A Preliminary Empirical Study of Text Construction
and Intended Effectiveness in Political Apologies
E.S. (Emma) van Bijnen 6114830
University of Amsterdam
Master Thesis Supervisor: Prof. dr. G. J. Steen Second Reader: Dr. B. J. Garssen
22 June 2015
A thesis submitted to the University of Amsterdam in fulfilment of the requirements for the MA Communication and Information Studies: Discourse and Argumentation Studies
Abstract
In this thesis, political apologies (PAs) are analysed. In order to construct a well-defined description of the phenomenon the research is guided by Gerard Steen’s (2011) genre models that can help map the context, text and code of PAs. The primary focus of this study is to establish the ‘content’, ‘form’, and ‘type’ variables of the text model in order to construct a genre impression of this model. Consequently, a functional interpretation of the findings is presented in order to determine their influence on the intended effectiveness of PAs.
Acknowledgements
I want to offer my gratitude for the support I received during my master studies. It has been both enlightening and a joy.
Special thanks go to my thesis supervisor prof. dr. Gerard Steen for being the perfect combination of inspiring and constructive; the master coordinator dr. Bart Garssen, who has been receptive and helpful even before I started this journey; and the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric in general for offering me the opportunity to deepen my knowledge on discourse and argumentation.
Table of Contents
Introduction ... 1
1 Theoretical Framework: What Is a PA and What Does It Consist Of? ... 4
1.1 Context ... 5
1.2 Text ... 8
1.3 Code ... 10
1.4 Positive Image Enhancement ... 13
1.5 Research Objectives ... 15
2 Methodology: Content, Form, Type ... 17
2.1 Contents: Content Elements ... 17
2.2 Form: Moves ... 19
2.3 Type: Argumentation ... 20
2.4 Multi-procedural Analysis ... 24
2.5 Materials ... 27
3 Empirical Research of PA ... 29
3.1 PA Content Element Presentation ... 29
3.2 Move Identification and Analysis of PAs ... 32
3.2.1 opening statement. ... 34
3.2.2 admission / evaluation of the transgression. ... 36
3.2.3 acceptance of responsibility. ... 39
3.2.4 statement of remorse. ... 42
3.2.5 attempt to restore image. ... 45
3.2.6 promise of non-recurrence. ... 48
3.2.7 optional moves in PAs. ... 50
3.2.8 concluding statement. ... 52
3.2.9 lack of standardization. ... 53
3.3 The Link Between Elements and Argumentation ... 54
3.4 Summary of the Findings ... 64
4 From Text to Context: Functional Interpretation of the Findings ... 66
4.1 Functional Interpretation: Attempts to Appear Responsible ... 66
4.2 Functional Interpretation: Attempts to Appear Sincere ... 70
4.4 Appearing Responsible and Sincere: the Modes of Persuasion ... 75
4.5 Short Summary of the Functional Interpretation ... 77
Concluding Remarks ... 79
References ... 83
Appendix A: Transcripts of the PAs ... 92
Appendix B: The Identified Content Elements ... 123
Appendix C: The Identified Moves and Acts for their Fulfilment ... 143
Introduction
We are all familiar with apologizing. In fact, we apologize more frequently than our pride allows us to admit to. We use the phrase ‘I am sorry’ when we are late for a meeting; spill coffee on a colleague’s new shirt; pre-empt a confession; or, when we, hopefully inadvertently, hurt the feelings of our friends or loved ones. It is in the last case, when we offer emotional redress, where the power of an apology lies. Apologies have the power to help smooth over glitches in social relations, because “apologies are the world’s most basic and pervasive conflict resolution technique (Frantz and Bennigson 2004: 201).
Nevertheless, when it comes to political figures the concept of apologizing has long been considered ill advice and denial or stonewalling was favoured instead. The mantra ‘never apologize, and never explain’ was adhered to until the last few decades, in which we experienced “the rise in America and the world at large of a new culture of public apology” (Mills 2001: 113). This has come to be known as “the Age of Apology” (e.g. Brooks 1999; Gibney et al. 2008; Govier and Verwoerd 2002; Harris et al. 2006). Since then institutions have come to realize that “apologizing and granting moral acknowledgement to the victims are so important that a ‘second wound of silence’ is inflicted if one fails to apologize’ (Govier and Verwoerd 2002: 141).
The most plausible reason for the exponential growth in the number of public apologies is related to their conflict resolving abilities. Similar to the effect of interpersonal apologies, Govier and Verwoerd (2002) explain that “carefully crafted and thoroughly implemented public apologies have significant potential for moral repair and reconciliation” (140). With regard to the image restoring properties of apologies, a considerable amount of research has been conducted (e.g. Goffman 1971; Kampf 2009; Leech 2014). William Benoit, who introduced the image restoration theory, in which he mapped the moves
available to mitigate the damage to someone’s image, gives the most comprehensible description of the image repair. Benoit explains that “the basic image repair situation is simple: a person or organization accuses another of wrongdoing, and the accused produces a message that attempts to repair that image” (1995: 13). Thus, offering a public apology is a good option for image restoration when the reputation of a public figure is damaged.
Nevertheless, as previously stated, before the commencement of ‘the Age of Apology’ public apologies were considered a threat to the public image rather than an option for its restoration. A public figure’s willingness to apologize can be regarded as a sign of weakness (Wohl, Hornsey, and Philpot 2011: 74) as well as strength. The choice of whether or not to apologize is therefore an act of weighing the costs and benefits of apologizing (Kellerman 2006: 74). Kellerman (2006) explains that when the costs of apologizing are calculated to be lower than the cost of silence, the apology is made (75). In other words: the apologizer evaluates that his or her image has been damaged to such a degree that apologizing would be preferable.
The problem for researchers of public apologies is that apologies seem difficult to define. Central to this problem is the complexity of their characterization, which is “a difficulty that arises directly out of the functions they perform” (Lakoff 2003: 201), which is to restore the image of the person apologizing. Corpus analyst and pragmatician Leech (2014) explained that rather than thinking of “apologies as forming a clear-cut illocutionary type, it is helpful to think of them as covering a particular “illocutionary territory” with internal variations as well as contrastive relations with other speech events” (119). However, the theories proposed by Leech do not solve the characterization problem, as he himself acknowledges (2014: 132).
Further research that takes the function performed by public apologies as a starting point is needed. Hitherto, the analyses presented on public apologies, and political apologies
(PAs) in particular, have not been far-reaching enough to properly explicate the construction of these apologies in light of the functions they perform. Although there are studies dedicated to why public figures choose to apologize and what a public apology can entail, almost no corpus studies have been conducted into how politicians construct a PA. An empirical study of PAs could shed a light on how certain elements are included in the PAs to achieve this goal of image restoration and how the apologizers shape their utterances to this goal. In addition, focus on their construction could help in forming a better understanding of this phenomenon. These are the aims of the present thesis.
