Upload
phamquynh
View
248
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I certify that the work presented in this research report
has been performed and interpreted solely by myself. I
confirm that this word is submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirement of the B.A. Degree and has not been
submitted elsewhere in any other form for the
fulfillment of any other degree or qualification.
Dong Thap, April 2012
Nguyen Thi Phuong Dung
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
During the process of carrying out the study, I have received a large amount of
contribution and support from many people.
First, I would like to send my heartfelt thanks to Dean and all the lectures of the
Foreign Language Department of Dong Thap University who gave me a chance
to study the thesis.
Second, I would like to express my greatest and sincerest appreciation to Mrs.
Huynh Cam Thao Trang, M.A, and my supervisor, for her precious advices,
guidance, and support in the pursuance of this study.
Last but not least, I am grateful to my two friends Phan Thanh Tan and Nguyen
Van Trong for what they have done to help me finish the study.
iii
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates how similarly and differently native speakers of English
and Vietnamese use apologies politely in terms of cross-cultural perspective in
the light of 3 apology strategies including: getting attention, rejecting a request or
an invitation and admitting guilt with an explanation basing on the previous
study of Mrs. Huynh Cam Thao Trang (2009) as a foundation for research. The
data are collected by books, questionnaire and interview. The questionnaire is
obtained with 20 Vietnamese participants and 20 English participants including
American, Australian, Canadian and English. The interview is also delivered to
20 English participants and 20 Vietnamese participants. The participants for
questionnaire and interview are different. Their responses then are analyzed
separately to identify the types of apology structure and to measure the degree of
frequency in giving apologies. The study is of a descriptive nature. Frequencies,
percentages and the means of these percentages are considered. The prime
findings of the study reveal that Vietnamese and English native speakers are
nearly similar in the choice of apology forms appropriate in admitting guilt with
an explanation and different in the degree of using apologizing words. The
Vietnamese native speakers less give apologies than native speakers of English.
It seems that the English native speakers give apologies more politely than
Vietnamese people but in Vietnamese culture instead of using apologizing word
Vietnamese people have different ways of speaking to show the politeness.
iv
ABBREVIATIONS
n total number
(n=1) total number of participants is 1
p. page
Per. percentage
S situation
T.N total number
v
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iii
ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENT................................................................................................. v
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
1. Motivation of the study ........................................................................................ 1
2. Aims of the study ................................................................................................. 2
3. Research methods ................................................................................................ 3
4. Scope of the study ................................................................................................ 3
5. Significance of the study ...................................................................................... 3
6. Previous study ...................................................................................................... 3
7. Organization of the thesis .................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 5
1. Speech acts ............................................................................................................ 5
2. Speech acts and Politeness ..................................................................................... 6
2.1. Politeness ........................................................................................................ 9
2.1.1. Definition of politeness ............................................................................ 9
2.1.2. Politeness across cultures ....................................................................... 10
2.1.3. “Politeness- directness- indirectness” in apologizing .............................. 11
3. Speech acts of apology ........................................................................................ 12
3.1. Definitions of apologies ................................................................................ 13
vi
3.2. Apologizing forms in English and Vietnamese .............................................. 16
3.3. Apology strategies ........................................................................................ 19
3.3.1. Strategy 1: Getting attention ................................................................... 19
3.3.2. Strategy 2: Rejecting a request or an invitation ....................................... 21
3.3.3. Strategy 3: Admitting guilt with an explanation ...................................... 22
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 24
1. Research questions .............................................................................................. 24
2. Research participants ........................................................................................... 24
3. Research procedure.............................................................................................. 25
4. Research instruments ........................................................................................... 25
4.1. Questionnaire ................................................................................................ 26
4.2. Interview....................................................................................................... 26
4.3. Books analysis .............................................................................................. 27
5. Method of data analysis ....................................................................................... 27
5.1. Statistic ......................................................................................................... 27
5.2. Compare and contrast.................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................... 29
1. An overview of results ......................................................................................... 29
1.1.2. Situation 2 .............................................................................................. 34
1.1.3. Situation 3 .............................................................................................. 35
1.1.4. Situation 4 .............................................................................................. 36
1.1.6. Situation 6 .............................................................................................. 37
1.2. Results of interview ...................................................................................... 39
1.2.1. Getting attention ..................................................................................... 39
1.2.2. Rejecting a request or an invitation ......................................................... 43
vii
1.2.3. Admitting guilt with an explanation ....................................................... 45
3.2. Discussion .................................................................................................... 58
3.2.1. Similarities ............................................................................................. 58
3.2.2. Differences ............................................................................................. 60
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 63
1. Summary ............................................................................................................. 63
2. Results ................................................................................................................. 64
3. Suggestions ......................................................................................................... 65
REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 67
APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................viii
APENDIX 1 ..............................................................................................................viii
APENDIX 2 ................................................................................................................. x
APENDIX 3 ............................................................................................................... xii
APENDIX 4 .............................................................................................................. xiv
1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1. Motivation of the study
Commonly language is an important part of culture, and a culture is reflected
through its language. A piece of culture can be referred to, but it is differently
interpreted. In the broadest sense, language is also the symbolic
representation of a person, since it comprises his/her historical and cultural
background, as well as his/her approach to life and his/her ways of living
and thinking. Brown (1994: 165) describes that “a language is a part of a
culture and a culture is a part of a language; the two are intricately
interwoven so that one cannot separate the two without losing the
significance of either language or culture”. In a word, culture and language are
inseparated, so foreign language learning is foreign culture learning. As a result,
nowadays learning a foreign language does not only learn syntactic structures or
learn new vocabulary and expressions but also incorporate some cultural
elements intertwined with language itself. As Vietnam is integrating many
countries around the world, learning English is getting more and more important
and essential. English has been used as an international language all over the
world and as a means of communication with different purposes. However, to
succeed in communication is not easy since every society has its own socio-
cultural and communicative behaviors. The difficulty is that understanding how
to communicate effectively with individuals who speak another language or who
rely on different means to reach communicative goal. It is, therefore, perhaps the
most important for people to realize that a basic understanding of cultural
diversity is the key to effective cross-cultural communications.
In daily life, people take plenty of actions to communicate with others, for
example, thanks, apologies, greetings, invitations, compliments, requests or
complaints which can be done both verbally and non-verbally. There have been
many conflicts of the world are caused as result of the lack of cross –culture
knowledge. Take speech acts of apology as an example. An apology is one of the
cultural features that people who learn English need to pay attention to. It is an
2
expressive speech act which is not only a normal utterance but also an issue of
great concern. Apologizing occurs in every culture to maintain good relations
between interlocutors. When one apologizes, one may intend not merely to
express regret but also to seek forgiveness. However, with different social level
and ages, people use different ways of apologies. In Vietnamese daily life, in
many situations Vietnamese people need to say “sorry” but as a habit they rarely
do so. A great number of foreign visitors, therefore, complain that they are
disappointed and angry when they do not receive any apologies from Vietnamese
people when they have fault. Because of different culture, when communicating
with English native speakers, Vietnamese people often make mistake and
misunderstand. Apologizing is not an easy matter in Vietnamese language, and
having to do it in a second or foreign language is even more complicated. The
native speakers of English and Vietnamese share differences and similarities in
terms of giving apologies in social interaction. Thus, mastering how to give
apologies politely, effectively and appropriately not to misunderstand, shock and
hurt is a need.
For the above reasons, finding the similarities and differences in English and
Vietnamese in apologies is a must. The finding hopefully helps Vietnamese
teachers and learners keep the conversation with foreigners going on. To achieve
it, the thesis is attempted to answer tree research questions:
1. How do the Vietnamese native speakers and the English native speakers say
apologies?
2. What are the similarities and differences in making polite apologies between
the Vietnamese native speakers and the English native speakers?
3. Do ages, social positions and relationships influence making polite apologies?
2. Aims of the study
The aims of this study are to compare how similarly and differently the native
speakers of English and Vietnamese use apologies in terms of cross-cultural
features based on comparing the structures and strategies of apologies. The
3
apology strategies including getting attention, rejecting a request or invitation
and admitting guilt with explanation will be investigated.
3. Research methods
In the study, the methods used to collect relevant data are statistic, compare and
contrast apologizing forms which are extracted from books, questionnaire and
interview. First, data is mainly collected from English and Vietnamese books.
They are then analyzed to find out the similarities and differences in making
apologies in English and Vietnamese in terms of providing theoretical
background for the process of comparative and contrastive analysis in the thesis.
Next, questionnaire and interview are employed to investigate the reality of using
apologies between the English native speakers and the native speakers of
Vietnamese. They are delivered to 40 native speakers of Vietnamese and 40
English native speakers in Ho Chi Minh City.
4. Scope of the study
The study is a comparative analysis on making polite apologies in English and
Vietnamese in terms of cross-cultural perspective performed by the native
speakers of English and Vietnamese. The thesis is limited to verbal aspects of
making apologies based on eight forms and three strategies. The study also
investigates the factors influence the way of making apology such as social level,
age and relationship.
5. Significance of the study
Finding out the similarities and differences in English and Vietnamese in polite
apologies is expected to make a significant contribution to effective
communication. As a matter of fact, Vietnamese people can be more confident
when communicating or cooperating with the native speakers of English and use
apologies exactly in specific situations. Hopefully, the study will help learners
acquire how to remain relationships and keep conversations going on effectively
with foreigners.
6. Previous study
4
Through the research process, two previous studies related to this thesis will be
used to compare the findings.
One study was carried out in spring 2009 by Huynh Cam Thao Trang. Her study
focused on seven forms and three apology strategies in English and Vietnamese
including getting attention, rejecting a request or invitation and admitting guilt
with explanation. Her study, however, did not concentrate on comparing how
similarly and differently native speakers of English and Vietnamese use polite
apologies in terms of cross-cultural features.
The other study is made by Mrs. Huynh Thi Nhi. The paper analyzed similarities
and differences in English and Vietnamese in the light of utterances of apology.
However, her study did not focus on three apology strategies as well as did not
compare the degree of frequency in using apologies between Vietnamese native
speakers and native speakers of English.
This study will combine the results of the two studies above to develop the
researcher‟s thesis. They are hopefully basic foundations this thesis.
7. Organization of the thesis
This study is divided into three parts as follows:
Chapter 1, introduction, presents an overview of the study in which the reason for
the research, the aims, the research methods, the scope, the significance of the
study, related previous study as well as the organization of the study.
Chapter 2 reviews the theoretical background of the study including speech acts
of apologies, politeness, and strategies of apologies.
Chapter 3 discusses issues of methodology, research questions, research
participants, research procedure, data collection, and method of analysis.
Chapter 4 presents an overview of results and discusses the results of
questionnaire and interview.
Chapter 5, Conclusion, addresses the key issues in the study and summarizes
some shortcomings revealed during the process of completing this thesis.
5
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Speech acts
Speech act theory, developed by Searle (1979) following Austin‟s work (1975),
is based on the idea that language is a form of behavior, and it is governed by
rules (p. 22). Linguistic communication is seen as conventionalized, its minimal
unit being the speech act, i.e. “an utterance that serves a function in
communication” (University of Minnesota: Center for Advance Research on
Language Acquisition‟s website). The idea that language is behavior is the key to
understand how language functions in a social context. Trosborg (1987:147)
notes “appropriate social behavior patterns, as they are perceived in Western
societies, are built on the norms which constitute polite behavior”. It is well
known that what is considered polite behavior varies among different socio-
cultural groups. Therefore, those norms which constitute polite behavior will be
different in different societies.
Speech acts can be defined as the basic unit of communication and they are part
of linguistic competence. As Schmidt and Richards (1980) state speech acts are
all the acts that speakers perform through speaking, and all the things that
speakers do and the interpretation and negotiation of speech acts depend on
discourse of context.
Speech acts have also been classified as indirect and direct speech acts.
According to Searle (1979), one speech act is brought about indirectly by
performing another one in indirect speech acts and their interpretation changes
according to the situation, the manner of speaking and to whom people speak.
Fraser (1978) claims that indirect speech acts with illocutionary force are similar
across languages but their distribution, function and frequency of occurrence may
show differences. According to Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), there are inter-
cultural, cross-cultural and individual differences in using speech acts. Second
language learners have been claimed to have disadvantages in using speech acts
to communicate with native speakers of the target language because of the
complexity of speech acts since they are conditioned by social, cultural,
6
situational and personal factors (Cohen and Olshtain, 1985). Second language
learners generally try to apply the rules they use in their first language when they
speak in the second language. Thus, the result is communication breakdown or
communication conflict.
