‘I'm sorry for apologising’: Czech and German apologies and their perlocutionary effects

Abstract

This article inquires into the effects of public apologies. It argues that the focus of most scholars of public diplomacy or conflict resolution on the conflict solving capacity of public apologies is limited and prevents an open and responsive analysis of empirical apology processes. Drawing on speech act theory as developed by John L. Austin and some of his critics it suggests that existing apology theory should broaden its perspective and also take the perlocutionary, that is, the unintended social effects of public apologies into account. The article illustrates its theoretical argument with the example of the Czech-German apology process. The apologies issued between these countries since 1989 suggest that the conflict solving performance of the apologies was exceeded by the unintended social consequences in both, the apologising country as well as the country receiving the apology.

Rituals of apology in the global arena

“…Research on public apologies presupposes that they have a moral core; hence it tends to concentrate on the positive contribution of apologies to reconciliation. It is not surprising, therefore, that most research on public apologies is contextualized into the literature of transitional justice (Andrieu, 2009; De Grieff, 2008; Teitel, 2000), asserting that, coupled with other measures of transitional justice, apologies may be a powerful tool aiding societies to confront past wrongs and achieve reconciliation (Andrieu, 2009, 2010; Renner, 2010). In recent years, however, scholars have challenged this presupposition, according to which apologies will always promote reconciliation, providing examples of the conditions under which the reconciliatory speech act may fail (James, 2008; Lind, 2008; Renner, 2010).…”

Science Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry? Apologies for Scientific Misconduct

“…Typically, apologies address the specific person or the group wronged by the transgression (Renner, 2011). This can be found in seven apologies in the sample:The articles were published prematurely, as a result of an oversight, for which [publishers] apologise to the Authors and Editors.…”

“…The present article is concerned with apologies for scientific misconduct and hence focuses on the 55 passages coded as apologies, 3 which were the moves (mostly sentences) identified by the lexical markers apology/apologize, sorry , and regret/regretfully (Harris, Grainger, & Mullany, 2006; see also Kampf, 2009). There is considerable disagreement about how to identify an apology (Harris et al, 2006; Meier, 1998; Renner, 2011). In this case, the relatively strict delimitation of lexical markers seemed necessary as an analytical tool to structure the dense and often equivocal texts of retraction notices.…”

“…Typically, apologies address the specific person or the group wronged by the transgression (Renner, 2011). This can be found in seven apologies in the sample:…”

Uluslararası İlişkilerde Özür Dilemek: Özrün Kuramı

“…Uluslararası İlişkiler çalışmalarının yaklaşık bir asırlık tarihinde bir analiz parametresi olarak yeterli düzeyde ilgi göremese de özür dilemek küresel politikada artık bir araç olarak sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır. 54 Bu durumun bir göstergesi olarak MacLachlan sadece son 10 yıllık dönemde 50'den fazla resmi özrün devletler ve diğer aktörler tarafından dilendiğini not etmektedir. 55 Aslında özür dilemek, tarihsel süreçte devletlerin neden oldukları bazı yanlışlıkların giderilmesi noktasında kullanılan bir araç olarak ortaya çıkmıştır.…”