Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 14:3 (2023) ► pp.410–433

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Getting involved or acting in defence

How a corporation uses the ritual act of apology in response to public criticism

ORCiD logo with link | Zhejiang Gongshang University
 | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Published online: 3 April 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.20014.yan
Abstract
This study explores the business ritual practice of apology in corporate crisis management. By comparing the frequencies and analysing apology strategies from fifty local and nonlocal Chinese companies’ public letters of apology, we extend the politeness study of public apology to a broader hierarchy of a ritual frame and discuss the related formulaic patterns and strategies of apology. The results show that both groups share a high proportion of taking responsibility and explaining but differ significantly in their use of such strategies. We find that the business ritual practice of apology varies in accordance with the cultural identity of the corporation. Local Chinese companies tend to greatly rely on a ritual frame of involvement, whereas nonlocal companies take an interest in constructing a ritual frame of defence. The paper provides implications for the scholars of cross-cultural pragmatics and for business practitioners and future research directions for a ritual perspective when revisiting the practice of apology.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical rationale
    • 2.1Corporate apology
    • 2.2Cultural identity and corporate apology
    • 2.3A ritual perspective of apology
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Data collection
    • 3.2Data analysis
  • 4.Findings and discussion
    • 4.1Strategies and formulaic patterns of corporate apology
      • 4.1.1Expression of apology
      • 4.1.2Taking responsibility
        • Explicit expression of self-responsibility
        • Acknowledgement of self-deficiency
      • 4.1.3Explaining
        • Buck-passing
        • Reference to corporate values
      • 4.1.4Showing empathy
      • 4.1.5Others
    • 4.2Ritual frame of involvement vs. ritual frame of defence
      • 4.2.1Local companies’ ritual frame of involvement
      • 4.2.2Nonlocal companies’ ritual frame of defence
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Symbols used in morphological gloss
  • References
References (43)
References
Al Masaeed, Khaled, Linda R. Waugh, and Katharine E. Burns. 2018. “The development of interlanguage pragmatics in L2 Arabic: The production of apology strategies.” System 741: 98–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles. 1994. Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Battistella, Edwin L. 2014. Sorry About That: The Language of Public Apology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benoit, William L. 1995. Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1997. “Image repair discourse and crisis communication.” Public Relations Review 23 (2):177–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain. 1984. “Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics 5 (3):196–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Andrew D., and Elite Olshtain. 1981. “Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology.” Language Learning 31 (1):113–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coombs, W. Timothy. 2013. “An overview of challenges facing collective apologies: Their use in the corporate world.” In D. Cuypers, D. Janssen, J. Haers & B. Segaert (Eds.), Public Apology between Ritual and Regret, 229–249. Amsterdam/New York: Brill Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hearit, Keith Michael. 2006. Crisis Management by Apology：Corporate Response to Allegations of Wrongdoing. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ide, Risako. 1998. “‘Sorry for your kindness’: Japanese interactional ritual in public discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 29 (5):509–529. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Jeremy F., and Adrefiza. 2017. “Comparing apologies in Australian English and Bahasa Indonesia: Cultural and gender perspectives.” Journal of Politeness Research 13 (1):89–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joseph, John E. 2013. “Identity work and face work across linguistic and cultural boundaries.” Journal of Politeness Research 9 (1):35–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. 2013. Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Juliane House. 2019. “Revisiting speech acts from the perspective of ritual: A discussion note.” Multilingua 38 (6):687–692. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. “Ritual frames: A contrastive pragmatic approach.” Pragmatics 30 (1):142–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z., Pu-yu Ning, and Yong-ping Ran. 2018. “Public ritual apology – A case study of Chinese.” Discourse, Context & Media 261: 21–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kampf, Zohar. 2009. “Public (non-) apologies: The discourse of minimizing responsibility.” Journal of Pragmatics 411: 2257–2270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “The discourse of public apologies: Modes of realization, interpretation and mediation.” In Public Apology between Ritual and Regret, D. Cuypers, D. Janssen, J. Haers & B. Segaert (Eds.), Public Apology between Ritual and Regret, 147–167. Amsterdam/New York: Brill Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Suman, and Surin Chung. 2012. “Corporate apology and crisis communication: The effect of responsibility admittance and sympathetic expression on public’s anger relief.” Public Relations Review 381: 932–934. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ma, Liang. 2020. “How the interplay of consumer-brand identification and crises influences the effectiveness of corporate response strategies.” International Journal of Business Communication 60 (1):84–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogiermann, Eva. 2009. On Apologising in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Page, Ruth. 2014. “Saying ‘sorry’: Corporate apologies posted on Twitter.” Journal of Pragmatics 621: 30–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schoofs, Lieze, An-Sofie Claeys, Aurélie De Waele, and Verolien Cauberghe. 2019. “The role of empathy in crisis communication: Providing a deeper understanding of how organizational crises and crisis communication affect reputation.” Public Relations Review 45 (5):101851. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scollon, Ronald, and Suzanne Wong Scollon. 2001. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, Marvin B., and Stanford M. Lyman. 1968. “Accounts.” American Sociological Review 33 (1):46–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semin, Gün R., and Antony S. R. Manstead. 1983. The Accountability of Conducts: A Social Psychological Analysis. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shardakova, Maria. 2005. “Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2 learners of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian.” Intercultural Pragmatics 2 (4):423–451. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Nick. 2013. “An overview of challenges facing collective apologies.” In D. Cuypers, D. Janssen, J. Haers & B. Segaert (Eds.), Public Apology between Ritual and Regret, 29–44. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tabatabaei, Soudabeh, Gonca Gencer, Esra Eldem, and Morteza Bakhtiarvand. 2018. “A comparative analysis of the apology strategy between Turkish EFL learners and English native speakers.” Applied Linguistics Research Journal 3 (3):1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tavuchis, Nicholas. 1991. A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna, and Philip Shaw. 2005. “Acquiring prescriptive business pragmatics: The case of customer complaints handling.” In A. Trosborg & P. E. Jørgensen (Eds.), Business Discourse: Texts and Contexts, 185–224. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Villadsen, Lisa S. 2013. “The regretful acknowledgement: A dignified end to a disgraceful story?” In D. Cuypers, D. Janssen, J. Haers & B. Segaert (Eds.), Public Apology between Ritual and Regret, 209–228. Amsterdam/New York: Podopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Yijing, and Daniel Laufer. 2020. “How does crisis management in China differ from the West?: A review of the literature and directions for future research.” Journal of International Management 26 (1):100708. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhu, Lin, Deepa Anagondahalli, and Ai Zhang. 2017. “Social media and culture in crisis communication: McDonald’s and KFC crises management in China.” Public Relations Review 43 (3):487–492. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ran, Yongping & Jiabei Hu
2025. How public discourse functions to restore moral orders. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) DOI logo
Yu, Guodong, Chase Wesley Raymond & Yaxin Wu
2025. Apologies in Mandarin Chinese conversation: Lexical format and the reflexive construction of ‘apologizeables’. Journal of Pragmatics 242 ► pp. 60 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Cun, Pingping Ye & Xinyue Li
2025. A corpus-based analysis of corporate apologies and public responses on Chinese social media. Journal of Pragmatics 240 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue