Socio-Linguistic Study of National Apologies in Public Discourse

An apology is a formal and known acknowledgement that an individual uses when some individuals violate human rights, i.e., apologies emerge when human rights are violated for a reason or another. The national apology can be defined as the type of apology that is political, collective, and intrastate which a group of people offer to another by using an appropriate representation. Though the term ‘age of apology’ first emerged two decades ago, the term ‘national apology’, even with age, has continued to be one that is specifically analytically elusive. In contrast to interpersonal apologies that exist between individuals, a collective apology is constructed of and directed to definite communities. It is considered as political since it is made by/through political or social companies, institutions or organizations and for past wrongdoings of political characters. Using national apology, the speaker tries to be political in his/her speech to be able to achieve his/her aim of the communication. Using different strategies, one of them is national apology, the speaker tries to avoid FTA and get the acceptable response from the audience. The aim of this study is to analyze how the speaker uses the national apology in public discourse, the reasons, the constructions and the meaning of this kind of apologies. This study is concerned with investigating the social functions of national apologies. 1. The Problem The act of apology represents a communicative gesture comprising a number of elements: an apology, to be meaningful, should include all components to be present. The apology should first of all express regret and sympathy as well as admission of fault, shortcoming or failing. National apology is one of the most common kinds of apologies. It is a collective, political, and intra-state apology. National apologies have been used widely by politicians and this leads to consider them as a strategy that politicians use when they face humans' right violation. This study aims at shedding light on the use of this kind of apologies by public figures or group of people apologizing to another Al-Adab Journal – No. 134 (September) 2020 / 1442 42 group of people. The national apology is used for political reasons; the apologizer tries to be political and give excuses and shows his/her regrets. From this, there is a need to shed light on the other uses and meanings of national apologies. The speaker can be political when he tries to convince and argue about something. 2. What is An Apology? An apology can be defined as a social act which transfers an effective essence. The aim of employing such an act is primarily to maintain and develop interlocutors’ rapport. Apologies give the speaker the chance to avoid face-threatening by confessing the guilt that has been committed. There are different definitions of apology. Goffman (1971: 113) for example states that the apology contains several elements such as expressions of: embarrassment and chagrin, verbal rejection, repudiation, and rejection of the wrong way of behaving, all these build the apology with showing how the speaker may use it to show the regret of doing a harm towards others. Apologies are considered as a speech act as proposed by different linguists. Austin (1962) regards apology as behabitive which is defined as "performative verbs that make the speakers express their feelings and attitude" (Murad, 2012: 24). Brown and Levison (1987: 187) consider apology as a strategy of negative politeness indicating “speakers' reluctant to imping on its negative face”. Olshain (1989: 156) defines apologies as a speech act which is used to support the hearer to avoid the violation of the speaker, because by apologizing the hearer wants to save and avoid the face threatening act of the speaker. The apology is an expressive illocutionary act, it aims to maintain harmony between the speaker and hearer. The speaker uses apologies as a post-event in an adjacency pair, that is, the apologizer, after committing the offence, tries to bring back rapport with the offended. Offering a meaningful apology can contribute to skilled interpersonal communication that can be rehearsed and taught to be part of the preregistration curriculum and in continuing professional development. The speaker's intention can be expressed by requesting, complementing and apologizing. The ability to express different speech acts is important to develop the communicative competence. Apologies are means that reflect “a communal reckoning with crimes of the past”, i.e, the speaker tries to describe that something has happened in the past and learned from it so there is a need to prevent such a hpenning (Carranza, et.al, 2015:7) Al-Adab Journal – No. 134 (September) 2020 / 1442 43 Ruzaite (2007:69) recognizes two sets of apologizing strategies: a. Explicit and Implicit b. Emotional and Non-Emotional Implicit apology does not contain direct marks of apology such as ( Sorry, apologize, excuse). The apology is emotional if it is intensified (eg. With intensifier very). The direct form of an apology can be established by explicit “Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices” (IFID’s), with which an apologizer picks a formulaic, routinized expression of regret, i.e., ‘a performative verb’, including I am sorry/apologize/regret; excuse me, etc.) (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984: 206). 3. The Strategies of Apologies Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) introduced the so-called ‘speech act set’ approach to an apologetic pattern comprising five components. These include: An “Illocutionary Force Indicating Device” (IFID), (e.g., sorry, pardon/pardon me.., I apologize etc.), + “An apologetic account” + “Strategies of taking responsibilities” + “An offer of repair” + “A promise of forbearance”: a. IFID (1) an apologetic account (2) an expression of responsibility (3) an offer of repair (4) a promise of forbearance For example: 1. Pardon me. 2. I know I hurt you. 3. Let me help you. 4. I promise that this will never happen again. b. IFID (1) event (2) justification (3) request for understanding (4) a soothing remedy For example: 5. I’m really sorry for not calling you. 6. It’s my fault. 7. I just have to do it. 8. Please try to understand. 9. Daddy will still be your father. (Fraser, 1981, 266) The other three strategies are situation-dependent and much more limited in their usage: c. IFID (1) an expression of responsibility (2) explanations (3) an suggestion or offer of repair (4) a promise of forbearance In accordance with their analysis, the expression of an apology and/ or the expression of speaker’s responsibility can represent an act of apology in any situation (Olshtain and Cohen, 1990: 47). d. IFID (1) an apologetic account For example: Al-Adab Journal – No. 134 (September) 2020 / 1442 44 10. I’m profoundly regretful, but I won’t be with there until 7:00 p.m. e. an apologetic account (1) IFID (2) For example: 11. I said no I’m not coming in. f. IFID (1) an apologetic account (2) disarmer For example: 12. I apologize for the mess, 13. Foolish me! A speaker, according to Goffman (1971: 514), can employ an act of apology with: a. Embarrassment Expressions b. Stating his/her knowledge of proper behavior c. Expressing sympathy in applying negative sanction d. Repudiation one’s own behavior e. Showing contempt for oneself f. A promise of embracing the right way g. Proffering penance and restitution By using one of these ways, the speaker can express his/her apology to gain forgiveness and save the face. Fraser (1981: 264) adds that in addition to uttering expressions of regret (e.g., I am sorry), offenders can perform other forms of reparatory expressions including, a request of forgiveness (e.g., pardon me..), taking responsibility (e.g., I know I did wrong), a promise of forbearance (e.g., something like this will never happen again), or an offer of redress (e.g., please allow me to pay for the damage). There are some elements by which a specific purpose of apology can be expressed this includes: 1. remorse (e.g., “I’m sorry”), 2. acceptance of responsibility (e.g., “It’s my fault”), 3. admission of injustice or wrong doing (e.g., “What I did was wrong”), 4. acknowledgement of harm and/or victim suffering (e.g., “I know you are upset”), 5. forbearance, or promises to behave better in the future (e.g., “I will never do it again”), 6. offers of repair (e.g., “I will pay for the damages”) (Blatz et. al., 2009: 221) Olshtain (1989: 250) states that one of the apologizing strategies that can be used by lower status people is using intensifiers. This strategy is used to: 1. Increase support for the hearer and indignity for the speaker such as "very" or "truly". 