the speech act of apology made by vietnamese efl learner an interlanguage pragmatic study = lời xin lỗi của người việt nam học tiếng anh

1

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES





NGUYỄN HƯƠNG LÝ




THE SPEECH ACT OF APOLOGY MADE BY VIETNAMESE EFL
LEARNERS: AN INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATIC STUDY
(LỜI XIN LỖI CỦA NGƯỜI VIỆT NAM HỌC TIẾNG ANH: NGHIÊN CỨU
DỤNG HỌC LIÊN NGÔN NGỮ)
M.A. THESIS


Field:
Code:
Supervisor:
English Linguistics
60.22.15
Dr. Hà Cẩm Tâm

Ha noi – 2012


2

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES




NGUYỄN HƯƠNG LÝ




THE SPEECH ACT OF APOLOGY MADE BY VIETNAMESE EFL
LEARNERS: AN INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATIC STUDY
(LỜI XIN LỖI CỦA NGƯỜI VIỆT NAM HỌC TIẾNG ANH: NGHIÊN CỨU
DỤNG HỌC LIÊN NGÔN NGỮ)
M.A. THESIS

Field:
Code:

English Linguistics
60.22.15




Ha noi – 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content
page
Declaration
i
Acknowledgements
ii
Abstract
iii
Table of Contents
iv
List of Abbreviations
vii

List of Tables
viii
List of Figures
viii
Part A: INTRODUCTION

1. Identification of the problem
1
2. Aims of the study
2
3. Objectives of the study
2
4. Scope of the study
2
5. Significance of the study
3
6. Method of the study
3
7. Organization of the study
3
Part B: DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 1: Literature Review
4
1.1. Pragmatics
4
1.1.1. Overview
4
1.1.2. Interlanguage pragmatics
4

1.1.3. Pragmatic transfer
5
1.2. Speech acts
7
1.2.1. Three-dimension speech acts
8
1.2.2. Classification of speech acts
9
1.2.3. Speech act of Apology
10
1.2.4. Apology strategies
10
1.3. Previous studies on apology
12
Chapter 2: Methodology
14
2.1. Research questions
14
2.2. Research design
14
2.2.1. Informants
14
2.2.2. Data collection instruments
15
2.2.2.1. Variables manipulated in data collection instruments
15
2.2.2.2. The content of the questionnaire
15
2.2.2.2.1. Metapragmatic questionnaire (MPQ)
16

2.2.2.2.2. Open-ended Discourse Completion Task Questionnaire (DCT)
17
2.2.3. Procedure
18
2.3. Results of the MPQ
18
2.4. Coding system
20
Chapter 3: Findings and Discussion
22
3.1. Apologies by EFL Learners and English native speakers
22
3.1.1. In high power settings (+P)
22
3.1.2. In equal power settings (=P)
24
3.1.3. In low power settings (-P)
26
3.1.4. In familiar settings (-D)
28
3.1.5. In unfamiliar settings (+D)
30
3.2. Apologies by English native Speakers and Vietnamese native Speakers
30
3.2.1. In high power settings (+P)
30
3.2.2. In equal power settings (=P)
32
3.2.3. In low power settings (-P)
33

3.3. Pragmatic transfer on Learners‘ Apologies
34
3.3.1. Sociopragmatic Transfer
34
3.3.2. Pragmalinguistic Transfer

36
Part C: CONCLUSION

1. Major findings
38
2. Implications for Teaching and Learning English in Vietnam
39
3. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies
40
REFERENCES
42
APPENDIXES

Appendix A: MPQ Questionnaire (2 versons)
I
Appendix B: DCT Questionnaire (3 versons)
XIII
Appendix C: Figure 4 (Apology strategies by EN Speakers and VN Speakers)
XIX
Appendix D: Figure 5 (Apology strategies by EN Speakers, EFL Learners
and VN Speakers)
XX
Appendix E: The coding system
XXI

Appendix F: Samples of the coding procedure
XXII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
EN:
VN:
EFL:
L1:
L2:
MPQ:
DCT:
D:
P:
R:
Sit.
Strat.
English native
Vietnamese native
English as a foreign language
First language
Second language
Metapragmatic questionnaire
Discourse Completion Task
Social Distance
Relative Power
Ranking of Imposition
Situation
Strategy

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1
Mean ratings of social factors by English and Vietnamese informants
(n=29) and Vietnamese informants (n=30)
19
Table 2
The use of Strategies with respect to +P (EN Speakers & EFL Learners)

22
Table 3
The use of Strategies with respect to =P (EN Speakers & EFL Learners)

25
Table 4
The use of Strategies with respect to -P (EN Speakers & EFL Learners)

27
Table 5
The use of Strategies with respect to +D (EN Speakers & EFL Learners)

28
Table 6
The use of Strategies with respect to –D (EN Speakers & EFL Learners)

30
Table 7
The use of Strategies with respect to +P (EN Speakers & VN Speakers)

30
Table 8
The use of Strategies with respect to =P (EN Speakers & VN Speakers)

32
Table 9
The use of Strategies with respect to -P (EN Speakers & VN Speakers)

33
Table 10
Apology strategies by EN Speakers, EFL Learners and VN Speakers
across the six situations

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1
Apology strategies in +P settings (EN Speakers & EFL Learners)
22
Figure 2
Apology strategies in =P settings (EN Speakers & EFL Learners)
25
Figure 3
Apology strategies in =P settings (EN Speakers & EFL Learners)
27
Figure 4
Apology strategies by EN Speakers & VN Speakers in the six situations

