This section discusses the relationship between apologies and politeness. Some relevant theory and terminology will be presented which will be useful background information for other parts of the study.
Politeness is evidently related to apologies since people try to be polite by admitting their mistakes and apologizing to others when they have violated a social norm. Holmes (1989: 195) agrees with this, saying that the main purpose of apologies is “to provide a remedy for an offence and restore social equilibrium.”
Many scholars have presented theories on politeness (e.g. Lakoff 1973, Leech 1983) but Brown and Levinson’s (1987) universal model of politeness is one of the most influential frameworks in the field. They present the notion of “face”, which “all competent adult members of a society have”, and that is “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself.” (1987:
61) Following this assumption, they also present that the concept of face has two sides: “a positive face” and “a negative face”. The positive face is defined as “the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants”, while the negative face is “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction – i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition.” (ibid.: 61) Positive and negative face needs are essential when looking at apologies.
Holmes (1989: 195) states that “[a]pologies … are speech acts which pay attention to the ‘face’
needs of the addressee.” According to Holmes (ibid.: 196), the function of an apology in this context is to maintain or support the hearer’s face and thus also support the relationship of the two parties. Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984: 206) agree with apologies being supportive for the hearer. Apologizing is thus an ideal speech act for restoring and maintaining relationships.
Even though apologies are supportive for the hearer, the case is not the same for the speaker.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 68), apologies are “face-threatening acts” (FTAs) to a speaker’s positive face; When the speaker apologizes to the hearer, they simultaneously admit to
13
committing an offense, which is face-damaging to the speaker. Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984:
206) also suggest that because the speaker admits to being involved in a violation of a social norm, “apologies involve loss of face for the speaker.” Qari (2019: 84) presents a different perspective, agreeing with Meier (1992), and suggests that the prior offense is the
face-threatening act and apologizing for the offense can be a face-saving act for the speaker. I would like to argue that this depends on whether the hearer already knows about the offense or not.
As Brown and Levinson say (1987: 68), an apology is especially face-damaging if the hearer learns about the offense through the apology. However, if the hearer already knows about the offense and wants an apology, the apology can serve as a face-saving act for the speaker.
If the speaker feels like apologizing will damage their face, they can do certain actions in order to mitigate the damage. Brown and Levinson (1987: 70) suggest that the face-threat can be
mitigated through positive politeness or negative politeness. According to them, positive politeness is directed toward the positive face of the recipient and is thus approach-based. The function of it is to signal to the recipient that the speaker appreciates their positive face wants. On the other hand, negative politeness is directed toward the negative face of the recipient and is thus
avoidance-based. The function of it is to signal to the recipient that the speaker respects their
“basic want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination” (1987: 70). Through these assumptions, apology strategies can be classified into positive or negative politeness strategies depending on whether it is the positive or the negative face that is given consideration.
Explicit apologies (IFIDs) themselves are usually regarded as a negative politeness strategy which shows consideration towards the hearer (Ogiermann 2009: 59, Jones and Adrefiza 2017: 91). This is also confirmed by, for instance, Shariati and Chamani (2010: 1690, quoting Brown and
Levinson, 1987: 187). They say that an apology may function as “a negative politeness strategy that indicates [speaker]’s “reluctance to impinge on H [hearer]’s negative face” to save the hearer’s face needs.” One negative politeness strategy described by Brown and Levinson (1987:
70) is giving the hearer an “out”, which allows the hearer to escape the situation without
responding if they do not want to. This can be applied to apologies when the speaker is talking about themselves exclusively and does not put pressure on the hearer to, for example, forgive
14
the speaker. Asking for forgiveness asks the hearer to come into the situation, which might threaten their negative face (Ogiermann 2008: 266).
According to Ogiermann (2009: 179), positive politeness apology strategies include offer of repair, promise of forbearance and concern for hearer. These strategies are regarded as positive
politeness because they consider the positive face of the hearer and the speaker more strongly than other strategies. They also appear in a similar form in Brown and Levinson’s positive politeness strategies (offer, promise and attend to hearer) (1987: 102).
The analysis of the data in this study will not include a deep analysis based on politeness theory, although that would certainly be interesting. However, the concepts and terms of the theory will be referenced here and there, which is why this section is important as background knowledge.
These concepts are helpful descriptors of the possible motivators behind apology strategy choices.
15