In the last decades, government officials seem increasingly inclined to apologize for atrocities and injustices perpetuated in the past. In 2008, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologized in Parliament for laws and policies that inflicted "profound grief, suffering, and loss" to Aboriginal peoples. His successor, Julia Gillard, offered government apologies in 2013 for past policies that encouraged unwed mothers to give up their babies for adoption to married couples. In 2010, Hillary Clinton, the American Secretary of State, apologized to Guatemalans for a medical experiment conducted by the US Public Health Service in the 1940s, in which Guatemalan soldiers, prisoners, and people with mental disabilities had been injected with syphilis without their consent. These are just a few examples on the growing list of official remorse: more and more, government representatives take up apology as a tool to address historical wrongdoing. And with good reason: apologies can highlight "possibilities of peaceful coexistence" and remove obstacles to more productive relations among individuals and communities (Barkan 2006, p.7). They have the potential to rehabilitate individuals and restore social harmony (Tavuchis, 1961, p. 9), and they seem to be humane and efficient devices for curtailing conflict (Cohen, 2004, p. 177).

This thesis examines legislation that creates a “safe habour” for apologies by making them inadmissible as evidence of liability in a civil action. In recent years, jurisdictions across North America and Australia have enacted such “apology legislation” in an effort to encourage apologies. This is allegedly done to assist victims, who often benefit from full and sincere apologies. Legislators are also motivated, however, by the perception that apologies can induce victims to settle or forgo legal action, thereby reducing litigation rates. Whether such a correlation exists, particularly for apologies given under apology legislation, has not been firmly established, and attempting to use apologies in this manner may prove harmful to victims and the state. Apologies are powerful, and if legislators are not careful, they may enact legislation that alters apologies so that they become a source of harm to victims, the legal system, and even society as a whole.

This thesis examines legislation that creates a “safe habour” for apologies by making them inadmissible as evidence of liability in a civil action. In recent years, jurisdictions across North America and Australia have enacted such “apology legislation” in an effort to encourage apologies. This is allegedly done to assist victims, who often benefit from full and sincere apologies. Legislators are also motivated, however, by the perception that apologies can induce victims to settle or forgo legal action, thereby reducing litigation rates. Whether such a correlation exists, particularly for apologies given under apology legislation, has not been firmly established, and attempting to use apologies in this manner may prove harmful to victims and the state. Apologies are powerful, and if legislators are not careful, they may enact legislation that alters apologies so that they become a source of harm to victims, the legal system, and even society as a whole.

An apology is a standard expression often articulated by someone who has wronged another. Prior service failure and recovery literature has explored the impact uncivil acts and subsequent recovery efforts in a service environment, although this research has been focused on the involved customer’s perceptions and retaliatory intentions. In a service environment, third party customers are often able to observe the interactions (both positive and negative) of others. Prior literature has yet to examine the influence of each characteristic of an apology on an observing customer’s retaliatory intentions. To address this gap in the literature, the present research examines how apologies influence observing customers’ negative word-of-mouth and return intentions. Four apology components (timeliness, accepting responsibility, initiation, and remorse) were examined. In addition, three blocking variables (gender, moral identity, and self-construal) are included in order to empirically examine whether any of the apology components had a unique effect on specific groups of individuals compared to others.

No description available.

The norms that mediate our responses to accidents play a critical role in facilitating social cooperation. My dissertation explores these norms with an eye towards what they can tell us about the nature of moral responsibility. Drawing on Adam Smith's brief, but important discussion of moral luck, I argue that our responses to accidents reveal the extent to which the obligations we incur and the moral appraisals we make of one another are often appropriately influenced by fortune. In particular, I show how making sense of these responses requires us to embrace the idea that we can sometimes be morally responsible for things without being culpable, and I argue that doing so need not do violence to our moral intuitions.

No description available.

This study addresses a familiar challenge in corpus pragmatic research: the search for functional phenomena in large electronic corpora. Speech acts are one area of research that falls into this functional domain and the question of how to identify them in corpora has occupied researchers over the past 20 years. This study focuses on apologies as a speech act that is characterised by a standard set of routine expressions, making it easier to search for with corpus linguistic tools. Nevertheless, even for a comparatively formulaic speech act, such as apologies, the polysemous nature of forms (cf. e.g. I am sorry vs. a sorry state) impacts the precision of the search output so that previous studies of smaller data samples had to resort to manual microanalysis. In this study, we introduce an innovative methodological approach that demonstrates how the combination of different types of collocational analysis can facilitate the study of speech acts in larger corpora. By first establishing a collocational profile for each of the Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices associated with apologies and then scrutinising their shared and unique collocates, unwanted hits can be discarded and the amount of manual intervention reduced. Thus, this article introduces new possibilities in the field of corpus-based speech act analysis and encourages the study of pragmatic phenomena in large corpora.

