Just a phrase?

[lathany]

I was struck by a phrase in this article.

Unconditional apology? Does anyone ever make conditional apologies?

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_kent/]

All the time. A conditional apology, for instance, might express regret for the offence taken, without admitting wrongdoing. Or you might apologise for how you worded something that someone took offence at, without retracting the underlying meaning of the statement.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

I guess; I think that's really apologising for something other than the issue in question. If apologising at all - I've sometimes seen it used as a form of underlining or defending the original statement/action.

I notice that the article also says she "summarily apologised". Still sounds more like didn't apologise.

[kevandotorg.livejournal.com]

The wording of these things is often "I'm sorry if you...", which is very conditional indeed.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

Yeah - that always reminds me of those training courses when they teach you to phrase "when you <X>, I feel <Y>". Although I think I'm more accepting of them than when I first heard them.

[venta.livejournal.com]

I had presume that it was something along the lines of:

If you found what I said offensive then I'm sorry about that.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Right, but the point is that this simplifies to "I'm sorry I offended you", which is not actually an apology for the offensive act in question at all.

[venta.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that's quite true.

For example, if I do X and you're offended it could be that I simply hadn't realised that someone might find X offensive. Once it's been explained to me that you do, I might be then sorry I had done X.

It's a fine line, but I don't think that's quite the same as being sorry for offending you.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

I'm having trouble seeing what role the "conditional" plays, though. Because one of the two case (person not offended) doesn't really make sense...

A: Jehovah!
B: I can't believe you just said that! Apologise!
A: I'm sorry if I offended you, I had no idea that was potentially offensive!
B: No, you didn't offend me.
A: OK, then no apology required.

I simply hadn't realised that someone might find X offensive

Quite plausible. But then that doesn't seem to require a conditional response. Possibly an apology suffixed with an explanation, but that's still an apology.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

From the mass of posts I'm getting, I suspect you're right. I found it an odd name originally though as it sounded like some sort of Snazzy, All the Extras Apology. With Cheese.

Conditional apologies

[applez.livejournal.com]

Sure, read Clinton's refusal and subsequent admissions of sexual indiscretion carefully.

Also, the Chinese tend to find Japan's limited apologies quite conditional.

[venta.livejournal.com]

There's also always the baffling "unreserved apology". I quite like the idea of a reserved apology - if you suspect that in the next 24 hours I'm going to do something unpleasant, perhaps you could reserve the Thursday morning apology for yourself. I'll deliver it when we know what I'm apologising for :)

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Maybe a reserved apology is when you rather shyly send a brief note and quietly go "ahem", rather than falling at their feet and making a scene. Very British.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

Lovely!

[lathany.livejournal.com]

I'd like to reserve a table and an apology.

:-)

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry if you don't like the use of that phrase.

The impression I got was that she felt it wasn't offensive in her intended context of a joke, so her apology was conditional on people not realizing it was a joke / not treating it as such. Whereas the default position is that it's offensive in any context, so those conditions cannot be considered valid.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

That makes sense.

[a-llusive.livejournal.com]

Well, I'd say perhaps that a conditional apology might be an apology given in response to a concession requested from the other person.

Apart from the patching up without admitting culpability discussed in the thread, there's also the qualified apology.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it does sound like that.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Well, given that what the BBC reports she actually did was have her agent issue the statement "Carol is mortified that anyone should take offence at a silly joke. She has summarily apologised.", I can see why the BBC would consider that not a sufficient apology. Although I'm not entirely sure who they think she should be apologising to - them? The tennis player? The people she made the comment to? The nation as a whole?

Anyway, I don't entirely understand why they chose "unconditional" as the adjective to describe that insufficiency, but I'd guess that perhaps they had in mind that her agent's statement was of the form, "on the understanding that my client is not a racist, and that her comment was not a racist comment, and that it was only a silly joke, and there is no good reason for anyone to object to it in any way, she's sorry she made it".

As such, they might think that her apology is "conditional", in that it sets out some things which she is not sorry about (since she doesn't think they're true), and with those "conditions" set, goes on to express mortification. Hence, not unconditional.

As a rule of thumb, I never trust anyone who says they "have apologised". It's a classic politician's trick, to migrate from "not having done anything wrong", to "having apologised", without passing through an intermediate step of actually issuing an apology. A good apology can always be repeated, and therefore can remain in the present tense.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

"I apologise for these bits and not for these bits."

Hmm. Conditional? Not quite the word I would have chosen, but I sort of see some logic behind it.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Sure, if you think of it that way then it's a partial apology (assuming we believe there is more to be apologised for than actually has been).

But the way I construe it as conditional is the "not a racist" preamble: it sounds to me a bit like, "*if* we all agree I'm not racist, *then* I apologise", even though those aren't the exact words used. The political consideration perhaps is that you can't apologise for making a racist remark, since that would be to admit racism, and your career might be over anyway. So the statement says, "if you agree with me that what I'm apologising for isn't racist in any way, then I apologise".

Perhaps the BBC is looking for something less hedged about with provisos.

The Times report of the matter says that the BBC is calling for a "formal" apology, rather than an "unconditional" one.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Oops, forgot link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5645419.ece

[lathany.livejournal.com]

But the way I construe it as conditional is the "not a racist" preamble

OK - that's a bit different. And conditional works better for that.

Apropos of this discussion topic

[a-llusive.livejournal.com]

Here's an article about the annoying trend for non-apologies Simon Carr in the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-carr/simon-carr-heres-how-to-make-a-real-apology-1623016.html)