1 Theoretical Framework: What Is a PA and What Does It Consist Of?
Due to the difficulty to define PAs there is a lack of consensus on “what a political apology requires or entails, and until matters are clarified, there is going to be no stable, adequate practice of political apology” (Thompson 2005: 8). Therefore, and in order to investigate the construction of PAs, it is important that we first settle on a theoretical definition for PAs and determine the essential characteristics of the PA as a speech event. The literature on apologies is vast and comes from various different academic disciplines; from the field of law to anthropology, and from pragmatics to philosophy. In this thesis, we will follow philosopher Thompson’s definition of PAs: “A political apology is an official apology given by a representative of a state, corporation, or other organised group to victims, or descendants of victims, of injustices committed by the group’s officials or members” (2005: 1). Although this definition is straightforward, what remains are answers to the questions: How are PAs constructed, and who are these offenders and offended?
Functional for the linguistic and discursive characterisation of PAs is Gerard Steen’s (2011) approach to genres, because his proposed model helps “represent a set of possible configurations of genre properties that can characterize genres” (34). For this purpose, Steen (2011) distinguishes between three different models; the context model, which “refers to all relevant structures and entities outside the text that are involved in the genre event”; the text model, which “refers to the message that is being exchanged or co-constructed between participants”; and the code model, which “refers to the semiotic means comprising the text” (31). In order to create a comprehensive description of PAs that elucidates its complexities, all variables for all three models must be identified. Steen’s approach will be used as a framework to present the most important properties of PAs that have been found in previous apology research.
1.1 Context
Steen (2011) distinguishes between five important variables for the construction of a context model for a speech event: ‘participants’, or those involved in the speech event; the ‘goals and functions’ of the discourse; ‘situation and setting’, for example the spatiotemporal co-presence of participants; the ‘domain’ in which the speech event takes place; and the ‘medium’ via which the speech event is relayed.
With regard to the medium via which PAs are relayed, PAs must first of all be seen as a form of public discourse, “since they are made in public, and they are made for public purposes” (Wohl, Hornsey, and Philpot 2011: 83). In addition, they are highly mediated (Harris, Grainger and Mullany 2006; Kampf 2009). The pragmaticians Harris, Grainger and Mullany explain that these public apologies are accessible to everyone (2006: 719), especially due to the arrival of the Internet, but are also broadcasted via numerous other media outlets, such as television, radio, and newspapers. Their easy accessibility is linked to their purpose of public image restoration. The apologizer, by means of “performative redress”, aims to “link the fate of the wrongdoer and the victim in a public event, which seeks to defeat the wrongdoer’s claim to mastery over the victim” (Borneman 2005: 54). In order to achieve image restoration, the message has to be relayed to as many people as possible. The fact that these apologies take place in “the public eye” (Hargie et al. 2010: 726) is a key difference between the PA and the interpersonal apology. This distinction is important to make since, as Hargie, Stapleton, and Tourish (2010) explain, “the presence of TV cameras and an audience transforms the event into something akin to a public performance” (726).
Besides the public nature of PAs we need to define the ‘participant’ variable for PAs by taking into consideration those directly and indirectly involved in the event. The apologizer participant in PAs is a politician. Therefore, the PA can be considered belonging to the ‘domain’ of government and politics. With regard to the addressee participant we need
to take a look at the message that is relayed in PAs. Leech (2014) provides the following rough schema for apologies in general (118):
1. The offender, who takes responsibility for the offense but did not necessarily cause it. 2. The offended, who is perceived to have suffered as a result of the offense.
3. The offense—real, potential, or perceived as such by the offender or the offended. 4. The remedy—recognition of the offense, acceptance of responsibility, and a display
of regret.
Although the schema is general, this model explicates the ‘goal and function’ of PAs, since it appears to be the case that in PAs too the apologizer, or S, “in expressing S’s guilt and regret, by implication invites H to reply by either accepting or rejecting the apology” (Leech 2014: 130). There is, however, one important difference from the interpersonal apology variant that could help elucidate the addressee participant(s) in the speech event. Unlike in interpersonal apologies, “it is not only the victim who has an interest in whether or not an offender apologizes. The general public has an interest as well” (Gill 2000: 16). With regard to the ‘setting’ in which PAs take place there is often no spatiotemporal co-presence of the victim, but there is a “presence of indirect participants in the public domain who do not necessarily share the same assumptions about the events as the offender and offended” (Kampf 2009: 2259). It could therefore be the case that the apologizer gives an apology in the public sphere because it is not the victim, or offended, who the apologizer intends to reach, but a larger audience altogether. Thereby, we can differentiate between the offended, or victim, of the transgression, on the one hand, and the intended audience, on the other hand, which may include the offended but does not exclusively comprise the offended. Image restoration theorist Benoit underlines that it is important for the offender to identify the relevant audience(s), since the message must be tailored to the intended addressee (1997: 182). This distinction between possible addressees is important for the analyst as well, since the
identification of the intended audience informs the choices made by the apologizer in the construction of the apology (Benoit 1997: 182). With regard to the power relation between the participants, it is important to note that the apologizer participant, being a public representative, usually possesses more institutional power than the addressee participant. Nevertheless, in PAs the latter has more power, since only the addressee can “initiate the process of negotiating absolution” (Robinson 2004: 292).
Lastly, PAs are usually given in either the form of a monologue, in which case we can refer to them as PA speeches, or in a dialogue, when they are offered in an interview. In both cases they can be regarded as interactions between the apologizer participant and the addressee participant, since, as explained, both are necessary for the aim of image restoration to be achieved. In both cases the message is relayed via the ‘medium’ of spoken language, which suggests the absence of text revision time. In speech relayed messages “the speaker is bound to encode and the hearer decode in ongoing time”, which is in contrast to writing, where “the permanence of the text allows re-editing by the writer and rereading by the reader” (Leech and Short 2007: 170). PAs given in interviews operate mostly in accordance with this principle for spoken language, since they are dialogues between a minimum of two participants, who arguably have a different agenda and aim for a different outcome of the conversation. Moreover, in interviews it is often an interviewer who introduces the topics, so that there is more opportunity for loose speech, although, of course, there is opportunity for forestalment as well. The most clear-cut case of written text as spoken text is a PA speech, because it clearly allows for editing.
