• No results found

Apologies in the Political Discourse: A Comparison of the Personal Scandal and the Historical Injustice

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Apologies in the Political Discourse: A Comparison of the Personal Scandal and the Historical Injustice"

Copied!
49
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Personal Scandal and the Historical Injustice

A thesis presented in part fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MA

Linguistics: Language and Society at the University of Amsterdam in the

2016/2017 academic year. I have read and understood the UvA guidelines on

Plagiarism.

Malou Litjens

10247874

Supervisor: Anne Bannink

29-08-17

(2)

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 4

2. Theoretical Framework 6

2.1 Apologies as Speech Act 6

2.1.1 Felicity Conditions 6

2.1.2 Adaptations to proposed Felicity Conditions 7

2.1.3 Verbal Strategies 9

2.2 Context-dependency of Strategies and the Notion of Face 10

2.3 Participation Framework 12

2.3.1 Participant Structure in the Public Domain 13

2.3.2 Participant Structure in the Political Apology 14 2.3.2.1 Participant Structure in Political Apology: Historical Injustice 14 2.3.2.2 Participant Structure in Political Apology: Personal Scandal 15

2.4 Public Apologies 15

2.4.1 Role of the Media 16

2.4.2 Moment of Absolution 16

2.4.3 Verbal Strategies 17

2.4.4 Conditions 17

2.5 Political Apologies 18

2.5.1 Political Apologies for Historical Injustices 19

2.5.2 Political Apologies for Personal Scandals 21

3. Methodology 22

3.1 The Data 23

Table 1: Historical Injustice 24

Table 2: Personal Scandal 24

4. Data 25

4.1 Historical Injustice 25

Data 1 Tony Blair on the Irish Potato Famine 25

Data 2 Gordon Brown on Child Migrations Policy 27

Data 3 Kevin Rudd on the Mistreatment of Indigenous People 31

4.2 Personal Scandal 34

(3)

3

Data 5 Donald Trump on Leaked Video with Sexist Comments 37

Data 6 Eliot Spitzer on Prostitution Scandal 39

5. Discussion 41

5.1 Summary of Findings & Interpretations 41

5.1.1 Historical Injustice 41

5.1.2 Personal Scandal 42

5.2 Comparison of the Two Categories in Terms of Verbal Strategies 43

Table 3: All Apologies 43

Table 4: Historical Injustice Apologies 43

5.3 Limitations and Future Research 45

5.4 Concluding Remarks 46

(4)

4 1. Introduction

Numerous studies have been conducted into apologies in everyday conversation to gain a better understanding of what conditions an apology must adhere to in order to be successful and what verbal strategies are used to meet these conditions (e.g. Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969; Owen, 1983; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984). The apology as speech act has a performative function in the sense that it carries some type of ‘force’ in them. This understanding of the apology bridges the gap between language and reality: what is being said has an effect (Austin, 1962). In order for the speech act to have a successful effect, the apology must adhere to certain conditions: felicity conditions. These conditions are met through the use of verbal strategies. Multiple researchers in the field of linguistics pointed out how factors such as context, the notion of face and the participant structure all affect how the apology is constructed in terms of the verbal strategies used by the speaker (e.g. Trosborg, 1987; Holmes, 1989; Meier, 1998; Holtgraves, 2011).

Despite the interest that the apology as speech act has gained over the past two

decades, the political apology has been neglected as a topic of research in the pragmatic field, although it has become a vital part of the political discourse in the modern western political discourse. With its highly mediated nature and political rhetoric, the apology in the political discourse operates in the public sphere and is generated by (and generates) conflict and controversy (Harris, Grainger & Mullany, 2006). The political apology has an increasing significance and power and differs from the apology in the private domain on a number of levels (Luke, 1997). Several recent studies show how political apologies deal with different characteristics and as a consequence a different usage of verbal strategies (e.g. Lazare, 2004; Blatz, Schumann & Ross, 2009; Murphy, 2015). However, within the category of political apologies a wide variety exists in terms of offense type, resulting into a large number of differently constructed political apologies.

This study will explore two different categories of political apologies: the apology for a personal scandal for which the politician is personally responsible versus the apology for a historical injustice for which the politician is not personally responsible. After analyzing and comparing the apologies I aim to illustrate to what extent the differences in participant structure, context of the apology and the highly mediated nature of the political discourse affect what verbal strategies are used in the data. A detailed speaker-supportive discourse analysis of three apologies per category will be carried out to see whether the before-mentioned elements can account for the choices made by the speaker in terms of verbal

(5)

5

strategies and other linguistic saliences. Drawing on the six transcripts of political apologies of the present study, analyzed in the light of the discussed theories and frameworks, I aspire to argue why the apologies can be considered felicitous or not.

(6)

6 2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Apologies as Speech Act 2.1.1 Felicity Conditions

The study of apologies should begin with Austin’s (1962) theory on speech acts and felicity conditions. A speech act in linguistics is an utterance with a performative function: it explains how we do things with words (e.g. warning, threatening). In this sense, speech acts carry some type of ‘force’ in them based on the speakers’ intention and the effect of the speech act on the listener (Holdcroft, 1979). Speech acts can be analyzed on the following three levels: 1. Locutionary force: the actual performance of the utterance, what is said

2. Illocutionary force: the semantic/pragmatic force of the utterance, what is meant 3. Perlocutionary force: the effect of the utterance, what is the result

Austin’s (1962) distinction of these levels in a speech act helps to identify the meaning of an utterance and bridges the gap between language and reality; by saying something, we are doing something. In order for the speech act to be successful, in other words to be ‘felicitous’, Austin’s (1962) theory proposes that certain conditions must be met. Different types of

conditions (appropriateness conditions) are distinguished for different types of speech acts. Searle later refined these conditions and they became known as ‘felicity conditions’ (1969). Felicity conditions specifically apply to performative utterances, to which ‘the apology’ as a speech act belongs. The conditions for the apology are narrowed down to the following:

1. Propositional content condition 2. Preparatory condition

3. Sincerity condition 4. Essential condition

If a performative utterance violates any of these conditions, the performative is considered ‘infelicitous’. Scholars have attempted to narrow down what the conditions specifically entail per speech act. For the speech act of the apology, scholars agreed on the following full set of felicity conditions (Owen, 1983; Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984):

1. Propositional content condition 1.1 Past A[ct] is done by S[peaker] 2. Preparatory condition

(7)

7

2.1 S[peaker] believes that A[ct] is an offense against H[earer] 3. Sincerity condition

3.1 S[peaker] regrets (is sorry for) having done A[ct] 4. Essential condition

4.1 Counts as an expression of regret by S[peaker] for having done A[ct] 2.1.2 Adaptations to proposed Felicity Conditions

Various studies criticized the full set of felicity conditions for the apology and various

adaptations have been made over the years (Holmes, 1989; Ogiermann, 2009; Murphy, 2015). First off all, two issues arise in the ‘Propositional content condition: Past act A done by S’. This condition entails that the speaker who is expressing the apology, must be responsible for the offense. Yet, in numerous occasions S apologizes on someone else’s behalf. Consider the following example from Holmes (1989: 196):

(1) Context: A’s child spills her drink on V’s carpet.

