1 Discourse Processes ISSN: X (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: Responsibility and Culpability in Apologies: Distinctive Uses of Sorry versus I'm Sorry in Apologizing Marilena Fatigante, Federica Biassoni, Francesca Marazzini & Pierangela Diadori To cite this article: Marilena Fatigante, Federica Biassoni, Francesca Marazzini & Pierangela Diadori (2015): Responsibility and Culpability in Apologies: Distinctive Uses of Sorry versus I'm Sorry in Apologizing, Discourse Processes, DOI: / X To link to this article: Accepted online: 17 Jun 2015.Published online: 17 Jun Submit your article to this journal Article views: 33 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at Download by: [marilena fatigante] Date: 21 September 2015, At: 12:29
2 Discourse Processes, 00:1 21, 2015 Copyright q Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: X print/ online DOI: / X Responsibility and Culpability in Apologies: Distinctive Uses of Sorry versus I m Sorry in Apologizing Marilena Fatigante Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione Sapienza Università di Roma, Italy Federica Biassoni Dipartimento di Psicologia Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy Francesca Marazzini Italian Studies Università di Bologna, Italy Pierangela Diadori Ditals Università per Stranieri, Siena, Italy INTRODUCTION People identify apologies as unique types of actions as compared with kin-related moves, which remedy troubles or offenses, such as excuses and justifications (Goffman, 1971; Owen, 1983; Olshtain & Cohen, 1983; Sbisà, 1999). A feature of these apologies is the speaker s acknowledgment of personal responsibility for having caused trouble or offense (i.e., the guilt) (Goffman, 1971) and a demand to Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marilena Fatigante, Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione, Sapienza Università di Roma, via dei Marsi, Roma, Italy. 1
3 2 BIASSONI, DIADORI, FATIGANTE, MARAZZINI the recipient to be absolved, that is, to either have the offense considered as nonharmful or so minimal it makes the apology irrelevant (Robinson, 2004). It appears that the two common formats for apologizing are sorry and I m sorry. According to Robinson (2004), who collects them into a single category (sorry-based units), they both overtly do the work of accepting moral responsibility for offensive behaviour and initiate the process of negotiating absolution (Robinson, 2004, p. 292). Heritage and Raymond (this issue) distinguish between the two formats of the sorry component, highlighting how local offenses (available to both speakers, indigenous to the interaction) are usually supported by sorry, and more distal and face-threatening virtual offenses are more often supported by I m sorry. Elaborating Robinson s argument, and following the discussion opened by Heritage and Raymond (this issue), this article extends the analysis of the sorryinitiated and I m sorry- initiated apologies. Particularly, we investigate to what extent the adoption of one (or the other) of the two formats by the apologizer indexes a different degree of moral responsibility for the offense and to what extent the differences if any in the use and sequential management of the two formats relate to how absolution is pursued and accomplished. As for all the articles in this special issue, an account of the data corpus and our overall theoretical and methodological perspective is given in the editors introduction. SORRY AND I M SORRY: TWO FORMATS FOR APOLOGIZING Sorry and I m sorry appear to perform analogous actions in several environments, such as in the context of repair;as pre-facing apologies to (virtual) offenses; and as post-facing apologies to offenses. In the following, a few examples for each case are provided. Repair In (1), Carol does not recognize Leslie on the phone (line 2, Who s that? ).
4 SORRY VS. I M SORRY 3 Sorry is used by Carol to apologize for having asked for the caller s (Leslie s) identity; in other words, she is apologizing for not having recognized the voice of her friend and thereby not having identified her. In this respect her nonrecognition, displayed in her repair initiation (Heritage, 2007; Schegloff, 1992) constitutes a wrongdoing. 1 As Robinson (2004) explains, this kind of apology does not make relevant an apology response but, rather, the action of apologizing is subordinate to pursuing the continuation of the activity. A comparable incident is managed by the speaker through the use of I m sorry: Analogously to the sorry, here the I m sorry formula indexes the speaker s responsibility for the mistake in the recipient s identification, specifically for 1 In standard cases of repair sequence (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977), the provision of the repair move would be sufficient to push the conversation foreword; still, we may note that in both instances examined the repair move is followed by a pause. This signals that the speaker had trouble in acknowledging and validating the repair move. The oh-prefaced response (Heritage, 1998) would convey, at this point, the call-taker s marked shift of attention (p. 294) for having eventually apprehended the repair (i.e., acknowledging who is talking).
5 4 BIASSONI, DIADORI, FATIGANTE, MARAZZINI mistakenly identifying the person she has called as male (line 3). Again, it does not open a dedicated space for the acceptance of the apology; rather, once the misunderstanding is cleared up and the apologizer has claimed responsibility for the offense, participants proceed onto the next task. Pre-Facing Apologies Sorry and I m sorry do not appear to differ also when they anticipate that some kind of trouble affecting the recipient is underway. A distinctive property of these examples is the fact that both the sorry and the I m sorry are here used as a way to ask permission to pursue some activity, which may cause (or at least it is projected as such) some impingement on the recipient. By explicitly naming the virtual offense (see also Heritage & Raymond, this issue), the speaker exhibits her or his awareness of the cost that the action she or he is undertaking implies for the recipient, and clearly claims a personal responsibility for this. At the same time, the requester/teller shows an orientation to progress onto another activity, to which apologizing is subordinate (see Galatolo, Ursi, & Bongelli, this issue). See in this regard how Leslie in (3) responds with a validation of Randall s move (a kind of green light for him to bother) rather than treating the apology as requiring a relevant response per se.
