefaced question, not an apology to be re-
sponded to in its own right. This is supported in the following ways: (a)
5 the physician produces “>Sorry<” with level (i.e., nonfinal) intonation
1
0 (Ford & Thompson, 1996); (b) the physician produces “>Sorry<” with a
2
er quick pace (symbolized by > < ) and rushes through to the word “how,”
b
cto which can be a practice for securing multiple units of talk (Schegloff,
O 1982); (c) the mother does not respond to “>Sorry<” despite its status as
2
2 a grammatically complete turn-constructional unit; and (d) by (only) re-
4
4 sponding with her child’s age, “She:’s eightee:n.” (line 6), the mother
3:
1 treats the physician’s turn as accomplishing the action of requesting
at
] information.
y
sit Foranexampleofthistypeofsequentialpositioningconcerningasec-
r
ve ond-pairpartofanadjacency-pairsequence,seeExtract3,whichisdrawn
ni
U from a British telephone call wherein Jane invites Edward and his wife
ate (Ilene) over for drinks (lines 1–7):
St
d
n
a Extract 3: DRINK INVITATION [Heritage 01:13]
rtl
o
P 01 [ JAN: .h Uh:m- (.) I was wondering if you an’
[
y 02 | Ilene would like to come over for a (.)
b
d 03 | drink this evening. u-=uh:: (.) Margo
e
d 04 a>| has come from Coventry.
a
o 05 | (0.2)
nl
w 06 | JAN: And uh:(m) (.) you know I thought that
Do 07 [ d-=ih- ‘d be nice if we could get togeduh.
.
((Edward leaves phone to consult with his wife))
.
08 EDW: Ja:ne,
09 JAN: Yes?
10 (0.4)
11 b-> EDW: I must apologi:ze, (.) theeanswer is negative.
12 JAN: Okay.
13 EDW: Because uh: she’s (0.2) she’s feeling a
14 little under thuh weathah:,
15 (.)
298 Jeffrey D. Robinson
16 JAN: ↑Oh:↓:.
.
((Edward accounts for his refusal))
.
17 EDW: …she’s taking thuh dog o:ff to
18 Newbury. tomorrow. so: ‘n so: °uh° so
19 that’ll be uh (0.2) most thuh day °out. (.)
20 ‘n away. you see,°
21 JAN: Y:es.
22 (0.4)
5
1 23 a’> EDW: No: epah,Our apologies.
0
2 24 b’> JAN: No. that’s alright. >alright.< that’s fine.
r
e 25 (.)
b
o 26 EDW: Yeah.
ct
O 27 JAN: Alright.
2
2
4
4 Jane’sinvitation(lines1–7)makesanacceptanceordeclinationcon-
3:
1 ditionally relevant (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973). Edward’s “I must
at
] apologi:ze,” (line 11) claims that the subsequent portion of his turn (i.e.,
y
sit his declination) embodies apossible offense; inthis sequential context, it
r
ve projects a dispreferred response to Jane’s invitation (regarding Sorry as
Uni similarly forecasting bad news, see Maynard, 2003). As some (albeit ex
e post facto) evidence that “I must apologi:ze” (line 11) is a term of apol-
at
St ogy per se, note that immediately after Edward finishes accounting for
d
n (i.e., completes) his declination, he initiates a stand-alone apology using
a
rtl a similar term, “Our apologies” (line 23), and this is treated as an apol-
o
P ogy by Jane (the sequence at lines 23–24 is discussed on p. 307). How-
[
y
b ever, Edward’s apology at line 11 is treated by Jane as being prefatory
d
e and subordinate to the primary action of this turn, which is declining the
d
a
o invitation; that is, Edward’s turn at line 11 is an apology-prefaced decli-
nl
w nation, not an apology to be responded to in its own right. This is sup-
o
D ported by the fact that (a) Jane does not respond to “I must apologi:ze,”
even though it is a possibly (grammatically, intonationally, and pragmati-
cally) complete turn-constructional unit, and (b) Jane does respond to
“thee answer is negative” with “Okay” (line 12), which acknowledges
and accepts the declination.
ThesequentialpositioningcharacterizedbyExtract3isnotlimitedto
offersofapology(e.g.,Iapologize).ForanexampleusingtheSorry-based
unit, see Extract 4, which is drawn from a British telephone call between
twoacquaintances,LeslieandMyrtle;Myrtlehadpreviouslyindicatedthat
Apologies 299
shewouldattendameeting,andLeslieiscallingtoconfirmherattendance
(lines 1–2):
Extract 4: ATTENDANCE #1 [Field:X-Mas:1985:3]
01 a-> LES: A:re you thinking (.)o:f coming (.) to thuh
02 a-> meeting toni:ght.
03 b-> MYR: >Do you know< I’m te:rribly sorry. >I was
04 going da ring you in a short while,< .hh I
5
1 05 had=a phone call from Ben. (he’s/whose) down
0
2 06 in Devon. ‘n he’s not going to get back
r
e 07 toni:ght, .h[h
b
o 08 LES: [Yes.=
ct
O 09 MYR: =And mommy’s going to this k- k-=uh: (.) that
2 10 [ca:rol [<concert.>]
2
4 11 LES: [(y)- Yes[of cou:rse.] I think my husband’s
4
3: 12 going to that too:.=
1
at 13 a’> MYR: =I’m dreadfully sorry,
] 14 b’> LES: ↑That’sa’ri:ght,↓
y
sit
r
ve Leslie’s query (lines 1–2) makes a Yes or No conditionally relevant.
Uni Myrtle’s“I’mte:rriblysorry”(line3)claimsthatthesubsequentportionof
e herturnembodiesanoffense(i.e.,aNoanswerthatembodiesabackingout
at
St ofapriorcommitment)andthusprojectsadispreferredresponse(seealso,
d
n Raymond, 2003).6 As in Extract 4, there is evidence that “I’m te:rribly
a
rtl sorry”(line3)isatermofapologyperse;thatis,immediatelyafterMyrtle
o
P completesheraccount,sheinitiatesastand-aloneapologyusingasimilar
[
y
b syntaxandlexicon,“I’mdreadfullysorry”(line23),whichistreatedasan
d
e apologybyLeslie(thesequenceatlines13–14isdiscussedonp.302andis
d
a
o the first of a number of apology sequences in this extract, the second of
nl
w which is Extract 12). However, Myrtle’s apology at line 3 is treated by
o
D Leslieasbeingprefatoryandsubordinatetotheprimaryactionofthisturn,
which is saying No; that is, Myrtle’s turn at lines 3 through 7 is an apol-
ogy-prefacedaccountthatstandsasaNoanswer,notanapologytobere-
spondedtoinitsownright.Thisissupportedbythefactthat(a)Lesliedoes
notrespondto“I’mte:rriblysorry,”eventhoughitisapossibly(grammati-
cally,intonationally,andpragmatically)completeturn-constructionalunit,
and (b) Leslie does respond to Myrtle’s account with “Yes of cou:rse. I
thinkmyhusband’sgoingtothattoo:”(lines11–12),whichacknowledges
and ratifies Myrtle’s account (and, indirectly, theNoit embodies).