In general, speech acts are acts of communication. Communication is to
express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act being performed
corresponds to the type of attitude expressed. For example, a statement expresses
a belief, a request expresses a desire, and an apology expresses regret. As an act
of communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies, in accordance
with the speaker's intention, and the attitude expressed.
2. Speech acts and Politeness
Speech act theory is also closely related to the concept of politeness. The apology
speech act is used commonly in daily conversations to show politeness. In any
context, this speech act shows respect and identity as well as the culture of
people who use a specific word choice. Early studies on politeness claims that
this concept is universal (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Lakoff, 1973). According to
Lakoff (1973), there are three main rules of politeness, namely “don‟t impose,”
“give options,” and “make [the hearer] feel good – be friendly” (p. 298).
Answering objections to the universality of politeness, Lakoff claims that his
theory does not contradict the fact that different cultures have different customs.
He believes that what creates differences in the interpretation of politeness across
cultures is the order these rules take precedence one over the other.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), members of a society tend to keep a
certain image of themselves which they call “face.” Brown and Levinson
distinguish between two types of face, namely “negative face” and “positive
face.” “Negative face” is defined as one‟s desire that nobody impede his or her
actions, while “positive face” implies that people expect their needs to be
desirable to others. For example, “Sorry, would it bother you terribly to close the
door?” Addressing negative face supposes a power imbalance between the
speaker and the hearer. The hearer assumes that he is negatively impacting the
7
speaker in some way, and tries to rectify this with an apology while if the speaker
apologizes to the hearer, the speaker will be threatening his/her own positive
face, in that the speaker is acknowledging having imposed on the hearer and
asking for his/her acceptance of this (which the hearer may reject).
Thus, those functions of language that are expressed with the help of speech acts
are intended either to prevent a threat to the speaker‟s or hearer‟s face – by being
polite when requesting something, for example – or to recover, or save face – in
the case of apologies, for example (Staab, 1983). Apologies as a face-threatening
act reflect how people generally behave as if their expectations concerning their
public self-image, or their face wants, will be respected. For example, a close
friend calls to reject an invitation to a birthday party for keeping the hearer‟s
face-wants. “I‟m terribly sorry. I can‟t come to your birthday party next week. I
have to go to Nha Trang on business.” As a result, an English saying goes “sorry
is the hardest word”. This is not because it is hard to pronounce or spell, but
because the speakers have to admit that they have done something wrong.
Sometimes, apologies are also face saving because if accepted, the apology is
supposed to alleviate the offense of the speaker.
In the light of such findings, Nwoye (1992) believes that it is necessary to sub-
classify the concept of face into “individual face” and “group face.” Individual
face refers to “the individual‟s desire to attend to his/her personal needs and to
place his/her public-self-image above those of others” (p. 313), while group face
refers to “the individual‟s desire to behave in conformity with culturally expected
norms of behavior that are institutionalized and sanctioned by society” (p. 313).
Nwoye also shows that in some cultures, in light of this reclassification of the
notion of face, speech acts such as requests, offers, thanks, and criticisms are no
longer face threatening acts. For example, in the culture of the Igbo, people
follow a system where the sharing of goods and services is a norm. Thus,
whereas in some civilizations a certain request may be imposing, in this
particular culture it is not, since people are expected to share as a social norm.
This idea of a “group face” was also put forward by Obeng (1999), who gives the
8
example of the Akan language, where acts are threatening the face not only of the
speakers, but of the entire ethnic group.
Another problem that speech acts raise in connection with politeness is the fact
that some speech acts seem to be impolite by their nature, such as orders or
commands, while others are polite by nature, such as offers or invitations (Leech,
1983). Thus, according to Leech, when people talk about speech acts, they must
distinguish between positive politeness, which increases the politeness in the case
of inherently polite speech acts, and negative politeness, which reduces the
impoliteness of inherently impolite speech acts. He also argues that one has to
pay attention to the relative of politeness, as this depends, as it is believed by
authors of studies presented above, on the culture of the speakers.
The desire to be polite also influences what kind of speech act one decides to use.
Thus, one may choose an indirect speech act instead of a direct one in order to be
more polite (Leech, 1983). Leech calls this the metalinguistic use of politeness in
speech acts.
The relationship between politeness and speech acts seems, therefore, very much
similar to that between direct and indirect speech acts. It is very difficult to label
a certain speech act as polite or impolite, and use these labels as rules. Whether
the meaning a certain speech act conveys is polite or impolite is rather very much
dependent on the contextual circumstances in which they are uttered.
To sum up this section on speech acts, speech act theory is a widely disputed
field and issues such as what speech acts are and how they are classified seem to
be culture specific, and not as universal as some of the studies presented above
have described. Evidence on speech act perception and realization from different
cultures have demonstrated that more research needs to be done in order to
provide a theory that has an integrated approach to speech acts. Thus, besides
carefully defining the term used in the research and creating an appropriate
taxonomy, social, cultural, and pragmatic influences on the meaning, perception,
and production of speech acts need to be considered.
9
2.1. Politeness
2.1.1. Definition of politeness
Politeness is such an interesting phenomenon that many linguistic experts have
done research so far. The concept of politeness have expressed by many authors
such as Yule (1996), Lakoff (1983), Leech (1983), Richard, J.C.et al (1990) and
Brown and Levinson (1987).
Yule (1996:60) states, “Politeness, in an interaction, can then be defined as the
means employ to show awareness of another person‟s face.” Leech (1983:80)
notes that politeness means to minimize the effect of impolite statement or
expression (negative politeness) and maximize the effects of polite illocutions
(positive politeness). According to Richard, J.C.et al.(1990), politeness is defined
as “a) how languages express the social distance between speakers and their
different role relationships, b) how face work, that is, the attempt to establish,
maintain, and save face during conversations is carried out in a speech
community.”
Politeness, as shown in Coulmas (1981: 84, 235), is a dimension of linguistic
choice and social behaviour, which includes such notions as courtesy, formality,
rapport, deference, respect and distance. People monitor their speech by
linguistic choices. Among the choices they make in conversation the politeness
level of their utterances is one of the more conspicuous, and it is one where
social constraints are most keenly felt.
Lakoff (cited in Yule, 1996: 106) states that when one enters a conversation-
indeed, every kind discourse- one has some personal desideratum in mind:
perhaps as obvious as a favour or as subtle as the desire to be likeable. For some
of those needs, participants can accede to each other, and both gain their desires
but with others, one must be lose, however minimally, for the others to win. One
person must tell another something that the other does not want to hear; one
person must refuse another‟s request, one person must end a conversation before
the other is quite willing to go. In such cases, there is a danger of insult and
consequently the breakdown of communication.
10
However, Lakoff (1983) also states that politeness is a tool to minimize conflict
in discourse. Human communication serves to establish and maintain not only a
comfortable relationship between people but also a social harmony. Therefore, in
interpersonal communication, in terms of politeness, every participant considers
social factors such as age, gender, power and distance among the interlocutors.
Moreover, politeness may be described as a form of behaviour which is exercised
in order to consolidate relationship between individuals or, at least, to keep it
undamaged.
2.1.2. Politeness across cultures
While it is certainly true that politeness does not reside within linguistic
structures, every language has at its disposal a range of culture-specific routine
formulae which carry “politeness default values” (Escandell-Vidal 1996: 643).
The culture-specific meanings and politeness functions conventionally associated
with certain expressions and grammatical constructions in a given language
become apparent through comparison with other languages. At the same time,
approaching politeness contrastively makes it necessary to establish categories
which can be compared across groups.
While post-modern theorists shift the focus towards the investigation of how
people disagree on what constitutes politeness, cross-cultural research aims to
establish how they agree on what is polite and how they do so differently in
different cultures. Not only is the mutual knowledge necessary to infer an
implicature (Grice, 1975) culture-specific but cultural values also determine
whether it may be more appropriate to flout conversational maxims or to abide
by the rules of the cooperative principle in a particular situation.
There are different kinds of politeness across cultures as well, which ground in
different views of what constitutes “polite social behavior” interaction. Lakoff
(cited in Yule, 1996: 107) gives one example, for a white it was a bane to visiting
Easterners, who was confounded by the Californian‟s appearance of good
fellowship and deep caring, the immediate first naming, touching, looking deep
into the eyes, and asking truly caring questions; “Are you really happy with your
11
life?” To the properly brought up Easterner, such behaviour was permissible
only after years of earning it and my not then. Easterners fell into one of several
schools of thought about the character of Californian: either that they had the
simplicity children and should be patronized, or that they were rough frontier
sorts, probably raised by wolves or that they were truly wonderful people who
could get to know he/she as well after two seconds as would take most of them a
life time.
It is worth noting that within a culture, individual speakers may also vary
somewhat in employing conversational devices to execute politeness strategies.
For example “some people believe that interrupting relevant remarks shows
interest in what the other person is talking about other people feel that it shows
utter disregard for the interrupted speakers (Green, 1989: 146).
2.1.3. “Politeness- directness- indirectness” in apologizing
Apologizing is one of the most sensitive arrears of daily communication in term
politeness. It plays a crucial role in keeping people happy and friendship going.
Although by apologizing, speakers recognize the fact that a violation of the social
norm has been communicated and admits to the fact that he or she at least
partially involve in its cause, apologizing most a social habit. Sometimes, the
speakers mean it when they say it without thinking when they bump into
someone by mistake.
As a norm of politeness and a social habit, people would definitely get annoyed
when apologizing is not given at the appropriate time, while in Brazil, neither the
teacher nor students always arrive at the appointed hours. Arriving late may not
be very important in Brazil, nor is staying late. In Brazil, a person who usually
arrives late is probably more successful than a person who is always on time. In
fact, Brazilians expect a person with status or prestige to arrive late.
Politeness in apologizing is also associated with the notion of indirectness and
directness. Directness and indirectness are basic forms of expression that are
universal in all languages; however, they are different from culture to culture.
12
Direct, done via an explicit illocutionary force-indicating device (IFID),
which selects a routines, formula expression of regret ( performative verb) such
as: (be) sorry, apologize, regret, excuse (English); xin lỗi, tha thứ, lấy làm tiếc
(Vietnamese).
Indirect, people may obtain certain advantages and avoid negative
consequences of face threatening acts by employing indirectness in their social
interaction. “Indirectness is costly and risky” (Dascal-cited in Thomas,
1995:120). Indirect, performed by any utterance containing:
An explanation or account of the course, which brought about the offence.
Ex: The traffic was terrible.
An expression of the speaker‟s responsibility for the offence.
Ex: I’ve lost your book.
An offer of repair.
Ex: Can I replace it?
A promise of forbearance:
Ex: That’ll never happen again.
3. Speech acts of apology
Apologies as an expressive speech act may be used before a real situation to
show a feeling and lead to a good relationship between the speaker and the
hearer. In all social groups, the act of apologizing is called for when social norms
have been violated, whether the offence is real or potential (Olshtain & Cohen,
1983:20). When an action or utterance has resulted in the fact that one or more
people perceive themselves as offended, the culpable person(s) needs to
apologize. The act of apologizing requires an action or an utterance which is
intended to “set things right” (Olshtain, 1983:235). Marquez-Reiter (2000: 44)
states an apology is a “compensatory action for an offense committed by the
speaker which has affected the hearer. According to Bataineh (2006:1903)
apologies fall under expressive speech acts in which speakers attempt to indicate
13
their state or attitude. They add that in order for an apology to have an effect, it
should reflect true feelings. One cannot effectively apologize to another and truly
reach him/her unless one portrays honest feelings of sorrow and regret for
whatever one has done” (Fahmi, R. & Fahmi, Rula, 2006: 1903). As Searle
(1979) states a person who apologizes for doing A expresses regret at having
done A, so the apology act can take place only if the speaker believes that some
act A has been performed prior to the time of speaking and that this act A
resulted in an infraction which affected another person who is now deserving an
apology (Olshtain, ibid., 235). Apology speech acts have been investigated
cross-culturally in order to find similarities and differences between the
languages. In the present study, the focus of analysis is to find out the similarities
and differences in Vietnamese and English in the way of native English and
Vietnamese speakers using apologies.
3.1. Definitions of apologies
An apology is a word or statement saying for something has been done wrong or
that causes a problem. (Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary, 8th
edition: 57).
