PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION: SPEECH MODEL FOR APOLOGIZING

Kuznetsova T.N.¹, Kharchenko E.V.²

Kuznetsova T.N.

Institute of Higher School of Public Administration
E-mail: tktrener@mail.ru

Kharchenko E.V.

South Ural State University
e-mail: ev-kharchenko@yandex.ru

Evgeny Fedorovich Tarasov has spent his entire life studying communication issues, including in the professional sphere. In our work, we draw on theories of speech activity and linguistic consciousness, developed with Evgeny Fedorovich's active participation. In our opinion, one of the most important challenges facing researchers in the field of professional communication is the problem of modeling the speech activity of professionals in areas of heightened speech responsibility (doctors, teachers, salespeople, etc.).

In this article, we will examine the employee's verbal behavior patterns when apologizing. It was crucial to select those patterns of employee verbal behavior that could resolve the conflict, defuse the other party's dissatisfaction, or at least avoid escalating the conflict and instead redirect it toward constructive communication.

In our work with our staff, we observed how people perceive verbal constructions often used in professional communication to apologize and establish rapport. Our goal was to understand why some formulations "work," that is, de-escalate conflict, while others fail completely and only escalate tension.

In understanding professional speech, we view it as interpersonal communication within a professional context, where a specialist interacts with a non-specialist (S.B. Arakelian, A.A. Leontyev, E.E. Linchevsky, Yu.P. Timofeev, L.A. Shkatova, E.V. Kharchenko, and others). In this context, such interaction occurs between a company employee (the one who directly interacts with the client) and the client themselves.

In our work, we rely on the traditions of the Moscow Psycholinguistic School, that is, when modeling speech decisions for professional communication, we take into account both the internal (psychological and psychophysiological) and external (social and socio-psychological) coordinates of speech communication [6]. E.F. Tarasov, a linguist and specialist in the field of psycholinguistics and linguistic consciousness, views speech as an activity that includes the creation and perception of speech messages. He emphasizes that speech is not only a means of communication, but also a way of thinking, and identifies such components of speech activity as the speaker's intention, the content of the message, the choice of linguistic means, and the context in which communication occurs. E.F. Tarasov emphasizes the social nature of speech activity; speech is formed and develops in the context of sociocultural conditions, which influences its structure and functions. In his opinion, a speech message is a set of linguistic signs that the recipient associates with certain knowledge, partially coinciding with that of the speaker and reflected in a given message. «The community of consciousness of communicants is never complete, since consciousness, being a product of the active appropriation of ethnic culture, is unique both in content and in volume, reflecting the individual life path of each subject of consciousness» [5].

E.F. Tarasov emphasizes that «the same speech message is understood differently: this is indicated by cases of polemics (dispute), when opponents offer different understanding and interpretation of the same thesis. Understanding of a speech message fundamentally depends on the position of the subject (the position of the author, the position of the recipient and the outside observer). Each of the communicants has his own individual image of the situation of speech communication (speech communication), and these images may not coincide over a wide range» [5]. According to E.F. Tarasov, «this occurs, at least, for two reasons: firstly, communicants associate with each linguistic unit of the speech chain a non-identical volume of knowledge; secondly, communicants have non-identical knowledge about a fragment of reality, reflected with the help of knowledge associated with the speech chain» [4]. Apologies made by one party in order to calm the interlocutor may be perceived by the other party as a provocation. Communicators may perceive the same statement differently.

In developing corporate standards of behavior in conflict situations, we rely on the thesis of E.F. Tarasov on the perception of the same speech messages by different communicants: «The process of understanding is the recognition of an object (most often a cultural object) based on an examination of the characteristic features of the object. The degree of understanding depends on the number of examined features: the fewer features necessary for the recognition of the object, the better the understanding. Reducing the time of understanding the object depends on the number of examined features of the object necessary for its cognition, individually for each participant in joint activities (JA). It follows that the understanding of the same speech message is not completely identical for each communicant» [4]. E.F. Tarasov believes that «the consciousness of communicants can be understood as an instrument (device), the uniqueness of which determines variability, and the commonality allows us to construct the identity of the content of the same speech message» [ibid.]. In professional communication, and specifically in conflict situations, the assertion that the perception of a message is determined by the consciousness (and therefore experience) of the communicators is relevant. Hence the idea of collecting and analyzing this experience, "passing through the recipients' consciousness" the message variations used in practice in various professional fields, in order to apologize and redirect the conversation toward a constructive direction.