PA speeches and PAs given in interviews share many characteristics with regard to the participants involved, the goals and functions of the speech event, the domain to which the speech event belongs, the medium that communicates the message to the addressee, and situation and setting of the speech event. However, differences between the monologues and
dialogues could result in different choices made by the apologizers in the construction of their PAs.
Even though PA speeches should be regarded as a distinct genre, a PA given in an interview could be considered as an embedded genre in the encompassing genre of (political) interviews. Applied linguists Biber and Conrad (2009) state that in order “to analyse cases like these, it is necessary to consider the embedded unit as a separate but complete text embedded in a larger text” (72). For that reason, when examining the construction of PAs, the differences between the PA speech genre and the subgenre of PAs given in interviews must be taken into consideration.1
The aforementioned contextual characteristics are crucial for the analysis of PA constructions, because they form a genre and / or subgenre backdrop against which the data can be analysed. This backdrop can function as a frame of reference for the analysis and evaluation of findings, which in turn will aid in the construction of a better understanding of PAs.
1.2 Text
Steen (2011) explains that the text model includes the following variables: firstly, ‘content’, or “topics and thematics”; secondly, ‘form’, or “the formal structures” that are common amongst genres or characteristic of a specific genre, such as “Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion” for research reports; and thirdly, ‘type’, such as “narration and argumentation” (32).
Although generally the motivation for apologizing appears to be the prime concern of apology researchers, the ‘content’ of apologies has received some attention as well. Almost all works that focus on what must be included in apologies present a list of elements that
1 In the existing literature on PAs no distinction between PA speeches and PAs given in interviews is made.
Moreover, researchers seem to prefer the investigation of PA speeches, whereby PAs given in interviews are rarely mentioned at all.
occur, or ought to occur, in apologies (e.g. Kellerman 2006; Hargie, Stapleton and Tourish 2010; Thompson 2005; Gill 2000; Lakoff 2003; Leech 2014; Corntassel and Holder 2008; Meier 1998). The more severe the transgression, the more elaborate an apology may become, and the more elements ought to be included in an apology (Gill 2000: 12). From these lists the following elements were mentioned most often:
1. An explicit Illocutionary Force Indicating Device (IFID). For example, ‘I am sorry’ or ‘I apologize’.
2. An explicit expression of remorse. For example, ‘I am ashamed’. It is important to note that some scholars consider the IFID ‘I am sorry’ to be an expression of remorse as well.
3. An explicit statement of responsibility acceptance. For example, ‘I take responsibility’ or ‘it was my fault’.
4. An explicit promise of non-recurrence. For example, ‘it will not happen again’.
It is striking that most elements are mentioned as explicit statements, whilst it is debatable whether, in reality, all of these elements explicitly occur in apologies. Therefore, these elements can be regarded as ideal characteristics of apologies that would indicate that the text could indeed count as an apology.
The ‘form’ of PAs has received significantly little scholarly attention. Most scholars that do treat the formal structures of apologies, such as Leech (2014) and Lakoff (2003), focus on the form of interpersonal apologies, rather than PAs. Since PAs are, for example, made for public purposes and are highly mediated they differ from interpersonal apologies. As a result, the form descriptions provided for interpersonal apologies do not apply to PAs.
The ‘type’ of discourse is expected to be argumentation, since the purpose of PAs seems to be persuading the intended audience to accept the apology and restore the public image of the apologizer. Considering effectiveness is regarded as the perlocution of the illocution of persuasion (van Eemeren 1984: 25), it could be stated that the apologizer intends to effectively persuade the intended audience that his public image must be restored. The notion that PAs are persuasive texts is supported by Benoit (1997), who states that “image restoration rhetoric is a form of persuasive discourse” (183). If this is true, the following question arises: how do apologizers intend to persuade the intended audience? Cohen (2004) states that rhetoric aims at persuading groups by making arguments (33). Therefore, the notion of PAs as rhetorical and persuasive texts alludes to the idea that PAs may include an underlying argumentative structure that contributes, or may contribute, to the PA’s persuasiveness.
1.3 Code
Steen (2011) identifies three variables that are interesting for the construction of a code model for PAs: firstly, ‘language’, or the influence of a specific language on effective communication; secondly, ‘register’, referring to the use of “an appropriate, generally recognized language variety”; and thirdly, ‘rhetoric’, “in that the deliberate manipulation of language for particular communicative ends may play a role between sender and receiver” (33).
The ‘language’ in which the PA is relayed is important for the PA construction and PA analysis, since apologies are “intrinsically an act of respect” (Thompson 2005: 3), and the notion of respect is culturally dependent. The cultural implications of language and respect are well researched by cross-cultural linguists and politeness theorists in specific (e.g. Brown and Levinson 1987; Mackenzie and Wallace 2011; Scollon and Scollon 1981) since
apologies “are quintessentially a politeness strategy” (Holmes 1998: 217). Cross-cultural linguist Blum-Kulka (1997) explains that “cultures differ widely in their interactional styles, so that whereas indirectness is the accepted polite behaviour in a given situation in one culture, directness is the norm in the same situation in another” (54). Therefore, the notion that political speech, such as PAs, is culture bound (Trosborg 1997: 148) is important to take into account when analysing PAs given in English to an audience for whom English is the Lingua Franca.
With regard to the ‘register’ used in PAs no functional descriptions are provided in the previous research on apologies. Most researchers of apologies that provide register descriptions, such as Lakoff (2003), focus on the interpersonal apology variant. These findings, similar to the findings of the research on ‘form’, are not applicable due to the public nature of PAs. For a register description of PA speeches and PAs given in interviews we must therefore turn to their related genres in the political domain: the political speech and political interview. With the exception of the goal of PAs most of the genre model variable descriptions presented above seem to overlap with those of political speeches and interviews. Biber and Conrad (2009) explain that the political speech has a specialized register (232), since people who speak the language in which the political speech is relayed can understand what is communicated; yet they do not necessarily know how to produce a political speech themselves (86). The political speech is usually either deliberate or epideictic (Reisigl 2008: 251) and more formal in language use than interpersonal speech. Considering the expectation that PAs set out to exhort, as well as to praise and blame, both speech types may be considered suitable for PA speeches and PAs given in interviews. However, as stated in section 1.1, in PA interviews there is more room for loose speech, whereby we can expect the register used to be less formal than in PA speeches.
Before we can establish the rhetorical strategies employed in PAs the effectiveness of PAs needs to be addressed. Similar to the limited consensus on what an apology is comprised of, “people disagree […] over what makes them better or worse” (Winter 2014: 1). For this research on the construction of PAs, that which is perceived to be effective by the constructor is most important. In previous research on PAs, no differentiation is made between the perceived effectiveness by the apologizer and the actual effectiveness on the intended addressee. However, for the analysis of PA constructions, a differentiation between, what I call, empirical effectiveness and intended effectiveness must be made. The former constitutes the effect an apology has on the intended addressee. It is the result of the apology and regards the intentions and actions of the addressee. The latter accounts for the intentions and actions on the part of the apologizer. Intended effectiveness informs the way the text is constructed in order for the apologizer to achieve his or her aims. Considering that in this research the objective is to elucidate the construction of PAs, it is the latter type of effectiveness that is focused on in this thesis.
With regard to ‘rhetoric’, the research on apologies indicates that the rhetorical strategies that can be employed to positively affect the effectiveness of PAs are plentiful. Harris et al. (2006) comment that “it is possible to apologize using a wide range of strategies and linguistic forms”, such as the choice between the IFID ‘I apologize’ and ‘I am sorry’ (721). Benoit (1997), in response to the question how effectiveness may be achieved in apologies, even goes as far as saying that “suggestions for effectiveness can be derived from our understanding of persuasion generally” (183). The research on apologies also mentions rhetorical strategies that should be avoided. An example of such a strategy is provided by Wohl, Hornsey and Philpot (2012), who suggest that “apologizers might consider avoiding the expression of secondary emotions, instead replacing them with less complex nonuniquely
human emotions” (92), since they might negatively affect the perception of the apologizer as sincere.
1.4 Positive Image Enhancement
As shown, the research on apologies establishes the incorporation of essential elements in order for a text to be count as an apology. However, the research does not specifically indicate what elements apologizers include in support of intended effectiveness.
Apologizer researcher Meier (2004) constructed the following model for apologies that elucidates the goal and function of apologies (4):
S’s image àS’s Link to a norm violation à S’s damaged image à apology à S’s repaired image.
According to Meier’s model the apology should lead to a repaired image. In order for the text to positively affect the process of image repair it should enhance the positive image management of the apologizer participant (see Benoit 1995; 1997; 2009). In order to establish what choices influence intended effectiveness, and how they do so, we must thus analyse how text construction affects the apologizer participants’ image. In other words: how ‘text’ inclusion influences ‘context’. When we rewrite the part of Meier’s model following the transgression in terms of ‘text’ and ‘context’ the following becomes apparent:
Apologizer participant’s damaged image (= context) à the apology (= text) à Apologizer participant’s repaired image (= context).
This shows that the goal of the apologizer, namely image restoration, influences the choices made for the incorporation of the PA text variables. Moreover, it shows that the text variables, such as content inclusion, affect the perception of the apologizer’s image and thereby the PA’s effectiveness.
From the apology research the following two apologizer image related properties that positively enhance the image management of the apologizer can be derived: responsibility and sincerity. In other words: in order for PAs to be effective the apologizers should appear responsible and sincere.
At this point, it is important to make a distinction between the ways in which the term ‘responsibility’ is used in apology research. The element ‘responsibility’ found by researchers such as Gill (2000), as explained above, means that the apologizer, by means of an utterance, takes responsibility for the transgression. The element of ‘responsibility’ therefore belongs to the ‘content’ variable of the text model. The elements can therefore be referred to as content elements. ‘Responsibility’ in relation to positive image management is rather a property that the apologizer must possess. The perception of the apologizer as a responsible person is vital for the effectiveness of a PA. The absence of this property could be expected to result in an apology that is perceived as hollow and unlikely to initiate a lasting positive change in the damaged relationship (Wohl, Hornsey and Philpot 2011: 74). Since it is supposed to be an inherent trait of a political representative, the property of responsibility could be said to belong to the ‘participant’ variable description of the context model.
The property of sincerity, which is closely related to responsibility, is important for apologies in general; however, it must be considered essential for PAs, since in democratic societies, which know leaderships through election, “governments cannot function without some level of trust among the citizenry” (Gill 2000: 20-21). Therefore, the ability to alter public perception of the apologizer’s dignity is not merely important; it is crucial. If the audience does not perceive the apologizer as sincere, and responsible for that matter, the implicit request for image restoration is unlikely to be accepted. Discourse analyst Kampf (2009) highlights the importance of image management by means of apologizing by stating
that the speech event has the power to “project a moral persona and reconstruct public trust” (2259). Kampf explains that this power is due to the fact that “once interpreted as sincere, they indicate that the transgressor is responsible” (2009: 2259).
Due to the importance of the enhancement of positive image management in the apologizer’s attempt to restore his or her public image, research on the relation between the incorporation of PA’s text model variables and both of the image enhancing properties is pivotal.
1.5 Research Objectives
Based on the previous apology research into content, form and type, as presented above, the objective of this thesis is to provide a better description of the PA text model. In addition, the findings for the text model will be interpreted for their influence on the intended effectiveness of PAs. In doing so, the way in which apologizers construct PAs that they deem maximally effective will be clarified. For this purpose, two research questions will be answered:
1. What is the link between the content of PAs, the form of PAs, and the type of PAs? This research question can be answered by conducting an empirical study of a small corpus, guided by the following sub-questions:
What content elements are included in PAs? How are content elements included in PAs?
What formal structures that denote the overall form of PAs can be identified? Is the type of the PA text argumentation?
If the type of the PA text is argumentation, how is argumentation incorporated in PAs, i.e. are the content elements argumentatively supported?
When the content, form, and type of PAs are determined, the findings can be analysed for their positive or negative effect on the image management of the apologizer participant. For this purpose the following research question will be answered:
2. How do the findings for the text model affect the PAs’ intended effectiveness?
This research question can be answered by means of a functional interpretation, guided by the following sub-questions:
How are the apologizer’s image enhancing properties of responsibility and sincerity promoted?
How does content affect intended effectiveness? How does form affect intended effectiveness? How does type affect intended effectiveness?
2 Methodology: Content, Form, Type
In her appropriately titled article “Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies: The Necessity for Interdisciplinary Theory and Method in Discourse Analysis” (2003), Robin Lakoff made a plea for the functional combination of different approaches. Lakoff selected the apology as the suitable genre to demonstrate this need for inter-, cross-, and multidisciplinary approaches because of the difficulty to define them (200-201). This notion of difficulty may not be PA exclusive, but it can be regarded as PA specific. Therefore, no singular theory can be said sufficiently account for all three variables of the text model within PAs.
In order to facilitate the unification of content, form, and type for in-depth analyses of PA constructions and functional interpretations of the findings, a combination of theoretical frameworks needs to be employed in this research. The selections of theoretical frameworks presented here are based on their functional treatment of content, form, or discourse type. In their angles of approach these frameworks both overlap and greatly differ. Thereby, this paper intends to answer the call for interdisciplinary research, whilst at the same time further the understanding of the construction of PAs.
