Pragmatic Strategies of Apology and Responsibility in Healthcare Workers’ Clarifications Following Cyberbullying Accusations

Muhammad Fahri Jaya Sudding (Universitas Negeri Makassar)
Citra Dwi Safitri (Universitas Negeri Makassar)
Musdalifah Musdalifah (Universitas Negeri Makassar)
Sudding Sudding (Universitas Negeri Makassar)

ELT Worldwide: Journal of English Language Teaching
Vol 13, No 2 (2026)

Public apologies in digitally mediated controversies constitute complex pragmatic acts through which speakers respond to perceived offenses while simultaneously managing responsibility and repairing threatened identities. This study investigates the pragmatic strategies of apology and responsibility employed by healthcare workers in their public clarifications following cyberbullying accusations. Employing a qualitative pragmatic approach, the study analyzed publicly circulated written and audiovisual clarification statements produced by healthcare workers involved in a social media controversy concerning patient-related discourse. The data were segmented into pragmatic units and examined in terms of apologetic functions and the ways responsibility was accepted, mitigated, negotiated, or delimited. The findings reveal several recurring strategies, including explicit apology, acknowledgement of wrongdoing, expression of regret, recognition of harm, acceptance of responsibility and consequences, professional self-evaluation, commitment to behavioral change, explanation, mitigation of intentionality, and institutional distancing. Three broader orientations toward responsibility emerged from these strategies: full responsibility acceptance, reflective responsibility acceptance, and negotiated responsibility. Significantly, explicit apology did not necessarily correspond to unconditional responsibility-taking. Speakers could acknowledge wrongdoing while mitigating harmful intention or delimiting the institutional implications of their individual conduct. The clarifications also functioned as forms of face and professional identity repair, particularly through references to empathy, ethical expectations, and future behavioral improvement. The study demonstrates that public apology and responsibility are closely related but pragmatically distinct and argues that digitally mediated apologies should be understood as dynamic processes of apology, responsibility negotiation, and face or identity repair.