E.F. Tarasov also notes that the communicators' motives also influence the perception of messages. He believes that the discrepancy between the motives of the participants in communication is the cause of differences in the comprehension of what is said and what is heard, since the process of comprehending a speech message involves comparing the message's content with the communicators' motives. "Understanding the meaning allows us to answer the questions: what does the speaker need and what conclusions follow from the speaker's activity for the listener?" [ibid.].

Sharing the expert’s opinion that «the phenomenology of verbal communication reveals a non-identical (within certain limits) understanding of the content of verbal messages by participants in the process of joint activity (JA) and verbal communication» [4], and at the same time carrying out training for employees of different companies, we see that one of the reasons for the erroneous choice of phrases for apologies is that specialists are confident that they will be understood exactly as they «intended», and that they will hear exactly what they said.

According to E.F. Tarasov, «orientation in a communication situation as in a situation of interaction between holders of social roles gives communicators the opportunity do not form the entire strategy of behavior in each individual case, and choose "It should be selected from an existing set of standards and subject to the necessary adjustments during the communication process" [3]. For professional communication, it is important to find speech solutions that will help a specialist conduct a constructive dialogue with a client. Many companies already have clearly defined professional communication standards. Typically, these contain wording for oral and written speech that employees should use in typical and/or conflict situations with a client. One such phrase, in demand in professional communication, is the wording for an apology to a client.

According to the theory of speech activity, «a speech act, like any other: a) is characterized by its own goal or task (intermediate in relation to the activity as a whole and subordinate to the goal of the activity); b) is generally determined by the structure of the activity as a whole and in particular by those speech and non-speech actions that preceded it within the act of activity; c) has a certain internal structure, conditioned by the interaction of (1) those of its characteristics that are associated with the structure of the act of activity and are common to many similar acts of activity, and (2) those specific conditions and circumstances in which this action is carried out in a given case, at a given moment» [1].

Let's consider "apologizing" as a standard speech act in a conflictual or tense communication situation. It would seem that finding the right wording for an apology isn't the most pressing issue, for example, when developing professional communication standards, as familiar working options (such as "I apologize" or "I beg your pardon") have long been in place and are regularly used depending on the specifics of the communication situation. However, in professional communication practice, apologizing in a way that calms the client, "forgives," and begins to listen and communicate constructively is one of the most pressing speech issues. This is confirmed by the fact that apology wording is typically a mandatory part of professional standards for specialists in various fields of commercial or government organizations.

Often, after an apology, professionals experience a strong negative emotional reaction from clients, which then leads to communication difficulties. Firstly, this reaction is unexpected, as the apology is supposed to calm the client, but it has the opposite effect. Secondly, the professional often experiences negative emotions, which complicates further work in a tense communication situation. Thirdly, after an unsuccessful apology, the professional has difficulty finding the right phrases to continue the conversation.

A.A. Leontiev, a Russian linguist and psychologist, emphasizes in his works that speech acts and operations are under strict social control. Speech serves for communication and interaction between at least two interlocutors, meaning it is constantly tested in the context of communication with another person. As a result, speech is significantly influenced by ethical norms, which are perhaps among the strictest and most persistent among other social constraints. All of these theses are also true for communicative situations requiring an apology. Therefore, it is difficult to select a single apology phrase that will be effective in virtually any situation. The choice of wording "depends to one degree or another on the following factors: the partner's speech acts (speech context), individual differences in speech experience, functional-stylistic and emotional-stylistic constraints, etc." [6].

Essentially, a specialist means one thing, but the client hears something completely different. For example, the classic phrase "We apologize for the inconvenience" implies concern and consideration, but it doesn't always help calm the client and redirect a conflictual dialogue toward a constructive outcome. For this reason, the proper wording for apologies from a specialist (or company) remains relevant in modern professional communication.

