How the police (over)use explicit apology language to manage aspects of their identity

Author:

Friskney Ruth1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, University of Glasgow , Glasgow , UK

Abstract

Abstract Public and academic debate suggest a perception that institutions such as the police may be reluctant to apologise or ineffective when they do. This article takes the unusual step of considering the apology culture of the institution potentially offering apology as a crucial step in identifying possible barriers to change in institutional practice. I have analysed explicit apology language in letters written by Scottish police to individuals as a final stage in responding to their complaints about the police. Rather than police reluctance to apologise, I found the police potentially overusing apology language, in the sense that explicit apology language was consistently used where evidence both had and had not been found that the police were at fault. The grammatical construction of the explicit apology language differed between these two contexts. I conclude that police politeness culture includes an empirical norm to use explicit apology language in response to public complaints regardless of the outcome of that complaint, as part of their identity as a public service institution. Tension between this empirical norm and another aspect of police identity, as a law enforcement institution, is managed by a systematic grammatical distinction in apology language patterning with the complaint outcome.

Funder

Arts and Humanities Research Council

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Linguistics and Language,Communication,Language and Linguistics,Cultural Studies,Social Psychology

Reference63 articles.

1. Aijmer, Karin. 1995. Do women apologise more than men? In Gunnel Melchers & Beatrice Warren (eds.), Studies in Anglistics, 55–70. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

2. Ancarno, Clyde. 2011. Press representations of successful public apologies in Britain and France. University of Reading Language Studies Working Papers 3. 38–50.

3. Austin, John Langshaw. 1961. Ifs and cans. In James O. Urmson & Geoffrey J. Warnock (eds.), Philosophical papers, 153–180. London: Clarendon Press.

4. Austin, John Langshaw. 1975. How to do things with words. In James O. Urmson & Marina Sbisa (eds.), The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955, 2nd edn. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

5. Beeching, Kate & James Murphy. 2019. Introduction: Strategic uses of politeness formulae. Analytical approaches and theoretical accounts. Journal of Pragmatics 142. 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.027.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3