XIX
Figure 5
Apology strategies by EN Speakers, EFL Learners & VN Speakers

XX

Part I: INTRODUCTION
1. Identification of the problem
To become effective communicators nowadays, it is essential for English foreign
language (EFL) Learners to gain communicative competence. Communicative competence,
according to Ellis, ―entails both linguistic competence and pragmatic competence‖ (Ellis,
1994:696). Linguistic competence is the ability to use the linguistic rules of a given
language. Pragmatic competence, on the other hand, is ―the ability to use language
effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context‖
(Thomas, 1983:94). Likewise, Bialystok (1993) claimed that pragmatic competence is the
ability to make use of different language functions, the ability to understand the speakers‘

underlying intention; and the ability to modify the speech according to contexts.
Recently, increasing attention has been paid to pragmatic competence due to the fact
that foreign language learners who have good knowledge of grammar and a wide range of
vocabulary but lack sociolinguistic awareness may encounter communicating problems
with native speakers because of their incompetence
to use sociolinguistic rules properly
or interpret those words correctly.
Moreover, in accordance with Thomas (1983), native
speakers often forgive the phonological, syntactic and lexical errors made by L2 speakers
but usually interpret pragmatic errors negatively as rudeness, impoliteness or unfriendliness.
Thus foreign language speakers
need to have more than pure linguistic competence in
order to be able to communicate effectively in a language and know how a language is used
by members of a speech community to accomplish their purposes (Hymes:1972). In other
words, it can be justifiably suggested that foreign language speakers need to use the target
language in both linguistically and socially appropriate ways.
Over the past few decades, language teaching in the world has witnessed a shift from
the focus on the development of learners‘ linguistic competence to the development of
learners‘ communicative competence.
Many empirical studies on learners‘ pragmatic
competence on the basis of diverse speech acts have been conducted
in variety of
cultures and languages
to gather
information on what appropriate use of linguistic forms
in different sociocultural contexts actually comprises (e.g., Bergman & Kasper, 1993;
Blum-Kulka, 1991; Ellis, 1992; Trosborg, 1987, 1995; Yu, 1999a, 1999b, 2005;
Shardakova, 2005; Bataineh, 2006, 2008). Those studies have contributed greatly to a better
understanding of the use of linguistic forms in different languages and cultures and further
to avoiding cross-cultural miscommunication.

On response to this trend, some Vietnamese researchers investigated similarities and
differences in the realization of speech acts such as requesting, inviting, disagreeing,
greeting, giving and receiving compliments, apologizing, promising made by speakers of
English and Vietnamese. Among these speech acts, apology is considered a highly-
recurrent and routinized act. Kasper (1996) stated that in any speech community,
participants need to engage in remedial verbal action upon committing an offense, that is to
apologize. However, this kind of speech act is still under-researched in Vietnam. Van
(2000), Phuong (2000) and Trang (2010) are some of Vietnamese researchers working on
this topic up to now. However, their studies mainly compared and contrasted the realization
of apology between two groups of language, English and Vietnamese. N
ative Vietnamese
speakers‘ speech act behavior which can influence Learners‘ performance of the target
language was understudied.
Thus, gaps are still there to fill in pragmatics, especially in the
interlanguage speech act of apology. In this study the aim is to compare the speech act of
apologies among EN speakers, English EFL learners and VN speakers.
2. Aims of the study
This study aims at identifying Vietnamese EFL learners‘ deviations linguistically in
the production of apology in relation to English native speakers in the contexts studied. In
particular, the study attempts to find out how much Vietnamese learners of English can
approximate native speakers in the apology strategy use as well as responding to contextual
factors involved in the contexts.
3. Objectives of the study
The study will uncover the deviations in using apology strategies by Vietnamese
EFL learners in some contexts studied. Particularly, it uncovers:
1) differences in the use of apology strategies by EN Speakers and Vietnamese EFL
Learners.
2) differences in the use of apology strategies by EN Speakers and VN Speakers.
4. Scope of the study
Due to limited time, it is impossible to cover all interlanguage pragmatic matters.

This study just focus on the language used by Vietnamese learners of English in formulating
in the speech act of apology in relation to the three social parameters (P, D and R) in the
contexts studied. In other words, the survey concentrates on verbal communication.
Moreover, the survey mainly considers the acceptance of apologies and ignores all the cases
where apologies are refused. As a result, the theoretical frameworks applied to this study are
pragmatics and the speech act theory.
5. Significance of the study
This study will be an attempt to fill in a gap in the area of interlanguage pragmatics
where learners‘ production of linguistic acts has not taken into consideration enough. Thus,
the study will be a reference material for not only English language learners to improve
their knowledge on the interlanguage pragmatics but also their communicative competence.
6. Method of the study
Quantitative is mainly used in this study. In other words, all the conclusions and
considerations are based on the analysis of the empirical studies and statistics processed
Chi-square test. In addition, such methods as descriptive, analytic, comparative and
contrastive are also utilized to describe and analyze, to compare and contrast the database so
as to bring out differences in using apology strategy by English and Vietnamese speakers.
7. Organization of the study
This study is divided into three parts as follows:
Part A is the introduction of the study including the identification of the problem, the
aims, the objectives, the scope of the study, the significance, the research method as well as
the organization of the study.
Part B contains 3 chapters. Chapter 1 reviews the theoretical issues relevant to the
study including pragmatics, speech act theory and some previous studies on interlanguage
apologies. Chapter 2 discusses issues of methodology and outlines the study design, data
collection instruments, reliability and validity test of the data collection instruments,
procedure of data collection, selection of subjects and analytical framework. Chapter 3
presents the data analysis and discusses the findings on the choice of apology strategies used
by EN speakers, EFL learners and VN speakers in relation to the variables of Power (P),
Social Distance (D) and Ranking of Imposition (R) in the contexts under studied. Some