2. Strengthen the apology. Al-Adab Journal – No. 134 (September) 2020 / 1442 45 This strategy encourages the strong to be more sincere and accept the apology. Vines (2017: 383) adds that there are two ways of apologies: full apology and partial apology. The full apology is defined as “a sincere and spontaneous apology which can operate to bring up the moral value of the offender”. This apology is the ideal one, it appears soon after the wrong event. The partial apology is a defined as means of a “mere expression of regret without an acknowledgement fault” (ibid). 4. Social Functions of Apologies The social function of apologies is used to seek the harmony between the speaker and hearer, the offender tries to reconciliate the situation as an harm has been caused with existence of a face-saving aim, i.e., the apologizer as Prachanant (2016: 146) claims, conducts a protective-oriented communicative move toward supporting the addressee’s social image, while performing a defensive-orientated act so as to save his/her own face. The situation in which an offence has been made is what determines the functions of apologies, though such acts are "clearly a secular remedial ritual" (Vines, 2017: 375). Wagatsuma and Rosett (1986: 264) consider apologies to be cultural-specific social standards with which members of certain communities and cultures experience to reveal their ideas. One of the most important roles of apologies is the defended apologies role. Psychological studies consider it as a tool reduce aggression "dissipating anger in a way which is related to the severity of the harm, whether or not the level of responsibility for the harm is high or low" (Vines, 2017: 376). Apologies are used to avoid the face-loss. Goffman (1967:5) states that face is "a positive social value that a person effectively claims for himself". The speaker uses apologies when he\she expects the loss of face because of the following: 1. When the speaker has committed something violent others' rights or he\she might have done something misunderstood by others 2. Another individual has done an action against others leaving the speaker embarrassed or out of face. In both cases, the speaker can only do apology to repair the potential damage of face. In addition, apologies have an emotional re-balancing role. This role is a part of its reparatory characteristics that is exploited quite necessarily by theories of corrective justice (Strang, 2002: 292). Al-Adab Journal – No. 134 (September) 2020 / 1442 46 The apologizer, by apologizing, gives identification that he/she will not offend again and that the offence is not a part of his/her character. For Searle (1976: 280), the speech acts’ social functions are the “effects which a speaker intends to cause by performing such acts”. Norrick (1978: 280), building on Searle theory, finds that the apologies’ social functions comprise providing “to evince good manners, to assuage the addressee’s wrath, or simply to get off the hook and be on one’s way”. From this, apologies are used for: 1. Appeasing people that have been injured 2. Avoiding accusation and\or reprisals 3. Implicating contrition 4. Eliciting acts of forgiving and be freed from guilt 5. The National Apologies National apologies can be defined as a response to past political wrongdoings; have become a remarkable contemporary development across the globe. National apologies stress the publicity official character, as well as the statement ceremony, in addition to choose an appropriate speaker (Sanz, 2012: 3). Apology contains the following: 1. Acknowledging the injustice carried out. 2. Expressing remorse, 3. Guaranteeing non-repetition 4. Refraining from appealing for forgiveness (ibid) National apology is considered as an action that can be political and public apology. It is a rhetorical phenomenon engaging an individual to apologize on behalf of a group for a deed neither the speaker nor the vast majority of the group did. The apology is directed to a group of people who were not among those originally wronged Sanz (2012:10) mentions that national apology has three features: 1. Political 2. Collective 3. Intrastate National apology is seen as political since it is adopted by\through institutions that are political and for past wrong-doings of politicians. It is collective because the apology source is a modern nationstate apology (state apology). It is intrastate because it is intended from societies from the same nation. Al-Adab Journal – No. 134 (September) 2020 / 1442 47 It has been claimed that National apologies function as a sort of official acknowledgments that contribute to a corporate responsibility for historical abuses states deliver to another. They are delivered by group of people representing the state, with a distinctly political character. They recently have got a lot of attention in various academic fields including, sociology, psychology, law and philosophy. This consideration has been expanded owing to the numerous apologies that recently offered, in addition to the attention which they could in a manner correct the past that it is not possible to undo, hence helping in establishing the emotional issues historical injustices bring about (Kaleja, 2010: 5). Sanz (2012: 37) adds that national apologies have to be declared by a person who has the authority and who is able to speak on a state’s or group’s behalf. He adds that this kind of apologies consists of two components: 1. Collective responsibility which is very important component in national apologies because it is used to "refer to the identity of collective assuming both unity and continuity" (ibid: 23). The apologizer here feels responsible for a harm has been committed not because he\she is the doer but because of being a member in the group whose committed that harm. An example of this is when the Germany president had apologized to Israel in 2000 because of the injustice that committed during the war. This injustice neither he or the German nation were part of it but because of the pressure on Germany from outside world he had to apologize. This pressure is an assumption of unity and continuity (ibid). 2. Collective regret appears when there is a collective responsibility. It occurs if there is a common feeling amongst all of the group's individuals. 