A: Oh look I’m terribly sorry. I’ll clean it up. Have you got a cloth? V: Don’t worry. I’ll do it. It wasn’t very much

In example 1, the child is the person responsible for A. However, the child may be too young to be held accountable for the act. In this situation, the mother of the child apologizes on her child’s behalf. This apology would normally be considered felicitous, if the other conditions are met.

The second issue that arises in the propositional content condition has to do with the act A. The propositional content condition refers to the act A as ‘the past act’. This means that the act for which S apologizes should have occurred before the apology takes place. However, Murphy (2015) rightly argues that future actions can also be the subject of apologies with the following example:

(2) I apologize in advance to the House because I shall not be able to remain for the whole of the debate owing to a long-standing and important commitment in another part of the Palace of Westminster. (Bob Dunn, 27/11/1990; vol. 181, col. 771).

In example two, we see how S is able to apologize in advance for his future absence: a situation that frequently occurs in everyday life. Therefore, Murphy (2015) suggests that the propositional content condition should be adjusted to: ‘An act done, or to be done in the future,

(8)

8

by the speaker or someone for whom the speaker is a formally recognized representative’ (Murphy, 2015: 8).

The preparatory condition assumes that the speaker agrees that A is an offense against H. However, the following example from Murphy (2015: 9) suggests otherwise:

(3) Context: James and Craig are brothers

James: [laughing] You are a total dick sometimes Mother: Oi! There’s no need for that. Say sorry. Craig: Mom, it was only a joke

James: Sorry mate

In example 3, James apologizes to Craig for cursing at him. It becomes clear from the context that James does not necessarily agree with his mother to the same extent that A is offensive. The victim of the offense, Craig, even agrees with James that it was just a joke. However, James possibly damaged the relationship between him and his mother because his cursing offended her. In order to repair this damage and to show that he is willing to make good relations with brother, James apologizes. This example does not meet the preparatory

condition, as James does not believe that calling his brother names was an offense. Although this apology does not meet the preparatory condition, this apology would be considered felicitous. Note how this example shows the importance of the presence of a third party next to the speaker and the victim of the offense: sometimes an apology is directed more towards this third party as the addressed recipient rather than the victim of the offense. The

preparatory condition should therefore be adapted from ‘Speaker believes that Act is an offense against Hearer’ to ‘Speaker believes that Act is an offense against Hearer or an offended third party’.

Finally, the essential condition must be met in order for the apology to be felicitous: ‘the speech act must count as an expression of regret by the Speaker for having done A’. This regret may be expressed either through explicit routine formula (e.g. ‘sorry’, ‘apologize’) or other verbal strategies in which it becomes clear the speech act is an apology. These verbal strategies decide whether or not the speech act counts as an expression of regret.

Another important way to distinguish apologies from other speech acts is during ‘the moment of absolution’. In private conversation, it becomes clear from this moment whether the speech act is regarded as successful: the moment when the person(s) to whom the apology is directed at, accepts the apology. The hearer could, for example, respond with: ‘that’s okay’ or ‘you’re forgiven’, which confirms that the speech act counts as an apology. In this sense,

(9)

9

the apology as speech act requires some type of expected response. In a way, the moment of absolution resembles how many other actions in conversations are established through conversational turn taking. The apology ideally consists out of two parts: the apology and the moment of absolution. The following example shows a typical adjacency pair including the two parts:

(4) A: I am so sorry, I really didn’t mean to

B: That’s okay; I know it wasn’t your intention 2.1.3 Verbal Strategies

In order to meet the conditions that apologies as a speech act require, speakers use certain verbal strategies. Several studies have attempted to break down what these strategies are (e.g. Olshtain & Cohen, 1983; Owen, 1983; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Trosborg, 1987). The following list shows six of the most common verbal strategies speakers use to apologize:

(1) Routine formulae (‘I am sorry’)

(2) Acknowledgement of responsibility (‘I know I was wrong’)

(3) Denial of intent/explanation (‘I was only trying to make you feel better’) (4) Acknowledgement of harm/suffering (‘I know that you are hurt’)

(5) An offer of repair (‘I will do anything to make it up to you’) (6) A promise of forbearance (‘I will never do this again’)

Some strategies will be more appropriate compared to other strategies depending on the context in which the apology occurs. However, overall, the most common strategy found in apologies is the ‘routine formula’: an expression explicitly containing words such as ‘sorry’, ‘apologize’, ‘pardon’, ‘excuse’, etc. (e.g. Owen, 1983; House & Kasper, 1989; Meier, 1998). The second most popular strategy is the ‘denial of intent’: the situation where S explains why A happened (Meier, 1998; Holtgraves, 2011). To what extent strategies 2, 4, 5, and 6 occur is highly context-dependent.

Strategy number three sometimes results in ‘justification’. Depending on the formality of the situation and the relationship between the participants, justification is often viewed as less effective as a strategy compared to ‘denial of intent’ (Trosborg, 1995). The hearer, in the case of justification, is not convinced that S truly regrets A and will not be doing A again sometime in the future (McLaughlin, O’Hair & Cody, 1983). Disagreement, however, arises

(10)

10

as some studies consider justification not as a way to apologize, but as a strategy to minimize the degree of the offense (Scott & Lyman, 1968; Holtgraves, 2011). Other studies regard justification as a way to avoid taking responsibility (Trosborg, 1987).

Not only do particular strategies sometimes yield opposing views concerning the intentions of the speaker, strategies sometimes also overlap. In order to explain this, it is important to take into consideration two different types of research as identified by Meier (1998): ‘speaker-supportive research’ and ‘hearer-supportive research’. Speaker-supportive research focusses mostly on the reputation and intentions of the speaker, whilst hearer-supportive research focusses on the perspective of the hearer, how the apology is received. Overall, speaker-supportive studies (e.g. McLaughlin, O’Hair & Cody, 1983; Meier, 1998) regard the ‘acknowledgement of responsibility’ as a condition; the speaker must feel responsible for the offense in order for the apology to make sense. Whereas ‘hearer-supportive studies’ (e.g. Trosborg, 1987; Holmes, 1989) argue that taking responsibility should be viewed as a strategy for the speaker.

2.2 Context-dependency of Strategies and the Notion of Face

Why certain verbal strategies are more appropriate than others has to do with the highly context-dependent nature of apologies. A lot of the decision-making on the speaker’s behalf in terms of verbal strategies is related to ‘face’. 'Face' is a fundamental concept that Goffman (1967) first addressed and refers to the image of the ‘self’ and ‘the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken’ (1967: 41). In other words, our ‘face’ does not refer to our actual self, but to our public self. Our 'face', in that sense, is constructed in relation to the people we communicate with. During any interaction, we are constantly aware of our face, and are careful to protect it from potential harmful situations that could damage our face, or the face of other people. In this way we are subconsciously always trying to ‘save face’.

