‘I'm sorry + naming the offense’: A format for apologising

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hdsp20

Download by: [Libera Universita di Bolzano] Date: 05 May 2016, At: 01:51

Discourse Processes

ISSN: 0163-853X (Print) 1532-6950 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hdsp20

“I'm Sorry + Naming the Offense”: A Format forApologizing

Letizia Cirillo, Isabel Colón de Carvajal & Anna Claudia Ticca

To cite this article: Letizia Cirillo, Isabel Colón de Carvajal & Anna Claudia Ticca (2016) “I'mSorry + Naming the Offense”: A Format for Apologizing, Discourse Processes, 53:1-2, 83-96,DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056691

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056691

Accepted author version posted online: 14Jun 2015.Published online: 14 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 105

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

“I’m Sorry 1 Naming the Offense”:A Format for Apologizing

Letizia CirilloFaculty of Economics and Management/Competence Centre for Language

Studies Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy

Isabel Colon de CarvajalInteractions, Corpus, Apprentissages, Representations Lab

Ecole Normale Superieure, Lyon, France

Anna Claudia TiccaEtudes Avancees sur la Complexite du Langage Lab/Interactions, Corpus,

Apprentissages, Representations Lab

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Lyon, France

The present article focuses on “I’m sorry þ naming the offense”–formatted

apologies occurring in phone calls in English. Apologies of this kind “emerge” and

are oriented to as relevant actions when addressing an apologizable that is not the

main business in ongoing talk. The sequential analysis of apologies and responses to

apologies suggest that the format “I’m sorryþ naming the offense” relates to either

minimal/potential offenses or even no offenses, that is, actions for which the

apologizer’s accountability is not visibly at stake. Therefore, the format thus

identified seems to accomplish actions other than (just) apologizing, such as

expressing regret or minimizing a compliment, ultimately being a fruitful resource

to reinforce social solidarity.

83

This article was accepted under the editorship of Michael Schober.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anna Claudia Ticca, I.C.A.R.

(Interactions, Corpus, Apprentissages, Representations), UMR 5191, Ecole Normale Superieure, 15,

parvis Rene Descartes, BP 7000 69342, Lyon Cedex, France. E-mail: [email protected]

Discourse Processes, 53:83–96, 2016

Copyright q Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0163-853X print/1532-6950 online

DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056691

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016

INTRODUCTION

Apologies are a special class of offense-remedial–related actions. According to

Robinson (2004, pp. 316–317), they are expressions of regret occurring when the

object of such regret is an offense for which “the speaker of regret is personally

responsible [ . . . ] and one that directly affects the recipient of regret.”

Moving from this definition, we have focused on “sorry”-based explicit apologies,

specifically on the format “I’m sorryþ naming the offense” occurring in phone calls.

Some apologies of this kind “emerge” and are visibly oriented to as relevant actions

by coparticipants when addressing a “distal” problem, that is, a somehow problem-

atic past or future course of action (see Heritage & Raymond, in press). The fact that

apologies are emergent and not the central topic of the unfolding line of action may

account for the apologizer’s naming of the offense, which is not just referred to (e.g.,

through an indexical; see Margutti, Pugliese, & Traverso, in press) but explicitly

described. In other cases, the potential offense is embedded in the reason for the

call, therefore projecting an “apology þ naming the offense” as next action.

In our study, we found the same format can be used to express regret for potential

offense and missed opportunities, where offenses as such and the apologizer’s

accountability are not visibly at stake, and negotiationsmight occur. In all caseswhat

is referred to is distal past problems or, to be more precise, past potential offenses,

whether something the apologizer has (but should not have) done or something she or

he has not (but should have) done. Overall, the format identified seems to be a fruitful

resource for speakers to accomplish actions other than (just) apologizing for a

(potential) offense, such as displaying social solidarity or minimizing a compliment.

We organized our article into four main sections. First, we examine cases in

which the apology format is used to address a potential offense and to reinforce

social solidarity. Then, we show a case in which the format is used to express a

real apology and to address a real offense. Third, we show a case in which there is

no offense and the format serves to express social solidarity. Finally, we provide

some concluding remarks.

DELIVERY AND RECEPTION OF EMERGENT APOLOGIES

Here we describe the structure of emergent apologies in which the apologizer

expresses regret for a potential offense. We also show that the responses to these

apologies display the minimization of the potential offense.

