registers

Celebrities and Controversies: What Works and What Doesn’t in Apology Videos

In today’s high society of “cancel culture,” apologizing has become a language that has diversified. This study dives deep into the world of online apologies, exploring how the majority of our influential figures today, celebrities, use language in public apology videos to mend what’s been broken and rebuild trust with their audience. The emotions, words, and actions can all seem like an act crafted for the cameras. Through the analysis of 15 apology videos, we navigate the comments and perceptions made in the landscape of the online audience to decide whether a public apology is genuine or insincere. Using digital ethnography and discourse analysis to give us insight into solving this issue, we translate the visual and verbal cues that aren’t in the spotlight – the tone, the gestures, and the choice of words, which shape the perceptions of authenticity. But it’s not just about dissecting these apologies. We also evoke what characteristics make for a genuine apology– the unscripted words, raw emotions, and simple background. By differentiating successful apologies from those that were unsuccessful, we reveal candor in the meaning of language that is displayed in front of a public audience. Beyond what the surface entails, we explore the morality behind celebrity apologies. They can be a mirror reflecting societal values, fluctuations in power, and the road to redemption. This research is not for mere insight, but also offers a deeper understanding of what it truly is like behind the screens in this digital age. There is much power in how we express ourselves; dictating how we shape relationships, rebuild trust, and craft a shared narrative.

Introduction

Growing up, we are taught from a very young age that an apology consists of the words, “I’m sorry.” Is that all it takes as we grow up? In society today, apologies have become very normalized and with the rise of social media in place, it appears highly important to delve into the study of online public apologies by influential people, focusing on the linguistic features chosen to elicit successful apologies throughout crisis communication (Loisa, 2021). As social influencers carry much power, it is important to hold them accountable for their wrongdoings and not allow them to manipulate the public into thinking that something is okay when it is not. Through analysis, we found that sincerity and genuineness are key to carrying out a successful apology video. By having a good understanding of linguistics and the different meanings certain words and phrases obtain, we analyzed the linguistic repair strategies influencers use when creating online apology videos, validating a successful apology or a manipulative one. Through our analysis, our main concern focused on the language strategies used by content creators and celebrities in apology videos to convey sincerity and repair their image. On the contrary, we also focused on why some apology videos completely flop and are seen as manipulated tactics to convey an insincere apology.

Methods

To better understand apology videos, we decided to watch some of them. We selected 15 apology videos from a selection of prominent celebrities and content creators with over 1 million subscribers on YouTube at the time of their controversy (some lost subscribers due to their controversies and are now below 1 million subscribers as a result). We chose creator apologies resulting from major controversies that had an impact on both fans and people outside of their fan community. Critical to our study was selecting videos with varied audience responses, including, positive, negative, and mixed responses in order to gauge which strategies led to successful apologies and which ones didn’t.

Figure 1: Logan Paul’s widely-viewed and controversial apology for filming a dead body, complete with a YouTube interface, including views, likes (👍), and comments.

We fully submerged ourselves in the virtual worlds where these apologies occurred in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the surrounding context. Our digital ethnography involved analyzing the situations that necessitated an apology and the characteristics of the individuals giving the apology. We performed discourse analysis on spoken and unspoken communication in the films, assessing elements such as intonation, physical gestures, and vocabulary selection. To comprehend audience responses, we meticulously observed the comments that garnered the highest number of likes as an indicator of public sentiment, noting which strategies succeeded or fell flat. The inquiry did not focus on the more technical parts of discourse analysis, such as specific language frameworks and computer methods, which have been covered well in previous studies (Sandlin and Gracyalny, 2018). Our analysis, however, concentrated on overarching themes and tactics deemed significant in determining perceptions of sincerity and the effectiveness of apologies.

Results

Our research yielded a variety of results on the nature of apology videos and the success or lack thereof of various apology strategies. We noted the development of a unique speech register in apology videos, something that has been expounded upon previously (Choi, 2021). Similar filming choices emerge, including directly facing the camera from the shoulders or neck up, maintaining a plain personal appearance, and setting the video in a lightly colored, simple, domestic room. Despite an uncomplicated backdrop and a lack of extravagant accessories being intended to index sincerity, we found that these decisions had no real effect on the apology’s perception.

