Language Politeness: Public Apologies Research Assignment

Language Politeness: Public Apologies
Name
Institution of Affiliation
Date
Chapter one
Introduction
The word politeness refers to the application of good manners in different scenarios, especially when talking to people. Politeness of language is a broad term that can be defined in a number ways because various aspects qualify messages as being polite. Such elements may include, the social distance between people who are communicating, the age bracket they fall in, the context of which they are speaking to each other and even their personality. Linguists throughout the world have not agreed on the best definition of the term Politeness of language; however, they have used some of the aspects that qualify language as polite to derive the meaning. Politeness in Language is speech oriented in which it is revealed in relating to people, which often makes a person to frame his or her communication intentions before making utterances. It shows the nature of people's sociality. It involves the behavior of a person in speech while taking account of his or her interactor's social status and even social relationships CITATION Bro15 \l 1033 (Brown P. , 2015).
It is important to mention that apologies can be offered on different levels and different contexts. There are those that happen between two people and those that occur when one or more people are involved in a conversation. An apology can be a written or a spoken expression of a person's regret of wronging to another. Whether it is to one person or many people, apologizing for a wrong done is considered one of the essential functions of language because if it is used appropriately, it can prevent conflicts before they happen. Thus, the ability to understand when and how to apologize to someone is critical in safeguarding and restoring peace in the country in a world that is faced with many conflicts. There are possibilities of having misinterpretations when speakers are not well acquainted with each other which sometimes lead to a complete breakdown of communication. Such situations have been analyzed by many linguists in their study of pragmatics; a branch of linguistics that investigates how meaning is transmitted from one person to another depending on the language level of the speaker and the listener. It also uses their knowledge on the subject under discussion, their cultural difference, these intentions, the context of which they are speaking and many other factors.
In any context of communication, a public apology remains a critical aspect. This is critically important especially when talking of business organizations, companies and relationship between the clients and the company. It eliminates misunderstanding and clears off tense atmospheres that are normally created during communication. It can also help in maintaining the effectiveness of the message that was intended to be passed by edging off aspects that can hinder the speakers, even those from different levels and environment, as long as there is a willingness to apologize any time CITATION Kie99 \l 1033 (Kienpointner, 1999). It shows that one has respect for the other's thoughts or opinions regardless of their diversity in education levels, age or experience. This maintains healthy relationships between people, sometimes it might not undo what has already been said, but it eliminates the tense atmosphere between a victim and his or her offender.
Aim of the study
The purpose of this study is to explore the use of polite language in public apologies and the features of the polite language in public apologies by analyzing sample public apologies by different companies and individuals.
The objectives the study
* To examine the language used in public apologies in different contexts
* To explore key features of polite language in public apologies.
* To review the importance of public apologies in effective communication
Chapter 2
Literature review
Many kinds of research have been done by many linguists and sociologists on the subject of language politeness, especially in public apologies. These studies have been significant in identifying the use of language in different contexts and its importance to the speakers and listeners. In communication, an utterance made by a person (for this study, a company or organization can be considered as an entity or person) carries a lot of meaning which can be understood differently if not well structured. It goes ahead and analyses the words used in the particular utterance bearing in mind the background knowledge of the speaker and the listener CITATION Fra90 \l 1033 (Fraser, 1990). This is because the same message can be taken positively by one person and negatively by someone else even though the speaker is the same and the message equally remains the same. In this case, the listeners' abilities are investigated whereby the listeners' abilities to interpret a message are examined according to contexts correctly. However, pragmatics goes further to look into the speaker by determining his or her intention of communicating like was the speaker intending to intimidate or persuade the listener CITATION Goo95 \l 1033 (Goody, 1995). Here, it is also evident that the speaker can influence the perceptions his or her messages will create to different people CITATION Yul96 \l 1033 (Yule, 1996). Thus, pragmatics majorly studies how people choose the language they want to use in communication basing on their cultures and social orientations. It goes further to look at how those choices are made and the constraints that are encountered during interaction CITATION Kar13 \l 1033 (Karthik, 2013).
The attention of linguists has also turned into explaining the consequences of language impoliteness in public. One of the most direct observations that are made is the result of violence. There is a close relationship between language impoliteness and violence; impolite language can easily and quickly trigger violence CITATION Cul11 \l 1033 (Culpeper, 2011). Cruel actions of people in public, especially during communication are triggered off by the kind of language that was used between the speaker and the listener. Impoliteness in Language undermines the rights of people and destroys their sense of social identity CITATION Cul11 \l 1033 (Culpeper, 2011). This makes them want to save their feelings of self-worth hence resulting into violence. Psychologists, historians and sociologists have argued that the reason behind most conflicts in the world has been the lack of apologies in discourse. Most of the cases that the world has witnessed of genocides are majorly a result of the depiction of people in negative ways; through a demeaning language CITATION Cul11 \l 1033 (Culpeper, 2011).