pragmatic transfer on interlanguage apology is also mentioned in this chapter.
Part C provides an overview of major findings and interpretations, implications,
limitations and suggestions for further research.

Part B: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides overview of the theoretical background of the research. It is
divided into three main sections. Section 1.1 discusses the key notions of pragmatics
Section 1.2 discusses the speech act theory and its categories. This is followed by section
1.3 in which some previous studies on interlanguage apology are discussed.
1.1. Pragmatics
1.1.1. Overview
Since Morris‘s original definition, there have been numerous attempts to explain
pragmatics. Levinson (1983) claimed that pragmatics comprises the study of language
usage, to be distinguished from syntax, which is the study of combinatorial properties of
words and their parts, and from semantics, which is the study of meaning. Based on
Levinson‘s claim, Leech (1983) redefined pragmatics as ―any background knowledge
assumed to be shared by the speaker and the hearer and contributes to the hearer‘s
interpretation of what the speaker means by a given utterance‖
(Leech, 1983:13) and he
also distinguished pragmatic meaning which is relative to a speaker or user of a
language from semantic meaning which is purely a property of
expressions in a given
language. And in this trend, Crystal proposed: ―pragmatics is the study of language from the
point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter
in using language in social interactions, and the effects their use of language has on other
participants in the act of communication‖ (Crystal, 1985: 240).
According to Leech (1983), pragmatics can be divided into two components: one
is pragmalinguistic, referring to the pragmatic strategies, routines, and a large of linguistic
forms to convey communicative action, and the other is sociopragmatics, referring to the

social perceptions underlying participants‘ interpretation and performance of
communicative action. Similarly, Cohen (1996) proposed two distinct levels of abilities
required for pragmatic competence: one is sociocultural ability to choose speech act
appropriate for the given contexts and the other is sociolinguistic ability to choose the actual
language forms for realizing the speech act.
1.1.2. Interlanguage Pragmatics
According to Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics,
Interlanguage is the type of language produced by second and foreign language learners
who are in the process of learning a language. Before 1970s, interlanguage studies were
generally carried out to see grammatical development of L2 learners. However, by the
emergence of communicative competence approach, interlanguage studies gave emphasis to
the interactional and communicative dynamics of L2 performance. Thus, the term
‗interlanguage pragmatics‘ came into existence. According to Kasper (1998), interlanguage
pragmatics investigates the learners‘ development and the use of pragmatic knowledge in
second language (L2) context. In other words, it examines non-native speakers‘
comprehension, production, and acquisition of linguistic action in L2, or put briefly,
interlanguage pragmatics investigates how L2 learners develop the ability to understand and
perform action in a target language (Kasper & Rose, 2002). Kasper and Rose‘s (2002)
definition highlights two important aspects of interlanguage pragmatics research. First, it
emphasizes that both production and comprehension are part of language learners‘
pragmatic competence in their L2. Thus, second/foreign language learners do not only have
to be able to produce utterances that are regarded as contextually appropriate by their target
audience, they also have to be aware of what constitutes appropriate linguistic behaviour in
a variety of social situations in their L2. This shows the link between culture and pragmatic
competence in a second/foreign language.
The growing interest in interlanguage pragmatics reflects the enormous
developments in the theoretical and empirical study of pragmatics. A lot of researches on
interlanguage pragmatics have been conducted by now. Most of them have focused on L2
pragmatic use,
investigating cross-cultural perception and comprehension of

illocutionary forces,
cross-cultural pragmatic success and failure, and the impact of
contextual factors on selection
of semantic formulas, realization strategies, and
linguistic forms and have found that
languages differ significantly as to when a particular
form should be performed and with what strategy (e.g., Takahashi, 1996; Trosborg, 1987,
1995). And the finding that different cultures have different conventional language use
implies that L2 learners have to learn the conventions of language use in order to behave
appropriately in terms of use of native-like routines and the social values of the target
language community.
1.1.3. Pragmatic Transfer
The term transfer is generally used to refer to the effect of the existing knowledge on
the acquisition of new knowledge. The notion of transfer was first introduced during the
1940s and 1950s. Later on, Ellis (1994: 341) took a more general approach to transfer and
stated that ―the study of transfer involves the study of errors (negative transfer), facilitation
(positive transfer), avoidance of target language forms, and their over-use‖. With the
attention given to pragmatics and pragmatic competence, pragmatic transfer gained more
interest. In its crudest sense, pragmatic transfer can be described as ‗the transfer of
pragmatic knowledge in situations of intercultural communications‘ (Zegarac &
Pennington, 2000: 167). Similarly, Kasper (1992: 207) defined pragmatic transfer as ―the
influence exerted by learners‘ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2
on their comprehension, production, and acquisition of L2 pragmatic information‖.
Under the claim of pragmatic transfer, it is assumed that cross-cultural
miscommunication is often caused by the interference of learners‘ L1 sociocultural norms
and conventions with the
realization of speech acts in a target language (Takahashi,
1996). A lot of interlanguage
pragmatic studies have been conducted to examine what is
negatively transferred from L1 to L2 contexts. Some of them investigated L1 transfer in