On the other hand, the definition of apologies has also been stated by many
experts.
According to Brown and Levinson, apologies are politeness strategies. An
apology is a fundamental speech act which is a part of human communication
occurs in every culture to maintain good relations between interlocutors. It can
also be expression of contribution and remorse for something wrong. Brown and
Levinson (1987) present the definition of apology as: "basically a speech act
which is intended to provide support for the hearer who was actually or
potentially malaffected by a violation X." They have continued, that in the
decision to carry out the verbal apology, the speaker is willing humiliate himself
or herself to some extent and to admit to fault and responsibility for X. Hence the
act of apologizing is face-saving for the hearer and face-threatening for the
speaker. This definition has described the apology process more individually
(between the speaker and the hearer) which comes as support for the hearer who
14
was malaffected by a violation. However, Leech (1983: 104) gives his definition
is, “apology is a convivial speech act whose goal coincides with the social goal
of maintaining harmony between the speaker and the hearer." Both definitions of
Brown and Levison and Leech are convenient and acceptable, because each one
describes this process and captured this phenomenon from both sides:
'individually' (the first one), and 'society' (the second one).
Bergman and Kasper (1993) define an apology as a “compensatory action to an
offense in the doing of which the speaker was casually involved and which is
costly to the hearer” (p. 82). The cost can be in terms of losing face or even a
severe misunderstanding. It is clear that different cultures have different degrees
in perceiving how costly such an offense is, and therefore how necessary an
apology is. An action, in Bergman and Kasper‟s terminology, that is considered
very serious in one culture, may not require an apology at all in another culture.
Also, the severity of such a face threatening act seems to be in a direct
relationship with the type of apology chosen to defend face. Brown and Levinson
(1987) claim that all speakers choose the same strategy under the same
conditions, and tried to demonstrate this by looking at three different languages,
namely English, Tzeltal (a Mayan language), and South Indian Tamil. However,
this theory has been challenged by several researchers who claim that different
individual factors are involved in both considering an act as face threatening, and
the strategy used in apologizing (Trosborg, 1987). According to Trosborg these
factors are determined by one‟s social and cultural patterns, and by the
behavioral norms of one‟s culture. This leads to the assumption that not only do
speakers of different languages perceive the necessity of an apology differently,
but also use different ways of apologizing.
A definition that limits very much the concept of an apology is the one given by
Owen (1983). According to him, apologies are remedial moves that follow what
he called a priming move on the part of the person who expects the apology,
which is a move that triggers the apology. While such an approach makes sense,
the problem with Owen‟s definition is that he restricts the use of the term
apology to only those utterances that actually contain the explicit phrases “I‟m
15
sorry” or “I apologize” and variants of these. Such a definition would exclude
from the start any indirect ways of apologizing, and would render inexistent
many of the types of apologies. Owen‟s definition would apply only to explicit
apologies. Trosborg (1995) distinguishes between apologies and complaints, that
“apologies are expressive illocutionary acts which can be differentiated from
complaints, which are also expressive acts, by being convivial in nature” (p.
373). However, because apologies are not the only convivial acts, Trosborg
narrows down the definition even further by claiming that apologies have a
remedial function, and this function is the one that differentiates them from
thanking, congratulating, and other convivial acts. Thus, she follows Owen‟s
(1983) definition of apologies but she broadens it by including other utterances
that express apologies, not just the ones that are explicit apologies.
Leech (1983) views apologies as an attempt to recreate an imbalance between the
speaker and the hearer created by the fact that the speaker committed an offence
against the hearer. According to him, it is not enough to apologize, this apology
needs to be successful in order for the hearer to pardon the speaker, and thus
reestablish the balance. However, Goffman (1967: 14) refers to an apology as a
remedy, the one essential element in a remedial interchange. This term nicely
highlights the central function of apologies to provide a remedy for an offense
and restore social equilibrium or harmony (Edmondson 1981: 280, Leech, 1983:
25) (cited in Holmes, 1990: 159).
Finally, Holmes (1990) defines apologies as “social acts conveying affective
meaning” (p. 155), and believes they are politeness strategies meant to remedy an
offense on the part of the speaker. Holmes also makes an interesting and
important clarification in defining apologies that has not been considered before.
Thus, when defining apologies, one must take into consideration the possibility
of a speaker to apologize for somebody else‟s behavior. This leads to the
conclusion that “the definition refers to the person who takes responsibility for
the offense rather than the offender” (p. 161)
16
3.2. Apologizing forms in English and Vietnamese
Making an apology in English often contains apologizing words such as
“apologize”, “excuse”, “pardon”, and “forgive”. Sometimes, it can be associated
with some pronouns followed preposition “for” to make the structures like
“excuse me for…”, “Pardon me for…”, “Forgive me for…”, “I must apologize
for…”,… Choosing an apologizing verbal depends on the serious degree of the
faults. According to Huynh Cam Thao Trang (2009), there are seven apology
structures that have the same meaning and that are used similarly in English and
Vietnamese.
Structures English Vietnamese
1. Apologizing word Sorry,
Pardon,
Excuse me!
Forgive
Xin lỗi.
Tha lỗi.
Tha thứ.
Lượng thứ.
Thứ lỗi.
2. Apologizing word +
Addressing form
Sorry, sir/madam.
Sorry, Mr./Mrs. Thomas
Xin lỗi, ngài, quý bà.
Xin lỗi, ông/ bà Thomas.
3. Apologizing word +
question
Excuse me! Could/Can
you please show me the
way to…?
Sorry, Could/Can I get
by, please?
Xin lỗi! Vui lòng chỉ cho
tôi đường đến….?
Vui lòng chỉ cho tôi
đường đến….?
(Please show for me way
to…?)
Xin lỗi, tôi có thể đi qua
không?
Tôi có thể đi qua không?
17
(Could/Can I get by,
please?
4. Apologizing word +
Addressing form +
extra question
Sorry Sir. What can I do
for you?
Xin lổi, ngài. Tôi có thể
giúp gì cho ngài ạ?
(I can help what for you.)
5. Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence/clause:
5.1. Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence/ clause of
explanation.
5.2. Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence/ clause of
promising.
5.3. Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence/ clause of
explanation + promise.
5.4. Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence/clause of offer
for help.
5.5. Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence/clause of
compensation
Sorry if I’ve disturbed
you.
Sorry. I’m late.
I’m sorry. I won’t be late
again.
Sorry. I am busy. I will
never do it.
Xin lỗi nếu tôi làm phiền
bạn.
(Sorry, if I disturb you.)
18
5.6. Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence/clause of a
request for forgiveness.
6. Apologizing
question
Are you willing to forgive
me?
Will you accept my
apology?
B (Hearer) có sẵn lòng
tha thứ/thứ lỗi/tha lỗi cho
A (Speaker) không?
(Does B have willing
forgive for A?)
7. Apologizing
sentence
I beg your pardon.
I am terribly sorry to
leave you waiting such a
long time.
We apologize for…
Xin tạ lỗi.
Thành thật xin lỗi vì tôi
để anh đợi lâu như vậy.
Table 3.2: Similarities between apology structures in English and Vietnamese
According to Table 3.2, seven apology structures are listed from the least formal
to the most formal way. These ways are considered to be very polite. Depending
on particular contexts as well as the identity of the hearers, speakers choose what
is suitable to them. In some cases, apologies are used not for apology purposes.
These are situations in which there is no need for listeners to forgive. This is
shown in the following examples.
(1) Excuse me, is this the way to the sport center? (Liz and Alastair, 2007).
(2) Excuse me, could you tell me where KImbell Hall is? (McGraw Hill, 2007)
(3)Excuse me, can you tell me how to go to the post office? (John and
Liz, 1993)
(4) Excuse me, would I like to ask you a couple questions? (Yule G., 1996,)
19
(5) Excuse me; I’m doing a survey about shopping habits. Can I ask you a
few questions? (Wilson, 2003)
These followed examples are used to ask the hearers‟ forgiveness:
(6) Please forgive the inconvenience. (Hoang Truc Anh, 2009)
(7) Begging your pardon, sir. Mr. Brown is out. (Hutchinson, 2001)
(8) We apologize for the cancellation of this service. (John and Liz, 1993)
(9) Our flight to Nha Trang is delayed because of bad weather. If you need
any help, please contact our agents. We too apologize for inconvenience.
(Recording at Tan Son Nhat Airport)
(10) Con xin mẹ tha tội cho con. Chỉ vì con không nghe lời mẹ. (Khải Hưng,
1998)
(11) Xin lỗi, hiện tất cả nhân viên trực tổng đài đều đang bận, tạm thời yêu
cầu của quý khách không được thực hiện, xin qúy khách vui lòng gọi
lại sau.
(Recording through Viettel telephone net)
3.3. Apology strategies
3.3.1. Strategy 1: Getting attention
In a dissertation of Vietnamese literature philosophy, Nguyen Van Lap (2005:44)
states that the apology used in the attention-getting strategy is applied when A
(speaker) needs/wants to do something or to ask for direction in these cases:
a). A (speaker) sees or knows B (listener) are talking to someone else.
b). A (speaker) is not sure B (listener) let him/her do something.
c). A (speaker) thinks his/her request may disturb B.
d). B (speaker) is doing or thinking about something else.
20
American and Vietnamese people usually begin a relationship, or a conversation
by these structures such as Excuse me!; Excuse me, but…!; Pardon me!. Begging
your pardon sir/madam!; Allow me sir/madam! … or I‟m sorry,…+ a clause/a
question with a downward intonation at the end, while Vietnamese people often
start with “Xin lỗi A (listener), làm ơn cho B (speaker) (Sorry/Excuse me,
please…)…, or “xin lỗi, + question”. There is no need to reply on these apology
forms as they are quite formal way to gain communicative protocol. These
examples will illustrate the similarities between English and Vietnamese in the
attention-getting strategy.
English Vietnamese
(12) Mari: Excuse me. Could you tell me
where Kimbell Hall is?
Nancy: Oh, you mean Cambell Hall?
(McGraw Hil, 2007l)
(15) Xin lỗi, chợ huyện lối nào, ông
làm ơn chỉ giúp tôi.
(Nam Cao, 1986)
(Excuse me. Can you tell me where
the market is?)
(13) Receptionist: Excuse me. Are you Mr.
and Mrs. Smith?
Customer: No, we aren’t. We are Mr. and
Mrs. Adam.
(Hutchinson, 2001)
(16) Xin lỗi, phải ông là ông Hai
Cường không? (Nguyễn Văn Lập
2005:44)
(Sorry, are you Mr. Hai Cuong?)
(14) Tourist: Excuse me, where’s the bus
station?
Woman: It’s in North Lane, on the right…
(Liz and Alastair, 2007)
(17) Xin lỗi, phiền anh xem hộ tôi
mấy giờ?
(Nguyễn Văn Lập 2005:4)
(Excuse me, can you tell me the
time?)
Table 3.3.1: Examples of apology strategy to get attention in
English and Vietnamese
21
The intent behind on the attention-getting strategy of apology is mentioned in
case the speakers need the hearer‟s help direction, getting information. The
examples in Table 3.3.1 are between people from different social groups. Age
and social status determine the choice of apology types to the conversations.
3.3.2. Strategy 2: Rejecting a request or an invitation
English Vietnamese
(18) Alice: Would you like to go the
cinema? Kate and I are going to see The
Moon Man.
Jane: What a pity! Never mind.
(John & Liz, 1993)
(21) Vâng, mời cụ ngồi chơi, chúng
cháu xin vô phép cơm cụ. (Nguyễn
Văn Lập 2005:4)
(Please, sit here. We are sorry to
have rice.)
(19) Mark: I’m afraid I can’t make our
meeting today. I have to finish a report.
Can we meet on Wednesday afternoon?
Jenny: No. I’m sorry. I have to go to the
dentist’s. (Hutchinson, 2001:12)
(22) Vậy xin lỗi, cậu để cho khi
khác.
(Sorry. Another time please.)
(20) Jenny: would you like a game of
tennis next Thursday?
Chris: I can’t, I’m afraid. I’m going to
Bristol. (John & Liz., 1993)
(23) A: Ây, ông ngồi chơi đã. Đi
bây giờ nắng chết.
B: Ông tha phép. Tôi phải ra tỉnh
ngay cho kịp.
(Nguyễn Văn Lập 2005:12)
(A: Well, you sit here. Go now
sunshine.
B: Forgive me. I have to go
downtown in time.)