6. Types of National Apologies According to the features of national apologies (as mentioned earlier), three types of national apologies can be formalized: 1. Collective or Group Apologies There are many kinds of apologies such as: “one-to-one” (interpersonal), “one-to-many”, “many-to-one”, and “many-to-many”. National apology, among these types is considered as many-to-many or community-to-community; i.e., an apology performed by two parties for each other in respect to the offenses they have committed towards one another. Sazn (2012: 14) mentions an example of this type which is joint declaration of Czech Republic and Germany on the two countries’ respective behavior in the course of the 2 nd World War. Al-Adab Journal – No. 134 (September) 2020 / 1442 48 2. Political Apology It is supposed that political apology involves political issues but there is an exception to this rule. An apology, whether collective or political, might emerge from an individual or organization in business, media, corporate, medical and sports disciplines. 3. State Apology National apology is considered as a state apology because it contains one particular political and collective agent and a specific group of state-based national political affairs. 7. The Objectives of the National Apologies Sanz (2012: 13-15) clarifies the objectives and the purposes of using the national apologies: 1. Reconciliation This is the most important objective of national apology. Its purpose is to over change. National apology is used to repair the relation between victimizer and victim. 2. Mutual Confidence-building National apology represents a means of a greater stabilization process. Apology significantly functions in processes of transition or peace, in playing a central role as a building procedure of a powerful joint confidence within a larger process. 3. Nation and Identity Building Rebuilding nation is one of benefits of national apologies. The objective of the national apology is to “integrate minorities' claims into mainstream historical record of a country" building a new social bond between various communities that live in it. There are many examples of national apologies through which leaders and politicians apologized to their nations about some issues that they had done. It is stated that the Vatican continues to be the chief in many apologetic statements political bodies delivered. The Vatican has issued over 300 of apologetic statements upon the atrocities the Catholic Church had committed across years; the apology of Queen Elisabeth II who wronged Maoris in New Zealand; the apologetic statement of Tony Blair upon failing to saving Ireland from the famine of potato in 1840’s, as well as the incident where the German chancellor Willy Brandt acknowledged his responsibility for the Holocaust and fell on his knees before the monument of Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943, when he visited Poland in 1970 (Daniels, 2003: 8-10). Negash (2006:110) mentions three approaches of national apologies: 1. Some consider them as empty symbolic politics, the speaker uses them to win a favor with no cost for one's offence. They Al-Adab Journal – No. 134 (September) 2020 / 1442 49 claim that national apologies are practical monetary restitution, but not symbol of accepting the responsibility. 2. Some consider them as symbols of accepting responsibility of injustice commitment. 3. The third approach, which is devoted by this paper, states that national apologies represent the paramount component that corrects previous abuses without which the efforts to rebuild rapport between the parties, continues as the retributive means focus, on the basis of the penalty and mitigating the feeling to revenge. Corrective and reconciliatory acts must be aimed toward building rapports in the subsequent time, instead of arguing about the past. As such, the penalty conception cannot be a profitable point to start with in those situations. Sanz (2012: 33) states that the national apology must be made on the record, i.e., it can be in form of publish speeches, televised and radio addresses or laws and other print statements. The apology should be publicizes in order to involve the community whose the apology is directed to. 8. Historical Background Apologies emerge partly from religion. Apologies in the Western culture partly emerged via admittance and of course that of St Augustine. The pivotal respect, nevertheless, is its moralistic element, i.e., the allure to social standards. The main concern of apology acts is ‘transgression’, where the ‘harm’ caused is of a peripheral consideration. When it comes to civil law, in which liability in negligence is the issue, there is a tendency of equating the wrongdoing with the harm merely owing to the fact that to “be liable in negligence one must establish the harm as well as the wrongful behavior” (Vine, 2017: 376). National apology appeared firstly after World War II, when politicians began to apologize to their nations about the injustice that had been committed by governments against the human right. From that time, national apologies considered as political apologies. Several studies have been made and based on the politicians' speeches and apologies by using national apologies. 9. Data Analysis National apologies must be mediatized, that is, they can be realized by public speeches, broadcasting or televised statements, or legal and other printable addresses that the press disseminates. The apology, among other things, must be publicized appropriately for the sake of engaging the society in whose names it is formed. What has been uttered will be vouchered then by witnesses, yet those witnesses will affirm as to if any change in the apologizer’s statement and their commitment will not be altered afterwards. Several data have been Al-Adab Journal – No. 134 (September) 2020 / 1442 50 collected from, different sources such as organizations, companies, media, sports etc. 1. Tylenol In 1982, there were more than three persons in USA had had a drug (Tylenol) and died after one hour. The company admitted that the customer safety is a priority and began collecting all the capsule bottles from the market. Burke, the chairperson, worked with FBI’s, FDA’s directors, as well as the Police of Chicago. It was declared by Johnson and Johnson that they would not directly sell any product made available in the form of capsules to consumers. They then continued to conduct tamperproofing bundling, and so much as offered the perpetrator a reward of $100,000. “There were many people in the company who felt there was no possible way to save the brand, that it was the end of Tylenol,”Burke said”. He added “But the fact is, I had confidence in J&J and its reputation, and also confidence in the public to respond to what was right. It helped turn Tylenol into a billion-dollar business.” ..... https://glean.info/5-examples-superb-company-apologies/ Adopting wrongness is not the only concern of an apology, as apologizing also includes confessing (and then demonstrating) an offender’s responsibility. Johnson and Johnson did not interfere with the Tylenol nor administer the cyanide which was responsible of killing seven individuals. Still, they never attempt to escape liability concerning the incident. They admit responsibility through addressing the press, legal enforcement, and the public frequently, directly, and effectively. Afterwards, by producing a harmless, more preferable, and reliable commodity, Johnson and Johnson manifested their responsibility to the public, he said that the company is responsible of the harm that happened, the expression of regret locates the speaker as a sympathetic by stander. The company here as trying to appease people who have injured and at the same time seeking forgiveness from all the customers not just the injured ones. An apology to be favored must be chiefly victim-oriented. Having known that, Johnson and Johnson made, before their earnings, the safety of their customers at their highest priority, where their profit then paid off (Tylenol gained, within one year, 90% of its market share) and eventually manage to save the trademark. Here national apology is considered as a collective apology. This apology is directed from one to many but that one represents a