learners‘ perception as to a certain speech act and overall speech style, while others
investigated L1 influences on learners‘ production of speech acts in L2 (e.g., Bergman &
Kasper, 1993; House & Kasper, 1987; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985; Trosborg, 1987,
1995; Byon, 2005). These studies clearly demonstrated that transfer exists at the
pragmatic level, but in different types. Due to the inseparable relationship between
language and culture, Kasper
(1992) identified two types of pragmatic transfer:
sociopragmatic transfer and
pragmalinguistic transfer. This sociopragmatic and
pragmalinguistic dichotomy is not only useful in cross-cultural pragmatic research and in
language learning and teaching, but it also
provides an adequate framework for the
study of pragmatic transfer in interlanguage
pragmatics (Bou, 1998). The details of
these two types are as follows:
Sociopragmatic transfer has been found to be operative in learners‘ perceptions
of
contextual factors, such as imposition, social status, and social distance (Takahashi &
Beebe, 1993); learners‘ assessment about whether a particular linguistic action is socially
appropriate (Robinson, 1992), and learners‘ overall politeness style adopted in contexts
(Blum-Kulka, 1982; Garcia, 1989). Therefore, Kasper (1992) claimed that both context-
external factors and context-internal factors have effects on sociolinguistic transfer and
claimed: ―sociopragmatic transfer is operative when the social perceptions underlying
language learners‘ interpretation and performance of linguistic action in L2 are influenced
by their assessment of subjectively equivalent L1 contexts‖ (Kasper, 1992: 209).
On the other hand, pragmalinguistic transfer has been found to be operative in
learners‘ use of conventional means and forms, affecting the illocutionary force and
politeness values of interlanguage utterances (Bodman & Eisenstein, 1988; House, 1988;
House & Kasper, 1987). And Kasper (1992), dealing with illocutionary force and politeness
values, provided ―pragmalinguistic transfer‖ a definition as ―pragmalinguistic transfer shall

designate the process whereby the illocutionary force or politeness value assigned to
particular linguistic material in L1 influence learners‘ perception and production of form-
function mappings in L2‖ (Kasper, 1992: 209).
1.2. Speech acts
According to Austin (1962), speech acts are acts performed by utterances like giving
orders or making promises. These speech acts, considered the basic or minimal units of
linguistic communication, are performed in authentic situations of language use (Searle
1969: 16). Yule (1996:47) states that ―Action performed via utterances is generally called
speech acts‖. That is because of the fact that people, in communicating, do not only produce
utterances containing grammatical structures and words but also perform actions via those
utterances. For example, when the teacher says to a student ―You should show me your
homework ‖, he is performing the action of ordering the student to show him his homework.
Another example is that in the saying ―Anh ăn sáng chưa ?”, the Vietnamese speaker does
not really want to know whether the hearer has had breakfast or not. Instead, he is simply
producing a greeting routine. In real life communication, such sorts of sentences have their
uses quite independent from their lexical and grammatical forms.
It is obvious that speech acts, to name a few of them as apologizing, complaining,
inviting, promising, requesting, ordering, always serve certain communicative functions.
There is no one utterance-one function limitation. A single utterance can have more than
one function and vice versa, several turns may be taken to accomplish a single act. For
example, the utterance “This room is quite hot” can be used to perform the acts of
statement or request. A speech act can contain just one word, as in ―Sorry!” to perform an
apology, or several words or sentences like ―I’m sorry, I forgot your invitation. I just let it
slip my mind‖.

1.2.1. Three-dimension speech acts
According to Austin (1962), a speech act consists of three related acts, namely (a)
locutionary act, (b) illocutionary act and (c) perlocutionary act. The details are as follows:
Whenever speakers produce an utterance, they perform a locutionary act. The
sentence ―I’ve just come here‖ or ―David is my teacher‖ is cited as an obvious instance of