Table 3.3.2: Examples of apologies rejecting a request or invitation in
English and Vietnamese
22
According to Table 3.3.2, when apologizing, both the English and Vietnamese
aim to please the hearers. Requests or invitations are frequently a very polite way
to gain a closer relationship among interlocutors. If the hearers do not reply in a
polite way, the speakers may not be satisfied and of course the hearer may be
never invited again in the future. In addition, this also shows whether people are
educated or not, whether they are polite or rude, and whether they are in a high
social position or not. There is no need to forgive because the speakers do not
make any mistakes. The speakers choose to reject a request or an invitation both
in a direct way like “No. Sorry” or “No, I‟m sorry” and in an indirect one like “I
am afraid, I can‟t” or “I love to, but…”
3.3.3. Strategy 3: Admitting guilt with an explanation
English Vietnamese
(22) Tonia: Max, it’s Tonia. I’ve got a
problem. I’ve just arrived. My plane
was late. I’m very sorry, but I don’t
think I’ll be… (line breaks up)
Max: Hello…Hello.
(Liz and Alastair., 2007,)
(24) Xin lỗi các ngài. Tôi làm cho các
anh mất giấc ngủ. Vừa rồi tôi bị bóng
đè.
(Hữu Mai, 1989.)
(I beg your pardon, sir. I make you not
to sleep wells. I have just had a
nightmare.)
(23) James: Sorry, I’m late Duncan.
The traffic was terrible.
Duncan: Don’t apologize.
(Liz and Alastair., 2007)
(25) Con xin mẹ tha tội cho con. Chỉ vì
con không nghe lời mẹ.
(Khải Hưng, 1998)
(I beg your forgiveness, mother. Due to
my disobey your saying.)
Table 3.3.3: Examples of apologies for admitting guilt with an explanation in
English and Vietnamese
23
In general, apologizers have to give an explanation in order to reduce anger or to
show their good faith. In these circumstances, it is necessary to observe whether
the speakers are found guilty or not, that how much power people have in
conversation. Their word choice of apology strategy depends on their minor
mistake or serious one. The following formula shows from the less strong
apology than the more one.
Apology word + explanation/message= weak form
Explanation/ message + apology word = strong form
In brief, every way of saying apologies show different purposes and effect face
differently. For example, a person really wants to sorry, they do not care for their
face. Whereas, in some cases the speakers are afraid that saying apologies will
threaten their face, so they rarely make apologies. Each apology structure
performs a different degree of politeness. Therefore, depending on the situation
and strategy, the speakers will use an appropriate apology structure for their
effective communication. In anyway, an apology is very important to minimize
conflict in discourse and maintain not only a comfortable relationship between
people but also a social harmony.
24
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
The previous chapter presented theoretical review of literature and research
related apologies. This chapter focuses on the research methodology of the
present study.
1. Research questions
The present paper will attempt to answer the following research questions:
1. How do the Vietnamese native speakers and the English native speakers say
apologies?
2. What are the similarities and differences in making polite apologies between
the Vietnamese native speakers and the English native speakers?
3. Do ages, social positions and relationships influence making polite apologies?
2. Research participants
The data is provided by two groups of participants: a group of native speakers of
English and a group of Vietnamese. The first group consists of 40 people from
Australia, America, Canada and England working or living in Vietnam for at
least 2 years. The second group includes 40 Vietnamese people working at
various offices and universities in Vietnam. All of them were born and brought
up in Vietnam. They have not been affected much by any other cultures. It is,
therefore, convenient to compare and discover the similarities and differences of
making apologies between the English and Vietnamese native speakers.
In order to ensure compatibility, the number of males and females in both groups
are evenly distributed. The participants are between 20 and 50 years old. All the
informants in both groups have high levels of education.
The questionnaire is obtained with 20 Vietnamese participants (10 males and 10
females) and 20 English participants (10 males and 10 females) including
American, Australian, Canadian and English. 20 participants from each group
(each group includes 10 male and 10 female) are chosen for interview. The
participants for interview and questionnaire are different.
25
3. Research procedure
In the early November of 2011, the BA thesis proposal was being begun with a
specific topic. The theory background was collected to serve for the direction of
the thesis. From November to December, the thesis proposal was corrected
carefully through the instructor‟s advices. At the end of December, the thesis
proposal was finished. In the beginning of January of 2012, the content of the
thesis was officially started. In this time, questionnaire and interview were
delivered to the participants in Ho Chi Minh City. After having the results of
questionnaires and interview, the results were made statistic, comparison and
contrast in order to serve for purposes of the thesis is to find out the similarities
and differences of apologies in English and Vietnamese in terms of cross-cultural
perspective. In April, the thesis is finished.
4. Research instruments
Three methods of collecting data used in the present research are questionnaire,
interview and books.
Questionnaire and interview are employed to investigate the reality of using
apologies between native speakers of English and Vietnamese. An English
questionnaire and an English interview are designed for native speakers of
English and other Vietnamese versions for native speakers of Vietnamese. Two
versions have the same questions and the same situations. Two kinds of
questionnaire and interview are used because they can help to make clear how
similarly and differently native speakers of English and Vietnamese use
apologies politely in different situations with different purposes. The factors take
into account in the assessment of power include age, role, position, and the status
of legitimate right. The situations in the questionnaire are designed to reflect real
life situations.
26
4.1. Questionnaire
Questionnaire is used to measure the degree of frequency in giving apologies
between English native speakers and native speakers of Vietnamese. Each
questionnaire consists of two parts:
Part I: Personal information: is aimed to get demographic data from the
informants, such as age, gender, social level and place of permanent
residence because these factors may effect the way of giving apologies.
Part II: includes 6 situations. In each situation, four options are related to
descending of degree of frequency in giving apologies such as always,
often, sometimes and never. The participants are asked to choose one of
these four options.
4.2. Interview
Each interview also includes two parts:
Part I: Personal information: is also aimed to get demographic data
from the informants, such as age, gender, social level and place of
permanent residence.
Part II: consists of eight hypothesized situations. For each situation,
participants are instructed to fill in with what they say in each of the
contexts. The respondents are asked to put themselves in real situations
and to assume that in each situation they will, in fact, say something. They
are asked to write down what they say. Situation (1), (2), (5), (6), (7) are
used to get information about what participants say for admitting guilt
with their explanation. Situation (3), (4) are about getting attention. In
situation (3), the speaker wants to get attention to an acquaintance but
having upper position. In situation (4), the speaker gets attention to an old
stranger. Situation (8) is used to reject an invitation.
There are various relationships in these situations such as the student to the
professor, the student to the student, the host to the guest, the employee to the
boss, the stranger to the stranger. This variety is used in order to investigate in
27
different contexts with different positions and relationships, whether the speakers
give apologies in different ways.
4.3. Books analysis
In this study, data is mainly collected from English and Vietnamese books such
as Pragmatics, Beyond the Language, Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural
Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP), Applied Linguistics,
Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, English Conversation
Communicating In Every Situation, and Nghi Thức Lời Nói Tiếng Việt Trên Cơ
Sở Lý Thuyết Hành Vi Ngôn Ngữ (So Sánh Với Tiếng Anh), (Vietnamese
utterances based on speech acts theory). The collected data consisting of apology
forms and strategies then is analyzed and is a basis foundation to compare and
discover the differences and similarities in making apologies politely in
Vietnamese and English in theory. Therefore, these books serve for theory
background not for comparison and contrast.
5. Method of data analysis
In the present study, in order to answer the research questions, two types of
analysis carried out on the collected data are statistic, compare and contrast.
5.1. Statistic
Statistic method is the basic method used popularly to find database for the
thesis. After having all responses to the questions in questionnaire and interview,
they are listed and classified to count how many native English speakers and
Vietnamese people have similar answers and how many of them have different
answers. From making statistic, it is easier to compare and contrast.
5.2. Compare and contrast
Compare and contrast are the main methods to figure out and answer the research
questions of this thesis. What are the similarities and differences in making polite
apologies between the Vietnamese native speakers and the English native
speakers? This greatest issue will be revealed through compare and contrast the
way Vietnamese people and native English speakers use apologies based on
28
statistic from questionnaire and interview. An English questionnaire is for native
speakers of English and a Vietnamese version is for Vietnamese participants.
After finding out the answer for main matter of this thesis, this result will be
compared and contrasted with the results in literature review.
29
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. An overview of results
The present chapter will present the overall results concerning the degree of
frequency in giving apologies and the use of the structures and strategies of
apologies in terms of politeness, speech acts and cross cultural perspective. This
is necessary in order to find out the similarities and differences in making
apologies politely between the Vietnamese native speakers and the native
speakers of English.
After measuring the degree of frequency in making apologies between
Vietnamese and English participants by the questionnaire, the data collected are
as follows:
Situations Vietnamese native speakers English native speakers
Always Often Sometimes Never Always Often Sometimes Never
1 5 25% 10 50% 3 15% 2 10% 20 100%
2 15 75% 4 20% 1 5% 15 75% 5 25%
3 9 45% 11 55% 15 75% 5 15%
4 10 50% 8 40% 2 10% 20 100%
5 10 50% 5 25% 4 20% 1 5% 10 50% 1
0 50%
6 12 60% 3 15% 4 20% 1 5% 18 90% 2 10%
Table 1a: An overview of results of the degree of frequency in saying apologies
provided by Vietnamese native speakers and English native speakers.
There are 20 participants answering each situation out of 6 situations, so there are
120 answers for 6 situations. As can be seen in the table, an average of six
situations, total 98 out of 120 English participants (82%) always say apologies,
while 18% of them (n=22) often says. No one chooses sometimes or never saying
apology in six situations. In general, 100% the English native speakers (n=120)
30
say apologies in all cases. On the other hand, the Vietnamese native speakers less
say apologies than the native speakers of English do. Perhaps, because of
Vietnamese culture, people rarely say apologies. Among six situations, total 61
out of 120 Vietnamese participants (51%) choose the options always while 34%
of them (n=41) often gives, 12% of them (n=14) chooses sometimes and only 3%
of them (n=4) never says apologies. Concretely, in situation 1, 100% English
participants (n=20) always says apologies while only 25% of the Vietnamese
participants (n=5) chooses this options, 10% of the Vietnamese participants (n=2)
even chooses never saying apologies in this case. In situation 4, 100% of English
participants (n=20) chooses always but 50% of the Vietnamese participants
(n=10) chooses this answer. In situation 2 and 5, both of the English and
Vietnamese participants have the same percentages of choose always saying
apologies (50%, n=10 in situation 5 and 75%, n=15 in situation 2). Depending on
situations, participants have the degree of frequency of saying apologies.
In the interview, 8 situations are equivalent to three strategies: getting attention,
rejecting a request or an invitation and admitting guilt with an explanation. The
table below shows specifically the apology forms that the English and
Vietnamese participants use in eight situations with three strategies.
Getting attention
Structures
Vietnamese native speakers English native speakers
Situation 3 Situation 4 Situation 3 Situation 4
T.N Per. T.N Per. T.N Per. T.N Per.
Apologizing
word +
(addressing
form) +
question
15 75% 14 70%
Apologizing 1 5% 5 25%
31
sentence
Non-
apologizing
19 95% 20 100% 6 30%
Table 1b: An overview of results of structures of getting attention provided by
Vietnamese native speakers and English native speakers
In the first strategy, there are 20 participants answering each situation out of 2
situations, so there are 40 answers for 2 situations considered 40 participants.
Among two situations, total 29 out of 40 English participants (73%) use the
structure “Apologizing word + (Addressing form) + question” while about
98% of the Vietnamese participants (n=39) always use greeting words instead
of apologizing words. In the situation 4, 100% (n=20) of the Vietnamese
participants uses non-apologizing structure while 70% (n=14) of the English
participants uses structure containing apologizing word and only 30% (n=6)
of them does not use apologizing structure. In 2 situations, only 5% (n=1) of
the Vietnamese participants use apologizing sentence, the rest of them use
non-apologizing sentence. Obviously, the English participants use apologizing
structure more frequently than the Vietnamese participants do in getting
attention.