Excerpt (1) illustrates the typical pattern whereby the apology emerges from

the current talk and is minimized by its recipient. The excerpt is taken from a

phone conversation between two friends, Ava and Jessie. The two friends have

been commenting on an unexpected visit by Ava’s son, daughter-in-law, and

grandchildren. Apparently, Ava was not home when they arrived, and a neighbor,

84 CIRILLO, COLON DE CARVAJAL, TICCA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016

Mrs. Daniels, told them to go over to Jessie’s, where they spent some time until

Ava got back.

Ava and Jessie have been speaking about Ava’s family and the fortunate

intervention of their neighbor, Mrs. Daniels, in enthusiastic terms (lines 1–7).

“I’M SORRY þ NAMING THE OFFENSE” 85

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016

At lines 8 and 9 Jessie expands on the episode saying that Ava’s son may well

have thought his mother was at Jessie’s anyway. Ava shows agreement with this

guess (line 10). and the two friends further exchange agreement tokens (lines 11

and 12), thus orienting to topic closure (on preclosing sequence devices, see

Schegloff & Sacks, 1973). At this point Ava apologizes for having Jessie deal with

her family during her absence (“I’m sorry yih had th’m all on you J e s s i e like

that”; line 13). The apology is made up of two components, the apology proper

(“I’m sorry”) and a description of the apologizable, which we have referred to as

“naming the offense” (i.e., “yih had th’m all on you like that”).

Note that Ava’s apology here makes it possible to re-engage in talk at topic

closure. The apology occurs right after a short sequence of acknowledgments

addressing Jessie’s reinforcement of the neighbor’s smart yet wrong guess about

Ava being at Jessie’s. This makes Ava’s “fault” for not being home relevant and

causes her apology to emerge. Ava’s apology is met with a preferred response by

Jessie (lines 14, 16), who rejects the apology (“Oh don’t be silly”) and reverts the

apologizable into a positive event (“No: that w’z lovely it w’z a nice surpri: se”).1

In so doing, Jessie challenges the relevance of the very act of apologizing, thus

dismissing the potential offense named in Ava’s turn (see Heritage & Raymond,

in press; Robinson, 2004, pp. 306–307).2

In this case the apology sequence works toward the maintenance and

consolidation of a social relationship, showing both the apologizer’s respect for

the recipient’s space and time (and hence the need to apologize for possibly

causing inconvenience in her life) and the recipient’s refusal to acknowledge an

unexpected event as an offense, as well as her display of that event being in fact

pleasant for her.

Excerpt (2) illustrates a similar case of apology sequence emerging from

current talk and addressing a topic whose closure is in process.

(2) [Holt:SO88(II):1:3:16,19]

1According to Robinson (2004, p. 307), “oh” prefacing an absolution-type response upgrades the

degree of absolution.2The fact that Jessie’s response occurs at the first possible transition relevance place (and in partial

overlap with Ava’s apology) confirms the “timely” occurrence of preferred responses to first-pair parts

(Levinson, 1983; Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, 1987).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016

At lines 1 and 2 Hal asks Leslie whether she has been informed about a Scout

dance by a third party (Marian), and, given Leslie’s negative reply, he unpacks

specific information about the dance, thus implicitly inviting her to participate,3

even if slightly late (line 2). Note that the time reference “it’s too late now” in the

caller’s initial inquiry is indirectly addressing his culpability for not having

delivered the invitation himself in due time. Next, Leslie concedes that Marian

may have mentioned the dance, and, after a few turns, the two friends arrange

about Leslie letting Hal know if she and her husband can participate (lines 13–

22). In so doing, they orient to topic closure.

However, after a very brief pause, Hal resumes the previous topic by

apologizing for not making the invitation personally (“But um: uh (0.2) I I’m

sorry I (·) didn’ as’ you pers’ny but (·) you”; line 23)4 and by further adding an

account (“you appreciate I thought the message w’z g’nna get through through”;

line 24), which sounds like a request for partial absolution. The absolution is

produced in the following lines, where Leslie considers the possibility of having

being informed about the dance and of being herself the person to blame for

forgetting it (lines 25–28). In this way, Leslie downscales the apologizable by

somehow sharing responsibility for it. Laugh tokens at line 28 further mitigate the

potential offense (see Glenn, 2003; Jefferson, Sacks, & Schegloff, 1987) and

close the apology sequence.