this. Besides, people usually do not make utterances without having any purpose. At dinner
for example, ―Can you pass me the salt?‖ the speaker does not utters that sentence to ask a
question but intends the listener to pass the salt. In this case, the intended meaning is a
request. This kind of act via utterances which speakers produce with communicative
purpose in mind is generally known as an illocutionary act. The illocutionary act is the
function of the utterance that the speaker has in mind, i.e., the communicative purpose that
is intended or achieved by the utterance. Another example is the statement ―It’s cold in
here‖. This sentence can have the illocutionary force of a statement, an offer, an
explanation, or a request. It might be uttered by someone who is experiencing cold in a
room to just comment on the weather. It can also be uttered by a person who intends to
close the windows so that everyone in the room feels warmer. Perlocutionary act occurs
when speakers want a speech act to have an effect on what they utter. When saying ―Can
you pass me the salt?‖, the speaker wishes the act of passing the salt to be performed: This
is its perlocutionary force. Austin‘s work opened an entirely new filed in pragmatics,
namely speech acts.
These three dimensions of speech acts are performed simultaneously and are related
when an utterance is produced. As in an another example ―It is really dark here”
(locutionary act), the illocutionary act is performed with the meaning ―I would like to have
the light on‖ and the perlocutionary effect might be that someone turns on the light. Of the
three dimensions, it is the illocutionary act that puts the communicative force into the
utterance. Thus, it is the most important and the most discussed. Indeed, the term ―speech
acts‖ is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an
utterance. An interesting thing is the same locutionary act may carry different illocutionary
forces in different contexts. For instance, ―I’m sorry‖ may count as an apology or a refusal
as follows:
(apology) A: Now you come at last. What kept you?
B: I’m sorry. The streets were so crowded.
(refusal) A: Would you like to go out for coffee tonight?
B: I’m sorry. I’m busy tonight.
1.2.2. Classification of speech acts

Building on Austin‘s work, Searle (1969) claimed that the basic unit of human
linguistic communication is illocutionary acts which are rule-governed forms of behavior.
He set up five types of speech acts as follows:
(1) Representatives are the kinds of speech acts which state what the speaker believes to be
the case or not, for instance, asserting, describing, concluding, etc.
She went home yesterday. (informing)
(2) Commisives are the kinds of speech acts that create an obligation on the part of the
speaker; that is, the speaker commits himself/ herself to some future actions. They express
what the speaker intends such as promising, threatening, refusing, etc.
I promise to take you to the zoo. (promising)
(3) Directives are the kinds of speech acts that the speaker makes an effort to get the hearer
to do something. They express what the speaker wants such as commanding, ordering,
requesting, suggesting, etc.
Could you close the window? (requesting)
(4) Declaratives are the kinds of speech acts in which declarative statements are
successfully performed and no psychological state is expressed:
Chairman: I declare the meeting open. (declaring)
(5) Expressives are the kinds of speech acts by which the speaker expresses his attitudes and
feelings about something. They both express psychological states such as thanking,
apologizing, complimenting, welcoming.
The skirt is beautiful. (praising)
Based on Austin‘s and Searle‘s, Hymes (1972) proposed a distinction between
speech
situation, speech events, and speech acts. This distinction provides a framework for
studying communicative competence. And in this framework, speech situation is placed
at the top, speech events comes second, and speech acts are at the bottom. According to this
framework, there are many speech situations in a speech community (e.g., meals, parties,
auctions, and conferences); however, they are not governed by consistent rules. Speech
events are restricted to activities directly governed by rules of speech (e.g., lectures,
introductions, advertising). Speech acts, as at the bottom of this scale, refer to the acts

performed by speaking (e.g., giving reports, giving advice, agreeing, complaining,
apologizing), and are thus defined in terms of discourse functions.
Scholars, like Austin, Searle, and Hymes, made great contribution to building up
the preliminary speech act theory. From their theories, it is realized that when people
communicate with others by issuing utterances, they not only make prepositional statements
about objects, contents, and situations, but also fulfill social functions, such as
greeting,
inviting, refusing, apologizing, complaining, through the use of a string of
fabricated words, namely speech acts (Nunan, 1999).
1.2.3. Speech act of Apology
A speech act of apology, as Marquez-Reiter (2000: 44) stated, is a ―compensatory
action for an offense committed by the speaker which has affected the hearer‖. Similarly,
Holmes (1990:156) gives the definition of an apology as a speech act addressed to remedy
an offence for which the apologizer takes responsibility, and thus to restore equilibrium
between the apologizer and the person offended. According to Blum-Kulka and Olshtain
(1984a), there are three preconditions for the apology act to take place (Blum-Kulka &
Olshtain, 1984a: 206): (1) The apologizer did a violation or abstained from doing a
violation;
(2) A violation is perceived by the apologizer only, by the hearer only, by
both the
apologizer and the hearer, or by a third party as a breach of a social norm; (3) A
violation is perceived by at least one of the parties involved as offending, harming, or
affecting the hearer in some way. Simplified by Trosborg (1995), the precondition for the
apology act is as follows: ―There
are two participants: an apologizer and a recipient of
the apology. When a person has
performed an act (action or utterance), or failed to do so,
which has offended another person, and for which he/she can be held responsible, the
offender needs to apologize. That is, the act
of apologizing requires an action or an

