The Structure of a Formal Apology - Assignment Example

The structure of a formal apology This essay will examine pragmatic and discursive features of the public apology by Kevin Rudd, during his service as the Prime Minister of Australia. We analyse discursive detail of the apology and the pragmatic features and linguistic details based on recent research in the field of political apologies. The public apology of the Prime Minister of Australia to the Indigenous Australians reflects willingness of historical injustices to be acknowledged and reach a transition of reconciliation .In an analysis of the apology by Kevin Rudd, linguistic and pragmatic features displayed in this political apology will serve as a demonstration of how identity and emotion categories were combined with offering and justifying the apology. There have been several disciplines that have ventured into examining the collective apologies phenomenon related to historical injustices.John Howard who previously reigned as Prime Minister affirmed guilt as unjustified and inappropriate as current generations were not to be hold responsibility for the deeds of past generations. This justification was held when he refused to apologise. The media represented the apology as an expression of huge emotion; it was an engagement of reframing history in a discursive form. Social psychological aspects Apologies Apologies occur on a daily basis in everyday life. Apologies come in every form from trivial to serious issues. They have many functions. Apologies come in the form of sympathy expressions, bad behaviour regret, and public apologies of "appropriate feeling". The indicative apology terms are usually “sorry”, or “apologize” (IFID). (Illocutionary Force Indicating Device, Olsten and Cohen (1983) Currently there is huge interest and research examining semantic and pragmatic features of informal apologies recognised by both parties involved, (the recipients and providers). DISCOURSE AND SOCIETY- PUBLIC APOLOGIES There is vast research on apologies in daily social interaction on interpersonal levels. In contrast very limited research exists on institutional and public apologies, with reference to apologies by political figures, relating to past injustices on particular groups. Political apologies are mediated; occur in a public domain with a wider audience targeted, national and international audiences. They are controversial, contested acts that can cause further conflict, if perceived as insincere or not recognized as valid, legitimate or appropriate. They need validity and must explicitly state “apologize or "sorry" .Furthermore they must accept the blame or responsibility. In most instances leaders apologize for past events, before they came into power, so the blame and responsibility acceptance is institutional. If the apology does not acknowledge responsibility it is perceived to be insincere, undermining the function of apologies, and initiates a generation of public debate and controversy. Usually it represents a symbolic act, and not an intention to gain material conciliation for parties involved. . Analysis The examination of the initial apology attention is directed to semantic and pragmatic features in extract 1-2. In extracts 3-6 the narrative detail of the historical facts presentation is examined. Furthermore the analysis will demonstrate how Rudd uses the apology through the categories of emotion and identity. Emotions are tied to facts, and various categorization levels were used to evoke support for the symbolic gesture of this national apology. Extract 1 of the apology Extract 1 is the start of the apology by Kevin Rudd, to the Australia’s Indigenous population Extract 1: “Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land.The oldest continuing culture in human history we (*1) reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations. This blemished chapter in our nation’s history: the time has now come for the nation to turn a new page, a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologize for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, ` suffering and loss on our fellow Australians. (*2) we apologise especially for the removal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families their communities and their country. For the pain suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations their descendants and for their families left behind we say sorry to the mothers and the fathers , the brothers and the sisters for the breaking up of families and communities we say sorry. And for the indignity: and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry. We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation. In Extract 1, IFIDs prominent are both per formative verbs, ‘apologise’, and the word ‘sorry’. These two words are identified in political apologies as necessary requisites for apologies to be received as sincere. “We apologise” and ‘we say sorry’ are repeated three times to make it explicit and clarify it as an unambiguous and direct apology. Collective verbs ‘we’, “We the Parliament of Australia” is used as well as the term ‘the nation’. There are multiple references of ‘nation’ in this speech extract adding to ambiguous inferences in the use of this collective verb, “the nation” The mistreatment of the Indigenous people is acknowledged generally (*1,*2) The apology speech expands the apology beyond “Stolen Generations”. The apology extended from children that were removed to immediate families and wider communities and to ‘descendants’ of the “stolen generation”. This part of the speech acknowledges the impact of those removed as long term, broad and ongoing. Here negative emotions invoked are in recognition of the broader psychological consequences and impact of forced removals on the indigenous community: “profound Grief, suffering and loss”; “pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, Their descendants and for their families”. The apology makes reference to how ‘successive Governments’ have negatively affected Indigenous peoples. Indigenous people are referred to as ‘the oldest continuing cultures in human history’, in acknowledgement and emphasis of the exclusive status that Indigenous Australians represent in human history. The past is termed as “blemished chapter in our nation’s history”, invoking the nation in the category of super ordinate, but orientated in the majority non-indigenous population. The apology clearly states that the apology is being made on behalf of non indigenous people of Australia to the Indigenous population. The term “nation” functions here as a membership category that differentiates between two social groups: Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians. This served to highlight historical mistreatment of Indigenous Australians are referred to as ‘our fellow Australians’ with emphasis clearly notable. Rudd first refers to indigenous people as part of the nation ,then membership terms are used to place indigenous people in social categories that are distinct ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’, proud people, proud culture, Stolen Generations ,contrasting Australians that are indigenous to non indigenous people. There is a flexible movement between the “nation” that is inclusive of the