6 SORRY VS. I M SORRY 5 Post-Faced Apologies to Offenses In the following cases, the two formulas are similarly used to retrospectively cast as offenses some events that have just happened. In contrast to the previous excerpts, here apologizing is managed as the primary activity:
7 6 BIASSONI, DIADORI, FATIGANTE, MARAZZINI In each of these excerpts the recipient absolves the speaker from responsibility for the offense. This is done by respectively formulating an oh þ disagreement with the need to apologize (excerpt 5) and reassuring that no damage resulted from the speaker s action; mitigating the damaging effect of the offense (the unwelcomed news in excerpt 6), by volunteering an explanation, which makes it reasonable and tolerable; and again in (7) by denying the apologizer s claim of having undertaken an offensive action. This overview examination of cases illustrated that there is no systematic rule for which speakers select I m sorry versus sorry to construct an apology or that the recipient interprets and responds to them in a distinctive manner. Still, as Heritage and Raymond show in this issue, the sorry formula appears to be used to apologize for problems indigenous to the ongoing interaction (i.e., transgressions such as those related to understanding talk) or other cases in which the wrongdoing is produced in the course of the talk and is thus immediately available to both speaker
8 SORRY VS. I M SORRY 7 and recipient. Thus, the sorry as an apologetic format in the context of repair appears to be a far more suitable resource than the I m sorry, with instances such as excerpt 2 occurring only rarely. On the contrary, I m sorry is a format mostly used for transgressions that have been committed outside (usually before) the interaction. We now examine particular uses and sequential environments in which the two formulas appear to better consider the hypothesis of a distinction between the two. DISTINCTIVE USES OF SORRY FORMULAS: A PREFERENCE FOR PROGRESSIVITY VS. APOLOGETIC-DEDICATED SEQUENCES Sorry also appears more frequently than I m sorry as apologizing for selfcorrection.
9 8 BIASSONI, DIADORI, FATIGANTE, MARAZZINI Given its use in the context of repair, the sorry format appears to be used as an economic tool for the recovery of the smooth management in terms of coherence and continuity of the conversation. Participants orient forward, either progressing right onto the next activity or closing. In encounters that do not develop into full apology sequences, in the corpus examined we only found sorry, not I m sorry, such as when the speaker expresses regret but does not open a space for the recipient to respond to his or her move as an apology. Dana embeds her sorry apology in the production of a turn, moving immediately onto a proposal of action. The use of sorry warrants Dana to acknowledge responsibility for having failed to return the book to the caller; still, the sequence does not develop as an apology but rapidly fades into an offer, favored as a next (practical) accomplishment, and resulting in a repair of the wrongdoing caused upon her recipient. Leslie found herself responding to Dana s proposal without the opportunity or necessity to acknowledge Dana s admission of wrongdoing (keeping the book so long; lines 10 and 11) and absolving her of responsibility for the wrongdoing. We hypothesize, then, that sorry-initiated apologies might serve a principle of progressivity better than I m sorry and index participants orientation even when they honor the need to repair offenses toward a rapid clearance of the wrongdoing. Remedying the offense would then be a distinctive action, which sorry primarily addresses. Let us now look at the specific environments where I m sorry only has been found.