utterance which is intended to set things right.‖
(Trosborg, 1995: 373).
1.2.4. Apology strategies
Apology strategies are the methods used by individuals to perform the speech act of
apology. There are a number of researchers who have developed systems for classifying
apology strategies in various ways.
A categorization of apology strategies that would be constantly revisited by many
other scholars was made by Olshtain and Cohen (1983). They proposed seven categories, as
well, but divided into two parts. The first part contains five main categories of apologies in
cases where the offender feels the need to apologize, namely an expression of apology, an
explanation or account of the situation, an acknowledgement of responsibility, an offer of
repair, and a promise of forbearance. Each of these categories has several sub-categories in
order to make a further delimitation of strategies. The second part contains two strategies for
the case when the speaker does not feel the need to apologize. These are a denial of the need
to apologize and a denial of responsibility.
Olshtain and Cohen‘s (1983) taxonomy was also modified by Holmes (1990), who
believed that it was necessary to rearrange these strategies in order to make them clearer.
Thus, she divided apologies into four main categories, each category having sub-
classifications. The first one is ―an explicit expression of apology‖ and contains the
subcategories ―offer apology/IFID,‖ ―express regret,‖ ―request forgiveness.‖ The second
main category is represented by ―an explanation or account, an excuse or justification.‖ The
largest group, ―an acknowledgment of responsibility,‖ contains ―accept blame,‖ ―express
self-deficiency,‖ ―recognize H as entitled to an apology,‖ ―express lack of intent,‖ ―offer
repair/redress.‖ Finally, the last category is ―a promise of forbearance‖.
Bergman and Kasper (1993) distinguished seven different apology categories.
According to them, the most commonly used category seems to be the Illocutionary Force
Indicating Device (IFID) such as in ―I‘m sorry.‖ The other strategies are intensified IFID
(―I‘m terribly sorry‖), taking responsibility (―I haven‘t finished it yet‖), giving an account of
the reasons that led to the action that requires an apology (―I was suddenly called to a
meeting‖), minimizing the effects and severity of the action (―I‘m only 10 minutes late‖),

offering repair or compensation (―I‘ll pay for the damage‖), and verbal redress (―It won‘t
happen again‖). The last one seems to be very close to the minimization category, if we take
into account the example used by the authors, ―I hope you didn‘t wait long‖ (Bergman &
Kasper, 1993: 86).
A slightly different taxonomy was proposed by Trosborg (1995), who distinguished
four categories including 8 strategies. The first two strategies, namely ―opt-out‖ and
―minimize‖, come from the speaker‘s not accepting that an apology is necessary. The
remaining five categories are the result of the speaker accepting the fact that there is a need
for an apology: acknowledge responsibility, explanation, IFIDs, offer of repair, promise for
forbearance and concern for the hearer.
As a conclusion, there are many different categorizations of apologies. Thus, when
creating the taxonomy for a study one should choose those categories that are suitable for
the objectives of the study. In this study, the model of apology strategies used to analyze the
data was the combination of strategies conducted by Olshtain and Cohen (1983), Trosborg
(1995) and Holmes (1990).
1.3. Previous Studies on Apology
For the past thirty years, there have been a number of empirical studies on EFL
Learners‘ apology production of the target language at different proficiency levels.
Focusing on native language influence on the learning of target language, Cohen and
Olshtain (1981) explored how Hebrew speaking learners of English as a second language
did things with their interlanguage of English, and discovered that the non-native use of
apology semantic formula was generally fewer than that of the native speakers. By this, the
study displayed the transfer of Hebrew features into realization of apology making.
Trosborg (1987) used role-plays to compare the apologies of native speakers of
English, native speakers of Danish and three levels of Danish EFL learners. The results
demonstrated that learners of English notably are dissimilar from native English speakers in
their use of modality markers.
Bergman and Kasper (1993) examined apology realization by Thai learners of
English by means of 20 DCT situations. The result demonstrated negative transfer of an L1-
based preference for given semantic formulas of apology. The statistical analysis also

showed that 50% of the differences in the use of apology strategies could be attributed to
pragmatic transfer.
In line with Bergman and Kasper‘s (1993) study, Maeshiba et al. (1996) observed
the pragmatic transfer from Japanese to English. He investigated whether pragmatic transfer
is influenced by contextual factors or by learners‘ proficiency level. His participants were
native speakers of English, native speakers of Japanese and two levels of Japanese learners
of English who completed a DCT incorporating the social perspective. The results showed
that the intermediate group transferred their apology behavior from Japanese to English
more than the advanced group. This study contrasts Takahashi and Beebe (1987) in that
advanced learners transferred more negative pragmatic.
Kim (2001) analyzed Korean and EFL speakers‘ apology behaviors in terms of
different social variables with particular attention to pragmatic transfer of L1 norms. The
findings of his study demonstrated the influence of social factors: social distance, social
status, age, gender and severity of offense. In regard to the ―social status‖ factor, EFL
speakers transferred their L1 pragmatic norms into English when using the ―alerter‖
strategy. With respect to the ―age‖ factor, EFL speakers in the Equal -age group showed the
transfer phenomenon from their native pragmatic norms to English. Finally, concerning the
―gender‖ factor, EFL speakers in the male-female group also transferred L1 pragmatic
norms by using a higher proportion of the ―repetition‖ strategy than he remaining groups.
Ilknur Istifci (2009) investigated the act of apologizing with subjects from two
different levels of English proficiency (intermediate & advanced) to find out whether there
are similarities and differences between Turkish EFL learners and English native speakers
and whether they approach native speaker apology norms. The data were gathered by a
Discourse Completion Test that had 8 apology situations. The results of the study revealed
some similarities and differences between the two groups. Their L1 can be said to have an
influence on their use of apologies, especially intermediate level subjects transfer native
Turkish speaker norms into English.
In Vietnam, Van (2000) examined the realization patterns of apology made by
Vietnamese Learners of English compared English native Speakers through the DCT. The
results showed that Learners differed from English group in the use of