Rejecting a request or an invitation
Structures
Vietnamese native speakers English native speakers
Situation 8 Situation 8
T.N Per T.N Per
Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence
10 50% 16 80%
Non-apologizing 10 50% 4 20%
32
Table 1c: An overview of results of structures of rejecting a request or an
invitation provided by Vietnamese native speakers and English native speakers
In rejecting a request or an invitation strategy, 16 out of 20 English participants
(80%) use structure “Apologizing sentence/word + sentence (promise)” while
50% of the Vietnamese participants (n=10) uses this structure and 50% of them
(n=10) does not use structure containing apologizing word and only 20% of the
English participants (n=4) uses non-apologizing structure. The Vietnamese
participants use apologizing word in this strategy more than in getting attention,
but they still use less than English participants do.
Admitting guilt with an explanation
Structures Vietnamese native speakers English native speakers
S1 S2 S5 S6 S7 S1 S2 S5 S6 S7
T.N Per. T.N Per. T.N Per. T.N Per. T.N Per. T.N Per. T.N Per. T.N Per. T.N Per. T.N Per.
Apologizing
word/sentence
2 10% 6 30% 5 25% 4 20% 3 15% 1 5% 2 10%
Apologizing
word/sentence +
question
6 30% 1 5% 7 35% 2 10%
Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence
3 15% 8 40% 18 90% 8 40% 11 55% 3 15% 8 40% 15 75% 11 55% 15 75%
Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence
+ sentence
4 20% 6 30%
Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence
+ question
6 30% 8 40%
Apologizing
word/sentence +
13 65%
33
question
+ question
Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence
+ question
+ sentence
1 5%
Non-apologizing 2 10% 1 5% 2 10% 1 5% 5 25% 1 5% 4 20% 3 15% 1 5% 3 15%
Table 1d: An overview of results of structures of admitting guilt with an
explanation provided by Vietnamese native speakers and
English native speakers
In the last strategy, among 5 situations, total 52 out of 100 English participants
(52%) and 48% of the Vietnamese participants (n=48) uses structure
“Apologizing words/sentence + Sentence (explanation + promise). The
participants use this structure because they think it is a good way for them to
reduce the conflict as well as anger of the interlocutor.
The follows will show specifically about the results of questionnaire as well as
interview.
1.1. The results of questionnaire
1.1.1. Situation 1
100%
25%
0%
50%
0%
15%
0%
10%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Always Often Sometimes Never
Native speakers of
EnglishNative speakers of
Vietnamese
Figure 1.1.1: The degree of frequency in saying apologies provided by native
speakers of English and native speakers of Vietnamese in situation 1
34
According to the figure above, the number of the English participants who
always says apologies in this situation is definitely high (100%, n=20), while
only 25% of the Vietnamese participants (n=5) chooses the option always, 50%
of them (n=10) answers that they often begin their utterance with apologizing
words, 15% of them (n=3) chooses sometimes and only 10% of them (n=2) never
say apologizing words in this situation. Obviously, the English native speakers
give apologies more frequently than native speakers of Vietnamese do. Saying
apology in this situation does not relate to face threatening act, but it show a
polite ness and the cultural feature of each country. Although the Vietnamese
native speakers do not use apologizing word frequently, it does not mean that
they are less polite than English native speakers. Because of culture, Vietnamese
people often use alternative word for “excuse me” or “sorry” such as greeting.
1.1.2. Situation 2
In the situation 2, a large number of the English participants (75%, n=15)
response that they always apologize, and 25% of them (n=5) often says apologies
in this case. 75% of the Vietnamese participants (n=15) chooses option always,
20% of them (n=4) often apologizes and only 5% (n=1) of responses sometimes
in this situation. The figure below will illustrate the choice of the Vietnamese and
the English participants in this situation.
75% 75%
25%20%
0%5%
0% 0%0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Always Often Sometimes Never
Native speakers of
EnglishNative speakers of
Vietnamese
Figure 1.1.2: The degree of frequency in giving apologies provide by native
speakers of English and native speakers of Vietnamese in situation 2
35
In this situation, the gasoline seller has a lower power than the customers, so they
have to show their respect to their customers by always saying apologies to their
customers. No one chooses never saying sorry in this case. Admitting guilt with
an apology in this situation to keep the good relationship between a seller and a
customer is a need.
1.1.3. Situation 3
The result of measuring the degree of frequency in giving apologies of the
Vietnamese participants and English participants in situation 3 will show through
following figures.
75%
45%
15%
55%
10%
0% 0%0%0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Always Often Sometimes Never
Native speakers of
EnglishNative speakers of
Vietnamese
Figure 1.1.3: The degree of frequency in saying apologies provided by native
speakers of English and native speakers of Vietnamese in situation 3
It is clear that 75% of the English participants (n=15) chooses always as their
answer, while only 45% of the Vietnamese participants (n=9) chooses it in this
case. Whereas there are 55% of the Vietnamese participants (n=11) often begin
their saying with “sorry/excuse me” and only 15% of the English participants
(n=3) has the same answer. Only 10% of the English participants (n=2)
sometimes use apologizing word in this situation. Once again, the English
participants usually begin their utterance with apologizing word while the
Vietnamese participants less use that word.
36
1.1.4. Situation 4
In the situation 4, 100% of the English participants (n=20) chooses always saying
apologies. On the other hand, only 50% of the Vietnamese participants (n=10)
chooses this answer, 40% of them (n=8) often apologizes and 10% of them (n=2)
assumes that they sometimes give their apologies in this case. The figure below
will demonstrate the degree of the English and Vietnamese participants say
apologies in this situation.
100%
50%
0%
40%
0%
10%
0% 0%0
20
40
60
80
100
Always Often Sometimes Never
Native speakers of
EnglishNative speakers of
Vietnamese
Figure 1.1.4: The degree of frequency in saying apologies provided by native
speakers of English and native speakers of Vietnamese in situation 4
General speaking, an apology is very necessary for people to maintain a good
relationship and to show politeness of the speakers. Depending on each situation,
the speakers will have the frequent degree of saying apologies differently.
1.1.5. Situation 5
In situation 5, 50% of the English participants (n=10) as well as 50% of the
Vietnamese participants always says apologies in this situation. However, there
are 9 English participants accounting for 45% often apologizing and 5% of them
(n=1) sometimes gives apologies. 25% of the Vietnamese participants (n=5)
chooses often, 20% of them (n=4) chooses sometimes and 5% of them (n=1)
never says apologies in this case. Generally, the Vietnamese native speakers less
give apologies than the native speakers of English. Having fault and saying an
apology is a social norm. However, because saying apologies perhaps will loose
face of the speakers, they seldom say this word.
37
50%50%45%
25%
5%
20%
0%
5%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Always Often Sometimes Never
Native speakers of
EnglishNative speakers of
Vietnamese
Figure 1.1.5: The degree of frequency in saying apologies provided by native
speakers of English and native speakers of Vietnamese in situation 5
1.1.6. Situation 6
In the last situation, 90% of the English participants (n=18) always says sorry
and 10% of them (n=2) often gives apologies. In short, 100% of them (n=20)
apologizes in this case. There are 60% of the Vietnamese participants (n=12)
always giving apologies in this case, 15% of them (n=3) says apologies, while
20% of them (n=4) answers that they sometimes say sorry to reject the request.
There are even 5% of the Vietnamese participants (n=1) never says apologies in
this situation. Look at the figure below to see the English and Vietnamese
participants saying apologies in the light of the degree of frequency.
90%
60%
10%15%
0%
20%
0%5%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Always Often Sometimes Never
Native speakers of
EnglishNative speakers of
Vietnamese
Figure 1.1.6: The degree of frequency in saying apologies provided by native
speakers of English and native speakers of Vietnamese in situation 6
38
Apparently, both the English and Vietnamese say apologies in this case. Maybe,
if they do not give apologies to their roommate, it will be damage their
friendship. However, the Vietnamese participants less say apologies than English
participants. Perhaps, because of their close relationship, they seldom say
apology.
Briefly, basing on the results of questionnaire above, it is easy to find that the
English native speakers say apologies more frequently than the native speakers of
Vietnamese. The researcher realized that because of different culture, the native
speakers of English are able to give apologies easily in many situations whatever
they do not make mistake. It is sometimes considered as a reflex action. On the
contrary, Vietnamese native speakers have more effect on Eastern culture,
therefore, they seldom say sorry. For example, in the situation 1 and 4, 100% of
the English participants (n=20) always apologizes while about 50% of the
Vietnamese participants (n=10) always says apologies, some others often,
sometimes or even never say sorry. In situation 4, rejecting an invitation may
threaten face of the inviter, so saying an apology is a must. “In everyday social
interactions, people generally behave as if their public self-image, or their face
wants, will be respected. If a speaker says something that represents a threat to
another individual‟s expectations regarding self-image, it is described as a face
threatening act. Alternatively, given the possibility that some action might be
interpreted as a threat to another‟s face, the speaker can say something to lessen
the possible threat. This is called a face saving act.”(Yule 1996:61). Sometimes,
saying an apology influences face of the speakers. Therefore, in some situations,
people take into consideration on saying apologies because of their face.
However, the Vietnamese native speakers perhaps do not say apologies
frequently because of their habit. They rarely say apologies, but they will have
some behaviour to show their regret such as smiling or asking some caring
question. In any way, giving an apology will show politeness and the culture of a
country, so apologies are very important for people to say.
As mentioned above, since the Vietnamese native speakers and the native
speakers of English have different cultures, their degree of frequency in using
39
apologies also has some differences. The analyzed data in interview below will
show specifically what the Vietnamese and English native speakers say in order
to make clear the similarities and differences in making polite apologies.
1.2. Results of interview
The finding is carried out by the comparison of structures in three strategies:
getting attention, rejecting a request or an invitation, and admitting guilt with an
explanation. The great variety of strategies used to apologize is surprising, taking
into consideration that the situations that required an apology were relatively
homogeneous, being interactions between friends and friends, professor and
students, boss and employee, parents and children. There are 8 situations in this
part and they are equivalent to 3 strategies. Strategy 1 includes situation 3 and 4;
strategy 2 includes situation 8, and strategy 3 consists of situation 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7.
1.2.1. Getting attention
In situation 3, to ask the professor a couple of questions, the Vietnamese and
English participants use many different ways of apologies to get attention to their
professor. The table below will show obviously their ways of using apology
structures.
Structures
English native speakers Vietnamese native
speakers
Total
number
Percentage Total
number
Percentage
Apologizing word +
(Addressing form) +
question
15 75%
Apologizing sentence 5 25% 1 5%
Non-apologizing 19 95%
40
Total 20 100% 20 100%
Table 1.2.1a: Structures of attention getting provided by the English and
Vietnamese native speakers: Situation 3
According to the table, 75% of the English participants (n=15) uses the structure
“apologizing word + (addressing form) + question”, for example:
(1) Excuse me! Can I ask you a couple of question, please?
(2) Sorry professor. Can I ask you some questions?
(3) Pardon, professor. Can I grab a minute of your time if you are not busy?
Only 25% of them (n=5) uses apologizing sentence. For example:
(4) I’m sorry for interrupting you and asking you some questions.
Although they use different forms, they have the common aim. The speakers tend
to give direct utterance of apologizing; they will go straight to their goal.
The number of Vietnamese participants not using apologizing structure in this
situation is remarkably high (95%, n=19). For example:
(5) Dạ thầy làm ơn cho em hỏi vài câu hỏi được không thầy?
(6) Em chào thầy. Thầy vẫn khỏe hả thầy? Thầy có rảnh không, em có thể
hỏi thầy một vài câu được không thầy?
They often begin their getting attention sentence with the greeting word or a
question of caring: “em chào thầy”, “dạ thưa thầy” (good morning professor), or
“thầy khỏe không thầy…” (How are you?). Although their beginning utterance
does not contain apologizing word, they also show their courteousnes and respect
through the words “dạ”, “làm ơn”. These words have high value of politeness
and a person who is younger or has a lower position often uses these words to
say to a person who is older or has a higher position. Moreover, in Vietnamese
culture, greeting by some questions is a polite way in communication and often
used to begin a conversation. Only one Vietnamese participant accounting for
5% uses apologizing sentence. For example:
41
(7) Xin lỗi! Em có thể làm phiền thầy một chút không? (Pardon! Can I
bother you?)
Since the situation is between the student and the professor, the polite and formal
structure “Excuse me + polite request” should be used.
In general, the Vietnamese native speakers often utter indirectly while the
English native speakers always speak directly. Because of different culture, the
native speakers have different ways of saying. Each country has its own culture,
so enquiring about cross culture is very helpful and important.
In situation 4, it is also a getting attention situation. The speaker and the listener
do not know one another before and the man (hearer) is older than the speaker.