There are some universal principles of politeness that are accepted in different societies. One of them is the intention to be polite to social superiors. This is when people tend to structure their utterances or messages in a careful way towards a person of a higher rank or position in society CITATION Gof71 \l 1033 (Goffman, 1971). An example of this is a scenario where an employee is addressing a manager in an organization or where a child is talking to his or her parent. These are situations that require those who are junior to talk to their seniors and elders in a respectable manner. However, it is necessary to note that the world as per now is slowly drifting from these mannerisms. This is the reason for increased conflicts and cases in courts which are meant to establish and restore the standard guidelines of polite language. This is because, in the examples given if an employee or a child disrespects their manager or parent, it will lead to an automatic conflict unless; the parties are willing to apologize quickly, which cannot automatically eradicate the dispute.
In some societies, impolite language to people especially those of higher ranks and age is treated as an offense that can be fined or that can attract repercussions to the offender CITATION Her05 \l 1033 (Heritage & Raymond, 2005). Wounding the self-image of people especially their positive faces can be taken as a violation of their rights to non-distraction or injuring their primary territories. This can quickly start a rebellion or a conflict CITATION Cul111 \l 1033 (Cultrone, 2011). This research comprises of many arguments that were advanced by Levinson and Brown's (1978) theory of politeness which is founded on concepts of "face." According to Brown and Levinson, the face is a term that is divided into two: a positive face which involves the approval one gets from other people and negative face which is the desire to have one's actions unimpeded by other people. Thus, to most people the emphasis is not on their wants but of the achievements from the interaction or participation which can go a long way into enhancing face, maintaining it or losing it.
The two theorists, Brown and Levinson, based speech as an important aspect that can change the face of an individual depending on the choice of the words that make up the statement CITATION Pen87 \l 1033 (Penelope & Stephen, 1987). To explain this concept better acts that threaten the face of a person were grouped according to the following parameters; the owner of the face that is being threatened and the type of face that is being threatened whereby there is positive and negative face (Brown and Levinson 1978, p.65). An example of this is a scenario of interaction when a speaker criticizes and complains to the listener about a particular thing; these will automatically spoil the listener's positive face which is the good side he or she wants people to have about him or her. These are acts that show that the speaker is wrong prompting him or her to confess or apologize. However, when the listener is forced to accept the speaker’s demands, his or her negative face is bruised. These include acts like warnings and threats.
When such interactions that damage the face of a person are made, it is necessary to make an apology. According to Brown and Levinson, (1978, p.187) an apology is the speaker’s effort to restore an action that destroyed his or her listener’s face desires. The speaker acknowledges that there was a violation of the desires of the listener so that their relationship can be restored to the way it was before the incidence. Apologies convey respect and willingness to change the state of affairs between people.
Many linguistic theorists criticize the theory of politeness about the importance of linguistic actions to social behaviors of individuals. Many other issues have risen upon the manner in which Brown and Levinson defined the apologies using the term "face." The compliments that are given to the speaker can benefit his or her positive face and cannot be necessarily harmful CITATION Man81 \l 1033 (Manes & Wolfson, 1981). In other cases, compliments can also attend to the positive face of different listeners when they are seen as desirable by speakers.
Brown and Levinson's theory tends to over-emphasize the speaker's intentions which fail to investigate the hearer's reaction accurately. In this case, a speaker can make an utterance which he or she perceives as positive but to another person will be seen as negative. Thus, the ability to take into account the reactions of different people to statements is an issue in this theory. The theorists also fail to carefully monitor the aspect of context in speeches because when the context is also put into focus, the way in which discourse is portrayed changes. There is no clear way of deciding whether an utterance has either a positive or a negative face. Thus the predictive ability of the theory is rather limited. The argument also fails to take account of the diverse cultures in the world whereby, an utterance in one culture can be seen as positive, yet in another, it can easily pass as negative.
In Leech's (1983) theory, politeness is based on the analysis of illocutionary acts which predict the outcome of something in future and be a request, an order or also an apology. Those illocutionary acts can be divided into negative politeness; aggressive acts like demanding and positive politeness; convivial acts like offerings. Collaborative actions are courteous while conflictive acts are against social goals and thus irrelevant to politeness. To offer a better explanation of the model, Leech divided his theory into two maxims; Tact and Generosity. Tact maxim gives more benefit to other people as compared to self while Generosity maxim ensures that a person gets more benefits as compared to other people.
Gaps
Several researchers and theorists have paid much attention to the spo...