So why don't apologies always work?

To explore this issue and conduct our research, we turned to the methodology of A.I. Novikov, a Russian linguist and researcher of text semantics. A.I. Novikov wrote: «The external form of a text exists in its material form like other objects of reality, although it has specific differences from them. Just like these objects, it can exist independently of perception. In this case, the text as a material object contains nothing but a sequence of external forms of linguistic signs. They begin to be decoded and acquire content only in the process of perception and comprehension, that is, as a result of their interaction with the intellect, where the content of the text is formed as a certain mental formation. It follows that content does not exist outside the process of comprehension. Therefore, it is not transmitted, but rather excited, evoked in the brain of the person perceiving the text. In this regard, the text should be constructed in such a way that the formation of content in the intellect of the communication partner is optimal, effective, and adequate» [2].

Thus, A.I. Novikov emphasizes that the meaning of a text is not what "someone wanted to say" or "how someone wanted to be understood," but rather "how the recipient actually understood it." "A dominant, arising in consciousness, attracts a certain content around itself, restructures it, and thereby organizes the semantic space in a certain way. The discovery of such dominants is, perhaps, the transition to a semantic code that is not directly observable, but is recognized as such by everyone... A typical manifestation of such dominance can be considered the operation of units, such as keywords, semantic milestones, reference points, creating a kind of "relief" of the semantic space forming in consciousness" [2].

As noted earlier, one of the challenges in choosing phrases in professional communication is likely the author's assumption that the recipient will see the exact same content as originally intended. This is a common misconception among professionals, where phrases are formulated without considering how the client might understand and hear them, especially if the latter is experiencing indignation, hurt, anger, or dissatisfaction. However, making "calculations" and analyzing options in the commutative process of conflict is difficult, so it is useful to develop a set of apology phrases in advance. Therefore, our study focused on apology phrases that are frequently used in professional communication practices, as well as in organizational communication standards.

To determine how people understand and perceive apologies, and to find the most effective speech solutions, we conducted the following experiment.

Employees from companies across various industries were asked to respond to several apology formulations.

List of phrases:

1. We apologize for the inconvenience.
2. I am very sorry that the situation turned out this way.
3. I apologize on behalf of the company.
4. I'm sorry about this. Let's do it this way: you write a statement, and I'll contact our accounting department right now to expedite a decision. Do you agree?
5. Sorry for not warning you.
6. I'm sorry this happened. You'll now have to re-issue your documents.
7. Sorry, but I really have no influence on this.
8. I apologize if you were misinformed.
9. I apologize again, Anna, this would not have happened on my shift.
10. I'm truly sorry, Alexander Ivanovich, but you'll have to wait another day.

Instructions for experiment participants:

«"Please write down all your associations, thoughts, and emotions that the suggested phrases evoke. There are no right or wrong answers. You are not taking a test. Your impressions are important to us.".

Participants in the experiment were free to skip any wording they were unwilling to comment on. They were also free to add their own versions of phrases, even though the instructions did not require such a change. In this sense, the experiment not only provided an assessment of various apology wording but also allowed us to propose some "working" wording and recommendations for professionals and companies planning to incorporate apologies into their corporate standards and client-facing practices.

Developing the idea of the presence of semantic dominants in the text, A.I. Novikov emphasizes that words vary in their significance. Some play a more important role in conveying meaning, while others play a lesser role. The most significant words, isolated from the text and representing its main ideas, can be used to memorize this text in a condensed form. This condensed version allows for the text to be reproduced quite fully and accurately. Such condensation is used in everyday life, for example, when taking notes from lectures, reading books, articles, or other materials, and also when creating secondary texts. "Language units isolated directly from the text and intended for a condensed presentation of its main content are usually called keywords» [2].

When commenting on their reactions to apology phrases, subjects often single out (emotionally "cling") key words. Both the choice of words that respondents consider key and the emotional response these words evoke are important for analysis. Notably, the instructions did not include a comment about selecting these key words. Respondents voluntarily commented on specific key words, specifying that they were the "problem" and suggesting replacements. This process precisely reflects the idea that words in any phrase have their own degree of significance. When developing wording, it's important to pay attention to which words and phrases respondents attach greater importance to, and which they "skip" or do not provide any feedback on.