Look at the table below to see what the native speakers of English and
Vietnamese say in this situation.
Structures
English native speakers Vietnamese native
speakers
Total
number
Percentage Total
number
Percentage
Apologizing word +
(addressing form) +
question
14 70%
Non-apologizing 6 30% 20 100%
Total 20 100% 20 100%
Table 1.2.1b: Structures of attention getting provided by the English and
Vietnamese native speakers: Situation 4
It can be concluded from the table that 100% of the Vietnamese participants
(n=20) do not use apologizing word/sentence in this situation. They usually begin
their utterance in getting attention with “thưa ông…”, “ông ơi…” Addressing
form “ông” (“ông” is a formal way to address an old or respected man) is used in
42
this case to show the politeness of the speakers although they do not say “excuse
me” or “sorry” before uttering, for example:
(8) Ông ơi, vui lòng cho cháu hỏi bưu điện ở đâu vậy?
(9) Dạ thưa ông cho con hỏi bưu điện ở đâu?
“Dạ” is used again to show the politeness and respect of the speaker to the older
hearer. In Vietnamese culture, these ways of saying is considered a formal and
polite ways.
Besides that, 70% of the English participants (n=14) uses the structure
“apologizing word + (addressing form) + question” to show the politeness in
their culture, for example:
(10) Excuse me sir, could you please tell me where the post office is?
(11) Sorry! Would you mind telling me where the post office is?
In the example (10) and (11), the structures “Excuse me, could you please…”
and “Sorry, would you mind…” are the formal ways of getting attention and used
popularly in case the speakers need the hearer‟s help direction, getting
information. 30% of them (n=6) does not use apologizing word/sentence in their
utterance, for example:
(12) Could you tell me the way to the post office?
(13) Hello, do you have the time to show me where the post office is?
Similarly, English participants begin their sentence with greeting words or they
go straight by direct question “Could you tell me…” The English participants use
“could you please…?”, “would you mind...?” and “Could you…?” but do not
use “can you..?” because these structures can show respect of the speaker to the
listener. These ways are considered to be very polite. “Can you” cannot convey
courteousness of the speaker to the hearer. Especially, in this case, a polite way
of speaking will help the speaker gain purpose of communication. The hearer
will enthusiastically give direction.
43
Generally, the Vietnamese native speakers less use apology structure to get
attention while the native speakers of English often use the structure of apology
in attention getting, especially structure “Apologizing word + (Addressing form)
+ question” is used popularly. On the other hand, when communicating with a
strange or a person who has more power to get their attention, both English and
Vietnamese native speakers tend to use the formal and polite word even though
Vietnamese native speakers do not use apology word.
1.2.2. Rejecting a request or an invitation
In social life, people are usually invited or requested to do something. However,
in some cases, the invitation or request are sometimes refused. In situation 8, to
reject the colleague‟s invitation for a lunch meal, there are 4 ways used by the
participants:
Structures English native speakers Vietnamese native speakers
Total number Percentage Total number Percentage
Apologizing
sentence/word
+ sentence
(promise)
9 45%
Apologizing
word/sentence
+ Sentence
(explanation)
7 35% 5 25%
Apologizing
word/sentence
+ Sentence
(explanation +
promise)
5 25%
44
Non-
apologizing
4 20% 10 50%
Total 20 100% 20 100%
Table 1.2.2: Structures of rejecting a request or an invitation provided by the
English and Vietnamese native speakers: Situation 8
According to the table above, 45% of the native speakers of English (n=9) says
apologies first and then gives their promise, as in (14) and (15):
(14) I’m very sorry but I will be happy to go at the next invitation.
(15) Sorry for this time. Maybe another time.
In this way, people can maintain good relationship between interlocutors and
show their respect to the listeners. 35% of the English participants (n=7) says
apologies by using the structure “apologizing word + sentence of explanation”,
for example:
(16) Sorry. I have plans already.
(17) Sorry. I can’t make it. I already make a meeting.
25% of the Vietnamese participants (n=5) also uses this structure as their way of
saying, as in (18) and (19):
(18) Xin lỗi bạn nhe. Hôm nay mình bận.
(19) Xin lỗi bạn. Mình có hẹn trước rồi.
In the example (18), (19), the word “nhe” is an expressive word and the pronoun
“mình” (I, me) is a friendly and informal word. This apologizing way also keeps
the relationship, but it is better if they add their promise. Although rejecting an
invitation can have bad effect on the relationship, 20% of the English responses
(n=4) uses the structure without apologizing word and 50% of the Vietnamese
participants (n=10) also rejects an invitation by the same ways. Look at (20) and
(21):
45
(20) Mình bận rồi. Hẹn bạn khi khác nha. (Unfortunately I’m busy this
time; I hope we can meet another time)
(21) Có thể mai mình ăn nhe. (Maybe we can do it tomorrow)
They just give their promise or their explanation. Since this situation is between
two colleagues and they have the same status, this way can be accepted.
Obviously, the relationship and the social status affect the way of saying. The
hearer and the speaker have the same social status (colleague), so the speaker„s
way of speaking seems to be informal. They do not use the structure more formal
like “I’m really sorry, could we…?” With acquaintances, sometimes friendly and
informal ways express a close relationship. Nevertheless, the researcher thinks
that saying apologies is the best way in case of rejecting a request or an
invitation. In addition, when apologizing, both the English and Vietnamese
native speakers aim to please the hearers. Invitations are frequently a very polite
way to gain a closer relationship among interlocutors. If the hearers do not reply
in a polite way, the speakers may not be satisfied and of course the hearer may be
never invited again in the future.
1.2.3. Admitting guilt with an explanation
Saying an apology when making a mistake or having a fault is a must. It not only
reduces the conflict but also keeps the relationship going on. The situation 1, 2,
5, 6 and 7 relate to making mistake and how the culpable people say for their
fault.
Situation 1 happens between strangers. When both the English and Vietnamese
participants are asked what they would say, generally, 8 ways of saying are used
in this situation.
46
Structures
English native speakers Vietnamese native speakers
Total
number
Percentage Total
number
Percentage
Apologizing
word/sentence
3 15% 2 10%
Apologizing
sentence +
sentence
(offering help)
3 15%
Apologizing
sentence +
Question
(caring) +
Question
(offering help)
13 65%
Apologizing
word/sentence
+ question
6 30%
Apologizing
word/sentence
+ sentence
(explanation)
+ question
3 15%
Apologizing
word/sentence
+ sentence
(explanation)
6 30%
47
+ question
(caring) +
sentence
(offering help)
Apologizing
word/sentence
+ sentence
(explanation)
+ question
(caring) +
sentence (a
request for
forgiveness)
1 5%
Non-
apologizing
1 5% 2 10%
Total 20 100% 20 100%
Table 1.2.3a: Structures of admitting guilt with an explanation provided by the
English and Vietnamese native speakers: Situation 1
As can be seen in the table 1.2.3a, four ways of saying in this situation were used
by the English participants. Generally, 19 out of 20 English participants (95%)
use the form of apologizing for this situation. Specifically, 65% of the English
participants (n=13) used the structure “Apologizing sentence + Question of
caring + Question of offering help”, for example:
(22) I’m really sorry. Are you ok? Can I help you?
(23) I’m deeply sorry. Are you ok? Do you need help?
(24) I’m so sorry. Are you alright? What can I do to help you?
48
In addition, an apology, a caring and a help are very useful and necessary in this
situation. A question of caring is believed to be able to reduce the anger of the
wounded and show regret of the speaker.
15% of the English participants (n=3) uses apologizing sentence and 15% of
them (n=3) adds to their apologies a help to their wounded, as in (25):
(25) I’m so sorry. I will help you to pick up your things
90% of the Vietnamese participants (n=18) uses apologizing words in their
utterance, of whom 30% (n=6) uses structure “apologizing + question”, for
example:
(26) Xin lỗi. Cô có sao không vậy? (Sorry. Are you alright?)
30% of them (n=6) uses “Apologizing word/sentence + sentence (explanation) +
question (caring) + sentence (offering help)”, for example:
(27) Xin lỗi. Tôi không cố ý. Chị có sao không? Để tôi nhặt lại đồ cho chị.
(Sorry. I don’t mean to. Are you ok? I will pick up your things)
Only 5% of the Vietnamese participants (n=1) asks for forgiveness after they
apologize and care for the well-dressed lady, 10% of them (n=2) uses
apologizing word/sentence in this case and 15% of them (n=3) gives an apology
with an explanation and their care. However, 10% of them (n=2) still does not
say apologies in this case.
This conversation happens between two strangers, so formal ways of saying
should be used to gain communicative protocol and decrease the anger of the
wounded. Moreover, a formal way is able to show the respect of the speaker to
the hearer. Example (27) is, probably, considered a polite strategy to reduce the
threat and dispute in a situation like this.
Situation 2 is between a host and a guest. The table below will show what
structures the native speakers of English and Vietnamese use to say apologies in
this situation.
49
Structures English native speakers Vietnamese native speakers
Total number Percentage Total number Percentage
Apologizing
word/sentence
1 5% 6 30%
Apologizing
sentence +
question
(offering
compensation)
7 35% 1 5%
Apologizing
word +
sentence
(offering
compensation)
1 5%
Apologizing
sentence +
sentence
(offering help)
2 10% 1 5%
Apologizing
sentence +
sentence
(explanation)
5 25% 7 35%
Apologizing
sentence +
sentence (a
request for
forgiveness) +
4 20%
50
sentence
(offering help)
Non-
apologizing
4 20% 1 5%
Total 20 100% 20 100%
Table 1.2.3b: Structures of admitting guilt with an explanation provided by
the English and Vietnamese native speakers: Situation 2
According to the table above, 35% of the English participants (n=7) often says
apologies first and then they offer compensation by a question, for example:
(28) I’m very sorry about that. Can I replace it for you?
(29) I’m so sorry about that. Can I buy you another one?
It is also necessary to give an explanation or show regret in case of making
mistake after saying apologies (25%, n=5). In any way, most English participants
in this situation usually give apologies and a suggestion of compensation. They
give a suggestion of compensation because it can show their good faith and their
regret. They want to get forgiveness of the hearer. However, a suggestion of
compensation, sometimes, can keep distance between the guest and the host; it is
too formal and unfriendly.
20% of the English participants (n=4) does not apologize in this case; they just
ask for a replacement instead of saying sorry. For example:
(30) Can I buy a replacement?
This way should not be used in this case because it will have a bad effect on their
relationship. An apology in this case will help the host feel easy. If the speaker
just offers replacement, they maybe make the host feel uneasy and make their
relationship further and further.
As can be seen, 35% of the Vietnamese participants (n=7) gives an explanation
after an apology.
51
(31) Xin lỗi, tôi không cố ý. (Sorry, I don’t want to)
20% of them, after giving an apology, asks for forgiveness and offer help, for
example:
(32) Tôi xin lỗi. Anh thông cảm nhe. Để tôi dẹp giúp anh. (I’m sorry. Please
forgive me. I will help you clean it.)
The example (32) is considered to be a polite way of saying. The speaker can
reduce anger of the hearer and can show their good faith through asking for
forgiveness and offering help. Saying apologies in this situation do not threaten
face of the speaker but it can show the politeness of the speaker.
In this case, most of the Vietnamese participants (95%, n=19) use structure
having apologizing word, the participants do not give apologies is unremarkable.
In general, the mistake in this situation is not serious but saying an apology with
an explanation and ask for forgiveness is necessary. To keep conversation going
on, the guest should choose the effective way to say to the host. An effective of
communication depends on their ways of speaking.
The situation 5 is between a professor and a student. To answer for this situation,
4 ways of saying apologies are used.
Structures English native speakers Vietnamese native speakers
Total number Percentage Total number Percentage
Apologizing
words/sentence
+ (addressing
form) +
sentence
(explanation)
4 20% 7 35%
Apologizing
words/sentence
11 55% 11 55%
52
+ Sentence
(explanation +
promise)
Apologizing
word +
(addressing
form) +
question of
promise
2 10%
Non-
apologizing
3 15% 2 10%
Total 20 100% 20 100%
Table 1.2.3c: Structures of admitting guilt with an explanation provided by the
English and Vietnamese native speakers: Situation 5
It is well-realized that more than half of the English and Vietnamese participants
(55%, n=11) make apologies politely with their professor who has a higher status
and need to be high respected. They give apologies with an explanation and a
promise to show their respect and politeness, for example:
(33) Em xin lỗi. Em quên mang sách trả thầy. Để mai em đem trả thầy.