The way in which we typically try to ‘save face’ is reflected in the verbal strategies that we use. Based on what face strategies are used in a conversation, aside from the content that the speaker conveys, a lot of additional information is communicated: we ‘convey

information about how close to or distant from the people with whom we are talking we think are, along with information about whether we are social equals or whether one has more power than the other’ (Jones, 2012: 19).

Apologies are considered highly face threatening acts (FTA). The speakers’ face is damaged, as the speech act requires an acknowledgement and admission of the speaker for

(11)

11

his/her past wrongdoings. Studies show that one of the main reasons to apologize is to restore interpersonal relations; the apology is therefore also a way to repair the speakers’ face. Not only the speaker’s face is at stake during an apology, the hearer’s face is also at risk. As the speaker delivers the apology, there is a moment of absolution that lies in the hands of the hearer to decide whether to accept the apology or not. In this sense, the apology could also impair the hearer’s face, as the speaker needs something from the hearer in order for the speech act to be felicitous.

The extent to which the speaker and hearer’s face is at risk in the context of an

apology depends on the relationship between the participants. The concept of face is therefore also inherently connected to the politeness theory. Politeness in interaction refers to the situation where the participants are aware of the other participants’ face and use the most appropriate verbal strategy because of it. There are two different kinds of face that affect what verbal strategies are used in interaction to negotiate face in a situation of communication:

1. Negative face: the need for a person to be independent and have freedom of action. Participants that have negative face needs do not like to be imposed by other people. The negative face goes hand in hand with independent strategies, strategies that the speaker uses in interaction in order to create distance between him/her and other participants.

2. Positive face: the need for a person to be liked and to be included in a social group. Participants that have positive face needs want to connect with the other

participants that they interact with. The positive face goes hand in hand with involvement strategies, strategies that the speaker uses in interaction in order to create closeness between him/her and other participants.

Whether the speaker chooses for involvement strategies or independent strategies depends on three factors that will now be discussed.

First, the weight of imposition, in other words the seriousness of the situation, affects which strategies the speaker uses. In an apology, this refers to the seriousness of the offense for which the speaker apologizes. One could, for example, apologize for spilling a drink, or for killing someone. The severity of these two offenses differs greatly from one another and it affects what verbal strategies are used to apologize. Most of the studies agreed that more severe offense types would result in more elaborate apologies and a lesser use of formulaic expressions (Fraser, 1981; Trosborg, 1987). Second, the social distance between the

(12)

12

the closeness of the relationship between the participants. Studies found different results as to how the relationship between the participants affects the apology. Some studies state that socially close relationships result in less elaborate apologies (Fraser, 1981). Other studies, however, found that close relationships between the participants made up for more elaborate apologies, especially when it comes to the strategy that we know as ‘taking responsibility’ (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993).

Third, social dominance and power as a result of a higher social status of one of the participants also accounts for different strategies used. There are typically three types of power relations in the context of an apology. First, the interlocutors are equal to one another in terms of power and social dominance. Second, the speaker who is apologizing has more power than the hearer. Third, the hearer the speaker is apologizing to is more socially dominant compared to the speaker. Differences in power can, for example, be based on the participants’ profession, such as an employee apologizing to his or her boss. Another example could be a daughter and her mother, who are socially close, but unequal in terms of power. Trosborg (1987) found that people apologizing to someone with a higher social status would use less minimizing strategies and overall took full responsibility (p. 418). A number of studies investigated how people respond to authority figures in their apology (Trosborg, 1987; Meier, 1998; Ogiermann, 2009), however, few studies have focused on apologies that come from an authority figure. Meier (1998) and House (1989) did find that speakers with a higher social status tend to use less emotives (e.g. ‘Oh no!’).

Another important factor that influences politeness strategies has to do with the underlying cultural attitudes of the speaker and hearer. Whether involvement or independent strategies are more appropriate, depends on the interlocutors’ culture. Unfortunately, few studies have aimed to explain the apology’s form and strategic functions based on underlying cultural attitudes (Meier, 1998; Harris, Grainger & Mullany, 2006).

2.3 Participation Framework

In order to understand and analyze apologies made in political contexts, it is important to take into consideration how they differ from apologies made in the private context in terms of the participant framework as well as the different roles the participants can enact.

With the help of Goffman’s (1978) notion of the participant framework, it becomes evident that how people interact is organized by the roles that the participants take on in relation to one another. The participants in a conversation can be divided into ‘speaker’ and ‘hearer’ roles. When apologies occur in the private domain, the structure of the participation

(13)

13

framework remains relatively simple. The speaker is the person who produces the apology and can enact three different roles: the ‘author’, the ‘principal’ and the ‘animator’. The ‘author’ is the individual who composed the words of the utterance. The ‘principal’ is the individual whose position is established by the words uttered. The ‘animator’ is the individual uttering the words. In a private conversation, the speaker mostly represents all three roles. A shift would for example occur if a person is reading out a text-message of a friend. In this case the person who is reading out the text-message is not the author of the words but only the animator.

Other participants present at the apology are subject to the ‘hearer’ role. The hearers are either ratified participants (addressed or unaddressed) or unratified participants

(bystanders or eavesdroppers). The addressed ratified hearers are the person(s) for whom the apology is actually meant and directed at. The unaddressed ratified hearers are acknowledged present participants, however, the apology is not specifically directed at them. Unratified hearers are the hearers who are present when the apology takes place but are not officially acknowledged by the speaker. These hearers are either bystanders or eavesdroppers.

Let us consider the following example to illustrate this participation structure. Context: John is at a party and he spills a drink on his friend’s dress, Vanessa, to whom he promptly apologizes. Vanessa in this scenario is the addressed ratified hearer. But John may have already been standing in a group of four people chatting; the other two persons in that group are ratified unaddressed hearers. The people walking past that group overhearing the apology are bystanders. There may also have been a person intentionally and sneakily listening in on this encounter, this person is the eavesdropper.

2.3.1 Participant Structure in the Public Domain

When an apology is made in the public domain, the participant framework expands and becomes more complex. Complications arose with the simplistic dyadic model of communication in which participants are merely classified as either the ‘hearer’ or the

‘speaker’, especially because of the mass media and electronically based modern era in which communication is not a two-way street. With the help of Goffman’s (1979; 2008) production format, we are able to distinguish the participant roles to explain changes in participant alignment, a shift Goffman refers to as ‘footing’.

The public apology, broadcast by mass media, deals with a large group as its audience. Goffman (1979) differentiates between three types of audiences in the context of mass media: a live audience, a broadcast audience and the imagined audience. The live audience is the

(14)

14

audience in the media setting who are present at the production of the text (p. 12). The broadcast audience is at home listening to or watching the public statement. This broadcast audience is also part of other social occasions because they are, for example, at home with other family members. The imagined audience of the producers refers to the group of people the producer of the text bears in mind while producing/creating the text (p.12). It is important to note that in the private apology, the apology is mostly directed at the direct victims of the offense, whereas in the public apology the apology is directed at a much larger group rather than just the victims because of the production of the mass media. Since the apology is a public statement, the media becomes a vital additional participant. As a consequence, everyone accessing the apology becomes a part of the participant structure.

The speaker roles in the public apology, in other words the producer(s) of the text, also consist out of a more complex production format compared to the speaker of the private apology. In the private apology, the speaker is often the author, principal and animator at the same time. In the public context, the apologizer takes on the principal role as the official representative of his/her company or political party. Another difference to the private apology is the distinction between the author and animator. The public figure represents a company or political party, and because of the highly mediated character of the public apology, the speaker often receives help from a team of speechwriters. This means that the politician or CEO apologizing might be (expectedly) only partially author, as s/he shares this role with advisors and speechwriters. This stands in contrast to the private apology, which is normally constructed and thought of on the spot by the speaker itself.

2.3.2 Participant Structure in the Political Apology

In line with what has been discussed in section 2.3.1, the political apology deals with the same complex structure in terms of participation framework as the public apology. Specifically zooming in on both categories that the present study deals with, the apology for a historical injustice and the apology for the personal scandal, there are some important differences in terms of the participation structure to note.

2.3.2.1 Participant Structure in the Political Apology: Historical Injustice

The politician as the producer of the text is considered a formally recognized representative of the government. For that reason, politicians are able to apologize for past historical injustices, even if they are not personally responsible for carrying out the injustice. In this situation, the politician as speaker fulfills the role of principal. What makes it more complex in this context

(15)

15

is the fact that when a politician officially apologizes for a past injustice, the speaker often does not only represent the government, but also their entire country. Sometimes this contrasts feelings from the non-victimized group, as they do not feel responsible for the offense (see section 2.5.1, strategy 8).

In terms of the audience, the apology made for a historical injustice is often not directed at the victims of the offense; they may not even be alive anymore. The family or minority groups who still feel the consequences of the offense are often the addressed ratified participants. However, a public demand often exists for such a governmental apology so that the government acknowledges the hurt that it has caused. Therefore, the audience that does not have a connection to the actual victims of the offense also becomes the ratified

participants.

2.3.2.2 Participant Structure in the Political Apology: Personal Scandal

In the apologies following a personal scandal, the ‘speaker’ roles also involve a shift. The role of the professional politician disappears, as the politician now has to address private matters. The principal role, in which s/he normally represents the government or political party, shifts to the personal individual as the producer of the text. The individual apologizing does not longer represent the government or political party in this context; the speaker now represents their personal self as individual. The personal scandal apology in that sense shows the hybridity of the role of the politician as speaker.

The hearer group in such an apology is constructed in a different manner than this type of offense normally dictates. While typically a non-political individual would have to

apologize to friends and/or family after a slip-up, a politician has to apologize to the public as well. The same goes for the political party or the government that the speaker normally represents that in this context moves to the audience group, as the politician also has to apologize to them. Even if the offense does not directly affect the public, the politician is still expected to apologize for his or her private actions.

2.4 Public Apologies

Apologies in the public domain have become a well-established and frequently occurring genre in the last two decades. Recent studies have attempted to reveal how public apologies involve different characteristics, conditions and strategies compared to apologies in the private domain (Hargie, Stapleton & Tourish, 2010; Ancarno, 2015; Brinke, 2015). Previous sections already provided some differences between the private and the public apology; this

(16)

16

section will go into further detail on the characteristics of the public apology as a distinct

genre.

2.4.1 Role of the Media

In terms of the production of the apology, the presence of the media results in a highly mediated, rhetorical and well thought-out apology. This often includes a team of advisors and/or speechwriters to help construct the apology. Because the speaker, as a public figure, often represents either a company or political party, it is highly important that the apology is scripted and well thought-out, rather than speaking off the cough. Also since the reason for the public statement is because an offense has occurred which demands for an apology, a lot is at stake in terms of the speakers’ company/political party reputation and face.

With the media as a vital additional participant in the political apology, the participant structure becomes much more complex and involves numerous shifts. These shifts affect the way in which the apology is constructed and what verbal strategies are used to a large extent (as discussed in 2.3.1 and 2.3.2).

2.4.2 Moment of Absolution

Another important difference between public and private apologies is the moment of

absolution. In private apologies, the ‘hearer’ decides whether an apology is successful or not. In public apologies, the moment of absolution is based on the media coverage following the apology. News writers report on the public apology and have the authority and power to either label the apology as successful or not. Thus, the felicity conditions of the apology as speech act underwent a change when the speech act migrated into the public sphere, as represented by news reports (Ancarno, 2015). The media coverage, deriving from different outlets, either supports or criticizes the public apology, which also affects the public’s interpretations of the apology (Davies, 2011).

This study is speaker-supportive and will therefore not take into consideration news reports following the apology. Based on what is said in the apology, the apology has to either be regarded as felicitous or not. Because of the lack of a moment of absolution, studies showed that there are other ways to be able to label a public statement as an apology. Based on what the apology entails, it has to include some sort of expression of regret in order to label it as an apology. As argued by Murphy (2015: 6): ‘apologies have a perlocutionary goal of restoring good relations between the speaker and the injured party which we could

(17)

17

include an explicit ‘sorry’, as long as they include some form of eliciting forgiveness and reconciliation.

2.4.3 Verbal Strategies

Private apologies compared to public apologies also show differences in the use of verbal strategies. One of the most prominent differences is that an explicit expression of regret, which is an essential part of the private apology, has a different reputation in the public apology (see 2.4.5, condition 6.2). Some studies even state that explicit expressions of regret are here regarded as ‘a way out of apologizing, or a way out of avoiding the consequences of an explicit apology’ (Ancarno, 2015). This point of view contrasts other researchers (e.g. Robinson, 2004) who believe that an explicit expression of regret is a vital part of the apology.

2.4.4 Conditions

Ancarno (2015) conducted a study that analyzed 250 press uptakes that dealt in some ways with public apologies. The aim was to answer the question: ‘When are public apologies successful?’ This study rightfully shows that, in contrast to private apologies, the media have a lot to say in deciding whether a public apology is successful.

