How to apologize beautifully

1. Trying to bring everything “back to how it was.” Honest and simple—but insufficient. An unpleasant aftertaste will remain. True atonement is possible only through repentance. Never forget the fixed idea of every offended person: “They’ll come crawling to me on their knees.”

2. Giving an indecently generous gift. An off-holiday Santa Claus gesture may catch the recipient off guard and cause a temporary “thaw” in the relationship. Temporary, of course. Distracting attention with a lollipop is a proven trick that works flawlessly only with small children.

3. Turning on the timer. What if time heals the other person’s hurt? Spoiler: you may end up waiting forever—and in vain. Emotional wounds do not simply heal on their own. An alternative scenario is also likely: a real grievance, once placed in the creative space of memory, may grow imaginary details. Sooner or later, the entire snowball will fall on your head—unexpectedly and at the worst possible moment.

4. Sending a tearful apology emoji, accompanied by a pleading companion. If the desired reaction does not follow, a ready-made card with a fluffy kitten and lots of hearts comes next. Such cotton-candy apologies may work for people whose relationships exist entirely within a smartphone screen. In real-life offline relationships, these “sorry” broadcasts are nothing more than a reason for a new offense—this time for your unwillingness to make a worthy sacrifice on the altar of reconciliation.

The chances that an improvised apology based on everyday experience will lead to the desired outcome are, frankly, slim. Anticipating this, the editorial team of our conflict-free magazine has prepared a life buoy—fully inflated with the help of a scientific pump.

If we treat language as a tool of communication, let us view dialogue as a communicative technology. Armed with pragmalinguistic knowledge and thorough preparation, you can help your interlocutor defeat the windmills of resentment.

By the way, today happens to be Open House Day in the ivory tower where philologists reside. To understand the technological process of cultivating forgiveness from a mixture of anger and misunderstanding, pragmalinguistics will come to our aid—a mediator between fundamental linguistics and ordinary speakers. Thanks to its achievements, we know how language can be used to achieve communicative goals in everyday interaction.

One of the most significant discoveries of pragmalinguistics in the last century is the identification and description of communicative strategies and tactics, presented in the works of T. van Dijk, V. Z. Demyankov, O. S. Issers, and other prominent scholars. Sadly, outside the ivory tower, this scientific insight is rarely applied in practice. When preparing for reconciliation, we buy flowers, chocolates, gift certificates—but no one rehearses the penitential speech. Forgive us, but that simply won’t do.

It is naïve to believe that the right words will appear “by themselves” and miraculously form an argument with a mild sedative effect on the addressee. Lexical units denoting apology are not part of our active vocabulary—unless you are a pathological sinner with a manic need for public repentance. Thoughtful word choice takes time. Moreover, verbal improvisation—requiring syntactic juggling—is a special kind of speech art mastered, for example, by stand-up comedians.

There are only a few professional speakers among us. That is precisely why difficult conversations require preparation. On a cognitive level, one must lay out the main route of the dialogic strategy and select tactical speech moves to achieve the goal. Spontaneous dialogue leads to spontaneous results—which means the long-awaited “I forgive you” may never end up in your pocket.

The dialogic strategy used in situations of unresolved guilt is defined by pragmalinguistics as a defensive strategy. In our case, it is a double line of defense: protecting ourselves (our communicative “face,” unwilling to change into the rags of a criminal-beggar) while also shielding the wounded “self” of the interlocutor. Among many possible tactics, let us examine two alternatives.

The Tactic of Explication. If everything is complicated and the path of repentance feels like a quest, explain your misdeed. A quick mumble of etiquette clichés will not suffice. Besides, “I’m sorry” and “forgive me” are not the same. In her seminal Pragmatics of Apology, Doctor of Philology and Professor Renate Rathmayr emphasizes that the verb to apologize is closely tied to the concept of guilt. The speaker hopes for acquittal and seeks relief from remorse due to mitigating circumstances. Essentially, it is a formal necessity.

“Forgive me,” however, is heavy artillery. It appeals to the interlocutor’s willingness to understand and accept the offender as they are. Forgiveness is linked to the concept of sin and presupposes judgment by strict moral standards. Perhaps the phenomenal success of Mireille Mathieu’s hit “Pardonne-moi ce caprice d’enfant” (“Forgive Me This Childish Whim”) lies precisely in this “magic” white-flag word. A song-confession, a song-repentance of infidelity, is perceived as a heartfelt plea for salvation—and the audience, in the role of interlocutor, is ready to melt.

Stockpile arguments for your defense—yes, in advance, and with extras. “I meant well” or “Who could have known?” are predictable—and useless. The offended party has already anticipated and rejected these excuses. Even a fairy unicorn would be more appropriate. You need a sensation. A cognitive shock.

Imagine your self-justifying speech as churchkhela: the nuts are your arguments. The more fresh nuts, the tastier the treat. Thread them onto a strong string of logical connectors—firstly, because, therefore, including. Only then will the structure hold together. Otherwise, your churchkhela will crumble into scattered ingredients. Phrases like “you know what I mean” or “I don’t even know how to say this” are verbal debris the listener will not sift through in search of supportive pearls.

The Tactic of Expanding the Volume of Utterances. This tactic is suitable when you do not feel criminally guilty and plan to overwhelm the interlocutor with the sheer size of your churchkhela. Here, you may sacrifice content for form. Poets do this beautifully—why not add a little poetry to everyday prose? Shower them with apologies. Let the nuts be diverse, even rare ones:
“I am at fault,” “I repent,” “For the first and last time,” “I am guilty,” “Please understand,” “Have mercy.”

Seizing the initiative in dialogue increases your chances of victory.

Recall foreign language classes at school—how easily everyday scenes were acted out at the blackboard. Memorized dialogic units in the учебная situation of offense, with their predictable happy ending (“you are forgiven”), guaranteed an “A.” There is no reason this theory cannot become practice. In the school of life, it is also better to arrive prepared. Under this condition, the bold dot we started with turns into a promising ellipsis.