10 SORRY VS. I M SORRY 9 I M SORRY FORMULAS IN APOLOGETIC-DEDICATED ENVIRONMENTS We found that I m sorry is chosen to initiate an apology when there is subsequently an expansion of the often quite extended apology sequence. There are a few elements, which are distinctive of such elaborated apologetic episodes, initiated and scaffolded by I m sorry: the presence of detailed explanations for the offense, the presence of modifiers, and the possibility for the apology to be recycled several times. Detailed Explanations Explanations, treated in conversation analysis under the general rubric of accounts, are socially standard, institutionalized features of those actions, which depart from the expected course of behavior (Heritage, 1988, p. 138). In the case of failure they make the person s conduct still reasonable and understood. There may be many ways to account for a failure, although common explanations are those that have a no-fault quality, that is, those that declare the speaker s inability to carry out the proposed /expected action. In each of the following excerpts, initiated by I m sorry, the speaker not only accounts (thus providing a rational ground) for her fault, declaring the event that caused the failure but, further, engages in a series of explanations that help constitute her as unable to prevent that causal event:
11 10 BIASSONI, DIADORI, FATIGANTE, MARAZZINI
12 SORRY VS. I M SORRY 11 In (11) Mrs. Richards explains that she slept in late because she had a fever, something that is naturally understood as rendering her as having been unable to call the school. In (12), Leslie explains that she was putting something on the cooktop, because this something was causing an effect that could have provoked long-lasting damage to her cooker, if not remedied immediately. In (13), Leslie s explanation makes clear to Philip that she was not aware, until late in the day, of the breakdown of the phone line, which resulted in her failure to call yesterday (lines 8 and 10). Her lack of awareness of the (technical) circumstances made her unable to prevent the offense. In (14) Myrna gives an extended account to make clear she is unable to come to the meeting, due to the absence of her husband and her mother s prior commitment and therefore her having to look after her daughter by herself. Summing up the structure of these kind of I m sorry initiated apologies, we might draw the format shown in Table 1. In all instances of 11 14, the explanations invoke the speaker s inability to forecast, monitor, or avoid the offense to occur, resulting in a claim of no fault action. Some independent, external causes are called on to make the offender s/apologizer s behavior as reasonable and comprehensible as possible. This is also the case in excerpt (15) below, in which a series of explanations prefaces the delivery of the I m sorry initiated apology by Bea, who is ultimately rejecting a job offer. TABLE 1 Formats of I m Sorry Initiated Apologies I m Sorry Reference to Wrongdoing Account No-Fault Explanation I m sorry I didn call becuz uh: I slept in late I haven t been feeling I m sorry tuh keep you, I ve jus been stickin:g because the top fell off I m sorry I couldn t ring yesterday I trie:d be " cuz (...) I found out I m terribly sorry I w z gun to ring/i ve had a phone call (Ben) he s not gun to get back t night
13 12 BIASSONI, DIADORI, FATIGANTE, MARAZZINI Here, Rose portrays to Bea the factors (i.e., the negative effects that accepting the job offer would cause on her life) that make the choice of not accepting the offer (which stands as the offensive action) an understandable and reasonable option. In the corpus of apologies we have analyzed, this kind of elaborated justifications only appears in I m sorry initiated apologies. In all instances the series of explanations provides a detailed description of the events, events that caused the apologizer to engage in the transgressive behavior. This is most obviously the case in in distal offenses (Heritage & Raymond, this issue) in which the recipient did not have available the context to perceive and acknowledge the wrongdoing. We add that by providing increasingly detailed explanations for the behavior, the speaker/apologizer offers the recipient a chance to be exposed to the same experiential, problematic scenario that she or he underwent. In all cases, the recipient accepts the account but does not respond to the apology itself. Additional resources are then needed to pursue absolution, the preferred response to apologies (Robinson, 2004). Modifiers In contrast to the sorry apologies, I m sorry constructions in the corpus may be accompanied by adverbs that modify, usually amplifying, the extent to which the speaker declares his regret by apologizing.
14 SORRY VS. I M SORRY 13
15 14 BIASSONI, DIADORI, FATIGANTE, MARAZZINI In excerpt (16) Myrna constructs her apology through repeating in three different turns the I m sorry unit, associated with different modifiers ( terribly in line 12; dreadfully in lines 21 and 32). Notably, the second one (dreadfully) aggravates the speaker s claim of regret, portraying her as utmost suffering for having engaged in the offense, this despite the fact that she has already told the recipient the reasons why she had to and despite that she had already encountered the recipient s acknowledgement. Also in (8), Miss Davids increases the magnitude of her apology (I m verry sorry, line 10). The addition of the modifiers and the redundant production (see next paragraph) of the I m sorry apology appear to serve otherattentive purposes, insofar as they increase the speaker s expression of affiliation with the recipient for the effects that the offense has impinged upon her or him and decrease the consideration shown toward oneself by self-pitying (Goffman, 1959). Recycling A third aspect that is associated with I m sorry apologies, and not with a simple sorry, in the lengthy and elaborated sequences we have been considering is that the apology can be resumed, namely recycled, several times. We examine an extended version of excerpt 14 again:
16 SORRY VS. I M SORRY 15
17 16 BIASSONI, DIADORI, FATIGANTE, MARAZZINI Over this excerpt, Myrna utters (with various degrees of emphasis) the expression I m sorry five times. Leslie s first response to her apology (line 15) is an acknowledgement. Her fuller understanding of the circumstances preventing Myrna from coming to the meeting is apparent in line 20, where she exhibits her independent access to the information on which Myrna is building her account. It appears, though, that for Myrna this is not sufficient she pursues a fuller acceptance and perhaps validation from Leslie. Myrna begins another round of apologies, which she utters with heightened intensifiers (from terribly to dreadfully ). This obtains, in turn, absolution from Leslie (line 22). That is, recycling an apology serves here to pursue a preferred response to the apology. Each repetition of Myrna s apology (lines 21, 32, 39, 50) is met by preferred responses (Robinson, 2004): absolution (line 22), an Oh- prefaced response (line 29), by which Leslie affiliates with the speaker s experience, and denial of the need to apologize (lines 33 and 38). These responses, however, do not have the