43 Ruzaite (2007:69) recognizes two sets of apologizing strategies: a. Explicit and Implicit b. Emotional and Non-Emotional Implicit apology does not contain direct marks of apology such as ( Sorry, apologize, excuse). The apology is emotional if it is intensified (eg. With intensifier very).

The Strategies of Apologies
Blum- Kulka et al. (1989) introduced the so-called 'speech act set' approach to an apologetic pattern comprising five components. These include: An "Illocutionary Force Indicating Device" (IFID), (e.g., sorry, pardon/pardon me.., I apologize etc.), + "An apologetic account" + "Strategies of taking responsibilities" + "An offer of repair" + "A promise of forbearance": a. IFID (1) an apologetic account (2) an expression of responsibility (3) an offer of repair (4) a promise of forbearance For example: 1. Pardon me. 2. I know I hurt you. 3. Let me help you. 4. I promise that this will never happen again. b. IFID (1) event (2) justification (3) request for understanding (4) a soothing remedy For example: 5. I'm really sorry for not calling you. 6. It's my fault. 7. I just have to do it. 8. Please try to understand. 9. Daddy will still be your father. (Fraser, 1981, 266) The other three strategies are situation-dependent and much more limited in their usage: c. IFID (1) an expression of responsibility (2) explanations (3) an suggestion or offer of repair (4) a promise of forbearance In accordance with their analysis, the expression of an apology and/ or the expression of speaker's responsibility can represent an act of apology in any situation (Olshtain and Cohen, 1990: 47).

