STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP - DThUwebsrv.dthu.edu.vn/UserFiles/file/KHOANGOAINGU/phuong Dung.pdf · STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ... Scope of the study The study is a comparative analysis

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.