18 SORRY VS. I M SORRY 17 same value. In terms of the extent to which they clear and forgive the offense, denying the speaker s need to apologize is stronger than absolving the speaker: Whereas by the expression That s alright the recipient mitigates the damaging effect of the offense that she herself has experienced (as if stating: nothing [serious] has really happened [to me] ), by saying no not to worry the recipient mitigates the damage the offense may cause to the offender/apologizer herself, that of self- contempt. By the second option, then, expression of mutual approval and solidarity is utmost increased. The length and complexity of the moral work that both the speaker and the recipient accomplish in the example just examined stand in quite a striking contrast with the bare sorry apology delivered by a different speaker, in an exceptionally similar encounter. In excerpt (16) Joyce disappoints Leslie s expectation about her presence to a meeting. As compared with excerpt (14) (where she asked Myrna whether she would come to the meeting), Leslie s turn in this sequence figures not as a proper invitation but, rather, a question and did not make relevant an apology by Joyce
19 18 BIASSONI, DIADORI, FATIGANTE, MARAZZINI (cf. for this example also Margutti, Pugliese, & Traverso, this issue). Still, what develops next signals that an elaboration of Joyce s turn is relevantly missing (cf. Drew & Hepburn, this issue). Joyce eventually apologizes after a considerable delay. Yet, she chooses sorry, and not I m sorry, to do that. We hypothesize that this choice is not irrelevant to the fact that Joyce did not acknowledge her negative response as an offense (cf. Margutti et al., this issue) and did not engage then in the kind of moral work that Myrna engaged in example (16): the extensive, redundant, and emotionally laden process of admission of personal responsibility for having committed the offense, complemented by several justifications. I m sorry was a more sufficient and appropriate framing for her apology, in order to manage such moral work, marking the speaker s orientation toward not only repairing the interlocutor s offense (in Goffman s terms) but also toward a rehabilitation of the moral self. DISCUSSION Culpability, Affiliation, and the Construction of the Moral Self We return now to our initial research questions, whether we can draw some distinctions between two different forms of sorry-based apologies and whether we can find some recurrent patterns in the adoption of the two formulas. Heritage and Raymond (this issue) propose that different formats of apologizing (e.g., bare vs. expanded) may appear proportionally to certain dimensions of the offensive event, such as whether it is minimal and proximate to the participants or such (as in distal offenses) to require more elaboration from the apologizer. Our analyses align with Heritage and Raymond s; however, we are proposing that along with culpability and absolution, there is an additional dimension, that of forgiveness. Robinson (2004) identifies forgiveness as a distinctive dimension from absolution, thus not to be included in his discussion on apologies. However, he mentions that the dimension would be worthy of examination in future studies. Forgiveness is a broad concept, difficult to operationalize in observable aspects of talk, although studies that it correlates with relational closeness, positive affect, and empathy between individuals (McCullough, Rachal, Sandage, Worthington, Brown, & Hight, 1998; Takaku, 2001). In our examples, as in those examined by Robinson, speakers never explicitly refer to or demand forgiveness. Nevertheless, the highly elaborate and recursive apologetic sequences in which they engage suggest that speakers seek not only some absolution for their responsibility for the wrongdoing but also seek the recipient s/offended person s affiliation and a sympathizing attitude. In sequences of this sort,
20 SORRY VS. I M SORRY Accounts are mostly formatted as no-fault explanations and are highly detailed and elaborate to provide the recipient with the chance to comprehend and affiliate with the speaker s unfortunate reasons for why he or she committed the offense. 2. Modifiers most likely intensify the degree of the speaker s personal regret ( feeling sorry) for the effects of the wrongdoing upon the recipient, thus enhancing a sympathizing attitude toward the recipient and making reciprocating the affiliation relevant. 3. Apologies may be recycled several times, even after an absolution is delivered, so that each time the apologizer re-enacts his or her claim of culpability. By volunteering and over-emphasizing his or her responsibility in the offense, the apologizer also portrays a (critical) judgmental stance toward him- or herself and the action undertaken. This, in turn, would promote a recipient s response similar to the one triggered by self-critiques and expressions of self-contempt (Pomerantz, 1984): the recipient, by disagreeing with him on the need to apologize, supports the speaker, reassuring him that his morality is preserved and publicly acknowledged instead. In these long, recursive sequences, apologies are then so formatted as to proffer the agent (beside, the offense) as being exculpable, comprehended, attuned, forgiven. In this sense, I m sorry could be a more appropriate device for not only remedying the offense but also to maintain the offender s identity as moral and trustworthy, thus preventing retaliation from the offended party. It is also worth considering, in this respect, that in nonapologetic environments, I m sorry is used for expressing condolence to the recipient, that is, claiming that the speaker is able to share the same experience of sorrow with the recipient. Following this, we hypothesize that the copula I m, which differentiates sorry from I m sorry, can act as an indexical of the speaker s modulation of her experience of culpability. That is, the increase in agency that is grammatically encoded in the use of the pronoun (Heritage & Raymond, this issue) would apply not so much to the extent to which the apologizer claims responsibility for the guilt (which, as we have seen, does not systematically associate to one or the other of the two formulas) but rather to the extent to which the apologizer exhibits herself as subject of an experience, upon which she demands the recipient to attune. We turn now return briefly to the analysis of the sorry. Sorry formats maintain a certain preference for being used as a resource orienting toward progressivity of and closing 2 the apologetic encounter, and we never found those rounds and 2 In a different setting (i.e., collaborative word searching in conversations with an aphasic subject), Catrin Rhys also observed (2013) how participants may use sorry as a resource oriented to close the current activity and to move the conversation forward.