44
10. I'm profoundly regretful, but I won't be with there until 7:00 p.m. e. an apologetic account (1) IFID (2) For example: 11. I said no I'm not coming in. f. IFID (1) an apologetic account (2) disarmer For example: 12. I apologize for the mess, 13. Foolish me! A speaker, according to Goffman (1971: 514), can employ an act of apology with: a. Embarrassment Expressions b. Stating his/her knowledge of proper behavior c. Expressing sympathy in applying negative sanction d. Repudiation one's own behavior e. Showing contempt for oneself f. A promise of embracing the right way g. Proffering penance and restitution By using one of these ways, the speaker can express his/her apology to gain forgiveness and save the face. Fraser (1981: 264) adds that in addition to uttering expressions of regret (e.g., I am sorry), offenders can perform other forms of reparatory expressions including, a request of forgiveness (e.g., pardon me..), taking responsibility (e.g., I know I did wrong), a promise of forbearance (e.g., something like this will never happen again), or an offer of redress (e.g., please allow me to pay for the damage).
There are some elements by which a specific purpose of apology can be expressed this includes: 1. remorse (e.g., "I'm sorry"), 2. acceptance of responsibility (e.g., "It's my fault"), 3. admission of injustice or wrong doing (e.g., "What I did was wrong"), 4. acknowledgement of harm and/or victim suffering (e.g., "I know you are upset"), 5. forbearance, or promises to behave better in the future (e.g., "I will never do it again"), 6. offers of repair (e.g., "I will pay for the damages") (Blatz et. al., 2009: 221) Olshtain (1989 states that one of the apologizing strategies that can be used by lower status people is using intensifiers. This strategy is used to: 1. Increase support for the hearer and indignity for the speaker such as "very" or "truly". 2. Strengthen the apology.

45
This strategy encourages the strong to be more sincere and accept the apology. Vines (2017: 383) adds that there are two ways of apologies: full apology and partial apology. The full apology is defined as "a sincere and spontaneous apology which can operate to bring up the moral value of the offender". This apology is the ideal one, it appears soon after the wrong event.
The partial apology is a defined as means of a "mere expression of regret without an acknowledgement fault" (ibid).

Social Functions of Apologies
The social function of apologies is used to seek the harmony between the speaker and hearer, the offender tries to reconciliate the situation as an harm has been caused with existence of a face-saving aim, i.e., the apologizer as Prachanant (2016: 146) claims, conducts a protective-oriented communicative move toward supporting the addressee's social image, while performing a defensive-orientated act so as to save his/her own face.
The situation in which an offence has been made is what determines the functions of apologies, though such acts are "clearly a secular remedial ritual" (Vines, 2017: 375). Wagatsuma and Rosett (1986: 264) consider apologies to be cultural-specific social standards with which members of certain communities and cultures experience to reveal their ideas.
One of the most important roles of apologies is the defended apologies role. Psychological studies consider it as a tool reduce aggression "dissipating anger in a way which is related to the severity of the harm, whether or not the level of responsibility for the harm is high or low" (Vines, 2017: 376).
Apologies are used to avoid the face-loss. Goffman (1967:5) states that face is "a positive social value that a person effectively claims for himself". The speaker uses apologies when he\she expects the loss of face because of the following: 1. When the speaker has committed something violent others' rights or he\she might have done something misunderstood by others 2. Another individual has done an action against others leaving the speaker embarrassed or out of face. In both cases, the speaker can only do apology to repair the potential damage of face.
In addition, apologies have an emotional re-balancing role. This role is a part of its reparatory characteristics that is exploited quite necessarily by theories of corrective justice (Strang, 2002: 292).

46
The apologizer, by apologizing, gives identification that he/she will not offend again and that the offence is not a part of his/her character.
For Searle (1976: 280), the speech acts' social functions are the "effects which a speaker intends to cause by performing such acts". Norrick (1978: 280), building on Searle theory, finds that the apologies' social functions comprise providing "to evince good manners, to assuage the addressee's wrath, or simply to get off the hook and be on one's way". From this, apologies are used for: 1. Appeasing people that have been injured 2. Avoiding accusation and\or reprisals 3. Implicating contrition 4. Eliciting acts of forgiving and be freed from guilt

The National Apologies
National apologies can be defined as a response to past political wrongdoings; have become a remarkable contemporary development across the globe.
National apologies stress the publicity official character, as well as the statement ceremony, in addition to choose an appropriate speaker (Sanz, 2012: 3).
Apology contains the following: 1. Acknowledging the injustice carried out. 2. Expressing remorse, 3. Guaranteeing non-repetition 4. Refraining from appealing for forgiveness (ibid) National apology is considered as an action that can be political and public apology. It is a rhetorical phenomenon engaging an individual to apologize on behalf of a group for a deed neither the speaker nor the vast majority of the group did. The apology is directed to a group of people who were not among those originally wronged Sanz (2012:10) mentions that national apology has three features: 1. Political 2. Collective 3. Intrastate National apology is seen as political since it is adopted by\through institutions that are political and for past wrong-doings of politicians.
It is collective because the apology source is a modern nationstate apology (state apology).
It is intrastate because it is intended from societies from the same nation.