Let's look at the results of the experiment - what are the respondents' reactions to the proposed wording options.

A phrase containing only an apology is not sufficient on its own.

An apology left without further comment is generally perceived negatively by respondents. Any format is acceptable as long as the apology is followed by a follow-up detailing the actions the company or employee is taking to resolve the issue. Moreover, the "scope of the proposed work" isn't so important. It's valuable to hear that something concrete is being done. For example, 1,00% respondents responded positively to the following wording: «"I'm sorry about this. Let's do it this way: you write a statement, and I'll contact our accounting department right now to expedite a decision. Agreed?".

Overall, respondents' suggestions for improving the phrases focused less on the reasons why the unpleasant situation occurred and more on the specific actions to resolve it. For example, comments like these were: «"I don't need an apology, I need action. If they're actively addressing the issue at this point, that's great. If they just apologized, it would be better to keep quiet.".

Whatever apology phrase a communications specialist or corporate standards developer chooses, it shouldn't be left alone or followed by a long pause. This can provoke a negative reaction from the client and complicate the situation by receiving the response, "I don't need your apology.".

An apology will be effective if it's not left hanging in the conversation, but rather accompanied by a commentary on how the issue is being resolved or what the company or employee is currently doing or will do in the near future. That's why it's best to structure apologies in two parts: the apology itself + the actions taken to resolve the issue.

The official, familiar phrases don't work.

More than half of respondents reacted negatively to the «classic» formulations frequently used in professional communication: «"We apologize for the inconvenience" and "I apologize on behalf of the company"»: Standard, regulated// Necessary formality// Removes responsibility// I don’t believe it// Not bad, but dry, it would be good to add specifics for what the apology is for, to say it directly// Dry and insincere// Template// Formal and dry reply.

Thus, the formal language used by many companies and organizations is typically perceived as having a negative emotional connotation. A formal approach evokes negativity and irritation, thereby only exacerbating customer dissatisfaction and escalating conflicts. Therefore, it is recommended to replace such phrases.

The key word is "if"«

Respondents found not only independent parts of speech but also functional parts of speech, such as conjunctions, to be sensitive. In the phrase "I apologize, If "You were misinformed," as a rule, is an attempt to avoid admitting guilt while admitting its possibility, thereby smoothing over the situation and relieving tension. Most respondents (80%) reacted negatively to "conditional" apologies and gave the following comments: It's better to apologize without conditions// After this phrase, I would like to hear possible solutions to the problem// There is not enough transition to action// What does "if" mean? // If. This word ruins everything// Failure to admit the mistake and shifting the blame to others// If or for the fact that they misinformed? // The word "if" calls into question the client's statement.

Respondents also noted the conjunction "but" and its contrastive meaning. For example, in sentence #10: "I'm truly sorry, Alexander Ivanovich, but you'll have to wait another day." One comment on this phrase read: "Remove the "BUT" and elaborate on why you'll have to wait another day, perhaps offering compensation, if possible.".

Thus, a company's attempt to shirk responsibility is perceived negatively by customers. In this regard, the morphological level of the text determines the meaning of phrases no less than the lexical meaning of words. Therefore, conjunctions such as "if" and "but" in the context of the above phrases appear both as an attempt to defend themselves and as a shifting of responsibility, ultimately "failing" and eliciting a negative emotional response from the customer.

One of the respondents suggested replacing the second part of the phrase (and thereby eliminating the provocative conjunction «but») with text with a positive emotional connotation, for example, «tomorrow everything will be decided.».

 

The second part of the apology is the solution to the problem

The follow-up phrase should also be carefully considered. It's best to avoid any verbs or modal words (e.g., "you should," "you have to") that could lead the client to interpret the situation this way: "We made a mistake, and now you have to do this to solve everything," "You made a mistake, so you have to do this," "I don't know who made the mistake, but now you have to," etc. Any "blame shifting" onto the client should be avoided, even if there are objectively inaccuracies in the client's actions or errors.

