Abstract
This chapter looks at apologies before, during and after inquiries and explores their differences. Apologies before the inquiry are shown to be for matters outside the scope of the Terms of Reference. Apologies during the inquiry can be seen as moves intended to reduce the potential blame and/or rebuke felt by the apologiser in the final report. Murphy focusses on parliamentary apologies which are produced on publication of the inquiry. He finds these to form a unique activity type in the House of Commons; one built on consensus and with a function of bringing back into the fold those who were affected by the wrongs highlighted by the public inquiry. The legitimacy of these apologies is discussed and Murphy endorses them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This extract repeats the transcription symbols used in Murphy (2016) which are not important for our purposes here.
- 2.
Of course, this process, the conduct of the war and its aftermath were themselves subject to a further public inquiry—the Iraq Inquiry, chaired by Sir John Chilcott. The Hutton Inquiry had a far narrower scope and looked only at the death of Dr. David Kelly.
- 3.
Another instance where MPs willing to contribute are virtually guaranteed an opportunity to speak is during special Tribute sessions in the Commons, following the death of a high profile current or former MP, e.g. the then Labour leader, John Smith, in 1994 and former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, in 2013.
- 4.
At least, all parties who take up their seats in the House of Commons. Sinn Fein, the republican party, do have MPs elected to the U.K. Parliament, but they refuse to swear the oath of allegiance to the monarch which is required to participate in the Commons and have a long-standing policy of abstentionism.
- 5.
This is a strategy also found at Prime Minister’s Questions where it acts as a means of mitigating a face-threatening act (see Murphy 2014: 90).
- 6.
‘The Whip’ also gives information about which debates an MP absolutely must attend and how they must vote (if applicable). Such debates are referred to as ‘three-line whips’ because the title of the business is underlined three times. If an MP misses such a debate without prior approval, there are often serious consequences—including suspension from the party. Two-line whips are given to debates which are important but an MP is more likely to be excused if she seeks permission in advance. A single-line whip means the MP can choose not to attend if she wishes.
- 7.
Or Madam Speaker, in the case of a female Speaker.
- 8.
As for the hearer roles, I have less to say about these but I include them for completeness. The hearer roles are: addressee—the person to whom talk is directed; recipient—the person for whom the words/actions are intended; ratified overhearers—people who are in earshot of the utterance and are known to be able to hear by the speaker; unratified overhearers—people who are able to hear the utterance but the speaker does not know they are present. These can be seen in Fig. 6.1 for a post-inquiry apology.
- 9.
The family of Patrick Finucane campaigned strongly for a public inquiry and this was granted in 2007. However, this decision was subsequently reversed leading to anger amongst many in the judiciary and amongst the family. The subsequent non-statutory review was chaired by the senior lawyer and former war crimes prosecutor, Sir Desmond da Silva, but he was not given the necessary powers to compel the disclosure of government documents. The Finucane family have continued to press for a full investigation and the prosecution of those involved in the murder.
- 10.
The legislation became the Human Tissue Act (2004).
- 11.
See the testimony of families provided on the day of the statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRC1VbddRY0.
- 12.
I hasten to add that I do not believe this to be the case either. Whilst this might have partly been a consideration for Cameron, it does not undermine the interpersonal function of post-inquiry apologies which I have been arguing for.
- 13.
References
Adams, Robert Merrihew. 1999. Finite and infinite goods: A framework for ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Andrieu, Kora. 2009. ‘Sorry for the genocide’: How public apologies can help promote national reconciliation. Millennium 38: 3–23.
Ashcroft, Michael. 2015. The people, the parties and the NHS. http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-People-the-Parties-and-the-NHS-LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS.pdf.
Bar-Siman-Tov, Yaacov (ed.). 2004. From conflict resolution to reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain. 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5: 196–213.
Brown, Kenon. 2016. Is apology the best policy? An experimental examination of the effectiveness of image repair strategies during criminal and noncriminal athlete transgressions. Communication & Sport 4: 23–42.
Brown, Penny, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Coombs, Timothy. 2014. Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing and responding. London: Sage.
Deutschmann, Mats. 2003. Apologising in British English. Umeå: Umeå Universitet.
Edmondson, Willis, and Juliane House. 1981. Let’s talk and talk about it: A pedagogic interactional grammar of English. Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
Francis, Robert. 2013. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust inquiry. London: The Stationery Office.
Gardiner, Nile, and Morgan Roach. 2009. Barack Obama’s top 10 apologies: How the President has humiliated a superpower. WebMemo The Heritage Foundation 2466.
