apologizing strategies by american speakers of english and vietnamese speakers of english = chiến lược xin lỗi bằng ngôn ngữ anh của người mĩ và người việt

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF PROJECT REPORT ……………………
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………………….
ii
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………….
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………….
iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS ……………………………
vi
LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………
vii
PART A: INTRODUCTION

1. Problem statement and background ……………………………………….
1
2. Aims of the study …………………………………………………………….
2
3. Scope of the study ……………………………………………………………
3
4. Methods of the study …………………………………………………………
3
5. The organization of the study ……………………………………………….
4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. Cross-cultural communication

1.1.1. Cross-cultural communication ……………………………………
5
1.1.2. Potential problems in Vietnamese-American cross-cultural
communication …………………………………………………….
7
1.2. Speech acts theories

1.2.1. Speech acts …………………………………………………………
9
1.2.2. Three – dimension speech act ……………………………………
10
1.2.3. Classification of speech act ………………………………………
11
1.2.4. Apologizing as a speech act ………………………………………
12
1.3. Politeness

1.3.1. Politeness theories …………………………………………………
15
1.3.2. Politeness in apologizing ………………………………………….
18
1.4. Situations which elicit apologies in American culture and Vietnamese
culture ………………………………………………………………………
19
1.5. Apologizing strategies ……………………………………………………
20

1.6. Previous studies on apologizing …………………………………………
26
Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY

2.1. Research methods ……………………………………………………………
32


v

2.2. Data collection instruments …………………………………………………
33
2.3. The questionnaire ……………………………………………………………
34
2.3.1. Factors manipulated in the DCT ………………………………………
35
2.3.2. The DCT ………………………………………………………………
34
2.4. The subjects …………………………………………………………………
39
2.5. Data collection and analysis procedure …………………………………….
41
Chapter 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Overview of the apologizing strategies used by two groups of subjects …
43
3.2. Choices of apologizing strategies by situations ……………………………
50
3.2.1. Choices of strategies by Vietnamese speakers of English …………….
50

3.2.2. Choices of strategies by American speakers of English ………………
52
3.2.3. A comparison of the strategies preferences by two groups of subjects
53
3.3. Preferences of apologizing strategies as seen from communicating
partner’s parameters ………………………………………………………………
58
3.3.1. Vietnamese’s apologizing strategies as seen from communicating
partner’s parameters …………………………………………………………………
58
3.3.2. American’s apologizing strategies as seen from communicating
partner’s parameters …………………………………………………………………
60
3.3.3. A comparison of Vietnamese and American subjects’ apologizing
strategies as seen from communicating partner’s parameters ………………………
62
PART C: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

1. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….
67
2. Implications for cross-cultural communication and TEFL in Vietnam ……
69
3. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further study …………………
70
BIBLIOGRAPHY
72
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Discourse Completion Task (for American subjects) (DCT) ……
Appendix B: Discourse Completion Task (for Vietnamese subjects) (DCT) …
Appendix C: The coding system ………………………………………………

Appendix D: Sample Coding Scheme of a DCT ………………………………

I
IV
VII
IX




vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS


ASE: American speakers of English
CP: Communicating partner
D: Social Distance
DCT: Discourse Completion Task
FSA: Face-saving Act
FTA: Face-threatening Act
H: Hearer
NNs: Nonnative speakers
Ns: Native speakers
P: Relative Power
R: Ranking of Imposition
S: Speaker
Sit.: Situation
Str.: Strategy
TEFL: Teaching English as a foreign language

VSE: Vietnamese speakers of English



vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
The five general functions of speech act (Yule, 1996)
Table 2
English apology IFIDs (Blum-Kulka)
Table 3
Felicity conditions of speech acts in a substantive apology (Owen, 1983)
Table 4
Explicit apology expressions (Trosborg, 1995)
Table 5
Apologizing strategies employed by VSE and ASE
Table 6
Choices of strategies by Vietnamese speakers of English in four situations
Table 7
Choices of strategies by American speakers of English in four situations
Table 8
Strategies employed by VSE and ASE in situation 1
Table 9
Strategies employed by VSE and ASE in situation 2
Table 10
Strategies employed by VSE and ASE in situation 3
Table 11
Choices of apologizing or not apologizing by VSE and ASE in situation 4
Table 12

Strategies employed by VSE and ASE in situation 4
Table 13
Vietnamese’s apologizing strategies as seen from CP’s parameters
Table 14
American’s apologizing strategies as seen from CP’s parameters
Table 15
Preferences of apologizing strategies by VSE and ASE as seen from CP’s
parameters

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Employment of apologizing strategies by two groups of subjects

1
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Problem statement and background of the study
“The world is becoming a village”. This saying is no longer weird in this modern world when
more and more people from different cultures all over the world are getting to communicate
with each other more frequently. Thanks to the advent of today‟s global economic system and
the open policies, Vietnamese are enjoying more chances to come into contact and cooperate
with more foreigners many among whom are from English-speaking countries. Contacts in
reality for the past few years, however, have made an arising problem apparent that while
Vietnamese speakers can be very high-linguistic-competent, many of them still fail to
maintain successful conversations with people from other cultures. Probably it is because
“Communication across cultures is, by definition, problematic, for cultures are systems of
symbolic meanings shared by one group yet foreign to another” (Geertz, 1973; Trice & Beyer,
1992)
English, as widely-known, is a foreign language for Vietnamese. The past decade has
witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of learners of this language after the importance
of learning the language was cemented. Several years ago, the traditional methods allowed the

Vietnamese learners of English to learn the grammar rules solely in order to produce
grammar-acceptable sentences. Fortunately, since the significance of communicative
competence has been realized, there‟s a shift in the teaching and learning methods, which to a
certain extent, has bettered the situation. The motto “Communication is culture. Culture is
communication” (Hall, 1959) has been made familiarized to any language learners in order to
better equip them with a better English skill after finishing schools. Many more subjects have
been added to the colleges‟ curricula aiming at helping the learners to learn more and
understand more about the culture within which the language is used as a native one.
However, the emphasis on theoretical aspects without sufficient real experiences still leads to
lots of confusion the learners have to encounter with when they interact with the foreigners.
We know the language, we learn about the culture, but the thing is we do not embed the
language in its culture. We use the rules of speaking from our native speech community when
2
interacting with members of other speech community. We seem to speak English within
Vietnamese culture and automatically express our own thoughts according to our own culture.
We may have developed great ability in phonology, syntax, and semantics of the target
language, but we find it challenging to determine the situationally-appropriate utterances,
including what can be said, where it can be said and how to say it most effectively.
Recognizing that the differences in sociolinguistic rules across cultures can cause some
difficulty for learners of foreign language which may lead to miscommunication, a number of
studies concerning cross-cultural communication have been conducted. It was then, without
any surprises, apparent that quite many differences in the realization and the usage of such
different speech acts across cultures as greeting, refusing, requesting, complimenting,
promising, encouraging and those alike have been pointed out.
The reason for choosing apology as the core of this research is apologizing is universal and
has always been considered one of the main communicative acts and among the most
“sensitive” areas of politeness in human interactions. As all human beings live in social groups
which require the maintenance of a certain amount of harmony, apologies should be found in
all societies, and we would expect universals in terms of how apologies are performed.
However, as apologizing is a social act, and human societies vary greatly in their social

organization, we should also expect variation in why, when, and how this social act is carried
out. Secondly, apologizing, among the most-interested topics all over the world, is still an
under-researched one in Vietnam, especially in term of an interlanguage approach within
cross-cultural studies. Dang Thanh Phuong (2000) and Kieu Thi Hong Van (2000) are the two
Vietnamese authors working on this topic up to now, though their studies solely follow the
traditional method of contrasting pragmatics between Vietnamese language and English, i.e.
discuss the differences in the realization of apology in two different languages, Vietnamese
and English.
2. Aims of the study
The speech act of apologizing aims at maintaining, restoring and enhancing interpersonal
relationships. The overall purpose of this thesis is to investigate primarily the apologies of
3
Vietnamese speakers of English and American speakers of English from which the cultural
similarities and differences in the choice of apologizing strategies of the two groups will be
figured out. It is expected, in so doing, to raise awareness of the cultural influence into
people‟s verbal behaviors, specifically apologizing especially for Vietnamese who are either
working with American or living in the United States. For this purpose to be achieved, the
three following research questions need addressing
1. How do American speakers of English verbally apologize?
2. How do Vietnamese speakers of English verbally apologize in English?
3. What are the similarities and differences between the apologizing strategies employed by
Vietnamese speakers of English and American speakers of English?
3. Scope of the study
The thesis focuses on the intralinguistic factors of apology which means the verbal
expressions of apology employed by Vietnamese speakers of English and American speakers
of English. Paralinguistic and extralinguistic aspects of apology are therefore excluded in spite
of their remarkable contribution to communication. At the same time, only the situations
where both the hearer (H) and speaker (S) know the offence will be used. In addition, the
languages will be English, which is used as a foreign language in Vietnam and a native
language in the United States.