The English participants also have the same answers:
(34) I’m sorry. I forgot your book. I will bring it to you tomorrow.
(35) Excuse me! I’m afraid I have kept your book that I borrowed, I will
bring it tomorrow.
An apology with a promise in this case can show the politeness and lessen face
threatening act. In addition, a promise can make the hearer satisfied and maybe
the student is able to borrow books from his/her professor again in the future.
53
Furthermore, the structure “apologizing word/sentence + (addressing form) +
sentence of explanation” is also used by the English participants (20%, n=4) and
Vietnamese participants (35%, n=7). In this situation, addressing form is used to
show the politeness of the student to their professor, for example:
(36) Em xin lỗi thầy. Em bận quá nên quên mang sách trả cho thầy. (I’m
very sorry professor. I was very busy, so I forgot to bring your book back to
you)
Most of the English and Vietnamese participants have apologizing words in their
responses, but only 15% of the English participants (n=3) just uses a sentence of
promise without apologizing and 10% of the Vietnamese participants (n=2) gives
an explanation without apologizing, for example:
(37) Em quên mang sách trả thầy rồi. (I have forgot to return your book)
Example (37), the student does not say apologies with his/her professor, because
their relationship is perhaps close and friendly. Maybe, they know each other
well. However, in this case with the professor, it is important and necessary to
say a polite apology beside an explanation or a promise.
In situation 6, a relationship is in different social status between a boss and an
employee. In the role of an employee, how would respondents say in this
situation?
Situations English native speakers Vietnamese native speakers
Total number Percentage Total number Percentage
Apologizing
sentence
5 25%
Apologizing
words/sentence
+ Sentence
(promise)
4 20%
54
Apologizing
words +
sentence
(explanation)
7 35% 8 40%
Apologizing
words/sentence
+ Sentence
(explanation) +
sentence (a
request for
forgiveness)
6 30%
Apologizing
words/sentence
+ Sentence
(explanation) +
question
8 40%
Non-
apologizing
1 5% 1 5%
Total 20 100% 20 100%
Table 1.2.3d: Structures of admitting guilt with an explanation provided by the
English and Vietnamese native speakers: Situation 6
When making guilt or mistake, a person who has fault often sends his/her
apologies to their interlocutor because it is considered a rule in social
communication. Sending an apology to a person has a higher position is not
similar to apologizing friends or colleagues, so sending an apology to the boss
requires a careful word choice. There are 40% of the English participants (n=8)
using the way of giving apologies with an explanation and a question as a
compensation for their fault, as in (38), (39):
55
(38) I’m sorry for miss our meeting. I had an important thing to do. Can we
do it later?
(39) I’m terribly sorry. I was busy and forgot the meeting. Can we re-
schedule when you have time?
Giving an apology and a promise in this case is considered a good strategy. This
structure is a new point and different from the structure in the theory background.
An apology with an explanation is considered a good way but an apology with an
explanation and a question/ sentence of promise as a compensation for the fault
will be the most effective way to reduce anger of the boss. In contrast, a minor of
the English and Vietnamese participants (5%, n=1) just gives a promise and
maybe does not achieve the effective communication, for example:
(40) Tôi sẽ không dám quên vậy nữa đâu thưa sếp. (I have never forgot like
this.)
35% of the English (n=7) and 40% of the Vietnamese participants (n=8) gives an
explanation after apologizing; look at example (41), (42) and (43):
(41) Xin lỗi. Xe tôi bị hư nên không đến kịp. (Sorry, my motor had problem,
so I couldn’t catch the time)
(42) Sorry. I was at the doctor.
(43) I’m sorry. I was busy and I didn’t check what the time was.
This way of saying is a good way to reduce anger of the listener. However, an
apology with a promise is also a helpful way. There are 20% of the English
participants (n=4) choosing this way to response for this situation. In addition,
request for forgiveness should be also used in this case. 35% of the Vietnamese
participants (n=7) uses this way.
(43) Tôi thành thật xin lỗi Ngài. Tôi bận quá nên đã quên cuộc hợp. Ông bỏ
qua dùm tôi. (I’m deeply sorry sir. I’m too busy to remember the meeting.
Please forgive me!)
56
In this saying, the word “Ngài” wants to show the speaker‟s respect to their boss.
Generally, an apology with an explanation, a promise and request forgiveness is
a good strategy in the like situation.
The situation 7 is a close relationship between parents and children. There are 5
ways of saying in this situation. Does the child say apologies politely with their
parents or with a friendly utterance? The table below will show about structures
that the participants say to their parents in this case of survey.
Situations English native speakers Vietnamese native speakers
Total number Percentage Total number Percentage
Apologizing
sentence
2 10% 4 20%
Apologizing
sentence +
sentence
(explanation)
3 15% 1 5%
Apologizing
sentence +
sentence
(promise)
9 45% 10 50%
Apologizing
sentence +
sentence (a
request for
forgiveness)
3 15%
Non-
apologizing
3 15% 5 25%
57
Total 20 100% 20 100%
Table 1.2.3e: Structures of admitting guilt with an explanation provided by the
English and Vietnamese native speakers: Situation 7
The results from the above table show that the majority of the English (45%,
n=9) and 50% of the Vietnamese participants (n=10) uses the structure
“apologizing sentence + sentence of promise” (I‟m sorry, I apologize…+ I
will…), for example:
(44) Con xin lỗi ba mẹ. Con hứa sẽ không như vậy nữa.
(45) Con xin lỗi. Đây là lần cuối, con không dám tái phạm nữa.
(46) I’m sorry. It will never been happened again.
(47) I apologize for telling lie. I will try to tell the truth in the future.
(48) I’m so sorry. It was the last time.
It is considered a good way in this situation because saying apologies with a
promise will make the listener pleasure and reduce their anger. On the other
hand, 10% of the English (n=2) and 20% of the Vietnamese participants (n=4)
just say sorry for their guilt, 15% of the English participants (n=3) and 5% of the
Vietnamese participants (n=1) say an apology with an explanation. An
apologizing sentence with a request for forgiveness is also employed by the
English participants in this case (15%, n=3). It is still existed of 15% of the
English (n=3) and 25% of the Vietnamese participants (n=5) not using
apologizing word/sentence in this case. Which is the best way to lessen the anger
of the listeners depends on the thought of each person who wants to aim the
effective communication. Sending apologies to the parents like this case does not
mean lose face, but it shows the respect and courteousness of children to parents.
In general, apologizers have to give an explanation in order to reduce anger or to
show their good faith. It is necessary to observe whether the speakers are found
guilty or not, that how much power people have in conversation. Their word
choice of apology strategy depends on their minor mistake or serious one.
58
According to the findings above, the researcher finds some new structures used
by the participants comparing with the theory mentioned in Literature Review
Chapter.
Strategy Structure
Admitting guilt with an explanation
Apologizing sentence + Sentence
(asking for forgiveness) + Sentence
(offering help)
Apologizing words/sentence +
Sentence (explanation) + question
Apologizing sentence + Question +
Question
Apologizing word/sentence + sentence
(explanation) + question + sentence
(offering help/ a request for
forgiveness)
Table 1.2: The new apology structures of admitting guilt with an explanation
In the theory background, there are seven structures are found on the previous
study, but in reality the researcher discovers four new structures of admitting
guilt with an explanation strategy used. This is a new point in this thesis. In
getting attention and rejecting a request or an invitation strategy, the participants
use the same structures in theory. These new structures are considered best ways
of saying apologies to keep the conversation as well as the relationship going on.
3.2. Discussion
3.2.1. Similarities
In spite of living in two different cultures, when making apologies, both
Vietnamese native speakers and native speakers of English use some same
structures:
59
Apologizing words: Xin lỗi; Excuse me, Sorry, Pardon.
Apologizing word + addressing form: Sorry, Sir/Professor. Xin lỗi Ông/Thầy.
Apologizing word/sentence + question: Excuse me! Would you please let me
know the way to the post office?; Xin lỗi. Ông vui lòng chỉ giúp đường đến bưu
điện?
Apologizing word + addressing form + question: Sorry professor! Can I ask
you some questions?
Apologizing word/sentence + sentence: I’m sorry. I am wrong.
Specifically, in rejecting a request or an invitation and admitting guilt with an
explanation strategy, the structure “apologizing word/sentence + sentence of
explanation or sentence of promise” is used with a high rate (55%, n=11,
situation 5).
In addition, in their apologizing utterance, they often add the adverb “rất, thành
thật, vô cùng; very, deeply, terribly …” to emphasize their regret. This helps to
achieve the communicative goal. In the light of address, both the Vietnamese
native speakers and the native speakers of English usually base on the context,
the situation, the age, and the relationship to have a correct form of address.
Obviously, the age, and the social position have influence on the way
Vietnamese and English native speakers make apologies. For example, making
an apology to a boss is more polite and formal than making an apology to the
colleague.
Furthermore, the English native speakers as well as the Vietnamese native
speakers often use apologies to begin a conversation, get direction, make
acquaintance or make mistake. Both of them give apologies as soon as they take
guilt, before or after the time they make it depending on the situation and the
subject. In the aspect of attitude, both Vietnamese and English native speakers
exist of two attitudes of giving apologies: good faith and insincerity. They reveal
their remorse in giving apologies through eyes, behaviors, words, and actions as
60
well as their voice whereas a person forced to apologize will show their
insincerity in their utterance.
3.2.2. Differences
Finding the differences in saying polite apologies in English and Vietnamese
through the English and Vietnamese native speakers is one of the crucial aims of
this thesis. There are six differences between Vietnamese and English native
speakers: structure, degree of frequency in saying apology, final particle,
addressing pronoun, choosing word and direct and indirect utterance.
Firstly, the Vietnamese native speakers, obviously, do not usually use the
structure containing apologizing words in their utterance. For example, they
often use “Tôi vô ý quá!” instead of the verb “sorry or apologize” because it
seems to be a habit of saying in Vietnamese culture. The native speakers of
Vietnamese do not think that saying apology will damage their face or loose their
face but they do not have habit of saying apology. It is well-realized that in
attention getting strategy, the native speakers of Vietnamese usually use greeting
words or calling such as “thưa thầy, em chào thầy, ông ơi” to replace for
“pardon, excuse me, sorry”. Most of the Vietnamese native speakers (about 98%)
rarely use structure of apology in this strategy while a majority of the English
native speakers use structure “Apologizing word + (addressing form) +
question”. To admit guilt with an explanation, a large number of English native
speakers often use the structure “apologizing word/sentence + sentence of
promise”.
Secondly, in terms of the degree of frequency in giving apologies as discussed
above, the native speakers of English use apologizing word more frequently than
the Vietnamese native speakers do. The native speakers of English use
apologizing word in a high rate as a reflex action although they have fault or not.
It is proven in following cases: In a restaurant, when wanting to get attention of a
waiter, English customers always use the word “excuse me”. In another case,
“excuse me” is used to say to a next sitting person on the bus when they want to
get off the bus. “Sorry” precede a question is also used when the speakers bother
61
someone or ask for help, such as “Sorry, do you know where the post office is?”
In general, utterance of apology is considered as a norm of communication of
Western culture. In Vietnam, an old or a person with a higher social position
seldom says sorry or shows an action of apologizing to a younger person or a
person with a lower social position. In the countryside, Vietnamese people rarely
say apologies and when beginning a conversation or getting direction, an
utterance of apology is seldom heard. Especially, the closer relationship is the
fewer apologies are used.
Thirdly, to show respect of the speakers to the listeners, the native speakers of
Vietnamese often use the polite word “dạ”. This word is high-estimated in polite
way of speaking in Vietnamese daily life. Moreover, the Vietnamese native
speakers often use final particle such as “nhe”, “nhé”, and “nha” to show their
expressive nuance in utterance of apology.
Fourthly, In Vietnamese culture, address pronouns must go with each other as
pairs such as “ông – con/cháu, bác – cháu, anh/chị – em, dì/cô – cháu, etc.”
Changing pronouns in each pair may lead to the change in degree of politeness,
for example, when comparing “Xin lỗi, ông cho cháu hỏi bưu điện ở đâu?”
(Excuse me. Can you show me where the post office is?) and “Xin lỗi ông cho tôi
hỏi bưu điện ở đâu” (Excuse me. Can you show me where the post office is?).