47
It has been claimed that National apologies function as a sort of official acknowledgments that contribute to a corporate responsibility for historical abuses states deliver to another. They are delivered by group of people representing the state, with a distinctly political character. They recently have got a lot of attention in various academic fields including, sociology, psychology, law and philosophy. This consideration has been expanded owing to the numerous apologies that recently offered, in addition to the attention which they could in a manner correct the past that it is not possible to undo, hence helping in establishing the emotional issues historical injustices bring about (Kaleja, 2010: 5). Sanz (2012: 37) adds that national apologies have to be declared by a person who has the authority and who is able to speak on a state's or group's behalf. He adds that this kind of apologies consists of two components: 1. Collective responsibility which is very important component in national apologies because it is used to "refer to the identity of collective assuming both unity and continuity" (ibid: 23). The apologizer here feels responsible for a harm has been committed not because he\she is the doer but because of being a member in the group whose committed that harm. An example of this is when the Germany president had apologized to Israel in 2000 because of the injustice that committed during the war. This injustice neither he or the German nation were part of it but because of the pressure on Germany from outside world he had to apologize. This pressure is an assumption of unity and continuity (ibid). 2. Collective regret appears when there is a collective responsibility. It occurs if there is a common feeling amongst all of the group's individuals.

Types of National Apologies
According to the features of national apologies (as mentioned earlier), three types of national apologies can be formalized: 1. Collective or Group Apologies There are many kinds of apologies such as: "one-to-one" (interpersonal), "one-to-many", "many-to-one", and "many-to-many". National apology, among these types is considered as many-to-many or community-to-community; i.e., an apology performed by two parties for each other in respect to the offenses they have committed towards one another. Sazn (2012: 14) mentions an example of this type which is joint declaration of Czech Republic and Germany on the two countries' respective behavior in the course of the 2 nd World War.

2. Political Apology
It is supposed that political apology involves political issues but there is an exception to this rule. An apology, whether collective or political, might emerge from an individual or organization in business, media, corporate, medical and sports disciplines.
3. State Apology National apology is considered as a state apology because it contains one particular political and collective agent and a specific group of state-based national political affairs. 7. The Objectives of the National Apologies Sanz (2012: 13-15) clarifies the objectives and the purposes of using the national apologies: 1. Reconciliation This is the most important objective of national apology. Its purpose is to over change. National apology is used to repair the relation between victimizer and victim.

Mutual Confidence-building
National apology represents a means of a greater stabilization process. Apology significantly functions in processes of transition or peace, in playing a central role as a building procedure of a powerful joint confidence within a larger process.

Nation and Identity Building
Rebuilding nation is one of benefits of national apologies. The objective of the national apology is to "integrate minorities' claims into mainstream historical record of a country" building a new social bond between various communities that live in it.
There are many examples of national apologies through which leaders and politicians apologized to their nations about some issues that they had done. It is stated that the Vatican continues to be the chief in many apologetic statements political bodies delivered. The Vatican has issued over 300 of apologetic statements upon the atrocities the Catholic Church had committed across years; the apology of Queen Elisabeth II who wronged Maoris in New Zealand; the apologetic statement of Tony Blair upon failing to saving Ireland from the famine of potato in 1840's, as well as the incident where the German chancellor Willy Brandt acknowledged his responsibility for the Holocaust and fell on his knees before the monument of Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943, when he visited Poland in 1970 (Daniels, 2003: 8-10). Negash (2006:110) mentions three approaches of national apologies: 1. Some consider them as empty symbolic politics, the speaker uses them to win a favor with no cost for one's offence. They claim that national apologies are practical monetary restitution, but not symbol of accepting the responsibility. 2. Some consider them as symbols of accepting responsibility of injustice commitment. 3. The third approach, which is devoted by this paper, states that national apologies represent the paramount component that corrects previous abuses without which the efforts to rebuild rapport between the parties, continues as the retributive means focus, on the basis of the penalty and mitigating the feeling to revenge. Corrective and reconciliatory acts must be aimed toward building rapports in the subsequent time, instead of arguing about the past. As such, the penalty conception cannot be a profitable point to start with in those situations. Sanz (2012: 33) states that the national apology must be made on the record, i.e., it can be in form of publish speeches, televised and radio addresses or laws and other print statements. The apology should be publicizes in order to involve the community whose the apology is directed to.

Historical Background
Apologies emerge partly from religion. Apologies in the Western culture partly emerged via admittance and of course that of St Augustine. The pivotal respect, nevertheless, is its moralistic element, i.e., the allure to social standards. The main concern of apology acts is 'transgression', where the 'harm' caused is of a peripheral consideration. When it comes to civil law, in which liability in negligence is the issue, there is a tendency of equating the wrongdoing with the harm merely owing to the fact that to "be liable in negligence one must establish the harm as well as the wrongful behavior" (Vine, 2017: 376).
National apology appeared firstly after World War II, when politicians began to apologize to their nations about the injustice that had been committed by governments against the human right. From that time, national apologies considered as political apologies. Several studies have been made and based on the politicians' speeches and apologies by using national apologies.