We found three major strategies: apologizing, refuting the need to apologize and defending oneself, and apologizing while defending and minimizing one’s actions. Genuine apologies with the use of the word “Sorry” and assumption of responsibility or well-evidenced, thorough rebuttals of accusations were well-received, but poorly-evidenced or incomplete rebuttals were criticized. Fans want natural speech with an unscripted tone, criticizing apologies they perceive as stilted or relying on a script, but still want meticulous, well-thought-out responses, while also wanting concise apologies that allow anyone to grasp the core message without delving extensively into the subject matter, a high and somewhat contradictory standard. Musical apologies like Colleen Ballinger’s ukulele song apology or Sienna Mae’s interpretive dance apology were seen as bizarre and inappropriate, especially in response to accusations of grooming minors and sexual assault respectively. Sympathy-baiting distractions, like TmarTn doing baby-talk to his dog in his apology, were also heavily criticized.

Figure 2: Successful and unsuccessful characteristics of apology videos.

Gaming and commentary YouTuber PewDiePie’s apology gives us an example of some strategies being successfully employed. In his succinctly titled “My Response”, PewDiePie was praised for directly apologizing and not excusing his behavior. His acknowledgment of his status as a role model and influential figure and his need to be better, particularly due to his other recent controversies, were appreciated by fans.

Figure 3: PewDiePie’s apology, which was praised for its simplicity and direct admittance of his mistake and apology.

PewDiePie’s apology was favorably compared to later apology videos, particularly for its lack of forced emotion or other forms of sympathy-baiting. Fans derived sincerity from a lack of attempted markers of sincerity, feeling like they were not being tricked but allowed to judge only the content of the apology.

Figure 4: Responses to PewDiePie’s apology video. He was praised for directly and succinctly owning up to his mistake and his lack of excuses.

In contrast, hip-hop artist Travis Scott’s apology video gives us an example of how an apology video and its strategies can backfire. Scott was mocked for his “over-dramatic” black-and-white filter, along with the frequency with which he rubbed his face. While his frequent blinking and facial rubbing could indicate crying and remorse, viewers noted his lack of tears or an actual “I’m sorry”. It is advisable to maintain an emotional equilibrium, effectively conveying genuine emotion appropriate for the video without being excessive or appearing to force it for sympathy.

Figure 5: A screenshot from Travis Scott’s widely lambasted apology video as posted on Instagram, including the infamous black-and-white filter and forehead rubbing.

His lack of concern and failure to stop his concert while his fans were being crushed to death in the crowd contrasted with this sudden change of heart two days later seemed dishonest. Scott’s apology was widely labeled as disingenuous, something advised by lawyers or publicists to shore up his image while refusing to actually accept responsibility for legal reasons.

Figure 6: Responses to Travis Scott’s apology video. His frequent head rubbing and emotionality were widely seen as markers of insincerity, and his stilted delivery and lack of an actual acknowledgment of responsibility were considered to reveal the video’s motivations as insincere.

When actions that typically index sincerity seem forced or incongruent with the context of the apology, it becomes a target for accusations of insincerity and dishonesty, which can be crippling to any apology (Hope, 2019). It is not enough to perform actions and apology video tropes that might be perceived to index sincerity (e.g. a plain appearance, emotionality); the content and tone of the apology and their appropriateness in relation to the inciting event are more important. While some strategies are more successful than others, how they are used is most important.

Discussion and Conclusions

Studying celebrity public apologies is essential for understanding how individuals in the public eye navigate accountability and redemption. These apologies offer valuable insights into the complex strategies of communication and public relations. We can gain a better understanding of celebrities’ relationships with their fans and what each party feels they owe each other through apologies and celebrities’ motivations for apologizing (Matheson, 2023). Language, tone, and framing play pivotal roles in shaping public perception and reception of these apologies. Celebrities employ linguistic devices to manage their image and reputation, illustrating the significant impact of language on social influence. Moreover, celebrity apologies serve as cultural artifacts, reflecting broader societal values and norms. Analyzing these apologies unveils the nuanced dynamics between language, culture, and public opinion. They provide a lens through which we can explore themes such as ethics, power dynamics, and identity. Furthermore, studying celebrity apologies offers insights into psychological processes like guilt, remorse, and forgiveness. Language becomes a medium through which individuals convey sincerity, empathy, or deflect responsibility. By dissecting these linguistic choices, we gain a deeper understanding of human behavior and interpersonal dynamics. In essence, celebrity apologies serve as rich sources for examining the intersection of language, culture, psychology, and social influence. They highlight the intricate ways in which language shapes and reflects our understanding of accountability, redemption, and societal values.