Vietnamese people will easily realize that the second apology is not as polite as
the first one. Specially, in this case, the Vietnamese native speakers can not say
“Xin lỗi, ông cho tao hỏi bưu điện ở đâu?” (Excuse me. Can you show me where
the post office is?). Pronoun “tao” is a less polite word; this word is only used for
a close relationship and same age. It is clear that in the same situation, the
Vietnamese native speakers can use many different address pronouns to show
their communicative purposes while the English native speakers just use the
pronoun “I” for the speakers and “you” for the listeners in most situations (see
translated examples above).
Next, the Vietnamese native speakers use the performative verb “xin lỗi, tha thứ,
thông cảm” in all situations. On the contrary, the native speakers of English use
62
“excuse me” for getting direction, “sorry” for making mistake, “forgive me for”
for a serious guilt.
The final issue needs discussing is direct and indirect utterance. It is apparent that
most of the Vietnamese native speakers utter indirectly. For example, to ask their
professor some questions, they beat around the bush by “Em chào thầy, thầy khỏe
không thầy? Thầy có đang bận việc gì không thầy? Em có thể hỏi thầy một vài
câu hỏi không thầy?” (Hello professor. How are you? Are you busy? Can I ask
you some questions?). On the contrary, the English native speakers always use
direct ways of speaking. For example, in the same above situation, the native
speakers of English say “Excuse me professor! Can I ask you some questions?”
63
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION
1. Summary
An apology used very commonly in daily life, therefore, the ability to use its
polite strategies successfully is very significant. Not all speakers can make
apologies effectively. People who can apply the relevant structures of 3 strategies
cleverly will be likely to get what they want easily without causing unpleasure to
the listeners. This study has been centered on the similarities and differences in
making apologies politely in English and Vietnamese in terms of cross-cultural
perspective. Data used are books, questionnaire and interview. Books just serve
for theory background not for comparison and contrast. Questionnaire and
interview are the main instruments to collect data. The questionnaire is given to
20 Vietnamese participants and 20 English participants coming from America,
England, Australia, and Canada. The interview is also delivered to 20 English
participants and 20 Vietnamese participants. The participants for questionnaire
and interview are different.
This study provides a general overview of how similarly and differently native
speakers of English and Vietnamese use apologies politely in terms of cross-
cultural features based on comparing the structures and strategies of apologies.
Therefore, three research questions are addressed: 1) 1. How do the Vietnamese
native speakers and the English native speakers say apologies? 2) What are the
similarities and differences in making polite apologies between the Vietnamese
native speakers and the English native speakers? 3) Do ages, social positions and
relationships influence making polite apologies?
Methods of data analysis used are statistic, compare and contrast. After having
all responses to the situations in questionnaire and interview, they are listed
and classified to count how many native English speakers and Vietnamese
people have similar answers and how many of them have different answers.
The research questions are answered through compare and contrast the
collected results.
64
2. Results
From the data analysis of the structures of apologies provided by the English and
Vietnamese participants, the researcher consolidates that “apologies” in
Vietnamese way are originally distinguished from that in the English culture.
Vietnamese utterances of apologies are more indirect than English utterances and
the English native speakers say apologies more frequently than the native
speakers of Vietnamese. Although the Vietnamese native speakers do not say
apologies frequently, it does not mean that they are impolite or afraid of loosing
face. In addition, the most popular forms of apologies in English are apologizing
sentence. By contrast, the most popular structure in the Vietnamese data is non-
apologizing sentence, especially in getting attention. Concretely, in getting
attention strategy, among two situations (situation 3 and 4), 73% of the English
participants (n=29 out of 40) uses structures “Apologizing word/sentence +
(addressing form) + question”, 25% of them (n=5) uses “Apologizing sentence”
and 30% of them (n=6) uses non-apologizing sentence while 98% of the
Vietnamese participants (n=39 out of 40) uses non-apologizing sentence. In
rejecting a request or an invitation, 80% of the English participants (n=16) uses
structure “Apologizing word/sentence + sentence (promise/explanation)” while
50% of the Vietnamese participants (n=10) uses non-apologizing sentence. In
admitting guilt with an explanation in situation 1, 65% of the English participants
(n=13) uses “Apologizing sentence +Question (offering help)” while 30% of the
Vietnamese participants (n=6) uses structure “Apologizing word/sentence +
question” and 30% of them (n=6) uses “Apologizing word/sentence + sentence
+ question + sentence”. In situation 2, 35% of the English participants (n=7)
uses “Apologizing sentence + question” and 20% of them (n=4) uses non-
apologizing sentence while 35% of the Vietnamese participants (n=7) uses
“Apologizing sentence + sentence (explanation)” and only 5% of them (n=1)
uses non-apologizing sentence. In situation 5, 55% of the English (n=11) and
55% of the Vietnamese participants (n=11) use the same structure “Apologizing
word/sentence + sentence (explanation +promise)”. In situation 6, 40% of the
English participants (n=8) uses “Apologizing word + sentence (explanation) +
65
question” and 35% of them (n=7) uses “Apologizing word + sentence
(explanation)” while 40% of the Vietnamese participants (n=8) uses this
structure and 35% of them (n=7) uses “Apologizing sentence + sentence
(explanation) + sentence (request for forgiveness)”. In situation 7, 45% of the
English participants (n=9) uses structure “Apologizing sentence + sentence
(promise)” while 50% of the Vietnamese participants (n=10) uses this structure.
Because the English participants use apologizing sentence more frequently than
the Vietnamese participants, so the English participants sound more polite in
their apologies in comparison with the Vietnamese participants. However, the
English and Vietnamese participants were found to be nearly similar in the
choice of apology forms appropriate in admitting guilt with an explanation. Both
of them use “Apologizing word/sentence + sentence (explanation/promise)” to
admit guilt more often than other structures.
The finding helps the Vietnamese native speakers and the native speakers of
English eradicate the interference of the mother tongue into the real-life
communication in the new language environment and to minimize the risk of
misunderstanding by becoming aware of the great differences in choice of using
structures of three apology strategies by the two people from the different
cultures. The English native speakers should not be shocked when they do not
receive an apology from Vietnamese people because of Vietnamese culture.
Seldom saying apologies does not mean that Vietnamese people are afraid of
threatening their face. Although they do not say apology, they will show their
regret or sincere behavior instead of saying apologies. Hence, this thesis can help
the visitors and newcomers avoid being culture shock.
3. Suggestions
3.1. Vietnamese learners of English
Through the findings mentioned above, there are two suggestions given to
Vietnamese learners of English.
When communicating with the native speakers of English, Vietnamese learners
should say apologies frequently in the necessary situations in order to make good
66
impression with the interlocutors and avoid being shocked. Because the English
native speakers says apologies as a reflect actions, they expect to receive the same
responses. Hence, the relationship is undamaged and the conversations go on.
Depending on the context both Vietnamese and English learners should use
appropriate apologizing forms to make polite conversations. For example, in a
conversation with a person who has higher status, the speakers should say
apologies directly instead of indirectly. The native speakers of English are familiar
with direct ways of speaking, so bushing around the bush, sometimes, makes
conversation unnatural and interlocutors feel uncomfortable. As a result, choosing
a suitable apologizing form in a right situation should be taken into consideration.
3.2. Vietnamese teachers of English
The thesis has two suggestions to Vietnamese teachers of English.
Teachers should create as many as opportunities for students to practice saying
apologies in different contexts in which students can realize which apologizing
forms are appropriate. Therefore, students are able to memorize these forms and
use them more naturally and fluently.
Teachers should then provide students with sources of cross-cultural knowledge
to help students avoid shocked situations. For example, when communicating
with foreigners in getting attention strategy, what students should say and what
students should avoid.
3.3. Suggestions for further studies
This thesis focuses on comparing making polite apology in English and
Vietnamese in terms of cross-cultural perspective. However, this thesis just deals
with forms of three apology strategies; as a result, there are many issues related
to making apology not being investigated. Hence, the following suggestions for
further studies are raised.
An investigation of apology strategies in English and Vietnamese.
A comparative study on responding to apology in English and Vietnamese
in terms of cross-cultural perspective.
67
REFERENCES
English References
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press
Bataineh, R. F. (2006). Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL university students.
Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1901-1927.
Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and
nonnative apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage
pragmatics (pp. 82-107). New York: Oxford University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984). “Requests and Apologies: A Cross-
Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP)”. Applied
Linguistics, 5 (1), 196-213.
Brown, P. &. Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: CUP.
Brown, P (1994). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. M. Gass &
J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to
communication in a second language (pp. 21-44). New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1985). Comparing apologies across languages. In
K. R. Jankowsky (Ed.), Scientific and humanistic dimensions of
language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Coulmas, (1981). Conversational routines. CUP
Dascal Thomas, N. (1995). A Japan-U.S. comparison of apology styles. In N.
Sugimoto (Ed.), Japanese apology across disciplines (pp. 79-104).
Commack, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers.
Escandell-Vidal, (1996). Requests, invitations, apologies, and compliments in
American English and Polish: A cross-cultural communication
perspective. Kraków: Ksiagarnia Akademicka.
68
Fahmi, Ruba, Fahmi, Rula (2006). Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL
University students. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 1901-1927.
Fraser, (1978). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219-236.
Retrieved December 30, 2005, from ScienceDirect.
Goffman, Ewing, (1967). International Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face
Behaviour. New York: Double day Anchor Books.
Green, G.M, (1989). Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. LEA.
Grice, C. (1975). Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native
and non-native speakers. Multilingua, 8(1), 3-20
Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society,
19(2), 155-199.
John and Liz Soars, (1993). Headway- elementary, Oxford University Press
Ken Wilson, (2001), Smart Choice 2, Oxford University Press.
Liz T. and Alastair L., (2007). International Express, Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; Or minding your p's and q's, Papers
from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.
292-305). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lakoff, R, (1983). What you can do with words: Politeness, Pragmatics and
Performative. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Márquez-Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A
contrastive study of requests and apologies. Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
McGraw Hill, (2007). Interaction 2, Listening/Speaking, Inc. 1221 Avenue of
Americas, New York, NY 10020.
69
Nwoye, O. G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the
notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(4), 309-328. Retrieved
December 30, 2005, from Science Direct.
Obeng, S. G. (1999). Apologies in Akan discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(5),
709-734. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from ScienceDirect.
Olstain, E. (1983) “Social cultural Competence and Language Transfer: The
Case of Apology”. In Gass, S. L. Selinker (Eds.) Language Transfer in
Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech-act set. In N. Wolfson &
E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 18-35).
Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and remedial interchanges: A study of language use
in social interaction. New York: Mouton
Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary,8th
edition.
Richard, J.C.et al, (1990). Longman Dictionary of Language teaching and
Applied Linguistics. Longman.
Schmidt, R. W. & Richards, J. C. (1980). “Speech Acts and Second Language
Learning”. Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 129-157.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech
acts. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Staab, C. F. (1983). Making implicit knowledge explicit: A review of four
theories for analyzing language by function. Language Sciences, 5(1),
21-35. Retrieved December 27, 2005, from Science Direct.
Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of
Pragmatics, 11(2), 147-167. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from
ScienceDirect.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and
apologies.New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
70
Tom Hutchinson, (2001), Lifelines, OUP
University of Minnesota: Center for Advance Research on Language
Acquisition‟s website.
Yule G. (1996). Pragmatics, Oxford University Press.
Vietnamese References
Hoang Truc Anh, (2010). English Conversation Communicating In Every
Situation, Youth Publishment.
Huynh Cam Thao Trang, (2009). Observations on Some Apology Strategies in
English and Vietnamese. Unpublished Study, Dalanar University.
Huynh Thi Nhi, (2009). Sự Tương Đồng và Dị Biệt Trong Phát Ngôn “Xin Lỗi”
Tiếng Anh-Việt. Unpublished study, Dong Thap University.
Hữu Mai, (1989). Ông Cố Vấn I. Quân Đội Nhân Dân, Hanoi.
Nam Cao, (1986). Đôi Mắt. Truyện ngắn chọn lọc, Văn học, Hanoi.
Khải Hưng, (1988). Nửa chừng xuân. Văn học Press, Hanoi.
Nguyễn Văn Lập (2005). Nghi Thức Lời Nói Tiếng Việt Trên Cơ Sở Lý Thuyết
Hành Vi Ngôn Ngữ ( So Sánh Với Tiếng Anh), ( Vietnamese utterances
based on speech acts theory) Luận án tiến sĩ khoa hoc Ngữ văn, ĐHTH
Hanoi.