In this thesis, I analyse apologies produced by British political figures from a pragmatic perspective. In particular, I seek to explain the function of political apologies and describe the form they take. In order to give a thorough account of the speech act of apologising in the public sphere, I look to a variety of genres for data. The set of remedial acts scrutinised in this study come from debates and statements in the House of Commons, the Leveson Inquiry and news interviews. The differences in communicative practices between these data sources mean that the types of apology that come about within each genre are varied. Many of the parliamentary apologies are monologic, whereas the apologetic actions found at the Leveson Inquiry and in news interviews are dialogic and, to some extent, co-constructed between participants. These differences mean that a variety of theoretical approaches are taken in analysing the data – speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969) and generalised conversational implicature theory (Levinson,2000) feature heavily in the discussion of monologic apologies. Apologies produced within an interactive, ‘conversational’ setting are treated using developments in conversation analysis (amongst others see: Sacks, 1992; Schegloff, 2007). I attempt to reconcile these two, quite different, approaches to discourse at various points in the thesis, arguing that conversation analysis lacks a theory of how interlocutors understand what actions are happening in interaction (and this is provided by speech act theory) and speech act theory lacks a detailed focus on what actually happens in language as interaction (provided by conversation analysis). On the basis of the apology data scrutinised in the thesis, I propose a set of felicity conditions for the speech act of apology (chapter 2) and discuss how the apology (and speech acts broadly) should be considered as prototype entities (chapter 8). I show that when apologising for actions which they have committed, politicians are more fulsome in their apologies than we are in everyday conversation. I also show that they use more explicit apology tokens than is found in quotidian talk (chapter 3). When apologising for historical wrongs, I demonstrate that apologising is a backgrounded act and the focus of the statement is on being clear and unequivocal about the nature of the offences for which the government is apologising (chapter 6). I also argue that political apologies in interactive settings are best thought of as action chains (Pomerantz, 1978). That is to say, apologies in these environments may elicit a response from an interlocutor, but do not need to (chapters 4 & 5). This is quite unlike everyday talk (cf Robinson, 2004). I discuss how apology tokens may be used in the performance of other acts, including introducing dissent and undertaking serious face threat. I suggest that this comes about because apology tokens exist on a cline of pragmaticalisation (chapter 7).

On November 28, 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized to LGBTQ2+ persons within Canada for the oppression and criminalization of queer sexuality and diverse gender identities. Between the 1950s to early 1990s, thousands of Canadian civil servants and military personnel were systematically surveilled, interrogated, and ultimately “purged” because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The federal government’s heterosexism criminalized queer bodies and sex and it enforced heteronormativity and cisnormativity. These policies had disastrous effects on trans and queer persons and have contributed to ongoing systemic discrimination against LGBTQ2+ persons today. The 2017 apology and the associated process of redress have the potential to reconstitute the relationship between LGBTQ2+ communities and the government. Through an analysis of the apology’s affective and effective outcomes, this case study seeks to understand the origins, complexities, and implications of the apology for LGBTQ2+ equality and inclusion. It invokes Melissa Nobles’ membership theory to better understand the apology’s implications for LGBTQ2+ citizenship in Canada. Specifically, it is interested in better understanding the voices that were included in the pre-apology consultation process, and those that were not. Given the inherent diversity of LGBTQ2+ communities, such an effort had major implications for both the inclusivity of the apology and its ability to remedy past injustices. It finds that the consultations undertaken by the government were rushed, lacked transparency and openness, and consequently undermined the ameliorative potential of the apology. It then turns to an assessment of the apology’s “authenticity” through an invocation of political scientist Matt James’ criteria, and posits that the 2017 apology is best categorized as a robust quasi-apology. This thesis then considers the reactions of LGBTQ2+ persons to the apology itself and finds that the apology may serve as a rhetorical tool, which can be taken up by activists to demand additional reform. Further, to have lasting significance the apology must be substantiated by real action. To contextualize the apology’s equality effects, this thesis also engages in an analysis of the government’s substantive policy undertakings and failures in the post-apology period. This thesis asserts that while the government has moved forward with some significant reforms, its post-apology policy approach is characterized by profound shortcomings that have fallen short of the broad-based reforms demanded by LGBTQ2+ activists. These government failures evidence the continued predominance of what Miriam Smith terms “legal homophobia,” and the restrictive model of renegotiated citizenship proffered by the government. The citizenship lens invoked throughout this project leads to the theorization that there are two primary LGBTQ2+ factions with regard to the apology: one that seeks integration within the state and demands Canadian citizenship in spite of queerness and another that rejects the state’s homonationalist project and agitates for a Queered citizenship situated within an anti-oppressive, anti-racist framework. This thesis concludes by suggesting that the official apology can be used as a rhetorical tool to pursue the very Queered citizenship some activists desire. / Graduate