In constructing the felicity conditions for the public apology, the conditions of the private apology should be somewhat adapted. Ancarno (2015) created a list of conditions based on press uptakes concerning public apologies. The following list is based on real life evaluators derived from the media uptakes, using a hearer-supportive approach rather than sticking to the ‘conventional and prescriptive understandings of apologies’ (p. 140). Ancarno (2015) emphasized, however, that public apologies do not necessarily need to include all tenets. Depending on the type of offense and situation, the following conditions can be applied:

1. Public apologies should be prompt

2. Public apologies should be performed by explicit apology expressions 3. Speakers should be personally responsible for the apologized event

4. Speakers should explicitly take responsibility for the offense or admit guilt 5. Public apologies should be delivered willingly

(18)

18 6. Public apologies may be undermined if

1) the speaker use apologies for own benefit or

2) perform their apologies by means of an expression of sorrow or regret 2.5 Political Apologies

With the public apology gaining more interest in recent years, the political apology as a

subcategory has been neglected in research. In modern western political culture, however, ‘the apology’ is now a vital part of the political discourse. As Luke states: ‘the apology has

become a form of political speech with increasing significance and power’ (1997: 344). As it is impossible to create a fixed list of conditions that applies to all apologies in all contexts, most political apologies have been researched and analyzed to determine what type of verbal strategies are used in a certain context. An often-cited study by Harris, Grainger & Mullany (2006: 720) provided the following list with the main characters of the political apology:

1. Political apologies are in the public domain and, as a consequence, are highly mediated

2. Political apologies are often generated by (and generate further) conflict and controversy

3. Both an explicit IFID (illocutionary force indicating device) and a form of words which indicates the acceptance of responsibility and/or blame for the ‘offense’ by the apologizer appear to be crucial components of political apologies in order for the media and viewers to perceive them clearly as valid apologies.

4. Because they are usually in the public domain and, thus, highly mediated as well as often involving substantial differences in status and power between the apologizer and the ‘victim’, it is rare for the response to a political apology to contain any explicit form of absolution.

Next to the characteristics of political apologies, there are more elements to take into consideration before moving on to the analysis of the data. The following sections further elaborate on the different characteristics and strategies that go with the two categories analyzed in the present study.

(19)

19 2.5.1 Political Apologies for Historical Injustices

In the past two decades, politicians as official representatives of their governments apologize with an increasing frequency for historical injustices (Lazare, 2004). These types of apologies are sometimes made hundreds of years later, to address wrongdoings from the past which often left a large number of people dead or severely suffering (e.g. slavery, genocide, etc.). The direct victims may not even be around anymore, however, the damage is often still present, mostly impairing minority groups. The political apology for a historical injustice serves an important psychological need in which the government shows that it distances itself from the offense. Robinson (2004: 293) argues that the apology in such a context functions ‘as a social action, is different and separate from other offense remedial-related actions’, and contributes to ‘the maintenance of social harmony because it communicates awareness and acceptance of moral responsibility for offensive behavior and initiates the process of negotiating absolution’.

These apologies are often elaborate and include numerous verbal strategies:

‘everything counting as the apology must be spelled out: nothing can be taken for granted or remain ambiguous’ (Tavuchis, 1991: 71). Each of the verbal strategies serve a psychological need because of the fact that the apology deals with an offense of such high severity.

Studies that analyzed apologies for historical injustices, found that the governmental apologies more or less consist of the same strategies as private apologies. Some of the strategies, however, are somewhat adapted to the context of the apology, and four verbal strategies are added to the list. The 6 strategies as described in 2.1.3 will now be discussed in the light of a governmental public apology for a historical injustice:

1. Routine formulae (‘I am sorry’): an expression of remorse shows that the government believes that an apology is warranted.

2. Acknowledgement of responsibility (‘I failed’): taking responsibility shows that the government takes the innocence of the victims seriously and avoids in any sense that people can blame the victims for the assault.

3. Denial of intent/explanation (‘I did it because’): this verbal strategy is overall not part of public political apologies to correct a historical injustice. Explaining the offense is considered inappropriate as it could come across as if the government is trying to justify what happened.

(20)

20

4. Acknowledgement of harm and/or victim suffering (‘I know people suffered’): the government here validates the victims’ pain and supports their suffering for outsiders (Lazare, 2004).

5. A promise of forbearance (‘I will never do it again’): without taking personal

responsibility for the offense, the government in this manner restores the trust between groups, the government wants to actively work to keep everyone safe (Blatz,

Schumann & Ross, 2009).

6. An offer of repair (‘I will do anything to make it up to you’): this strategy is often used when the government wants to take concrete action in correcting the injustice. This could for example happen in the form of financial compensation for the victims or minority groups. The government, with the help of this offer of repair, aims to prove the sincerity of the apology.

Aside from these six aspects, the following four elements are common as verbal strategies in governmental apologies for historical injustices as well (Blatz, Schumann & Ross, 2009: 222-223):

7. Concerns/praise minority group

If the offense was a specifically directed towards a minority group, the minority groups sometimes still feel the consequences of the past injustice in terms of inequality or discrimination. By addressing the concerns or praising the minority group, the government acknowledges the social tendency that still exists today, and emphasizes their positive qualities.

8. Minimize resistance from a non-victimized group

Governments might seek to phrase apologies in ways that minimize resistance from the victimized majority of the population. Sometimes the majority of the non-victimized group opposes governmental apologies as they feel that the government apologizes on their behalf, whilst this group does not feel responsible for the injustice. 9. Praise of current system

Government apologies for historical injustices might include praise for the current system of laws. In this manner the government gives citizens a positive feeling towards the country they live in.

(21)

21 10. Dissociating past system

A government apology might decrease a perceived threat to the system by explicitly dissociating the present system from the system that permitted the injustice to occur. 2.5.2 Political Apologies for Personal Scandals

This section deals with the personal scandal or misstep as offense type, for which the politician is personally responsible and publicly apologizes. After a politician conducted a private misstep, the public demands an explanation and/or an apology. Whilst the public is mainly familiar with the principal professional role of the politician, s/he now has to take on a personal role as individual. By addressing his/her personal affairs, the politician loses the principal role s/he normally takes on in which the speaker is an official speaking on behalf of the government. The group of people that the speaker normally represents now moves to the audience, the ‘hearer’ group. The type of (political) discourse that the speaker normally engages in, also shifts to a more personal discourse. Contrary to historical injustices, this type of apology deals with the personal character and ‘face’ of the speaker. The offense type for which the politician apologizes is often related to inappropriate behavior concerning sexual relations and/or comments that are sexist, hurtful or racist.

This type of apology, unfortunately, has not been subject to a lot of research yet. Because of the personal and private character of such apologies, research is lacking as most studies claim that these individual apologies do not deal with large institutional agendas. However, as Collins (2014) argues: ‘Despite their limited impact, these [individual apologies] frequently tap into and contribute to broader structural oppressions – against women, racial minorities, the working class etc. A lot is at stake in these apologies’.

Since the apology comes with different characteristics, the verbal strategies are expected to differ. In contrast to the historical injustice apology, the speaker is able to fully take responsibility for the personal misstep. Denial of intent/explanation of the offense is not expected to be significantly present in the apology. By going into more detail about the offense, the politician only risks a situation in which s/he reminds the public what s/he has done. As the offense is private, it is not expected that the politician willingly elaborates and explains how or why A happened.