21 20 BIASSONI, DIADORI, FATIGANTE, MARAZZINI rehearsals of apology, which are instead supported by I m sorry formats. In nonapologetic environments (such as repair and self-correction), speakers find sorry, not I m sorry, as a ready-made resource serving the preference for continuation and coherence in conversation in short, its progressivity (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977). This preference would cause the use of sorry, which would favor the transition to the closing of the apologetic sequence, in contexts where I m sorry (and dedicated sequence to apologies) is expected, to indeed generate misalignment between participants. In excerpt (16) the same type of encounter in the call between Leslie and Myrna had generated an extensive proffer of apologies and declarations of regret by Myrna, Joyce s use of sorry anticipates the noticeable absence of affiliation with Leslie, who is in fact left alone to imply and endure the (unfortunate) consequences of Joyce s failure to comply to her (implicit) request. In this sense, we may hypothesize that I m sorry formats anticipate and sustain (in apologetic-dedicated environments) the speaker s orientation to the relational aim of exhibiting affiliation than to the local aim of remedying to the offense and having responsibility absolved. In those specific, highly elaborated, and recursive sequences of the kind we have examined, we argue that participants use of I m sorry (instead of sorry) may be sensitive to the participants orientation to a morality that implies not only the human subject s ability to claim responsibility for action but also to understand the point of view of the others (Duranti, 2012). Interestingly, scholars working experimentally in the Theory of Mind paradigm (Gopnik & Schultz, 2004) claim that children only develop the ability to apologize between ages 4 and 5, when they advance in their ability to understand and adopt the other s point of view. This makes it possible for participants in social encounters to compensate for offenses and thereby attain the other s understanding/attunement in a way that is partially independent of the extent to which they were responsible for committing the offending event. To fully understand the work of maintenance of social solidarity pursued by apologies, then, we need to deepen the analysis of how social actors warrant affiliation and mutual sympathy, which may be implied as a distinctive aspect in apologizing. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors jointly designed and discussed the plan and different sections of the paper. Marilena Fatigante is mainly responsible for the first draft and the review of the analyses. Federica Biassoni is mainly responsible for the Introduction, the Analyses and Discussion section. Francesca Marazzini is mainly responsible for the parts: Sorry and I m Sorry: Two Formats for Apologizing and I m Sorry Formulas in Apologetic-dedicated Environments and the discussion section.
22 SORRY VS. I M SORRY 21 Pierangela Diadori is responsible for the parts Sorry and I m Sorry: Two Formats for Apologizing, Distinctive Uses of Sorry Formulas and the Discussion section. The authors wish to thank Alexandra Hepburn and Paul Drew for assistance in the first draft of the presentation and, particularly, Paul Drew and Piera Margutti for the careful assistance and detailed suggestions throughout the writing of the paper. REFERENCES Duranti, A. (2012). Cortesia, politeness, e politesse : Gerarchie, strategie e sentimenti. L Uomo, 1 2, Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday. Goffman, E. (1971). Remedial interchanges. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order (pp ). New York, NY: Basic Books. Gopnik, A., & Schulz, L. (2004). Mechanisms of theory-formation in young children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analyzing lay explanation: A case book of methods (pp ). London, UK: Sage. Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives (pp ). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L. Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp ). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and remedial interchanges: A study of language use in social interaction. Berlin, Germany: Mouton. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of pre- ferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp ). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rhys, C. S. (2013). Choosing not to repair: Sorry as a warrant for interactional progress. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46, Robinson, J. D. (2004). The sequential organization of explicit apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, Sbisà, M. (1999). The room for negotiation in apologizing: evidence from the Italian speech act of scusarsi. Presented at the International Conference Pragma 99 Pragmatics and Negotiation, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, June 13 16, Retrieved from html Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defence of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, Takaku, S. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal forgiveness: A dissonance-attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 14,