3On invitations, see Clayman (2002) and Schegloff (2004), among others.4On “but” as a resuming device, see Mazeland and Huiskes (2001).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016

Although Leslie does not reject the apology, she challenges its claim to have

caused offense, and therefore the very need to apologize, by shifting the focus

from the missed invitation to the “jolly” character of the evening when she was

possibly invited to the dance (line 26). This shift is actually prompted by Hal’s

implicit inquiry about the message getting through (line 24). The fact that in

previous lines not only does Leslie not reject the invitation but also aligns with

Hal to making arrangements about the dance, already displays her no-problem

stance regarding this “last-minute” invitation. This fact, however, does not

prevent Hal from mentioning the possible offense caused by not having invited

her personally. It is only after the coparticipants have jointly defined the import of

the offense (i.e., once Leslie has “reassured” Hal, who thus ascertains that his

missing invitation has not had any negative consequences on her) that the

apology sequence is brought to an end.

A similar case is illustrated in excerpt (3), where the “I’m sorry þ naming the

offense” format accomplishes an action of apologizing and is acknowledged with

a minimal response. In this case, the apology is offered as a next action after a

compliment-like turn produced at topic closure.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016

At lines 2–5 Philip and Leslie orient toward the closure of the current topic and

the initiation of a new one. Leslie introduces the new topic via the presequence

device (Schegloff, 2007) “The " other 8thin:g8”, but, almost simultaneously,

Philip tropicalizes his appreciation of Leslie’s call with what can be considered a

preclosing turn (“Very kind’v you ringin’” at line 6; see Schegloff & Sacks,

1973). In so doing Philip projects Leslie’s next action, which consists in a “well”-

prefaced “I am sorry”–formatted apology followed by a short mention of her

inability to call him the day before, despite her efforts (“Well I’m sorry I couldn’t

ring yesterday I trie:d hhheh”; line 8). Interestingly, and similarly to what

happens with “parasitic” apologies in call-opening sequences (see Galatolo, Ursi,

& Bongelli, in press), it is only through the production of the apology that the

potential offense (i.e., not calling the day before) is explicitly referred to. Its

recipient, however, does not seem to consider it as a misdeed and does not treat

the apologizer’s turn as an apology requiring absolution (line 9). The sequence is

brought to an end by Leslie’s next turn (lines 14 and 15), which, by recycling the

same structure used at line 5 (“The " other thin:g”), resumes the suspended

course of action and finally abandons the apology-like sequence.

A closer look at the sequential position of the apology shows this is produced

as a second-pair part in response to the appreciation at line 6. Appreciations of

this kind are very similar to compliments, for which preferred responses are those

that ideally agree with the speakers of compliments while at the same time

avoiding self-praise (Pomerantz, 1978, 1984). In other words, Leslie’s reference

to the missed action of calling at an earlier stage, modulated by laugh particles,5

while displaying her regret for not calling earlier (see Real Apologies Elicited

by the Reason for the Call, next) is likely to be a way of scaling down Philip’s

appreciation and escaping self-approval.

In all the cases analyzed here the apology format, which overtly indexes

offenses, addresses a potentially offensive conduct. The recipients of the apology

orient toward the minimization of the offense and collaborate in fixing the

potential relational damage caused by the apologizer.

REAL APOLOGIES ELICITED BY THE REASON FOR THE CALL

In this section we examine a case in which the same format for apologizing

discussed in the previous section is used to accomplish what it claims, namely to

apologize for a real offense. In (4) the offense is evoked by the delivery of the

5Leslie’s post-completion laugh particles (see Jefferson, 1979) modulate the serious character of the

turn (Shaw, Hepburn, & Potter, 2013). Without laugh particles, in fact, the turn might as well be seen

as a complaint about Philip not being available to take Leslie’s call.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016

reason for the call. Mrs. Madeiros from Redondo High School calls at Richards’

household; the call is taken by Mrs. Richards.

(4) [Medeiros:JPP:1:1]

After the first opening turns of the call, where a somehow problematic display of

the interlocutors’ identities occurs, the caller delivers the reason for the call by

inquiring whether Mrs. Richards’ (the called) son is home ill that day (line 9). With a

slight delay, Mrs. Richards responds with a hesitation (line 10), followed by an

affirmative reply to the inquiry, and by an apology for not calling (lines 10–12). Here,

as in excerpts (1) and (2), the apologyproper (“I’msorry”) is followedby adescription

of the apologizable (“I I didn’t call”). This time, however, a rather long account

follows (lines 10–13), inwhich, besides expandingonher son’s illness,Mrs.Richards

seems to be seeking an absolution by explaining what has prevented her from calling

(lines 11–13), that is, her own indisposition (see Robinson, 2004; Schegloff, 2001).