Data Analysis
National apologies must be mediatized, that is, they can be realized by public speeches, broadcasting or televised statements, or legal and other printable addresses that the press disseminates. The apology, among other things, must be publicized appropriately for the sake of engaging the society in whose names it is formed. What has been uttered will be vouchered then by witnesses, yet those witnesses will affirm as to if any change in the apologizer's statement and their commitment will not be altered afterwards. Several data have been collected from, different sources such as organizations, companies, media, sports etc.

Tylenol
In 1982, there were more than three persons in USA had had a drug (Tylenol) and died after one hour. The company admitted that the customer safety is a priority and began collecting all the capsule bottles from the market.
Burke, the chairperson, worked with FBI's, FDA's directors, as well as the Police of Chicago. It was declared by Johnson and Johnson that they would not directly sell any product made available in the form of capsules to consumers. They then continued to conduct tamperproofing bundling, and so much as offered the perpetrator a reward of $100,000.
"There were many people in the company who felt there was no possible way to save the brand, that it was the end of Tylenol,"Burke said".
He added "But the fact is, I had confidence in J&J and its reputation, and also confidence in the public to respond to what was right. It helped turn Tylenol into a billion-dollar business." ….. https://glean.info/5-examples-superb-company-apologies/ Adopting wrongness is not the only concern of an apology, as apologizing also includes confessing (and then demonstrating) an offender's responsibility.
Johnson and Johnson did not interfere with the Tylenol nor administer the cyanide which was responsible of killing seven individuals. Still, they never attempt to escape liability concerning the incident. They admit responsibility through addressing the press, legal enforcement, and the public frequently, directly, and effectively. Afterwards, by producing a harmless, more preferable, and reliable commodity, Johnson and Johnson manifested their responsibility to the public, he said that the company is responsible of the harm that happened, the expression of regret locates the speaker as a sympathetic by stander.
The company here as trying to appease people who have injured and at the same time seeking forgiveness from all the customers not just the injured ones.
An apology to be favored must be chiefly victim-oriented. Having known that, Johnson and Johnson made, before their earnings, the safety of their customers at their highest priority, where their profit then paid off (Tylenol gained, within one year, 90% of its market share) and eventually manage to save the trademark.
Here national apology is considered as a collective apology. This apology is directed from one to many but that one represents a company.

JetBlue
At JFK airport, New York, it was Valentine's day, where a storm in the icy winter was brewing outside was foreseen to alter to rain the thing that got JetBlue firm to go on in loading flights and approve them to delay for take-off on the airstrip. The delay was supposed to be short, yet it grew exponentially, where there were nine landed airplanes whose passengers lingered for six hours, if not more.
What left JFK were 17 of JetBlue's 156 timetabled flights solely.
The storm had displaced the airplane and its pilots, in addition to the crew. Besides, thousands of customers got flightless, thus thwarted.
Several case studies have considered the apologetic act employed to be one of the best instances of a letter of an apology sent to customers: Dear JetBlue Customers, We are sorry and embarrassed. But most of all, we are deeply sorry.. https://glean.info/5-examples-superb-company-apologies/ Usually companies apologize by uttering "I am sorry", or rather formally "I apologize," and sometimes more dissociated, "I regret." Still, uttering "sorry" can acculturate corporate's brand, and support their letter of apology to resound with the public. Through using those mentioned expressions, the speaker express the regret of what has happened and it would not be repeated again. Those expressions give the identification that the speaker is more interested in maintaining a stable relationship and expressing positive attitude to the audience rather than saving their own face.
When disaster happens, till the corporate let them know, most customers had had no idea about what was really going on. It is significant when writing a letter of apology to explain the cause of the offence, without manipulating that clarification to free oneself from blame. The company had justified the reasons that led to cancel the flights and that happened because of concerning the safety of passengers.
The speaker here again tries to seek forgiveness by admitting the guilt, promising that this would not happen again. The speaker tries to avoid accusation of being careless about the passengers and their schedules.
This kind of apologies is directed from group of people to another group. The first group presented by the company and the second one is presented by the clients.