1 of 5 Japan Library Association -- http://wwwsoc.nacsis.ac.jp/jla/ -- Approved at the Annual General Conference of the Japan Library Association June 4, 1980 Translated by Research Committee On the Problems
Kant: Notes on the Critique of Judgment First Moment: The Judgement of Taste is Disinterested. The Aesthetic Aspect Kant begins the first moment 1 of the Analytic of Aesthetic Judgment with the claim that
Foucault's Archaeological method In discussing Schein, Checkland and Maturana, we have identified a 'backcloth' against which these individuals operated. In each case, this backcloth has become more explicit,
Current Issues in Pictorial Semiotics Course Description What is the systematic nature and the historical origin of pictorial semiotics? How do pictures differ from and resemble verbal signs? What reasons
Inter-Play: Understanding Group Music Improvisation as a Form of Everyday Interaction Patrick G.T. Healey, Joe Leach, and Nick Bryan-Kinns Interaction, Media and Communication Research Group, Department
THE INTEGRATED APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF ART Tatyana Shopova Associate Professor PhD Head of the Center for New Media and Digital Culture Department of Cultural Studies, Faculty of Arts South-West University
Critical Discourse Analysis 10 th Semester April 2014 Prepared by: Dr. Alfadil Altahir 1 What is said in a text is always said against the background of what is unsaid (Fiarclough, 2003:17) 2 Introduction
Big stories and small stories: reflections on methodological issues in narrative research Mike Baynham (University of Leeds) Alexandra Georgakopoulou (Kings College London) Abstract For us methodological
The Journal of Value Inquiry (2004) 38: 375 381 DOI: 10.1007/s10790-005-1636-z C Springer 2005 Moral Judgment and Emotions KYLE SWAN Department of Philosophy, National University of Singapore, 3 Arts Link,
The Great Beauty: Public Subsidies in the Italian Movie Industry G. Meloni, D. Paolini,M.Pulina April 20, 2015 Abstract The aim of this paper to examine the impact of public subsidies on the Italian movie
1 The Polish Peasant in Europe and America W. I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki Now there are two fundamental practical problems which have constituted the center of attention of reflective social practice
Gareth White: Audience Participation in Theatre Tomlin, Elizabeth DOI: 10.1515/jcde-2015-0018 License: Unspecified Document Version Peer reviewed version Citation for published version (Harvard): Tomlin,
Triune Continuum Paradigm and Problems of UML Semantics Andrey Naumenko, Alain Wegmann Laboratory of Systemic Modeling, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne. EPFL-IC-LAMS, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
Alessandro Talamelli Fluid mechanic and Aerodynamic laboratory II School of Engineering Università di Bologna How to write the report standard model Model Based on the style used in the last 50 years Highly
Andrea Zaccardi 2012 ISSN: 1832-5203 Foucault Studies, No. 14, pp. 233-237, September 2012 REVIEW Arnold I. Davidson, Frédéric Gros (eds.), Foucault, Wittgenstein: de possibles rencontres (Éditions Kimé,
2012. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 38. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/bls.v38i0.3338 Published for BLS by the Linguistic Society of America How Semantics is Embodied
Audio Metering Measurements, Standards, and Practice (2 nd Edition) Eddy Bøgh Brixen Some book reviews just about write themselves. Pick the highlights from the table of contents, make a few comments about
Publishing from a dissertation A book or articles? 1 Brian Paltridge Introduction It is, unfortunately, not easy to get a dissertation published as a book without making major revisions to it. The audiences
HISTORY ADMISSIONS TEST Marking Scheme for the 2015 paper QUESTION ONE (a) According to the author s argument in the first paragraph, what was the importance of women in royal palaces? Criteria assessed
Semiotics for Beginners Daniel Chandler D.I.Y. Semiotic Analysis: Advice to My Own Students Semiotics can be applied to anything which can be seen as signifying something - in other words, to everything
Author Instructions for submitting manuscripts to Environment & Behavior Environment & Behavior brings you international and interdisciplinary perspectives on the relationships between physical built and
271 Kritik von Lebensformen By Rahel Jaeggi Suhrkamp, 2014, pbk 20, ISBN 9783518295878, 451pp by Hans Arentshorst Does contemporary philosophy need to concern itself with the question of the good life?
This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Author(s): Arentshorst, Hans Title: Book Review : Freedom s Right.