Note that the stance taken by the recipient of the apology is not at all

absolutory. The item “Uh hu:h,” at line 14, in fact, treats the previous apology as


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016

insufficient, thus calling for further elaboration, which occurs in the following

line. As to the apologizer, she has to respond to both the direct inquiry produced

by the caller and the offense caused by not complying with a normative

expectation (i.e., informing the school of her child’s absence), which is formally,

although indirectly, sanctioned through the call.

Contrary to what we have observed in (1)–(3), where apologies occur after a

nonproblematic course of action and give rise to a new one (the apology

sequence), the apology in (4) is embedded in the response to the caller’s inquiry,

which by itself addresses the breaking of a social norm (it should be the parents

who call the school). In this case then, not only is the apology relevant but also

required, and the format used fully accomplishes this relevant action.

APOLOGIES FOR NO-OFFENSE RELATED ACTIONS

Here we focus on a case in which the format “I’m sorryþ naming the offense” is

used to accomplish actions other than apologizing for a potential offense, namely

expressing regret for a missed action. When this happens a minimal response

occurs, which contributes to establishing the nonproblematic nature of the

accident thus described. In this case, the apology-like sequence is also emergent

in that it originates from ongoing trajectories of action, which are then resumed.

As noted in the previous two sections, apologies are ways of repairing some

wrongdoing, that is, of compensating for an action or behavior that goes counter to

a normative social expectation of some kind. In some cases, however, as discussed

in previous literature (see Holmes, 1990; Obeng, 1999; Robinson, 2004), “I’m

sorry”–prefaced utterances may serve to express regret for something the

recipient of any such utterance is experiencing, without the person who is sorry

being responsible for that experience (as happens in expressions of condolence).

Similarly, “I’m sorry”–prefaced utterances may be used when those expressing

regret are not directly responsible for the unfortunate event addressed in current

talk but may have done something with a bearing on their coparticipants (without

that something having a cause-and-effect relation to the unfortunate event).

Interestingly, in the next case the apologizer uses the same format used for doing

other types of apologies. Such a case is exemplified in excerpt (5).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016

At line 1 Bea responds to Fern’s good news about her arm’s recovery. Bea

then reports on thinking of Fern and stopping by to pay her a visit the previous

Monday (lines 3 and 4). Fern first acknowledges this information (line 5) and then

continuing adds a well-prefaced turn (line 7) in which she apologizes for not

being in when her friend stopped by, which Bea minimally acknowledges

(“yeah”; line 8). After a subsequent alternation of minimal turns at lines 9 and 10,

Fern projects topic shift (with “anyway” at line 11), whereas Bea continues

reporting on her being out and passing by Fern’s place (lines 12–14). Only at line

15 is Fern able to achieve the closure of the current topic and the initiation of

what, retrospectively, is a proposition to get together in the near future (see lines

15 and 16, and 17–24, where the two friends make arrangements about a card

game).

As in excerpts (1)–(3), in (5) the apology-like sequence also addresses a past

event and is embedded in the current talk without being its main topic. Here, the

apology sequence responds to what might be seen as an implicit complaint for a

missed opportunity, which is the object of regret in current talk. Interestingly, and

contrary to what has been observed so far, the recipient of the apology, rather than

questioning the need to apologize, keeps the focus on the object of regret (which

is the equivalent of the apologizable in the excerpts analyzed above),6

challenging the apologizer’s initiative to move on with her line of talk (lines 11

and 12). This may in itself explain that what is being done is not apologizing but

simply expressing regret. Indeed, the fact that Fern was not home at the time of

Bea’s visit (which was not agreed on by the two friends) is treated as an accident

rather than an offense for which Fern can claim responsibility. The low degree (or

lack) of Fern’s responsibility for this “accident” may also explain the fact that

what follows the apology is an agreement token by Bea (line 8) rather than an

absolution on her part. The particle “yeah” treats the preceding apology as the

expression of an emotion or state of mind, which the recipient of the apology

displays agreement with, or, in other words, which she shares with the

apologizer.7

Thus, in the excerpt analyzed in this section, the format “I’m sorry þ naming

the offense/regret” is essentially used to (establish and) maintain social solidarity.

Against this background, minimal responses to turns designed as explicit

apologies can be accounted for in terms of the type of action accomplished, that

is, expressing regret, not requiring absolving replies.