4. Methods of the study
The data will be apology expressions employed by 38 Vietnamese speakers of English and 38
American speakers of English. The Vietnamese who are either working with any American-
based organizations in Vietnam or living in the United States have frequent contact with
Americans and use English for their daily conversation. The American are living and working
in the US. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are employed in the present study. For
theoretical considerations, information are collected from different sources including both
printed publications and online articles. Discussions and consultation with supervisor are also
of great significance. Quantitative data will be elicited by means of a discourse completion
4
task (DCT) which consist of four socially-differentiated situations and will be processed
basing on the modified framework of Olshtain and Cohen (1983, 1989) and Trosborg (1995).
5. The organization of the study
In pursuit of the research‟s goal, the research is divided into different sections which are
presented as follows
Part A: Introduction describes the study‟s rationale, aims, research questions, scope and
methods.
Part B: Development
Chapter 1 – Literature review done in light of cross cultural pragmatics lays the theoretical
foundation for the research by discussing major theories of the subject, namely Cross-cultural
communication, Speech act, The speech act of apology, The theory of politeness, and A
thorough review of the previous studies in the field.
Chapter 2 – Methodology details the methods that have been used and the procedures that
have been followed when the researchers conduct the study. Then the research design
including data-collection instruments, subject selections, and data-gathering procedures are all
introduced.
Chapter 3 –Findings and Discussion presents findings of the study and main features drawn
out from the research with revisit to the literature foundation. In this chapter, the result of
similarities and differences between the Vietnamese speakers of English and American
speakers of English in their employment of apologizing strategies in four situations towards

different communicating partners will be presented, interpreted and discussed in length.
Part C: Conclusion and Implications ends the study by summarizing its main points. Then
implications of the research findings to better English language teaching and cross-cultural
communication are suggested before recommendations for further studies of the field are put
forward.
Besides, the research includes Appendices where the study‟s references, sample questionnaires
and sample coding scheme of a DCT are attached for reference
5
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides a closer look at the function of speech act, particularly a more in-depth
discussion of the speech act of apology will be presented. Theoretical issues as the basis for
the research development such as main issues on cross-cultural communication, speech act,
the speech act of apologizing, theory of politeness, as well as a review of the previous research
on the field will be drawn.
1.1. Cross cultural communication
1.1.1. Cross-cultural communication
The term “communication” has been used in many ways for various and often inconsistent
purposes. In this research, the definition that “Communication is a symbolic, interpretive,
transactional, contextual process in which people create shared meaning” is employed since
according to Lustig and Koester (2006), “it is the most useful for the purpose of helping to
achieve interpersonal competence when communicating in cultural setting” (p.13). In the
process of transferring messages, an understanding of the context is of great importance.
Donald Klopf (in Lustig & Koester, 2006) poignantly illustrates that knowledge of the
physical context often provides important information about the meanings that are intended
and the kinds of communication that are possible. The social context, in addition, refers to the
widely shared expectations people have about the kinds of interactions that normally should
occur given different kinds of social events. Most importantly, the interpersonal context
decides the expectations people have about the behaviors of others as a result of differences in
relationships between them. Lustig and Koester hold that “Communication between teachers

and students, even outside the classroom, differs from communication between close friends.
Communication between friends is different from communication among acquaintances,
coworkers, or family members.” (p.19)
Culture is a dynamic conceptual abstraction that has been socially constructed by groups of
people, and is continually modified and transmitted across generations. Broadly defined,
“Culture is the shared values, traditions, arts, history, folklore, and institutions of a group of
people that are unified by race, ethnicity, nationality, language, religious beliefs, spirituality,
6
socioeconomic status, social class, sexual orientation, politics, gender, age, disability, or any
other cohesive group variable” (Singh, 1998). Linton, R.(1945), Useem, J. (1963), Damen
(1987), Lederach, J.P (1995), and Gorlanes, G.J & Brilhart, J.K (1997) whereas provide a
more thorough and critical concepts of culture which is “a shared background (i.e. national,
ethnic, religious) resulting from a common language and communication style, customs,
beliefs, attitudes and values”. From their definitions, culture is then understood to be the
informal and often hidden patterns of human interactions, expressions, and viewpoints that
people in one culture share. In addition, it is a system of both implicit and explicit meanings,
beliefs, values and behaviors shared by members of a community or a group, through which
experience is interpreted and carried out. As the definition suggests, the shared symbol
systems that form the basis of culture represent ideas about beliefs, values, norms and social
practices which then provides a “way of life” for the members of a culture.
 A belief is an idea that people assume to be true about the world and is therefore a set
of learned interpretations that form the basis for cultural members to decide what is
and what is not logical and correct. (Lustig & Koester, 2006, p.86)
 Values involve what a culture regards as good or bad, right or wrong, fair or unfair,
just or unjust, beautiful or ugly, clean or dirty, valuable or worthless, appropriate or
inappropriate, and kind or cruel (Rokeach, 1973, cited in Lustig & Koester, 2006).
Values are the desired characteristics or goals of a culture, are often offered as the
explanation for the way in which people communicate. Shalom Schwartz (2005, in
Lustig &Koester, 2006) suggests “Values serve as guiding principles in people‟s
lives”.