(22)

22 3. Methodology

The present study aims to conduct a qualitative, speaker-supportive research, which will analyze six transcripts of public political apologies on a linguistic level through coding. In this research, the focus lies on the political apology, specifically comparing two categories:

apologies made by politicians for historical injustices and apologies made by politicians for personal scandals. With the help of previously proposed frameworks and theories, the

different verbal strategies that the speaker employs will be analyzed and discussed in light of the apology’s felicity conditions, characteristics and participation structure. All of these notions will be taken into consideration because of the highly context-dependent nature of the apology as a speech act. All the apologies will first be analyzed separately and for each apology I will argue whether the apology should be considered felicitous or not.

As the two categories involve different characteristics and participation frameworks, the verbal strategies are expected to differ and present themselves in a linguistically different manner. Previous research has been done on the verbal strategies of political apologies for historical injustices. Proposed lists of verbal strategies will be used to analyze the three apologies for historical injustices, and detect if the data of the current study conforms to previous research. As previous research on politicians apologizing for personal scandals lacks, the present study aims to examine whether the verbal strategies set out for private apologies corresponds with this type of apology. The present study also aims to find patterns in the three apologies following a personal scandal for additional verbal strategies to determine if this type of apology could function as a genre on its own. The following list specifies the strategies with which the data will be analyzed:

1. Routine formulae 2. Taking responsibility

3. Denial of intent (not expected in the historical injustice apology) 4. Acknowledgement of hurt

5. Admission of injustice or wrong-doings 6. Promise of forbearance

7. Offer of repair

(23)

23 8. Concerns minority group

9. Minimize resistance from non-victimized group 10. Praise of current system

11. Dissociating past system

Contextual information for each apology will also be taken into consideration, such as the place and timing of the apology. Before I move on to the analysis, the next section will first go into more detail on the data.

3.1 The data

The dataset that will be investigated consists of three apologies made by politicians as formal representatives of their government for a historical injustice, and three apologies for a

personal scandal for which the politician as the speaker is personally responsible. The selection criteria for the three apologies following a personal scandal are:

- The act must have been carried out by the politician, acting at the time of the offense as an individual in a private context, rather than a politician in a political context - The speaker must be an official representative of his or her government

- The apology has to be a public statement accessible through media The selection criteria for the three apologies concerning a historical injustice are:

- The act cannot have been carried out by either the speaker him or herself or the government he or she at the moment of the apology represents

- The speaker must be an official representative of his or her government - The apology must be a public statement accessible through media

- The act itself must have been an injustice of large proportions, affecting a large number of people, of which the consequences are still felt today by either the families of the victims or particular minority groups

The data consists of transcripts of the recorded apologies that will be analyzed in detail. All of the apologies are in the English language, so that no linguistic elements of the apology can be

(24)

24

lost in translation. The following tables show the general information per apology for a brief overview of the context.

TABLE 1: HISTORICAL INJUSTICES APOLOGIZER + POLITICAL

ROLE*

OFFENSE/INJUSTICE (A) PLACE + TIME

APOLOGY 1 Apology from Tony Blair (British Prime Minister + Leader of the Labor Party) statement read by Irish actor

Gabriel Byrne

Irish Potato Famine 1997, statement was presented at a festival in Ireland, commemorating the

150th anniversary of the Irish Potato

Famine

APOLOGY 2 Gordon Brown (British Prime Minister + Leader of the Labor

Party)

Child Migrations Policy 2010, at a reception organized for the survivors of that generation at

Westminster APOLOGY 3 Kevin Rudd (Australian Prime

Minister + Labor Politician)

Treatment of Indigenous peoples + Stolen

Generation

2008, at a sitting of the Parliament

* The political profession at the time of the apology

TABLE 2: PERSONAL SCANDAL APOLOGIZER + POLITICAL

ROLE*

OFFENSE/INJUSTICE (A)

PLACE + TIME

APOLOGY 4 Bill Clinton (President of the USA)

Having an affair with an intern of The White House

1998, recorded video by himself with flowers in a homely background APOLOGY 5 Donald Trump (President

candidate USA)

Making sexist remarks on women in recorded

conversations

2016, recorded video by himself with skyscrapers in the background

APOLOGY 6 Eliot Spitzer (NY Governor) Patronized elite escort service

2008, at a ABC News conference, in the background the American + NY

flag, next to him stands his wife * The political profession at the time of the apology

(25)

25 4. Data

4.1 Historical Injustice

Data 1: Tony Blair on the Irish Potato Famine

(1) The Famine was a defining event in the history of Ireland and of Britain. It has left deep (2) scars. That one million people should have died in what was then part of the richest and (3) most powerful nation in the world is something that still causes pain as we reflect on it (4) today.

(5) Those who governed in London at the time failed their people through standing by while a (6) crop failure turned into a massive human tragedy. We must not forget such a dreadful (7) event.

(8) It is also right that we should pay tribute to ways in which the Irish people have triumphed (9) in the face of this catastrophe.

(10) Britain in particular has benefited immeasurably from the skills and talents of Irish (11) people, not only in areas such as music, the arts and the caring professions but across the (12) whole spectrum of our political, economic and social life.

(13) Let us therefore today not only remember those who died but also celebrate the (14) resilience and courage of those men and women who were able to forge another life (15) outside Ireland, and the rich culture and vitality they brought with them

(16) Britain, the US and many Commonwealth countries are richer for their presence.

The former British PM issued a statement in 1997 expressing remorse for the lack of help for the Irish people during the potato famine circa 1840. This statement was read out loud by Irish actor Gabriel Byrne at a festival in Ireland commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Irish potato famine. In this statement, the ‘speaker’ roles are divided. The person uttering the words of the apology is Gabriel Byrne. However, the author of the apology is Tony Blair, together with his team of advisors/speech writers. The principal role is attributed to Tony Blair, as his professional role as PM is expressed by the words uttered. Since he is a formally recognized representative of the British government, Tony Blair’s apology meets the propositional content condition.

The same goes for the preparatory condition, this condition dictates that the speaker must believe that the act is an offense against the hearer or an offended third party. This condition is met with the use of the verbal strategy ‘acknowledgement of hurt’ twice (lines 1-3 + 5-6). Blair also includes the verbal strategy of ‘admission of the wrong-doings of the past’ by referring to the offense as ‘dreadful’, ‘a massive human tragedy’ and a ‘tragedy’ which has

(26)

26

left ‘deep scars’. He immediately links these descriptions of the offense to the Irish people who have suffered, praises them for their courage and emphasizes how Britain is ‘richer for their presence’ (line 16). The verbal strategy of ‘praising or expressing concern about the victims/minority groups’ is repeated throughout the apology (lines 2-3 + 8 + 10-12 + 13-16), which enforces the idea of sympathy from the S towards the victims. By praising the Irish culture, acknowledging the weight of the offense and the hurt that it cost, this apology meets the preparatory condition.

However, the verbal strategies that are used in this apology are not enough to meet the sincerity condition: speaker regrets (is sorry for) having done A. First, it is striking that the verbal strategy of ‘routine formula’, a literal expression of regret or usage of words such as ‘sorry’ or ‘apologize’ lacks. This is especially remarkable given the fact that this apology concerns an important event in the history of Ireland and Britain with its main function to reconcile the two nations.

