MAKING AN EXIT Or: Don’t forget your face on the way out Swedish politician’s exit-strategies when face is threatened Written by Nastasja Bujwid Hugosson Supervised by Michael Dunn University Uppsala Universitet Course Självständigt arbete 15hp, Lingvistik C Faculty Språkvetenskapliga fakulteten Institution Institutionen för lingvistik och filologi Period HT20 Abstract This essay is a qualitative study where the theory of face and image repair theory evaluate the apologetic strategy of a pudel. The analysed data is from Swedish former Members of Parliament that had to leave their positions due to scandals they were involved in that affected them personally. The analysis shows that the image repair strategy of bolstering is commonly used, that bolstering poses a threat on the speaker’s positive face, and that bolstering is a jeopardising move when attempting to perform a pudel. This study also confirms that when executed successfully, a pudel could restore image and be a successful face-saving strategy. The results also detect the need to further research on how linguistics and rhetoric can cooperate to make more thorough analyses of speech acts. Keywords: face, apologies, scandals, political scandals, excuses, face theory, image repair theory Sammanfattning Denna uppsats är en kvalitativ studie där teorin om face och image repair analyserar och utvärderar den kommunikativa strategin pudeln. Det analyserade datat kommer från pressmeddelanden, presskonferenser och officiella Facebookmeddelanden från svenska riksdagspolitiker som på grund av en skandal behövt lämna sin ledamotsroll i Sveriges Riksdag. Resultatet påvisar att strategin bolstering inom image repair teorin, är vanligt förekommande, att samma strategi utgör ett ansiktshot på den person som använder sig av den strategin och att om man inte lyckas med sin bolstering, riskerar man att inte rädda sitt ansikte eller anseende. Studien visar också på att en lyckad tillämpning av pudeln kan rädda en persons anseende och ansikte. Resultaten i studien öppnar även upp för framtida undersökning, och påvisar att lingvistiska teorier och retoriska teorier kan komplettera varandra vid mer ingående analyser av talakter. Nyckelord: ursäkter, skandaler, politiska skandaler, ansikte, artighetsstrategier i Table of contents ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................ i Sammanfattning .............................................................................................................................................. i Table of contents ............................................................................................................................................ ii 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Previous work and research ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 What is “scandal?” ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.2.1 Political scandal ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.3 What is “pudel”? ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.2 Theory ............................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2.1 Face ............................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2.1.1 Positive Face .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2.1.2 Negative face ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.1.3 Face-work ............................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Image restoration ...................................................................................................................... 5 Denial ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Evading Responsibility ........................................................................................................................... 6 Reducing Offensiveness ......................................................................................................................... 6 Corrective Action .................................................................................................................................... 7 Mortification........................................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Data ................................................................................................................................................ 7 1.3.1 The Swedish Parliament ............................................................................................................ 7 1.3.2 Retriever Mediearkivet .............................................................................................................. 8 1.3.3 The analysed data ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Method ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 8 1.4.1 Selection ..................................................................................................................................... 8 2. Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 10 2.1 Maria Borelius, 2006 – the past never forgets ............................................................................ 10 Rhetorical situation .............................................................................................................................. 10 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 10 ii Summary:.............................................................................................................................................. 12 2.2 Erik Almqvist, 2012 – it’s all fun and games until someone leaks your shortcomings .............. 12 Rhetorical situation .............................................................................................................................. 12 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Summary:.............................................................................................................................................. 15 2.3 Anders Forsberg, 2017 – it’s not embezzlement if the money is returned ................................ 15 Rhetorical situation .............................................................................................................................. 15 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 16 Summary:.............................................................................................................................................. 17 2.4 Erik Bengtzboe, 2019 – home is where you lay your head ......................................................... 18 Rhetorical situation .............................................................................................................................. 18 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Summary:.............................................................................................................................................. 20 3. Discussion................................................................................................................................................. 21 Are the cases political scandals? .......................................................................................................... 21 The choice of statement media ........................................................................................................... 21 Bolstering as a threat to face ..............................................................................................................