Related resources:

References

Battistella, Edwin L. Sorry about That: The Language of Public Apology / Edwin L. Battistella. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Choi, G. Y., & Mitchell, A. M. (2022). So sorry, now please watch: Identifying image repair strategies, sincerity and forgiveness in Youtubers’ apology videos. Public Relations Review, 48(4), 102226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102226

Croley, MacKenzie. “A Linguistic View of a Twitter Apology.” Journal of Student Research (Houston, Tex.), vol. 10, no. 2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.47611/jsr.v10i2.1230.

Hope, Jessamyn. “Seven Steps to a Successful Apology.” The Hopkins Review, vol. 12, no. 1, 2019, pp. 60–80, https://doi.org/10.1353/thr.2019.0007.

Loisa, J. (2021).” I’m just letting everyone know that I’m an idiot”: Apology Strategies in YouTubers’ Apology Videos (Master’s thesis, Itä-Suomen yliopisto).

Matheson, Benjamin. “Fame and Redemption: On the Moral Dangers of Celebrity Apologies.” Journal of Social Philosophy, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12510.

Sandlin, J. K., & Gracyalny, M. L. (2018). Seeking sincerity, finding forgiveness: YouTube apologies as Image Repair. Public Relations Review, 44(3), 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.04.007

apology strategies, apology YouTube videos, authenticity, body language, registers, social media

Celebrities and Controversies: What Works and What Doesn’t in Apology Videos Read Post »

Professor-Student Register Differences

Sociolinguistics

Something students are conditioned to do is change the way they speak to people in power, specifically their professors. They want to sound knowledgeable and inquisitive, refraining from using slang, meme speaks, and overuse of filler words. One difference we were intrigued by was register changes in lectures. Register is defined as the style of speaking and writing distinguished by its formality, purpose, or audience. Key aspects include vocabulary/jargon, tone, or grammar complexity. This research explored how university students linguistically interact with their professors and classmates in upper and lower-division courses, focusing on register changes. Previous research in this field of study found that students who are fluent in two languages (English and French) use control processes to produce speech registers that are either formal or informal (Declerck et al., 2020). Our null hypothesis was that no difference in the register formality occurred between upper and lower-division courses. Our alternative hypothesis was that register changes were more significant, including the formality in upper-division courses through primarily observational methods and a supplemental survey. This research is important to analyze the way register changes can be impacted by a student’s conditioning and how professors can use this impact to reframe their lecture approach.

Background

Linguistic registers are characteristics of speaking or writing that can change situationally. These registers can reflect the speaker’s identity and the relationship between the speaker and the person they are speaking to (Agha, 2005). The observations made in upper and lower-division courses will let us know how students change their register formality and if this change is dependent on whether the class encourages a more formal register when responding to questions or communicating with one another.

Methods

Using Biber and Conrad’s guide on register analysis in Register, Genre, and Style as a reference, we approached analyzing linguistic register changes in university classrooms with the following steps:

Note the environment and situation of the research setting and how these can affect the characteristics of observed registers.
Record any register features that can be considered ‘normal.’
Compare and contrast the average features of the register with features of the register that were observed to be situational.

To distinguish between formal and informal register in the courses we observed, we classified formal language as any language that had proper grammar, included references to some sort of study or concept, utilized terms that are appropriate to the subject matter, and language that demonstrates respect and formality through the use of a professional tone. An informal register was classified as any language that seemed more conversational or less structured, personal or subjective, did not include terms indicative of the class material, explained certain concepts in simple language, and used a more relaxed tone when participating in discussions.

Considering this method and understanding of registers, researchers attended in-person and recorded lectures at the University of California, Los Angeles, and office hours for select courses, accumulating data from twenty lectures. The lectures were chosen based on their lower or upper division status, two lower and two upper courses. In these settings, we expected to observe a difference in the linguistic register, with the hypothesis that students in upper-division courses had a more formal register because they were experienced and ready to enter the workforce.

The classrooms of the lectures we researched were situated with the speaker at the front, usually on a stage or near some podium with many seats facing forward. This arrangement establishes a sense of hierarchy, control, and power. However, the practice and enforcement of this hierarchy depended on how the professors taught and carried themselves along with the room. Some professors encouraged students to speak and contribute to the discussion, while others preferred to control the conversations to remain on schedule. Student-to-student conversations were minimal but still observed.

