My reading of sorry and a concluding comment! --- An interesting analysis John and one which if correct, would likely have caused serious deterioration of relationships between the US and China!

I see the first 'sorry' as a conventional expression of condolence.

The second 'sorry' is much more interesting, as everybody's comments have suggested. In my view the US had to find phrasing which would make the apology as genuine-sounding as possible while still falling short of adopting responsibility.

The explanation is provided within the frame of a 'severely crippled aircraft' (no mention of how it came to be crippled because of its own transgressions and failure to heed warnings)

Sorry 'the entering... and the landing' refers to given events which are framed as having no agent (the use of the gerundive -ing form reifies them thus presenting them as 'givens' or 'fait accompli' and the absence of a subject removes any of the responsibility that come with agency)

Sorry [these givens] 'did not have verbal clearance' narrows the apology not to territorial encroachment but to the absence of verbal go-ahead with the implication that this may have been because of a shortage of time. The focus here is once again shifted away from the original transgression and the many warnings the US crew were given before action was taken.

This change of focus continues in the next clause which emphasises human survival.

What is fascinating about all the examples that we have discussed is the broad range of reactions we have offered. Same words - different meanings. The common denominator for all of us has been a recognition that the context is essential in informing our interpretation.

By and large, the closer we are to an event, the more vested we are in our own reaction and the less open we are to a re-analysis of the context.

Detective stories often play on these inclinations by inviting us to jump to conclusions and then showing us how a special kind of mind (Sherlock Holmes' or whoever's) is able to solve the case by seeing things without that bias.

Source author: Biljana Scott biscott@diplomacy.edu