Barack Obama
The US ex-president, in 2014, when visited a factory of manufacturing, gave an address showing his desire to encourage young to view trade and manufacturing jobs to be potential opportunities of career.
In 2014, Barak Obama, the former US president, visited a manufacturing plant. He spoke about hopes of encouraging the young to see manufacturing and trade jobs as possible career opportunities.
"Not all of today's good jobs need a four-year degree." The president then said: "…I promise you, folks make a lot morepotentiallywith the skilled trades and manufacturing than with an art history degree." "Nothing wrong with art history degree," he added. "I love art history. I don't want to get a bunch of emails from everybody." Yet, in spite of the rapid save of the President, emails come. A. C. Johns, a historian of arts, and a Professor in Texas University, emailed the President via the website of the Whitehouse, aiming at clearing out the fallacies in respect to historian of arts. The Professor's statement, "was not so much one of outrage at Obama's statement, but rather a 'look what we do well' statement." Ann -Let me apologize for my off-the-cuff remarks. I was making a point about the jobs ………… https://www.comm100.com/blog/public-apology-letterexample.html Obama apologizes for his individual reaction and response. This apology can be considered as a political speech of a politician. It is a personal apology directed to one member who represents a group of people. Obama tries to correct the misunderstanding that occurred through his speech. He tries to show the audience that he misused the words giving justifications of his wrong used words. He tries to show the audience that he tries to express his remorse feeling shamed of having done something like this.
From his apologizing expressions, he tries to show the degree of sincerity and respect. He tries to reduce the threat to the hearers' faces. He tries to lessen the fault by referring to some external circumstances which is here misuse of words which leads to misunderstanding from the audience. He gives the justifications of what has been said that he was pointing at something and the audience misunderstood his speech.
This apology is one directed to group. Obama tries to repair his relationship with the public by expressing regret and admitting the guilt of misusing words by him and misunderstanding by the audience.

Sexual Abuse
Pope Francis, sending Chilean bishops his recent letter, has confessed that he had committed "grave errors" in judgement towards crisis of sex assault. Pope Francis had stuck up for a bishop named Juan Baros, being indicted with his knowledge about the sexual abuse that Rev. F. Karadima had committed, yet not doing anything about that. Even more so, he placed the blame on those who accused him, accusing them of blackening the bishop's name.
The Pope eventually did right. He sent for investigation the investigator M. A. Charles Scicluna, a hard-nosed man to trace the clues of the perpetration. Scicluna is who got the goods on the Rev. Marcial Maciel, being a "sexual predator" as well as organizer of the "Legionaries of Christ".
Sex abuse survivors trust few clergymen including Scicluna. This man's report consisting of 2300 pages, that based on sixty-four interviews caused Francis to admit with "pain and shame" the "many crucified lives" of these who had been the abuse victims.
Pope Francis confessed that he made a wrongful deed and offered his apology. This was not a "non-apology apology," but a fullthroated acknowledgement he had messed up.
"I have done serious mistakes in the assessment and perception of the situation," he wrote. He added that this was due to a "lack of truthful and balanced information," but it was still his mistake………. https://www.comm100.com/blog/public-apology-letterexample.html In fact, people do not expect popes to commit wrongful deeds, if happens, the church, if not centuries, is likely to wait for decades, before confessing that. However, Pope Francis admits, early in his papacy, that he is a wrongdoer, just as other Christians. He did a sin, amended it, and request forgiveness. That is how to be a real Christian.
Catholics need to not to forget that clergymen and their congregations begin every Eucharist with a confession of wrongdoings: " It has been said that national apology is restricted with the political discourse in which the politician tries to apologize for what happened in the past, the main idea here is the victimizer and the victim. In public discourse, the apologizer also tries to seek forgiveness and takes the responsibility of what has been committed and shows regret and admitting the guilt. A lot of linguistic expression can be used such as (I'm sorry, I apologize, I must apologize, I confess, I do apologize ….etc). Sometimes this cannot be found with political discourse, the politician does not admit the responsibility of the past wrongs. Most politicians do not admit that they have made a mistake to apologize unless they have been under the pressure of outside world or any other kind of authorities such as press. Companies, organizations, celebrities are mostly apologize to seek forgiveness and to get the trust from the audience. One of the most important social roles of apology is repairing the relationship and avoid face-loss. In all previous samples, the speakers try to build the relationship by confessing and showing their contrition of what have happened whether they are responsible or not.

Conclusions
Apologies can have a different degree of force, depending on which several main types of apologies can be distinguished. First of all, apologies can be emphatic; in such a case, they primarily express the speaker's sincerity. Such apologies contain different intensifiers or double apologies. Apologies with self-justifications are a balanced type of apologies since they both meet the requirement of sincerity and address the speaker's need for face-repair.
It has been concluded that national apology is one of the most important and used apologies among speakers. It is not used only by politicians or in political discourse.
Public discourse has an important role in effecting on the opinion of the audience. A lot happen and occur through public discourse and that is because it is not limited to one topic or field, in contrast, it contains a lot of topics that can be discussed by different ages, kinds of audience. This variety provides a wealthy material to be analyzed. In public discourse, the speaker uses a lot of language strategies, one of them is apologizing, to gain the support, sympathy, agreement, forgiveness and so on of the audience.
It has been seen that national apology has three types: collective, political and state. The collective one is mostly used in the public discourse. One-to-many and many-to-many are the ones that are used here. Political can be added to in case the apologizer tries to be political in his/her apology. He/she tries to seek forgiveness and takes the responsibility of the wrong deeds. State national apology is also used by the apologizer when he/she direct the apology to specific group of audience as it can be noticed in the first example which is about Tylenol. The head of the company has directed his apology to the victims trying to show the costumers how the company cares about them and they are its priority.