Our goal was to observe intently during lectures how students interacted with the professor and how that differed from the conversations amongst fellow students. Also, why was this difference significant, and what factors could influence this conditioned shift in speech behavior? To supplement our observational research, we asked students and professors a 5-question multiple choice survey to gauge how they felt about their register or how aware they were of it. The questions and choices were as follows:

Do you know what a linguistic register is? (Yes/Somewhat/No)
Do you notice differences in speaking in upper and lower-division courses? (Yes/Somewhat/No)
Do you notice how your speech changes when discussing or conversing with your peers and professors? (Yes/Somewhat/No)
Do you think factors like professor approachability, classroom size, and course subject influence how you adjust your language in an academic setting? (Yes/Somewhat/No)
Are there words or phrases you use more frequently in an academic setting that you would not use elsewhere or vice versa? (Yes/Somewhat/No)

Results

Through careful observation, we noticed a significant change in the linguistic register in ten lower and ten upper-division lectures. This is in addition to the results of our supplemental survey, which revealed that students did notice a difference in their registers in their upper—and lower-division courses, noting that they indeed use a more formal register within their upper-division courses.

In upper-division courses, we noticed that students had more formal vocabularies and tended to express their ideas more structured and logically by referencing past concepts and citing where they got their answers or supporting evidence. As for lower-division courses, students used a more informal register, which led to students just trying to get their point across and ending their sentences in a way that made it seem as if they were unsure about their response. Students in lower-division courses also appeared to use words such as “um,” “uhh,” and “I think” more often than students in upper-division courses.

In a particular upper division course, the professor began every lecture by yelling “GOOD AFTERNOON” and expected a loud response, often requesting a redo if it was unsatisfactory. In an informal interview with this professor, she said it was to encourage students to have a voice in a large classroom. She stated that she would prefer a smaller classroom where they could be sitting in a circle. She often ended her lecture 30 minutes before class ended because she saw great importance in students discussing with each other and listening to different perspectives. This engagement was an attempt at breaking the hierarchical barrier of the class setting.

Graph 1 shows the difference in formality observed in the upper-division courses we observed throughout the ten lectures. Graph 2 shows the difference in formality observed in the
lower-division courses throughout ten lectures.

The graphs provided show the difference in formality between the upper- and lower-division courses we observed. Upper-division courses, for the most part, had formal register/language, while lower-division courses mostly had informal register/language.

Another interesting observation we noticed in both upper- and lower-division courses is that students who speak two languages and have a particular accent when talking to another student who may or may not share similar cultures seem to turn their accent off whenever they talk to an individual in a position of power, such as a professor or teacher assistant.

Analysis

These conclusions rejected our null hypothesis and supported the alternative hypothesis that there is a significant difference in the register used in upper-division courses versus those used in lower-division courses. Worth noting is that the reason for a more formal register in upper-division courses is the fact that upper-division courses necessitate the development of critical thinking, which requires students to express their ideas and responses in a more structured and logical manner, which further goes to show the complexity within the concepts seen in these courses. As shown in the graphs within the results, upper-division courses mainly used formal language, while lower-division courses used informal language. The bars on the graph that showed minimal informal or formal language in each respective course resulted from some days in the upper-division courses being relatively easygoing and not necessitating much discussion, while the formal register occurrences in lower-division courses happened as a result of professors making the student think critically about their answer and add to the discussion of the class on a specific complex concept.

Through this research, the discussion opens about how professors can facilitate change that empowers students to speak in their classrooms. With this knowledge, an improvement will likely create a better learning space while maintaining a professional register. The power dynamics do not have to be so stark that they intimidate students to not participate in lectures. However, professors should teach in a way that their course will introduce students to a more formal register early on in the course and gradually increase the emphasis on formal language as the course progresses. Especially in lower-division courses where informal linguistic register is standard, these changes will benefit students (more than likely first- and second-year students) in the long run, where future professional and academic environments will necessitate the use of formal language to express their critical thinking.

References

Agha, A., Duranti, A. (2005). Registers of Language. In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 23–45). https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/web.sas.upenn.edu/dist/1/494/files/2018/08/19Agha2004RegistersOfLang-13dji2r.pdf

Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, genre, and style / Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad. (Second edition.). Cambridge University Press.

Declerck, M., Ivanova, I., Grainger, J., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2020). Are similar control processes Implemented during single and dual-language production? Evidence from switching between speech registers and languages. Bilingualism (Cambridge, England), 23(3), 694–701. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000695

Goulart, L., Gray, B., Staples, S., Black, A., Shelton, A., Biber, D., … & Wizner, S. (2020). Linguistic perspectives on register. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6, 435-455.

Washington-Harmon, T. (2024, January 5). Code-switching has benefits and risks-but why do we do it? Health. https://www.health.com/mind-body/health-diversity-inclusion/code-switching

classroom, formality, professors, registers

Professor-Student Register Differences Read Post »