2.1 Contents: Content Elements
As presented in chapter 1, the content elements included in apologies in general are a well-researched aspect of the phenomenon. However, the content elements present in PAs in specific, as a subcategory of apologies, and, as shown in chapter 1, as a separate genre, have yet to be established. Rather than taking a prescriptive approach by proposing the content elements that ought to be considered essential for the construction of a PA, in Chapter 3, a more empirical approach is taken. In this chapter, the content elements incorporated in a small corpus of PAs are described. Through the identification of the content elements we are able to establish the topics included by apologizers in the construction of PAs. This, in turn,
will allow for the identification of underlying content element conventions and dissimilarities between PA speeches and PAs given in interviews.
In the Oxford English Dictionary ‘topics’ are defined as “the subject of a discourse, argumentation, or literary composition”, “a matter treated in speech or writing”, or simply “a theme”. Researchers of topic identification have found that these subjects “can be used to categorize a document” (Schwartz, Sista, and Leek 2001: 1). Most topic identification techniques rely on word frequency and are based on the assumption that frequently used words are most important in the text (Lin 1995: 308). Natural language processing researcher Chin-Yew Lin (1995) identified that the problem with this approach is “that word counting method misses the important concepts behind those words (…) at a deeper level of semantics” (308).
Following Lin (1995), we can identify the different topics incorporated in the PA by labelling each utterance in a PA according to what important concept is treated by the apologizers. To illustrate, by using this method of topic identification content elements that are identified by apology researchers as presented in section 1.2 can be labelled. In doing so, ‘I am sorry’ can be labelled as dealing with the concept of remorse, ‘it was my fault’ with the concept of responsibility, and ‘it will not happen again’ with the concept of non-recurrence. The central concepts identified for these utterances correspond with the definitions of the elements as presented in section 1.2. For the analysis of content element inclusion, those utterances identified with the same label can be regarded as belonging to the same topic. Consequently, the recurring topics in PAs can be labelled and discussed.
2.2 Form: Moves
From a genre perspective, texts may be subdivided into separate standardized sections within a genre, based on their individual goals in support of the genre- or subgenre’s general aim. Functional for this purpose is Vijay Bhatia’s theory on the structural interpretation of text genres, which builds on Swales’ (1990) concept of the identification of cognitive move-structures within a genre. Bhatia’s move analysis could uncover the formal move-structures common for PA speeches and PAs given in interviews and / or the differences in formal structures between the PA genre and PA subgenre.
In Bhatia’s theory “the genre is characterized by the communicative purpose(s) that it is intended to fulfil”, which are socially recognized and understood by the genre’s specific discourse community (1993: 13). In the case of PAs the discourse community consists of the politicians. The communicative purpose of a text, belonging to a specific genre, is achieved by the incorporation of moves, which organize the genre-text’s form and have their own communicative purpose that supports the general communicative purpose of the genre-text (Bhatia 1997: 46-47). Although it is usually considered relatively difficult to determine the communicative purpose of a text, for PAs the scholarly interest in public figures’ motivation for apologizing has provided us with a clear-cut answer: public image restoration.
With regard to realizing the goals of individual moves, Bhatia (1997) explains that by opting for one of the move specific rhetorical strategies the move’s communicative purpose can be fulfilled (46-47). In this way, one strategy would suffice to fulfil the communicative purpose of a move. The strategy, or combination of strategies, is chosen based on the effectiveness, as perceived by the constructor of the PA, in fulfilling the communicative purpose of the move.
Although I make no alterations to Bhatia’s theory, I will use the term ‘act’ instead of ‘rhetorical strategy’, since the acts are optional manoeuvres that can be chosen as a means to fulfil the move and the word ‘strategy’ denotes a set plan for the accomplishment of a goal, which excludes the possibility of choice. Thereby, ‘act’ is the more suitable term for the concept.
Although the communicative purpose of the PA text as a whole can be inferred from previous apology research, the problem of communicative purpose identification for moves remains. As commented on by communication scholar Winni Johansen in a review article of Bhatia (1993), for the identification and description of the communicative purpose “it does not become clear if there is a systematic or logical way of doing this” (1997: 216). As a result, the identification of the communicative purpose is rather intuitive. In order to somewhat guide the intuitive inferences of communicative purposes this research will attempt to link the communicative purposes to the concepts central in the text. In doing so, utterances such as ‘it will not happen again’ can be labelled as a ‘non-recurrence’ content element, and will receive the ‘promise of non-recurrence’ move label, based on the element’s communicative purpose.
The difference between content element and move identification is that content elements are identified based on the concepts central to an utterance and moves are identified on the basis of the communicative purpose an utterance sets out to achieve. In that sense, two different content elements, in which two different concepts are dealt with, could aim to achieve the same communicative purpose.
2.3 Type: Argumentation
As stated in section 1.1, PAs are dialogical. This notion is supported by the insights from Harris et al. (2006), who in their study of PAs conclude that although highly mediated
by mass media, apologies could in fact be considered interactional (721). In this interaction “each party may have a differing perception as to whether balance has been achieved” (Hargie et al. 2010: 723). The type of dialogue seems to be that of a difference of opinion, or discussion, where the mutual understanding of the wrongfulness of the transgression constitutes a common starting point, and the proposition under discussion seems to be: the public image of the apologizer should be restored. In the dispute the apologizer takes a positive standpoint towards the proposition, and the intended audience, as the other participant in the discussion, takes a neutral or negative stance. The aim of the apologizer is to effectively persuade the audience to retract doubt or the negative stance towards the proposition, whereby the public image restoration of the apologizer can be initiated.
The underlying type of the discourse hence seems to be argumentation. We can establish whether this is the case by judging whether the speech acts made in the PA can stand by themselves, or whether they are in some way “linked to a speech act which expresses a standpoint” (van Eemeren 1991: 154). By establishing argumentative connections between separate utterances in support of a text’s communicative goal we will be able to determine another dimension of the text’s coherence.
Functional for the identification of argumentative relations are argument structure analyses as developed within the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, in which “a critical rationalist philosophy of reasonableness is given shape in an ideal model (van Eemeren 2001: 157). Central to this ideal model is the aim of a reasonable resolution of the dispute (Houtlosser 2001: 30).