Without a literal expression of regret, the second most important verbal strategy, ‘taking responsibility’, carries all the more weight. With taking responsibility in a political apology for a historical injustice, the government accepts blame, acknowledges their role in the offense and shows that the government will no longer condone such practices and wants to move forward. This is an important element in such apologies as the public, and especially the victims, often demand and sometimes psychologically need a government to take

responsibility.

The verbal strategy of taking responsibility, however, remains ambiguous in this apology. There is one sentence in which Blair seems to take responsibility: ‘Those who governed London at the time failed their people through standing by while a crop failure turned into a massive human tragedy’ (lines: 5-6). With this statement, Blair recognizes the failing of the London government. Yet, by referring to them as ‘those who governed (…) at the time’, he creates a distance between him and the government he represents, and the people who governed London ‘then’. Blair seems to be taking responsibility here when in fact he uses the strategy ‘dissociating from past system’. With the lack of both ‘taking responsibility’ as well as an ‘explicit apology’, Blair fails to meet the sincerity condition.

It is also important to note that, in contrast to how apologies for historical injustices normally take shape, this apology is relatively short, does not include many of the expected verbal strategies and the apology was not uttered by himself but by an actor. These elements indicate even more a lack of sincerity.

(27)

27

Finally, the essential condition: the apology counts as an expression of regret. It also remains unclear whether this condition is met as this apology lacks an explicit expression of regret. However, as argued in 2.1.2 where the adapted versions of the felicity conditions are discussed, apologies do not necessarily need to include an explicit ‘sorry’, as long as they include some form of eliciting forgiveness and reconciliation. Blair’s apology fails to elicit forgiveness, but, by constantly praising the Irish culture, he does aim to reconcile and restore the relationship between the British and the Irish people. Yet, as mentioned before in

discussing the sincerity condition, several ambiguous elements make up for a questionable representation of what would normally be considered an apology.

Data 2: Gordon Brown on Child Migrations Policy

(1) It is with humility that I address you here this afternoon and address the many others (2) watching and listening around the world. Your presence here today is a demonstration of (3) your endurance against pain, your courage in the face of rejection, your bravery even in (4) the face of betrayal. You are heroes, and your presence here today sends a message to (5) the world that no injustice should last forever and that no one should ever again journey (6) in sorrow without hope.

(7) Now, most of you here today are from Australia and I welcome you. But we have with us (8) also men and women who were sent as children to Canada, to Zimbabwe, to South Africa (9) and to New Zealand, and let us not forget there are people all over the world who were (10) sent from the United Kingdom under child-migrant schemes. And let us also remember (11) those child migrants who are no longer with us, those for whom the events today come (12) too late, some of whom died fighting for freedom in the great wars of the last century. (13) Now, I do not intend to speak at great length. Instead, this is your chance to be heard. (14) Today is your day one day among the many years lost, I know but it is an important and

(15) momentous day, both for you and for our country because today your pain is

(16) recognized, your suffering is understood, your betrayal is acknowledged by the apology (17) that I make on behalf of our whole country.

(18) I stand here humbled by your determination to have the failures of the past (19) acknowledged and I am inspired by your refusal to be victims. And I am inspired also by (20) the strength of your spirit, and therefore I do stand here as Prime Minister on behalf of (21) everyone in our nation to apologize to you and to your families.

(22) A few years ago and again today, I listened in pain to the appalling experiences that I (23)was being told about. And then I read the harrowing testimonies of others. I was (24) troubled then, as I am saddened now, at the number of childhoods that were (25) destroyed. But no one can fail to be touched by the terrible human suffering that (26) sprang from the misguided child-migrant schemes and the mistakes that were made by (27) successive United Kingdom governments.

(28) Many of your stories tragically speak of cruelty and of neglect, of the physical, sexual (29) and emotional abuse in uncaring and brutal institutions, of the unrelenting hardship

(28)

28

(30) suffered by you and your families, of the utter devastation wrought on so many lives (31) and of the ghosts that haunt us to this day.

(32) You know how it is to be torn from your brother or sister as you stand frightened, (33) holding hands on a cold and windy dockside, never to see each other again. You know (34) how it is to be five or six and told coldly by someone you hardly know that your parents (35) are dead when really they are still alive. You know how it is that you are fighting to find (36) your feet in the world, to be systematically deprived of food and starved of tenderness (37) and love. And how it must feel as a child to never celebrate your birthday because the (38) date has been changed, never unwrap a Christmas present or be hugged. I can barely (39) imagine, but many of you here today, you know and this is an ugly stain on our country. (40) It is harder still to grasp that these terrible events happened not in the opening (41) chapters of our history, but in the living memories of most of us here today. Child (42) migration didn t happen in the dark ages, so long ago that we weren t expected to know (43) any better. No, this was happening in the United Kingdom until the late 1960s. Children (44) as young as three, and I ve met children who were sent away at the age of three today, (45) were sent alone to the farthest corners of the world, the names and birthdays of some (46) deliberately changed so it would be impossible for families to reunite, some dispatched (47) in cases without the consent of their mother or father as Andy has just said. Indeed, (48) many parents did not know their children had been sent to foreign shores at all; they (49) had no idea where you were, no way of bringing you home. And this cruel and (50) unnatural practice was, as you have said, not so much transportation as deportation, (51) deportation from your mother country.

(52) And as nations, we need to know these uncomfortable truths. That is why I determined (53) early on when I became Prime Minister to do everything in my power to recognise this (54) shameful episode for what it was in our history. It s why we worked with the Australian (55) government when they acknowledged their role in these misguided practices, and I am (56) pleased too that the Canadian government has recognised the contribution of child (57) migrants by designating 2010 the Year of the British Home Child. And it is why we are (58) here today and why I can echo the words I said in the House of Commons just a short (59) time ago.

(60) On behalf of this nation, to all former child migrants and to all families, we are truly (61) sorry you were let down. We are sorry that you were allowed to be sent away when you (62) were at your most vulnerable. We are sorry that instead of caring for you, your country (63) did turn its back on you. We are sorry that it s taken so long for this important day to (64) come round and for you to receive the apology that you so richly deserve. And we are (65) sorry that, as children, your voices were not always heard, your cries for help not always (66) heeded. Today we hear you.

(67) But I must say also I have been inspired that so many of you have overcome these (68) unfair, dreadful experiences to lead fulfilled and happy lives. The people I have met this (69) afternoon, you do not see yourselves as victims; you refuse to be victims. You show a (70) spirit that is unbowed and unbroken; you are survivors who have built good, decent (71) lives despite the trauma inflicted upon you in these most previous early years.

(72) And I know from the Child Migrants Trust of successful, happy reunions with loved ones (73) brought home after decades to your origins, to your families and your communities. (74) Patrick, who is here today, experienced firsthand just how crucial the work of the Child

(29)

29

(75) Migrants Trust can be. Patrick was reunited with his family last year. The search for (76) them took time, it was extensive, it took almost 20 years, and sadly as I know from so (77) many others I have met today Patrick missed out on meeting his mother. He was (78) warmly welcomed by his extended family. After 60 years, Patrick was able to return to (79) his roots; he never gave up hope and neither did the Child Migrants Trust. Patrick now (80) has a real sense of belonging and a future with a family he yearned for over many years. (81) And I hope for some others of you, this is the experience that you can now have.

(82) The Child Migrants Trust have told me too of letters from 1956, written by a couple (83) who discovered that their son had been sent to Australia without their knowledge or (84) consent. The letters demand the return of their child, saying he still belongs to his (85) mother and pleading restore him to his mother immediately . It was only 35 years later (86) that the Child Migrants Trust was able to reunite mother and son.

(87) An interview with the mother of a former child migrant paints an even more tragic (88) picture that we ve got to understand before we can move on. The mother spoke of (89) visiting her four-year-old son, who was placed in a residential nursery while she went to (90) work. One day she was told it would be her last visit; her son was leaving for Australia. (91) She spoke of going to the train station as the train was starting to move off; she saw her (92) son on board and tried in vain to get him out of the train. He was shouting for his (93) mother. Again, I am pleased to say that the Child Migrants Trust was able to reunite (94) mother and son, but it was 40 years later.

(95) The Trust has worked tirelessly for over 20 years without break to uncover the truth on (96) behalf of child migrants and their families. It has conducted painstaking research on (97) family histories. It has helped former child migrants prepare emotionally to meet their (98) family members after decades of separation, with all the unanswered questions that (99) that brings. So let me pay tribute on behalf of our country and all of you to the Child (100) Migrants Trust. It is a voice for many who were so long unheard, and I want to thank (101) them as you want to thank them on everybody s behalf.

(102) The Trust, I know, has received extensive support from Nottinghamshire County (103) Council, especially for Dennis Pettitt and Joan Taylor. It has worked with the (104) International Association of Former Child Migrants and their families, ably led by (105) Norman Johnston, Desmond McDaid and Harold Haig, and I thank all of them on your (106) behalf and our country s behalf for what they have done.

(107) And I want to praise Margaret Humphreys, founder of the Child Migrants Trust, the (108) relentless campaigner she is for justice. We are so proud of her. You know, a number (109) of you as I met you said that Margaret s endless campaigning should be recognised by (110) our country, and I tell you I will be leading that campaign. She has just presented me (111) with a leather-bound inscribed copy of that powerful book, Empty Cradles. I shall (112) cherish it always and I want to thank you for your dedication, compassion and most of (113) all your stubborn refusal to give in.

(114) Now, I am pleased to tell you today that the government will continue to fund the (115) Child Migrants Trust. You can press on, therefore, with your well respected work in (116) seeking resolution for former child migrants and their families. We are also setting up (117) a new 6 million family restoration fund to support travel and other costs for former (118) child migrants who wish to be reunited with their families.

(30)

30

(119) And I would like to acknowledge, as I did in the House of Commons earlier, the work of (120) the Health Select Committee, particularly its former and current chairs, David (121) Hinchliffe and Kevin Barron, who first brought this unfairness to my attention and to (122) so many others, and let me thank both of you for what you have done.

(123) Winston Churchill once said, All people make mistakes, but only the wise learn from (124) their mistakes . And from this disgraceful set of events that we ve had to acknowledge, (125) we learn that it is the responsibility of all of us to safeguard and promote the welfare (126) of our children. I trust that today can be a turning point; that we can now, as a nation, (127) apologise and take time to reflect on the truth before us, and remember the stories of (128) child migrants, and commemorate your and their lives.

(129) And it’s my genuine hope that today s apology, which is an apology from your nation, (130) will go some way towards easing even a small amount of the pain that you ve endured (131) for many decades. So I say to our sons and daughters here: welcome home. You are (132) with friends. We will support you all your lives. Thank you.

As in data 1, in data 2 the propositional content condition and the preparatory condition are met. Brown acknowledges, with the help of detailed descriptions of the offense, the hurt that the child migrations caused (e.g. lines 32-39). He also combines this with a constant praising of the victims (e.g. lines 4 + 18-21).

Again, in terms of the sincerity condition, ambiguity emerges. In contrast to Blair’s apology, Brown does include the verbal strategy of ‘routine formula’ various times; he, on behalf of his nation, explicitly apologizes (e.g. lines 60-66). However, in terms of the verbal strategy of ‘taking responsibility’, Brown found a way to avoid taking responsibility through passivation. Some examples: ‘The mistakes that were made’ (lines 26-27), ‘we are truly sorry you were let down’ (line 61), ‘we are sorry you were allowed to be sent away’ (line 61). The ‘we’ mentioned here, in terms of agency, is actively ‘sorry’, however, the offense that ‘we’ are sorry for is passive: ‘to be sent away’, ‘were let down’. Nowhere does Brown specify who it was that sent them away or let them down. The ‘we’ does not take responsibility for the offense, only for the apology itself. On top of that, it remains ambiguous who Brown specifically refers to when he talks about ‘we’.

The closest he comes to ‘taking responsibility’ on behalf of his country is when he says: ‘this is an ugly stain on our country’ (line 39), in which he directly links ‘our country’ to ‘the ugly stain’. However, this metaphor for the offense functions as an euphemism, with the aim of minimizing the idea of the British government being directly linked to such a severe offense. By referring to the offense as merely ‘an ugly stain’, Brown suggests that it is something that can easily be removed and cleaned. Next to that, Brown seems to glorify his

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Therefore, speaking about abstract content might spark more gesture use as interlocutors might need more context, or “grounding” to reach a mutual understanding in social

Hoewel Amsterdam Marketing over enorm veel kennis en expertise bezit, meer dan de overheid zou er gesteld kunnen worden, en ze ook hun mening hebben over hoe processen zouden

In dit kader is van belang: (I) in hoeverre de manier waarop Dekker het 37a Sr-stoornisbegrip uitlegt in overeenstemming is te achten met de manier waarop door het EHRM

België en de Verenigde Staten laten hiermee zien dat pesten onder belaging geschaard zou kunnen worden, waardoor een zelfstandige strafbaarstelling, naast belaging, niet van

DNAp-MNPs (first amplification), (b) hybridization of t-DNA to DNAc modified on a SA-substrate, (c) conjugation of DNAp-MNPs to the substrate via hybridization on DNAp and t-DNA at

Therefore, using PTMC membranes and PTMC-BCP composite membranes resulted in similar bone remodeling to using collagen membranes or e-PTFE membranes and the used barrier membranes

Veel liberalen en officieren waren van mening dat de Eerste Wereldoorlog een sociaal-darwinistische les moest zijn voor het Nederlandse volk, alleen de

Second, in their study on teacher development of curriculum design expertise through implementation activities, Huizinga, Nieveen, and Handelzalts (this volume) found that the