Cover not available
Part of
The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 151–168

On discourse-motivated “sorries”

Fictive apologies in English, Hungarian, and Romanian

| Case Western Reserve University, USA

This chapter discusses the forms and functions of fictive apologies with examples from English, Hungarian, and Romanian. The analysis is carried out from a usage-based perspective with examples from spoken and written language corpora. In terms of form, fictive apologies are instantiations of a construction containing an explicit expression of apology and a noun of address, which involves a fictive interaction and a role shift from actual discourse topic to fictive addressee. Fictive apologies perform multiple functions, such as disagreement, irony, sarcasm, refusal, reproach, humorous insult, and empathy. This chapter is the first extended study of fictive apologies that contributes to a more integrated account of the ways in which discourse is modelled by the conversation frame.

Keywords: corpora, cross-linguistic, discourse analysis, usage-based approach
Published online: 1 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.08dem
References
Anthony, L
(2011) AntConc (Version 3.2.4). Tokyo.Google Scholar
Austin, J.L
(1975) How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beebe, L.M., & Cummings, M.C
(1995) Natural speech act versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S.M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 65–88). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bubel, C.M
(2008) Film audiences as overhearers. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Carlson, T.B
(1982) Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58(2), 332–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A.D
(2005) Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Interlanguage Pragmatics, 2(3), 275–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A.D., & Olshtain, E
(1994) Researching the production of second-language speech acts. In E.E. Tarone, S.M. Gass, & A.D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 143–156). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cooren, F
(2010) Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation and ventriloquism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Communication theory at the center: Ventriloquism and the communicative constitution of reality. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W
(2002) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 273–314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D.A
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M
(2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. Available from [URL]
Demeter, G
(2011) Explicit apologies in English and Romanian. A construction grammar approach. PhD dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
Fraser, B
(1981) On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 259–271). New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
Goffman, E
(1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
(1963) Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
(1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(1992) The inherent semantics of argument structure. The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 37–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greavu, A
(2007) Corpuseye Romanian Business Corpus. Available from [URL]
Holmes, J
(1990) Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19(2), 155–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M
(1991) Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics [microform]. Manoa, Hawaii: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Koehn, P
(2005) Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. MT summit, 5, 79–86. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Virtual reality. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 29(2), 77–103.Google Scholar
(2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T
(2004) Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1389–1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y
(1996) Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 183–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mihalcea, R
(2003) Romanian corpus of newspaper articles. Available from [URL]
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A.D
(1983) Apology: A speech-act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18–35). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pascual, E
(2002) Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2006) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Fictive interaction blends in everyday life and courtroom settings. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 79–107). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R
(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L
(1996) Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In P. Bloom, M.F. Garrett, L. Nadel, & M.A. Peterson (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 211–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D
(2004) Talking the dog: Framing pets as interactional resources in family discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(4), 399–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tobin, V
(2014) Readers as overhearers and texts as objects: Joint attention in reading communities. Scripta, 18(34), 179–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trosborg, A
(1995) Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Váradi, T
(2002) The Hungarian National Corpus. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation , 385–389. Retrieved from [URL]