Grammar
Tenses
Present
Present Simple
Present Continuous
Present Perfect
Present Perfect Continuous
Past
Past Continuous
Past Perfect
Past Perfect Continuous
Past Simple
Future
Future Simple
Future Continuous
Future Perfect
Future Perfect Continuous
Passive and Active
Parts Of Speech
Nouns
Countable and uncountable nouns
Verbal nouns
Singular and Plural nouns
Proper nouns
Nouns gender
Nouns definition
Concrete nouns
Abstract nouns
Common nouns
Collective nouns
Definition Of Nouns
Verbs
Stative and dynamic verbs
Finite and nonfinite verbs
To be verbs
Transitive and intransitive verbs
Auxiliary verbs
Modal verbs
Regular and irregular verbs
Action verbs
Adverbs
Relative adverbs
Interrogative adverbs
Adverbs of time
Adverbs of place
Adverbs of reason
Adverbs of quantity
Adverbs of manner
Adverbs of frequency
Adverbs of affirmation
Adjectives
Quantitative adjective
Proper adjective
Possessive adjective
Numeral adjective
Interrogative adjective
Distributive adjective
Descriptive adjective
Demonstrative adjective
Pronouns
Subject pronoun
Relative pronoun
Reflexive pronoun
Reciprocal pronoun
Possessive pronoun
Personal pronoun
Interrogative pronoun
Indefinite pronoun
Emphatic pronoun
Distributive pronoun
Demonstrative pronoun
Pre Position
Preposition by function
Time preposition
Reason preposition
Possession preposition
Place preposition
Phrases preposition
Origin preposition
Measure preposition
Direction preposition
Contrast preposition
Agent preposition
Preposition by construction
Simple preposition
Phrase preposition
Double preposition
Compound preposition
Conjunctions
Subordinating conjunction
Correlative conjunction
Coordinating conjunction
Conjunctive adverbs
Interjections
Express calling interjection
Grammar Rules
Preference
Requests and offers
wishes
Be used to
Some and any
Could have done
Describing people
Giving advices
Possession
Comparative and superlative
Giving Reason
Making Suggestions
Apologizing
Forming questions
Since and for
Directions
Obligation
Adverbials
invitation
Articles
Imaginary condition
Zero conditional
First conditional
Second conditional
Third conditional
Reported speech
Linguistics
Phonetics
Phonology
Semantics
Pragmatics
Linguistics fields
Syntax
Morphology
Semantics
pragmatics
History
Writing
Grammar
Phonetics and Phonology
Semiotics
Reading Comprehension
Elementary
Intermediate
Advanced
Teaching Methods
Teaching Strategies
Reflection: What counts as an apology?
المؤلف:
Jonathan Culpeper and Michael Haugh
المصدر:
Pragmatics and the English Language
الجزء والصفحة:
178-6
17-5-2022
666
Reflection: What counts as an apology?
The performance of public apologies, even within nation states, is often more complex than at first appearance, due to the different understandings and footings of recipients. In early 2008, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a formal apology in the Australian parliament to the “Stolen Generations”, indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Straits Australians who were forcibly taken from their homes as children and forced to assimilate with white Australian families over a period of 100 years from 1869–1969. The core of the “sorry speech” was the issuing of apologies for three offences:
This apology was received by many Australians as genuine and sincere as it conformed to both “everyday and formal understandings of the necessary linguistic features of a legitimate apology” (Augustinos et al. 2011: 527), at least in English, we might add. However, the reaction amongst indigenous Australians was more mixed. On the one hand, the address was treated as an appropriate and sufficient apology by some, as illustrated by the following reaction from a member of the Stolen Generations, Uncle Albert Holt:
On the other hand, other (indigenous) Australians regarded it is as less than an apology. They focused on two points. The first is the way in which it has been (mis)perceived by white Australians.
The point argued here by Foley is that, while the apology was perceived by most Australians as an apology to all indigenous Australians, it was in fact only an apology for what happened to the Stolen Generations. Such activists contend that a real apology should address all injustices against all indigenous Australians. The second point of contention is that an apology must be accompanied by meaningful compensation or reparations to count as real or sufficient:
The “sorry speech” was thus perceived, by some at least, as reflecting the “discourse of minimizing responsibility” that Kampf (2009) argues is characteristic of public, political apologies.
Differences in the performance and understanding of speech acts can be divided into two main types following the pragmalinguistic-sociopragmatic distinction that was initially made by Thomas (1983; see also Leech 1983). The pragmalinguistic aspect of speech acts refers to the linguistic forms and strategies (more generally “resources”) that are utilized in their performance. The sociopragmatic aspect of speech acts, in contrast, refers to the social values and perceptions that underlie their performance and interpretation. The cross-cultural differences in apologies in English and Japanese we have just discussed are largely sociopragmatic in nature. However, in comparing speech acts across cultures, we often find that differences are both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic in origin. For example, a review of the literature indicates that while Chinese and English speakers draw from a largely similar range of pragmalinguistic resources in performing apologies (e.g. explanations for the offence, acknowledgements of responsibility and offers of redress), one resource used much more commonly by Chinese compared to English speakers is the repetition of apology IFIDs (e.g. duìbùqĭ or bùhăoyìsu) (Chang and Haugh 2011). This pragmalinguistic difference can be traced to a key sociopragmatic difference underlying apologies in English and Chinese, namely, the way in which “sincerity” (or what is termed chéngyì in Chinese) is conceptualized. In Chinese, chéngyì in relation to apologies is realized through repetition of an apology IFID several times to “show what s/he intends to do is genuine” while also giving the recipient the opportunity to confirm the speaker’s “genuine intention” (Hua et al. 2000: 99). This pragmalinguistic resource, while available to English speakers, is not as commonly employed due to the different sociopragmatic value placed on repetition of speech acts (particularly IFIDs).
الاكثر قراءة في pragmatics
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

الآخبار الصحية