6In this section the terms “apology,” “apologizable,” “apologizer,” and “recipient of the apology”

are used for ease of reference, although the examples discussed involve expressions of regret rather

than apologies proper.7Arguably, Fern’s apologymayalsobe seen asaway to exit the line of action initiated byBea’s complaint

at lines 3 and 4, which projects an extended sequence (see line 12; Heinemann & Traverso, 2009).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016

CONCLUSIONS

In the present article we focused on “I’m sorry”–formatted apologies. Such

apologies are characterized by a “naming the offense” component used by the

apologizer to tropicalize an apologizable that is not the main business at hand in

current talk but either emerges in the course of an unfolding activity (as in

excerpts (1)–(3) and (5)) or is implied in the delivery of the reason for the call (as

in excerpt (4)). Our analysis shows that the “I’m sorry þ naming the offense”

format accomplishes different types of actions. These are sensitive to the

sequential position of the apology-formatted turn, the object of the apology, and

the apologizer’s accountability and receive different responses by their recipient.

As to their sequential position, some apologies can occur at topic closure (see

excerpts (1) and (2)), thus favoring the reopening of previous talk. By introducing

apologies in this position, participants take their last chance to claim

responsibility for a possible offense and thus to re-establish a possibly damaged

social relationship. Interestingly, in (1) and (2) the offense implied in the apology

is dismissed by respectively turning it into a positive event (excerpt (1)) and by

claiming shared responsibility for it (excerpt (2)).

Apology-formatted turns can also occur in response to prior actions, as

illustrated in excerpt (5). In this case, what is accomplished is not an apology in

which an offense is identified and responded to but rather a display of regret for a

missed opportunity, which is recalled in a prior turn.

The object of the apology is another important element to consider when dealing

with the “I’m sorry þ naming the offense” format. Specifically, the degree of

accountability associated with the apologizable seems to have a bearing on the

interactional work conducted throughout the apology sequence. Arguably, when the

accountability for a given apologizable is weak, as in (5), the apologizable is not

accompanied by any account produced by the apologizer to justify the presumed

offense (as it happens instead in excerpts (1)–(3)) and is not treated as an offense by

the recipient of the apology but rather as amisfortune one can atmost complain about.

Concerning the relationship between the import of the potential offense and

the contextual environment in which it occurs (see also Heritage & Raymond,

in press), the analysis suggests that “emergent” apologies seem to be related to

minimal offenses. Indeed, in our collection all emergent apologies are treated as

dealing with minimal offenses. Further investigation is needed to specify whether

the import of the offense can be recurrently inferred from the sequential position

of apologies within the phone call.

Finally, our study seems to suggest that the link between real offenses and the

apology-like format used to address them is not as strong as it might look. Rather,

in most of the cases analyzed here, the format “I am sorryþ naming the offense”

accomplishes nonapology actions, that is, it expresses regret and seems to either

rearticulate or reinforce social solidarity.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016

REFERENCES

Clayman, S. E. (2002). Sequence and solidarity. Advances in Group Processes, 19, 229–253.

Galatolo, R., Ursi, B., & Bongelli, R. (in press). Parasitic apologies. Discourse Processes.

doi:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056694

Glenn, P. J. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Heinemann, T., & Traverso, V. (2009). Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41,

2381–2384.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (in press). Are explicit apologies proportional to the offenses they

address? Discourse Processes. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056695

Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19, 155–199.

Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination.

In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 79–96). New York, NY:

Irvington.

Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy.

In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 152–205). Philadelphia, PA:

Multilingual Matters.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch “but” as a sequential conjunction. In M. Selting &

E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 141–169). Amsterdam, The

Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Margutti, P., Pugliese, R., & Traverso, V. (in press). Indexical apologies. Discourse Processes.

doi:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056693

Obeng, S. G. (1999). Apologies in Akan discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 709–734.

Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints.

In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79–112). New

York, NY: Academic Press.

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/

dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action

(pp. 57–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, J. D. (2004). The sequential organization of “explicit” apologies in naturally occurring

English. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 37, 291–330.

Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation.

In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Philadelphia, PA:

Multilingual Matters.

Shaw, C., Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2013). Having the last laugh: On post completion laughter

particles. In P. Glenn & E. Holt (Eds.), Studies of laughter in interaction (pp. 91–106). London,

UK: Bloomsbury.

Schegloff, E. A. (2001). Getting serious: joke -. serious “no.” Journal of Pragmatics, 33,

1947–1955.

Schegloff, E. A. (2004). Answering the phone. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: studies

from the first generation (pp. 63–107). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: a primer in conversation analysis

(Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lib

era

Uni

vers

ita d

i Bol

zano

] at

01:

51 0

5 M

ay 2

016

Documents

‘I'm sorry + naming the offense’: A format for apologising