For the analyses of the apologizers’ attempts to effectively alter the stance of the intended audience, argument structures are particularly functional, because of their ability to lay bare the underlying relation, and type of relation, between different arguments in support of a standpoint. Argumentative analyses will hence allow researchers to unveil the underlying
argumentative structure of PAs by uncovering the lines of defence used for the maximization of intended effectiveness. Instead of identifying the different communicative purposes, and the options for their fulfilments that are confined to specific sections within the text, argument structures demonstrate the relations of the argumentative support to the standpoint throughout the entire PA. This type of analysis is therefore compatible with move analysis, yet reveals a distinct dimension of coherence by establishing interrelations that go beyond the boundaries of moves.
In pragma-dialectics, when more than one argument is provided in support of a standpoint, the argumentation is considered complex, of which there are three variants.
Firstly, multiple argumentation, or convergent reasoning, takes place when the argumentation provided in support of a standpoint consists of multiple lines of defence, by which “each reason separately supports the standpoint (to some degree)” (Snoeck Henkemans 2001: 101).
Standpoint 1
Argument
1.1 Argument 1.2 Argument1.3
Figure 1. Argument structure for multiple argumentation
Secondly, the relation between arguments can also be of a coordinative nature, comprising linked reasoning, when “each of the reasons given is directly related to the standpoint and the reasons work together as a unit” (Snoeck Henkemans 2001: 101).
Standpoint 1 Argument 1.1a Argument 1.1b Argument 1.1c
Figure 2. Argument structure for coordinative argumentation
Thirdly, when an argument needs to be supported by another argument the argumentative relation can be considered subordinative (van Eemeren et al. 2010: 63).
Standpoint 1 Argument 1.1 Argument 1.1.1 Argument 1.1.1.1
Figure 3. Argument structure for subordinate argumentation
As can be seen in figures 1-3 and previous studies conducted using argument structures, multiple argumentation is indicated by ‘1, 2, 3,…etc’, coordinative argumentation by ‘a, b, c,…etc’, and subordinate argumentation with ‘.1’ for every new argument provided in support of another argument. Except for the study books on argumentation there are no detailed manuals readily available for the objective classification and analysis of argument structures. Therefore, elaborate argument structures analysis may result in argument structures that are considered imperfect by other argumentation analysts.
Lastly, it is important to note that the primary goal, if not the sole purpose, of apologizers seems to be effectiveness, since they aim to maximize their intended
effectiveness by any means necessary. Consequently, apologizers may be found to commit fallacies that are “hindrance[s] or impediment[s] for the resolution (van Eemeren 2001: 157). Fallacies such as argumentum ad misericordiam, ‘appeals to pity’, would hinder a reasonable resolution but could support the PA’s effectiveness by steering the audience towards public image restoration. In this thesis the fallaciousness of arguments will therefore not be addressed. The objective in this thesis is not to evaluate the correctness of argumentation use and whether the argumentation is logically or pragmatically sound. Instead, the research focuses on what argumentation is used in PAs and how argumentation may affect intended effectiveness.
2.4 Multi-procedural Analysis
For the empirical research of content, form, and the argumentative discourse type used in PAs, not only a multidisciplinary approach is required, but a multi-procedural approach as well. Biber and Conrad (2011) point out that a corpus-based analysis must go beyond the counting of features and include qualitative and functional interpretations of patterns as well (73-74). This is particularly important when one keeps in mind the difficulty to define PAs. For that reason, several procedural steps will be taken in order to delineate the measures taken by apologizers to attain intended effectiveness. An outline of the procedures for the analysis of the variables and their functional interpretation is presented in table 1 on page 26.
In chapter 3 an empirical research will be conducted. Firstly, we will determine what content elements are included in PAs by means of topic identification. Secondly, we will establish what moves participants make in PAs, by means of move analyses. Lastly, we will aim to determine what type of texts PA speeches and PAs given in interviews are, by attempting to construct argument structures. As a result, we may uncover links between the
three variables of the text model. Any patterns in variable inclusion and / or relations between the different variables will be analysed by means of small case studies from the selected corpus.
Whilst the empirical research aims to establish the content, form, and type variables for PAs, their influence on the intended effectiveness of PAs is treated in chapter 4. Thereby, the results of the text model’s variables will be related to the context model by focusing on the participants’ image presentation. The apology research in combination with research on effectiveness and persuasion can be used to derive the possible effects elements, moves, and argumentation may have on the enhancement of the apologizer’s positive image management.
Table 1
Model of the Procedures for the Empirical Research and Functional Interpretation
Genre
Model Variables
General Goal of the Empirical Research
Specific Goal of the Empirical Research
Procedure to Achieve Goals
General Goal of Functional Interpretation
Specific Goal of Functional Interpretation
Text model
Content To establish what content is included in PAs
To determine what content elements are included and how they relate to ‘form’ and ‘type’
Topic identification
To establish the influence of the text model variable ‘content’ on the context model variable ‘participant’
To determine how content elements influence responsibility and sincerity for the enhancement of positive image management
Form To establish the form of Pas
To determine what moves are made are and how they relate to ‘content’ and ‘type’
Move analysis
To establish the influence of the text model variable ‘form’ on the context model variable ‘participant’
To determine how the moves influence responsibility and sincerity for the enhancement of positive image management
Type To establish what type of texts PAs are
To determine if the text type is argumentation and how this relates to ‘content’ and ‘form’
Argument structures
To establish the influence of the text model variable ‘type’ on the context model variable ‘participant’
To determine how the text type
(argumentation) influences responsibility and sincerity for the enhancement of positive image management
Code
model Participant
Research on PAs, persuasion, and effectiveness
To establish the how intended effectiveness is achieved
To determine what text model variable choices are made in support of responsibility and sincerity for the enhancement of positive image management
2.5 Materials
The data selected for the analyses are PAs imparted via a variety of media outlets, in order for the inferences made from a small sample to be more generalizable to the population, seeing that PAs are not exclusively given in either televised speeches or written interviews. The small corpus consists of twenty different PAs, namely ten PA speeches and ten PAs given in interviews. The selected data includes PAs from different politicians and multiple PAs by the same politician, as to look for patterns that go beyond personal style. The corpus is limited to PAs relayed in English, as to limit the possibility of misinterpretation. Therefore, the selected PAs were given by United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada based politicians. Consequently, the generalizability of the findings will be limited to Western countries in which English is the Lingua Franca. This selection criterion will, however, guarantee a higher level of interpretation accuracy, since translation would inevitably lead to a change in form, as well as meaning.