Explanation/Account, Offer of repair, Concern for the hearer and Intensifiers. These
differences seemed to result from the transfer of their L1 pragmatic norms into English. In
another study, Trang (2010) investigated apologies made by Vietnamese Speakers of
English and American Speakers of English through the DCT and the findings showed the
differences in the use of apology strategies due to different perceptions on social factors.
In summary, research into interlanguage apologies has shown that although learners
have full access to the same apology strategies as native speakers, their apologies still
diverge from the native speakers‘ norm as negative transfer appeared in most studies. The
divergence has been produced due to these causes: adherence to different principles of
politeness, preference for different strategy-orientations, and quantitative differences in
strategy using and in overall verbal production, ect. Therefore, studies on speech act of
apologies, particularly on the scope of interlanguage apologies, should await further
research applied in as many new contexts as possible. The present study is a response to
such a call.
Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY
The previous chapter has established the framework of the theoretical background
for the present study. This chapter outlines the research questions, the research design
including the selection of informants, the data collection instruments, the procedure, the
validity and reliability test for data collection instruments and the coding framework used in
the study.
2.1. The research questions:
In order to achieve the objectives of the study, the research questions below were
addressed:
1) How do Vietnamese EFL Learners differ from EN Speakers in their use of apology
strategies in the contexts studied?
2) How do VN Speakers differ from EN Speakers in their use of apology strategies in the
contexts studied?
2.2. Research design
2.2.1. Informants
According to Selinker (1972), the design for an interlanguage study needs three data

sources: (1) the L1 baseline data from native speakers of the learners‘ native language (NL);
(2) the IL data from the learners; and (3) the target language baseline data from native
speakers of the learners‘ target language (TL).
In this study, data were collected from the three groups of informants. Their ages
ranged from 20 to 30 and they were all university students. To ensure compatibility,
informants coming from very rural backgrounds were excluded. In all groups, the number
of males and females were evenly distributed.
The first group (TL) included 30 English native (EN) Speakers. They were students
at University of South Australia. To eliminate the speakers from other language
backgrounds, in the questionnaire for native speaker informants, there was an extra item to
find out if they spoke any other language(s) at home.
The second group (NL) included 30 Vietnamese native (VN) speakers. They were
studying at Thai Nguyen College of Education . Their English was much limited compared
with that of Vietnamese learners. The reason was I wished to get rid of the reverse
transference from L2 to L1 which might happen if they knew English fairly well. In the
questionnaire for this group, one question referring to their level of English was added.
Then, questionnaires from informants with intermediate and advanced level of English were
eliminated from the analysis to be on guard of reverse transference.
The third group (IL) included 30 Vietnamese EFL learners. They were doing
English as their major at Thai Nguyen College of Education. They were in their third year
and their level of English proficiency was intermediate or above.
2.2.2. Data collection instruments
In this study, the data of the apology speech act made by EN Speakers, VN Speakers
and Vietnamese EFL Learners were elicited through a Discourse Completion Task (DCT)
since it was proved to bring some outstanding advantages over other methods such as
ethnographic, role – play or multiple choice methods. First of all, the DCT enables the
researchers to elicit data from the large sample of subjects easily, using the same situations
where contextual variables are controlled. Second, it is an effective means of creating an
initial classification of semantic formulas and strategies that will occur in natural speech.
Third, DCT is seemingly used to study the stereotypical perceived requirements for a

socially appropriate response and is a good way to gain insight into social and psychological
factors that are likely to affect speech and performance, that is to say, it avoids those very
context specific constraints that influence authentic data (Cohen, 1996).
According to Tam (1998), to overcome the reliability problems in the use of DCT,
the study should be divided into two main phases: (1) The metapragmatic questionnaire
(MPQ) was designed for validity and realiability test of internal and external factors; (2)
The DCT was designed to elicit apology tokens from the three groups of informants. This
section also discusses the design of the two questionnaires including variables manipulated
in data collection instruments and the content of the MPQ and DCT.
2.2.2.1. Variables manipulated in data collection instruments
This section discusses the variables manipulated in the questionnaires for data
collection of the study. The three variables used in this study were based on Brown and
Levinson‘s (1987: 76) theory as follows:
+ The relative social distance (D) refers to the degree of solidarity and familiarity between
interlocutors and in this study it has the following values:
(1) + D (unfamiliar) = Speaker and Hearer do not know or identity with each other. They
are strangers interacting due to social/ life circumstances.
(2) – D (familiar) = Speaker and Hearer know or identity with each other. They are quite
familiar with each other.
+ The social power (P) has the following values:
(1) +P (high power) = Speaker has a higher rank, title or social status than Hearer.
(2) =P (equal power) = Speaker and Hearer are equal in rank, title or social status.
(3) – P (low power) = Speaker has a lower/less rank, title or social status than Hearer.
+ The ranking of imposition (R) is related to the degree of severity of offense. In this study,
R was kept constantly high under study. It means great severity of offense in this study. The
reason why R was kept fairly high is due to its frequency in everyday conversations.
As R was kept constantly fairly high through situations but P and D varied systematically,
there were constellations assumed to underline the situations:
- Speaker has higher power than Hearer; they are familiar with each other (+ P, - D)
- Speaker has higher power than Hearer; they are unfamiliar with each other (+ P, + D)

