A comparative analysis on making polite apologies in english and vietnamese from the cross cultural perspective

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, 8
th
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,)