Gibney, Mark, Rhoda Howard-Hassmann, Jean-Marc Coicaud, and Niklaus Steiner (eds.). 2008. The age of apology: Facing up to the past. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York: Anchor.
Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gumperz, John. 1972. Introduction. In Directions in sociolinguistics, ed. John Gumperz and Dell Hymes, 1–25. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hatch, John. 2008. Race and reconciliation: Redressing wounds of injustice. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Hearit, Keith. 2005. Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing. London: Routledge.
Holmes, Janet. 1990. Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society 19: 155–199.
Hymes, Dell. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Directions in sociolinguistics, ed. John Gumperz and Dell Hymes, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ilie, Cornelia. 2010. Strategic use of parliamentary forms of address: The case of the U.K. Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 885–911.
Kampf, Zohar. 2009. Public (non-)apologies: The discourse of minimizing responsibility. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2257–2270.
Labov, William. 2013. The language of life and death: The transformation of experience in oral narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, James, and Steven Pinker. 2010. Rationales for indirect speech: The theory of the strategic speaker. Psychological Review 117: 785–807.
Levinson, Stephen. 1979. Activity types and language. Linguistics 17: 365–399.
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s participation framework. In Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, ed. Paul Drew and Antony Wootton, 161–227. Oxford: Polity Press.
Levinson, Stephen. 1995. Three levels of meaning. In Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, ed. Frank Palmer, 90–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Boston: MIT Press.
Meier, Ardith. 1998. Apologies: What do we know? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8: 215–231.
Murphy, James. 2014. (Im)Politeness during Prime Minister’s Questions in the U.K. Parliament. Pragmatics and Society 5: 76–104.
Murphy, James. 2015. Revisiting the apology as a speech act: The case of parliamentary apologies. Journal of Language and Politics 14: 175–204.
Murphy, James. 2016. Apologies made at the Leveson Inquiry: Triggers and responses. Pragmatics and Society 7: 595–617.
Murphy, James. 2017. Political apologies. In The Sage encyclopedia of political behavior, ed. Fatahli Moghaddam, 601–602. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Murphy, James. 2018. ‘I’m sorry you are such an arsehole’: (Non-)Canonical apologies and their implications for (im)politeness. Journal of Pragmatics. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/urlu=http-3A__doi.org_10.1016_j.pragma.2018.05.014&d=DwIGaQ&c=vh6FgFnduejNhPPD0fl_yRaSfZy8CWbWnIf4XJhSqx8&r=kgl8iLwTioI54vvN5X0hvCV_IPd1r7Kcl_Xa8RFBIUTuaOCrDS_v4S9u7mnAkliU&m=3mHRQuXv0WPQDLbVtV8ksqKZhbX1y0iNtSpXWYBEqz4&s=6nORhkxHbAOUiniLSZ5WpQFZwAlmxahbnPjq0DLhw0Q&e=].
Norrick, Neal. 1978. Expressive illocutionary acts. Journal of Pragmatics 2: 277–291.
Ogiermann, Eva. 2009. On apologising in negative and positive politeness cultures. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Owen, Marion. 1983. Apologies and remedial interchanges: A study of language use in social interaction. The Hague: Mouton.
Page, Ruth. 2014. Saying ‘sorry’: Corporate apologies posted to Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics 62: 30–45.
Psathas, George. 1995. Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. London: Sage.
Robinson, Jeffrey. 2004. The sequential organization of ‘explicit’ apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 291–330.
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John. 1979. Expressions and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Somani, Alia. 2011. The apology and its aftermath: National atonement or the management of minorities? Postcolonial Text 6: 1–18.
Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Raanan. 2007. Scything the grass: Agenda-setting consequences of appointing public inquiries in the UK. A longitudinal analysis. Policy & Politics 35: 629–650.
Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Raanan. 2010. Reflection in the shadows of blame: When do politicians appoint commissions of inquiry? British Journal of Political Science 40: 613–634.
Tavuchis, Nicholas. 1991. Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Tiersma, Peter. 1999. Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weyeneth, Robert. 2001. The power of apology and the process of historical reconciliation. The Public Historian 23: 9–38.
Wilson, John. 1990. Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Zimmerman, Don. 1998. Identity, context and interaction. In Identities in talk, ed. Charles Antaki, and Susan Widdicombe, 87–106. London: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Murphy, J. (2019). Apologising. In: The Discursive Construction of Blame. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50722-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50722-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-50721-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-50722-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)