The selected PAs were given during the last twenty years, since the adverse attitude towards PAs prior to the ‘Age of Apology’ could have affected the construction of PAs in a way that can now be considered outdated. Additionally, the inclusion of more recent PAs allows us to establish possible contemporary conventions, making comparisons with recent and upcoming PAs possible. The selected data consists of PAs provided by politicians who can personally be held responsible for a transgression and have damaged their image because of that. As a result, PAs for historical injustices2 will be excluded from the corpus, since it can be argued that these PAs are image building rather than restoring. Thereby, the motivation for apologizing, and consequently the communicative purpose of the PA, is different. Due to these functional restrictions, the selection of PAs will not be completely
2 For example Canadian Prime Minister Harper’s 2008 apology for a century of isolating aboriginal Canadian
random. Initially the ten first PAs found on the Internet, which were relayed in English and did not concern historical mistakes, were included. After that, the ten most recent PAs, fitting these same criteria were included. As a result, the selected data can be easily found and checked by the reader.
3 Empirical Research of PA
3.1 PA Content Element Presentation
By looking at the content of the PAs we are able to establish if there are any patterns to be found in terms of topic inclusion in their construction. In the following table the content element labels, identified based on the concepts central in the utterances, are presented.
Table 2
The Content Element Labels Identified in PA Speeches and PAs Given in Interviews Content Element Labels
Remorse Responsibility Admission transgression Wrongfulness Consequences Fix damage Non-recurrence Changes Unintentional fault Falsehoods Marginalization Forgiveness
It is important to note that by means of a chi square test it was established that the difference between PA speeches and PAs given in interviews cannot be measured for significance. The table for content element frequency includes too many cells that have an expected value of 5 or less. Therefore, in this section, no references are made to the
frequency of content element inclusion. Instead, the operationalization of the content elements will be discussed in later sections.
The terms provided for the content element labels in table 2 indicate what topics are central in the utterances to which the labels are attributed. However, for the sake of clarification short descriptions of the labels and how the concepts central to the corresponding utterances were identified will be presented in this section. In Appendix B the utterances and their corresponding element labels per PA are provided, which can be used as illustrations for the label descriptions provided below.
The ‘remorse’ element was attributed to utterances that have remorse as their theme. The utterances have words such as ‘regret’ or IFIDs such as ‘apologize’ or ‘sorry’ as indicators that the concept dealt with is remorse. The content element is included by all PA speeches and all PAs given in interviews from the corpus since, as stated in chapter 1, the statement of remorse is essential for PAs to count as an apology.
The ‘responsibility’ element deals with utterances in which apologizers take responsibility for the transgression. The presence of this theme is indicated by phrases such as ‘I am responsible’ or ‘I blame myself’.
In utterances labelled ‘admission transgression’ the apologizers acknowledge the transgression they are apologizing for. This content element is not indicated by general phrases, as in the case of the ‘remorse’ and ‘responsibility’ content elements. The reason for this is that the transgression that is admitted to in these types of utterances is different for every PA. Instead, the ‘admission transgression’ content element label was attributed to utterances in which the apologizers name or describe the offence for which they are apologizing.
The content element label ‘wrongfulness’ was attributed to utterances in which the apologizers provide a negative evaluation of the transgression they are apologizing for. The concept central to these utterances is the concept that the transgression was unjustified. This concept is indicated by words such as ‘mistake’ or phrases such as ‘it was wrong’.
The ‘consequences’ content element deals with utterances in which the apologizer refers to the consequence(s) of the transgression. Similar to the ‘admission transgression’ content element the ‘consequences’ content element is often not indicated by specific phrases or words, although occasionally the word ‘consequence’ is included. The consequences of the transgression can be different per transgression but include utterances in which the apologizers for example announce their resignation as a result of the transgression or acknowledge the loss of trust as a consequence of their offence.
In utterances that are attributed the content element label ‘fix damage’ the concept central to the utterances is the rectification of the damage done by the apologizer as a result of the transgression. The element is indicated by phrases such as ‘we’re going to do everything we can to get it fixed’.
The ‘non-recurrence’ content element dealt with the transgression as a non-recurrent act as the central concept. The content element is indicated by utterances in which the phrase ‘it will not happen again’ or a variant such as ‘it will not be repeated’ is included.
The ‘changes’ content element has change as its subject. In the utterances that can be labelled ‘changes’ the apologizer presents changes that he or she has undergone, is undergoing, will undergo, or changes he or she has made, is making, or will make.
The ‘unintentional act’ content element label is attributed to utterances in which the apologizer states that the transgression was an unwitting mistake. Phrases such as ‘it was not my intention’ can indicate the presence of this concept.
In utterances labelled with the content element label ‘falsehoods’ the apologizer expresses that not all of the stories surrounding the transgression are true. They can be identified by phrases that include the combination of the words ‘not’ and ‘true’ whilst referring to an aspect of the transgression.
Similar to the ‘admission transgression’ and ‘consequences’ content element, the ‘marginalization’ content element is not indicated by specific words or phrases, because the transgression, and therefore the mitigation thereof, is different for every PA. The ‘marginalization’ content element is attributed to utterances in which the apologizer mitigates the transgression he or she is apologizing for.
The ‘political excellence’ content element deals with utterances in which the apologizer mentions his or her good political deeds. Since the apologizers differ in terms of their political credentials, no typical words or phrases could indicate the presence of this content element. Instead the content element can be determined by the identification of utterances in which positive political deeds are presented.
The ‘forgiveness’ content element is attributed to utterances in which the apologizer requests the victim or intended audience to forgive him or her. This element is indicated by phrases such as ‘please forgive me’.
As shown, thirteen element labels, based on thirteen distinct topics dealt with in PA utterances, were identified in the PAs from the corpus. In order to analyse these content elements we have to research how the ‘type’ of PAs informs the content element inclusion and how the ‘content’ helps determine the ‘form’ of PAs. This will be done in the following sections of this chapter.
3.2 Move Identification and Analysis of PAs
communicative purpose of the genre and subgenre needs to be identified, since genres are characterized by the communicative purpose they aim to achieve. The communicative purpose of PAs seems to be persuading the intended audience that the public image of the apologizer should be restored. This communicative purpose can be derived from the apologizer’s “attempt to minimize the negative repercussions of the incident and repair the actor’s damaged identity” (Darby and Schlenker 1982: 742). Thereby, we can state that the politicians’ aim is deeply rooted in the reason why they opt to apologize.
Based on the communicative purpose that can be attributed to the concepts central to the utterances in the PAs the following moves with distinctive communicative purposes were identified3:
Table 3
Moves Identified in PA Speeches and PAs Given in Interviews Moves
Opening statement
Admission / evaluation of the transgression Acceptance of responsibility
Statement of remorse Attempt to restore image Promise of non-recurrence Appeal for forgiveness Attempt to console Concluding statement
In the following sections the identified moves and the acts to achieve them will be analysed. The act numbering, as presented in the provided tables, will be used to indicate the presence of acts in the examples.
