Two Codes for Remedying Problematic Situations: Japanese and English Speakers’ Views of Explanations and Apologies in the United States

Abstract

This study describes speech codes used by Japanese and English speakers in remedying problematic situations. By analyzing in-depth interviews, the study reveals the Japanese-speaking participants’ use of a code in which offering detailed explanations can be a way to deny having caused another person discomfort, thus being incompatible with their meaning of “apology.” The English-speaking participants used a code in which offering and listening to explanations is a way to show that they care about the relationship and to seek forgiveness. The analysis illustrates how the participants used these codes as a resource to draw a boundary between two speech communities.

Keywords:

• Apology
• explanations
• Japanese
• remedial episodes
• speech codes
• speech communities

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. The concepts that are related to remedial episodes include “accounts” (Scott & Lyman, 1968), “aligning actions” (Stokes & Hewitt, 1976), “alignment episodes” (Hall, 1991), “alignment talk” (Morris, 1991), “disclaimers” (Hewitt & Stokes, 1975), “motive” talk (Mills, 1940), “quasi-theories” (Hall & Hewitt, 1970; Hewitt & Hall, 1973), “remedial interchanges” (Goffman, 1971), “social accountability” (Buttny, 1993), and “social confrontation episodes” (Newell & Stutman, 1988). I use the concept of remedial episodes broadly to include these features of talk.

2. I use the term “apology” (and “apologizing”) with quotation marks in this paper to express the Japanese speakers’ meaning of the action so that it can be distinguished from the English speakers’ meaning of an apology.

3. This interpretation was suggested by one of the reviewers. I appreciate the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on other parts of the paper as well.

4. Buttny (1993) explained accounts as “the use of language to interactionally construct preferred meanings for problematic events” so that another person’s negative evaluations can be transformed. Goffman (1971) stated that “remedial work” functions “to change the meaning that otherwise might be given to an act, transforming what could be seen as offensive into what can be seen as acceptable” (p. 109).

5. For the formulations of codes in general terms on the basis of particular expressions in the participants’ experiences, see Philipsen’s (1992) explication of “Teamsterville” and “Nacirema” codes and Carbaugh’s (2006) description of Finnish code.