BBC Television Services Review Quantitative audience research assessing BBC One, BBC Two and BBC Four s delivery of the BBC s Public Purposes Prepared for: November 2010 Prepared by: Trevor Vagg and Sara
DISCUSSION NOTE BY BENJAMIN MITCHELL-YELLIN JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE JULY 2015 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT BENJAMIN MITCHELL-YELLIN 2015 Aligning with the Good I N CONSTRUCTIVISM,
PHI 3240: Philosophy of Art Session 5 September 16 th, 2015 Malevich, Kasimir. (1916) Suprematist Composition. Gaut on Identifying Art Last class, we considered Noël Carroll s narrative approach to identifying
November 18, 2013. Penultimate version. Final version forthcoming in Inquiry. On Recanati s Mental Files Dilip Ninan firstname.lastname@example.org 1 Frege (1892) introduced us to the notion of a sense or a mode
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURES, CONCEPTS, AND THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK This chapter is divided into three subchapters; they are review of literatures, concepts and theoretical framework. The first subchapter
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY Overall grade boundaries Grade: E D C B A Mark range: 0-7 8-15 16-22 23-28 29-36 The range and suitability of the work submitted As has been true for some years, the majority
Tom Wendt Copywrite 2011 Hamletmachine: The Objective Real and the Subjective Fantasy Heiner Mueller s play Hamletmachine focuses on Shakespeare s Hamlet, especially on Hamlet s relationship to the women
for Digital Outdoor Displays Time and Money Rapid response to display downtime is nowhere is nowhere more crucial than in the digital outdoor advertising industry. Prismview has established a methodology
interpreting figurative meaning Interpreting Figurative Meaning critically evaluates the recent empirical work from psycholinguistics and neuroscience examining the successes and difficulties associated
UNIVERSIDADE SÃO JUDAS TADEU Centro de Pós-Graduação Especialização Lato Sensu DISCUSSION QUESTION São Paulo, 2012 ALEXANDRE RODRIGUES NUNES RA 201280038 Concepts of culture, literature and language and
Marquette University e-publications@marquette Economics Faculty Research and Publications Business Administration, College of 1-1-1998 Normative and Positive Economics John B. Davis Marquette University,
The Nature of Time Humberto R. Maturana November 27, 1995. I do not wish to deal with all the domains in which the word time enters as if it were referring to an obvious aspect of the world or worlds that
Århus, 11 January 2008 Hear hear An acoustemological manifesto Sound is a powerful element of reality for most people and consequently an important topic for a number of scholarly disciplines. Currrently,
A Dictionary of Spoken Danish Carsten Hansen & Martin H. Hansen Keywords: lexicography, speech corpus, pragmatics, conversation analysis. Abstract The purpose of this project is to establish a dictionary
Semiotics, also called semiotic studies or semiology, is the study of cultural sign processes (semiosis), analogy, metaphor, signification and communication, signs and symbols. Semiotics is closely related
B usiness Object R eference Ontology s i m p l i f y i n g s e m a n t i c s Program Working Paper BO1 BUSINESS ONTOLOGY: OVERVIEW BUSINESS ONTOLOGY - SOME CORE CONCEPTS Issue: Version - 4.01-01-July-2001
HEGEL S CONCEPT OF ACTION MICHAEL QUANTE University of Duisburg Essen Translated by Dean Moyar PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge,
Chapter 1 Introduction The theater of the absurd, rising during the 1940 s and the early 50 s, is one of the most important movements in the history of dramatic literature for its non-conventional form
Continuum for Opinion/Argument Writing 1 Continuum for Opinion/Argument Writing Pre-K K 1 2 Structure Structure Structure Structure Overall I told about something I like or dislike with pictures and some
Practical Intuition and Rhetorical Example Paul Schollmeier I Let us assume with the classical philosophers that we have a faculty of theoretical intuition, through which we intuit theoretical principles,
Theory or Theories? Based on: R.T. Craig (1999), Communication Theory as a field, Communication Theory, n. 2, May, 119-161. 1 To begin. n Is it possible to identify a Theory of communication field? n There
THE ACOUSTICS OF THE MUNICIPAL THEATRE IN MODENA Pacs:43.55Gx Prodi Nicola; Pompoli Roberto; Parati Linda Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Università di Ferrara Via Saragat 1 44100 Ferrara Italy Tel: +390532293862
International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 3, No. 5; 2013 ISSN 1923-869X E-ISSN 1923-8703 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Irony and the Standard Pragmatic Model Istvan Palinkas
American Chemical Society Publication Guidelines TITLE. The title should accurately, clearly, and concisely reflect the emphasis and content of the paper. The title must be brief and grammatically correct
The Effects of Web Site Aesthetics and Shopping Task on Consumer Online Purchasing Behavior Cai, Shun The Logistics Institute - Asia Pacific E3A, Level 3, 7 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore 117574 email@example.com
Montana Content Standards for Arts Grade-by-Grade View Adopted July 14, 2016 by the Montana Board of Public Education Table of Contents Introduction... 3 The Four Artistic Processes in the Montana Arts
1 of 11 Standards for International Bibliographic Control Proposed Basic Data Requirements for the National Bibliographic Record By Olivia M.A. Madison Dean of Library Services, Iowa State University Abstract
ICOMOS ENAME CHARTER For the Interpretation of Cultural Heritage Sites FOURTH DRAFT Revised under the Auspices of the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Interpretation and Presentation 31 July
CALIFORNIA CONTENT STANDARDS: READING HSEE Notes 1.0 WORD ANALYSIS, FLUENCY, AND SYSTEMATIC VOCABULARY 8/11 DEVELOPMENT: 7 1.1 Vocabulary and Concept Development: identify and use the literal and figurative
How to Respond to Reviewer and Editor Comments Dr. Steve Wallace Outline Reviewers and editors decide the fate of our paper. Managing the relationship with them is vital to successful publication. What
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE OF HUMOUR APPRECIATION CHIK ET AL 26 Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology Vol. 5, 2005, pp 26-31 Brief Report Development of a Measure of Humour Appreciation
The Esther Effect: Interactive Frames in the Case of Grassroots Animal Rights Activism Mira Lieberman-Boyd Goldsmiths College firstname.lastname@example.org 2017 Overview Introduction Background Methodology Findings
Proceedings of Bridges 2015: Mathematics, Music, Art, Architecture, Culture Permutations of the Octagon: An Aesthetic-Mathematical Dialectic James Mai School of Art / Campus Box 5620 Illinois State University
Research & Development White Paper WHP 318 April 2016 Live subtitles re-timing proof of concept Trevor Ware (BBC) Matt Simpson (Ericsson) BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION White Paper WHP 318 Live subtitles
UNIT 9 Sound Discussion point LISTENING Listening for organization Listening to interpret the speaker s attitude VOCABULARY Word + preposition combinations SPEAKING Fielding questions during a presentation
AU/ACSC/2011 AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY WHAT BELONGS IN MY RESEARCH PAPER? by Terry R. Bentley, Lt Col, USAF (PhD) A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty In Partial Fulfillment of
Analog to Digital conversion of HD video The HD-Now provides a simple method of upgrading ROVs for live HD. Keep existing infrastructure intact. Most ROVs have at least one spare fiber. Utilizing a spare
COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT POLICY BOONE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, FEBRUARY 2015; NOVEMBER 2017 REVIEWED NOVEMBER 20, 2017 CONTENTS Introduction... 3 Library Mission...