3.2.1 opening statement.
The communicative purpose of the ‘opening statement move’ is to indicate the commencement of the PA speech or PA in an interview. For the fulfilment of the ‘opening statement move’ three acts can be chosen:
Table 4
Frequency of Acts for the Fulfilment of the Opening Statement Move
Sub label Speeches Interviews
Act 1 Gratitude 3
Act 2 Greetings 4 1
Act 3 Speech abstract 2
Note. The frequency concerns the number of PA speeches or PAs given in interviews in
which the act occurs.
As can be seen in table 4, in the corpus the ‘opening statement move’ is included more often in PA speeches than PAs given in interviews. This could be explained by the fact that speeches are monologues that conventionally include an opening statement, as well as a concluding statement, as will be discussed in section 3.2.8.
One PA speech in particular includes all three of the possible acts for the ‘opening statement move’, and can therefore be regarded as an ‘opening statement move’ ideal:
(1) Thank you very much for being here (1), and good afternoon (2). I’d like to take this time to clear up some questions that have been raised over the past ten days or so (3) (Anthony Weiner, 6 June 2011)
In this example act 1 ‘gratitude’ and act 2 ‘greeting’ are clear options to commence the speech. Act 3 ‘speech abstract’ belongs to the ‘opening statement move’ since it is presented as an introduction. In this act the apologizer announces what will be addressed in the speech.
‘opening statement move’ is a speech by James McGreevey. The difference between this speech and other PA speeches, however, is that the first half of his speech concerns a confession of his homosexuality. Although this confession is presented as related to the eventual transgression, it should be considered separate from his PA for infidelity. Since the speech can be divided up into two sections, which concern a related yet different topic, this text does not disprove the taxonomy of acts for the opening statement move, as presented in table 3. The start of the PA section of the speech is as follows, and does include act 3 ‘speech abstract’ for the ‘opening statement move’:
(2) I am also here today because, shamefully, I engaged in an adult consensual affair with another man, which violates my bonds of matrimony (3).(James McGreevey, 12 August 2004)
As mentioned above, the opening statement is one of the only moves that has a fixed place of occurrence, namely at the beginning of a speech or interview. However, the PAs given in interviews are a subgenre, and therefore the opening statement is located at the beginning of the larger genre in which the subgenre is embedded. Unless the interviews are initiated with the sole intention of presenting a PA, the opening statement belongs to the larger genre of a political interview in which the PA subgenre is embedded. Additionally, the beginnings of interviews, especially when the PA is broadcasted on a news network, are often edited out, as is the case in the nine PAs made in interviews that do not present the opening statement to the audience. In the interview where an opening statement does occur it is elicited by the interviewer and forms the second part of an adjacency pair:
(3) Chuck Todd: Thank you, Mr President. Barack Obama: Great to see you, Chuck (2).
Chuck Todd: Thanks to you. (Barack Obama, 8 November 2013)
This example shows that the greeting in the opening statement by our apologizer is a preferred response to the initial utterance made by the interviewer.
With regard to the ‘opening statement move’ a clear difference in inclusion between PA speeches and PAs given in interviews was found. The difference can be accounted for by the fact that PA speeches are monologues. In the PA genre the acts for the fulfilment of the communicative purpose of the ‘opening statement move’ are more standardized than for PAs given in interviews. Since PAs in interviews are an embedded genre in the larger political interview genre, unless the interview’s sole purpose is to elicit or provide a PA, the ‘opening statement move’ would belong to the beginning of the general interview.
3.2.2 admission / evaluation of the transgression.
The communicative purpose of this move is to admit and elucidate the transgression. When politicians opt to apologize, it is necessary for them to identify the transgression they are apologizing for; otherwise the apology will become meaningless. Additionally, this will allow the apologizers to frame the transgression in such a way that they acknowledge the transgression, as well as present the offence in the most effective manner considering the PA’s communicative purpose.
Table 5
Frequency of Acts for the Fulfilment of the Admission / Evaluation of the Transgression Move
Sub label Speeches Interviews
Act 1 Transgression in short 5 6
Act 2 Transgression in detail 4 2
Act 3 Transgression unacceptability
6 4
Act 4 Set scene time of transgression 4 4 Act 5 Transgression falsehoods 2 Act 6 Transgression marginalization 6 2
Note. The frequency concerns the number of PA speeches or PAs given in interviews in
which the act occurs.
As table 5 shows, apologizers choose to either give a brief or elaborated statement in speeches, but prefer to include short descriptions of the transgression in interviews. The reason for this could be that in interviews the transgression topic is introduced by the interviewer in question form, by which he or she elicits an apology from the politician. This is clearly the case in the following section of the Todd and Obama interview:
(4) Chuck Todd: I’ll start with health care. It’s probably the most quoted thing or requoted thing you have said in your presidency: If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. You said it a lot during the run up. At this point, though, it’s obviously something—a promise that has not been able to be kept. Just today, the Denver Post -- 250,000 people in Colorado are seeing health insurance policies cancelled (…)
Barack Obama: Well—first of all, I meant what I said. And we worked hard to try to make sure that we implemented it properly. But obviously, we didn’t do enough—a good enough job. (1) (Barack Obama, 8 November 2013)
Since the interviewer gives a description of the transgression, the apologizer does not have to provide an elaborate transgression statement. Doing so would be redundant and put too much focus on the transgression, which the apologizer must avoid, because this could negatively affect the apologizer’s efforts to achieve his or her goal.
The last two acts help frame the transgression for the benefit of intended effectiveness in the way the apologizer deems best. Act 5 ‘transgression falsehoods’ corresponds with the ‘falsehoods’ content element and act 6 ‘transgression marginalization’ corresponds with the ‘marginalization’ content element. Both these acts are attempts to mitigate the transgression in the eyes of the audience.
Act 4 ‘set scene time of transgression’, however, is not included in the list of content elements, because it can be argued that it is not a content element. It could be considered a contextual backdrop that serves as a justification for the wrongdoing, whereby the act could perhaps be a component of an excuse, rather than an apology. In PAs this act is used by the apologizer to describe the, often mitigating, circumstances under which the transgression took place, as can be derived from the following example:
(5) This was a difficult and unstable period in my life. I want to be clear today; I was associating with the wrong people. I was struggling to put myself through college and was offered money in exchange for marrying a young person who had a chance to get a college degree himself if he were able to remain in the United States (5). (Cylvia Hayes, 13 October 2014)
Statements like this create a backdrop for the first three acts and act 6, which describe and evaluate the transgression itself. As a result, the description and / or evaluation of the