indigenous population “our fellow Australians” the super ordinate level. At the intermediate level the emphases is placed in the distinct intergroup criteria between the two groups. “indigenous people of this land” After the apology made on behalf of parliament and government , it is of significance that he makes an apology in first person “ Prime Minister of Australia” “To the stolen generations, I say the following as Prime Minister of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the government of Australia I am sorry. And I offer you this apology without qualification.” This apology in first person ‘I am sorry’ is repeated 3 times and further engraves the apology sincerity and undermining criticisms that the apology was not sufficient or incomplete. Rudd in contrast to the previous Prime Minister John Howard ,who refused to say “sorry” ,attributes direct responsibility and blame “the laws and policies of successive governments and parliaments” and later ‘We the parliaments of the nation are ultimately responsible , not those who gave effect to our laws’ This conforms to the central pragmatic functions in interpersonal apologies, accepting responsibility and blame (Olshtain and Cohen, 1983). Extract 2 “So many have asked why apologize? Let me begin to answer by telling the parliament just a little of one person’s story. |An elegant eloquent and wonderful woman in her 80s.Full of life full of funny stories despite what has happened in her life’s journey, a woman, who has travelled a long way to be with us today, a stolen generation member who shared some of her story with me when I called around to see her just a few days ago. Anna Nungala Fejo as she prefers to be called was born in the late 1920s.She remembers her earliest childhood day living with her family and her community in a bush camp just outside Tennant Creek. She remembers the love and the warmth and the kinship of those days’s long ago including traditional dancing around the camp fire at night she loved the dancing. She remembers once getting into strife when as a four-year-old girl, she insisted on dancing with the male tribal elders rather than just sitting and watching the men as the girls were supposed to do. But then sometime around 1932 when she was about four she remembers the coming of the welfare men. Her family had feared that day and had dug holes in the creek bank where the children could run and hide. What they hadn’t expected was that the white welfare men didn’t come alone. They brought a truck they brought two white men Aboriginal stockman on horseback cracking his stock whip. The kids were found, they ran for their mothers screaming but they couldn’t get away. They were herded and piled onto the back of the truck. Tears flowing. Her mum tried clinging to the sides of the truck as her children were taken away to the Bungalow Alice, all in the name of protection. Anna Fejo never saw her mum again. After she left the mission her brother let her know that her mum had died years before a broken woman fretting for the children that had literally been ripped away from her.Nanna Fejo::s is just one story. There are thousands, tens of thousands of. Stories of forced separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their mums and dads over the better part of a century. Some of these stories are graphically told in Bringing them home. the report commissioned in 1995 by Prime Minister Keating received in 1997 by Prime Minister Howard. Active voicing used in the line (‘some have asked, “Why apologize?”’), Rudd details one story, of a living testament , that he personally met with Nanna Fejo, ‘just a few days ago’ . This indicates immediacy of telling it, through a personal visit the prime minister undertook . This reflects to build the identity of Rudd, a president who took time to listen personally to a constituency member , not just analyze reports ,data or books, The first hand encounter builds the reality function of the apology . He does not quote Nanna Fejo directly. In his description: ‘Her family had … dug holes in the creek bank’; ‘Tears flowing, her mum tried clinging to the sides of the truck’. The narrative is vivid and detailed; it portrays the account as authentic and accurate. It is significant in rhetorically invoking emotion. There is an emphasis on the membership categories, family, mum, kids in opposition to “the welfare men”, depicting institutional power over helpless children and mothers. Other descriptions such as ‘herded and piled’, connotes the dehumanized treatment inflicted on children. Other emotional terms used include “feared”, “tears”, “broken”, “fretting”, further illustrating the grave injustice image The line ‘thousands, tens of thousands’ augments the experience as not isolated. The Nanna Fejo personal story is a prototype of “Stolen Generations”. The quantification use, ‘thousands’ to ‘tens of thousands’, amplifies frequency of these experiences. Rudd then cites a report, drawing facts, indicating that the Nanna Fejo story is validated, empirically in official historical record. Richer and Hopkins (2001) in their mobilization discourse (Self and Nation), it is stated that political leaders have a central goal, to connect, be inclusive and speak to a mass amount of people in the nation. It is a common tool in political circles as a discourse to restore public image of political parties and figures. Truth commissions and public apologies are mechanisms addressing historical injustices with similar goals .In South Africa victims of apartheid wanted truth revealed. The grotesque truth was needed to be revealed for healing, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was developed as a culture of human rights . Not ignoring the truth of the past but disclosing it, for morality with peace and reconciliation. Both techniques were intended as a step toward group relations formally assigning an end to historical wrongdoings and allowing social and political relations to begin in a new perspective. In practice, symbolic limits are placed on truth commissions and apologies for the promotion of legal and political stability. If truth commissions and apologies do not effectively address the historic and continual injustices that are committed to the affected groups, they represent mechanisms that are flawed for the actual transformation of inter-group relations. REFERENCES LeCouteur A (2001) ‘On saying sorry’: Nobles M (2008) The Politics of Official Apologies. New York: Cambridge University Press Abadi A (1990) The speech act of apology in political life. Journal of Pragmatics Read, P., 1982, The Stolen Generations: the Removal of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969 Semantic Problem’, in P. Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretation, (Evanston: Northwestern University Press), pp.62-78. Rose, D. B., 2004, Reports from a Wild Country: Ethics for Decolonisation, (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press). Rudd, K., 2008, ‘Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples’, accessed via http://www.aph.gov.au/house/Rudd_Speech.pdf on 02/03/2008. Schwandt, T., 2000, ‘Three Epistemological Stances for Qualitative Inquiry Read, P., 1998, ‘The return of the Stolen Generations’, Journal of Australian Studies. Read More