- Speaker and Hearer are equal in power; they are familiar with each other (= P, - D)
- Speaker and Hearer are equal in power; they are unfamiliar with each other (= P,+ D)
- Speaker has lower power than Hearer, and they are familiar with each other (- P, - D)
- Speaker has lower power than Hearer; they are unfamiliar with each other (- P, + D)
A bank of 18 real – life situations based on Brown and Levinson‘s theory were designed to
elicit the subjects‘ assessment of the social variables in the contexts. Some situations were
adapted from Van‘s study (2000). Based on the analysis result of the MPQ, 6 situations
found to be both valid and reliable would be used for data collection through the DCT.
2.2.2.2. The content of the questionnaire
As mentioned above, two types of questionnaires were used in this study: the MPQ
and the DCT. The situations in the MPQ and DCT questionnaires were designed to reflect
real life situations. In order for the informants to be able to decide what/how to respond in a
relevant way to a certain situation, clear instructions were given at the beginning of each
questionnaire. Personal information about the subjects‘ backgrounds such as age, gender,
language was obtained by a first section of each questionnaire. The followings are the
details of each questionnaire.
2.2.2.2.1. Metapragmatic questionnaire (MPQ)
The MPQ was intended to tap the subjects‘ assessment of the social variables in the
contexts (Tam, 2005). That is to say, the MPQ aimed to test the validity and reliability of
the 18 real – life situations (see Appendix A1 + A2 for full version of MPQ) in which
variables‘ constructs were reflected in previous section. Subjects rated their assessment of
each variable on a three-point scale as in the sample item given below:
METAPRRAGMATIC QUESTIONAIRE
Instruction: Could you please read the following situations on the following pages and tick
the answer in the appropriate box?
Situation 11: You are a staff manager. You kept a student waiting for half an hour for a job
interview because you were called to an unexpected meeting.
Questions
1
2

3
How well acquainted are the Speaker and the Hearer?
Not at all
A little bit
Very well
How do you rate the social status of the Speaker with
respect to the Hearer?
Lower
Equal
Higher
How do you rate the seriousness of the Hearer‘s offense?
Not serious
Quite serious
Serious

Results of the MPQ provided reliable data on how the subjects under study assessed the
social factors of the context studied.
2.2.2.2.2. Open-ended Discourse Completion Task Questionnaire (DCT)
The DCT was intended to elicit apologies from the informants. It comprised the six
situations (selected from 18 situations in the MPQ) in accordance with the purpose of the
research, reflecting the constructs of variables discussed in the previous part. Each situation
was followed by a question: ―What would you say?‖ Following is a sample of the DCT.
Instruction: Please read the six brief situations calling for an apology below. After each
situation, please write down exactly what you might say in a normal conversation.
Situation 11: You are a staff manager. You kept a student waiting for half an hour for a job
interview because you were called to an unexpected meeting.
What would you say to that student when you return?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The questionnaires used for this study has 2 versions. One was in English for EN

Speakers and EFL Learners. The other is in Vietnamese for VN Speakers. A full version of
MPQ and a version of DCT including the six most valid and reliable situations were
provided in Appendix A(1,2) and B(1,2,3).

2.2.3. Procedure
As we discussed above, the purpose of the MPQ was to ensure that the questionnaire
used to collect data on apology was valid and reliable. In order to achieve these goals, the
MPQ was randomized. Then the English version was administered to the English
informants and the Vietnamese version was completed by the native speakers of
Vietnamese. No time limits were imposed on completing the questionnaire.
The results of the MPQ by English subjects were used as the baseline for the
selection of the reliable situations for the DCT. Meanwhile, the results by Vietnamese
speakers were kept for comparing the choice of apology strategies in later analysis.
Afterwards, from the situations in the MPQ, the ones which satisfied constellation of P, D
and R-values as required by the research design were selected and rearranged, and the DCT
was prepared and administered. To make it consistent, informants were still those who rated
social factors in the MPQ. The data collected were then coded using the coding system in
section 2.4 of this chapter. The results from the statistical analysis of all apologies were
reported in chapter 3.
2.3. Results of the MPQ
Firstly, I rejected situations with mean scores of R less than 2. Situations with mean
scores of R between 2 and 3 were accepted. The reason for this is that in this thesis, as
explained above, I attempted to keep R fairly high through situations. Secondly, I scanned
for situations in which P and D had mean scores close to the value required for each
constellation of these variables. Situations with mean scores most similar and closest to the
value required for P and D were chosen for data collection.
Table 1 presents the results of the ratings by the English and Vietnamese informants.
The six highlighted situations are those which satisfy the criterion above. These are
situations that the subjects evaluated as having P, D and R nearest to the values required to
answer the research questions.

Firstly, situations with low mean scores of R (less than 2) were rejected. Therefore,
situations 4, 7, 10, 15, 17, 18 were not accepted. Then, with the rest of the situations as seen
from Table 1, situations 2, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16 (the highlighted situations) were selected from
each constellation of P and D for the following reasons:
For the constellation of -P;-D, situation 6 was chosen since this situation, in
comparison to the rest situation, had the mean score of P nearest to 1 (1.03), the mean score
of D nearest to 3 (2.43), and the mean score of R more than 2 (2.87).