Ross 1 Pentadic Ratios in Burke s Theory of Dramatism Dramatism Kenneth Burke (1945) introduced his theory of dramatism in his book A Grammar of Motives, saying, [I]t invites one to consider the matter
Model Text Analysis Rubric: Peer Review Tool Model Response Mosley introduces the claim that fiction can offer escape by stating that through crime shows, mysteries, and films we can alleviate our feelings
Group 2 Subjects Overview A group 2 extended essay is intended for students who are studying a second modern language. Students may not write a group 2 extended essay in a language that they are offering
M. Chirimuuta s Adverbialism About Color Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh M. Chirimuuta s Outside Color is a rich and lovely book. I enjoyed reading it and benefitted from reflecting on its provocative
Biologia Editorial Policy 1. Purpose and Scope The Biologia is devoted to the publication of research results of scientific importance in botany, cellular and molecular biology and zoology. The primary
DANCE CREATIVE EXPRESSION Standard: Students develop creative expression through the application of knowledge, ideas, communication skills, organizational abilities, and imagination. Use kinesthetic awareness,
Best Practice for Peer Review of Scholarly Books National Scholarly Book Publishers Forum of South Africa February 2017 1 Definitions A scholarly work can broadly be defined as a well-informed, skilled,
Intersect, Vol 10, No 2 (2017) Challenging the View That Science is Value Free A Book Review of IS SCIENCE VALUE FREE? VALUES AND SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING. By Hugh Lacey. London and New York: Routledge,
CHAPTER TWO A brief explanation of the Berger and Luckmann s theory that will be used in this thesis. 2.1 Introduction The intention of this chapter is twofold. First, to discuss briefly Berger and Luckmann
Scan This is a sample of the first 15 pages of the Scan chapter. Note: The book is NOT Pinted in color. Objectives: This section provides: An overview of Scan An introduction to Test Sequences and Test
KNX Dimmer RGBW - User Manual Item No.: LC-013-004 1. Product Description With the KNX Dimmer RGBW it is possible to control of RGBW, WW-CW LED or 4 independent channels with integrated KNX BCU. Simple
Arakawa and Gins: The Organism-Person-Environment Process Eugene T. Gendlin, University of Chicago 1. Personing On the first page of their book Architectural Body, Arakawa and Gins say, The organism we
Policy and Practice Circular Document No 01/16 Owner: Head of Policy/Head of Social Work Subject: Joint Working Health and Social Care Partnerships/Trusts and ILF Scotland Version: 1 of 1 07 December 2016
Writing Workshop WRITING WORKSHOP BRIEF GUIDE SERIES A Brief Guide to Writing SOCIAL THEORY Introduction Critical theory is a method of analysis that spans over many academic disciplines. Here at Wesleyan,
New Hampshire Curriculum Framework for the Arts Theatre K-12 Curriculum Standard 1: Students will create theatre through improvising, writing and refining scripts. AT 22.214.171.124 AT 126.96.36.199 AT 188.8.131.52 AT 184.108.40.206
Acoustic Prosodic Features In Sarcastic Utterances Introduction: The main goal of this study is to determine if sarcasm can be detected through the analysis of prosodic cues or acoustic features automatically.
LESSON D1 Starting and Ending a Conversation I. WARM-UP Vocabulary Match the phrasal verbs in column A with their definitions in column B. A 1. get through a. to reach someone by phone 2. get back b. to
Agency, accountability and evaluations of impoliteness Nathaniel Mitchell and Michael Haugh School of Languages and Linguistics Griffith University Nathan, QLD 4111 Australia Email: email@example.com
Similarity matrix for musical themes identification considering sound s pitch and duration MICHELE DELLA VENTURA Department of Technology Music Academy Studio Musica Via Terraglio, 81 TREVISO (TV) 31100
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.