Conclusions

Any formulation of professional language standards requires careful consideration. The question of how to effectively and appropriately apologize is relevant both in conflict situations, when a client has serious grievances against an organization, and in typical cases, when a client is dissatisfied but willing to communicate constructively.

Of course, there's no one-size-fits-all verbal solution that will always be effective. Each situation, the specifics of the company's operations, the particularities of its corporate culture, and the specifics of its clientele require careful selection of phrases and analysis of client reactions.

Based on the research, we developed recommendations to help companies choose the right apology language and train their employees to use it.

 

Recommendations for developing speech solutions for apologies in professional communication with a client:

1. It's effective to involve employees themselves in the development of standards, as they will be the ones pronouncing the chosen phrases and directly influencing customer attitudes toward the company.
2. Apologies are more effective when immediately accompanied by an explanation of how the issue will be resolved or what steps the company or employee is taking to resolve it. Therefore, it's best to formulate an apology in two parts: first the apology itself, and then information about the steps taken to resolve the problem.
3. Phrases used in formal language by many companies and organizations are often perceived negatively. A formal approach can cause dissatisfaction and irritation, which only exacerbates conflict. Therefore, it's advisable to replace such expressions with more empathetic ones.
4. Phrases should also be tested for "blaming the client." If this attitude is perceived by clients themselves, and especially by employees who are asked to use the phrase "get to work," it's best to adjust it by choosing neutral words. It's worth noting that respondents reacted negatively to both phrases that blamed them, such as "it's their own fault," and messages that "blamed others," such as colleagues or the company. In both cases, the client loses trust in the other person, and the risk of conflict increases.
5. It's useful to pay special attention not only to independent parts of speech but also to auxiliary parts of speech, such as conjunctions. Respondents were "sensitive" to phrases containing "subtext," such as those with the conjunctions "if" and "but.".
6. A.I. Novikov's principle of keyword selection can help you develop appropriate apology wording. Testing wording, collecting emotional reactions, and any associations with the phrase as a whole will help identify keywords that people "cling" to, whether positively or negatively. To craft an effective apology, you should focus on these keywords.

Literature

1. Leontiev A.A. Fundamentals of the theory of speech activity. – M., – 1974. – 368 p.
2. Novikov A.I. Text and its semantic dominants / Ed. N.V. Vasilyeva, N.M. Nesterova, N.P. Peshkova – M., 2007. – 224 p.
3. Sorokin Yu.A., Tarasov E.F., Shakhnarovich A.M. Theoretical and applied problems of speech communication / Ed. by A.A. Leontiev. – M.: Nauka, 1979. – 326 p.
4. Tarasov E.F., Golovina L.V. Understanding speech messages and the principle of complementarity // Organizational psycholinguistics. - 2019. - No. 2 (6). - P. 9–23.
5. Tarasov E.F. Additional models of speech communication (to the problem statement) // Organizational psycholinguistics. - 2020. - No. 3 (11). - P. 10–21.
6. Kharchenko E.V. Interpersonal communication: models of verbal behavior in professional strata. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philological Sciences. Moscow, 2004. – 470 p.

References 

1. Leontiev AA. Fundamentals of the theory of speech activity. - M., 1974. -368 p.
2. Novikov AI. Text and its semantic dominants / Edited by NV Vasilyeva, NM Nesterova, NP Peshkova – M., 2007. – 224 p.
3. Sorokin Yu.A., Tarasov E.F., Shakhnarovich A.M. Theoretical and applied problems of speech communication/ Edited by AA Leontiev. – M.: Nauka, 1979. – 326 p.
4. Tarasov EF, Golovina LV. Understanding speech messages and the principle of complementarity // Organizational psycholinguistics. — 2019. — No.2 (6). — pp. 9–23.
5. Tarasov EF. Additional models of speech communication (to the formulation of the problem) // Organizational psycholinguistics. — 2020. — No.3 (11). — pp.10-21.
6. Kharchenko EV. Interpersonal communication: models of verbal behavior in professional strata. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philology. - M., 2004. - p.470.