 Norms are the socially shared expectations of appropriate behaviors. Different from
beliefs and values, norms may change over a period of time. (Lugstig & Koester, 2006,
p.88)
 Social practices are the predictable behavior patterns that members of a culture
typically follow and then are the outward manifestations of beliefs, values and norms.
(Lustig & Koester, 2006, p.89)
7
Cross-cultural communication is then defined as “Communication between people from
different cultures, communication is influenced by cultural values, attitudes, and behavior, the
influence of culture on people‟s reactions and responses to each other” (Levine & Adelman,
1993, p.xviii)
1.1.2. Potential problems in Vietnamese-American cross-cultural communication
Vietnam has a cultural heritage which has been developed over 4000 years. In the words of
Hofstede (1980), the Vietnamese culture can be described as high power distance, high
collectivism, moderate uncertainty avoidance, and high context (Smith, Esmond & Pham,
1996; Gorlanes & Brilhart, 1997; Quang, 2006). The characteristics of communication in
Vietnam are therefore considered to be indirect, ambiguous, harmony-oriented and reserved
(Gudykunst et al., 1996). This trait has been confirmed by Teri and Michael (2004, p.39) when
they further emphasize that individuals from Japan, Korea, China and other Asian countries
prefer to avoid confrontation, to preserve a sense of harmony, and to make it possible for the
individuals with whom they are speaking to save face or maintain self-esteem, the individual
is supposed to know and to react appropriately. Vietnamese people place importance on fitting
in harmoniously and avoiding threatening the other‟s face. In conflicts, they prefer to come out
with a win-win situation. “Vietnamese always try to project an appearance of calm and a
benign attitude in social or business situations. They never show emotion. Vietnamese also
tend to be indirect in their way of communication. The indirectness is a question of tact, not of
sincerity” (Borton, 2000). In addition, the Vietnamese are said to attach more importance to
sentiment than to reason (Mac Giao, 2002). They consequently treat one another basing on
affection and gratitude, which leads to their tolerance of people having made mistakes. They
seek to avoid conflict in relationship. In other words, “Sentimental culture is the discipline of

communication art”. Furthermore, title, status, and formality are very important in
Vietnamese society. The high power distance is present in the daily life, and there is a clear
subordinate-superior relationship. The Vietnamese common man is expected to show respect
to people who are senior to him in age, status, or position. Another traditional Vietnamese
value is their allegiance to the family. This value is without doubt very important. It can be
realized in reality when misconduct of an individual is blamed not only on himself, but also on
8
his parents, siblings, relatives, and ancestors, as the proverb “Con daị cái mang” goes (The
parents should be blamed on for their children‟s mistakes)
American culture, on the other hand, belongs to the "low-context" group. A low-context
culture is the one in which information and meaning are internalized by the individual, not
from the context, from the situation or an event (Hall, 1976). The United States tends to be
more heterogeneous and individualist and accordingly has evolved a more direct
communication style. The US is also said to be a moderately low power distance culture when
people believe in minimizing status differences between individuals and sharing power (Stella,
1992). Gorlanes and Brilhart (1997) share that a group leader from the US may ask his
colleagues to call him by his first name and may encourage them to participate in group
decision-making. Also in their works discussing office relationship, they say “Managers do
not routinely involve themselves in their subordinate‟s personal lives. They may indulge in
some friendly chat on personal subjects, but they do not consider themselves responsible for
anyone‟s emotional wellbeing. This is not pure hardboiled indifference but reflects also the
respect for privacy which so often in American life takes primacy over other need.” (p.218).
The American culture is, additionally, regarded as a rational one. In his works, Wanning
(1999, p.116) cited that the practice of dragging one‟s neighbor, doctor, spouse, host and
employer into court caused shock among newcomers to the US. He holds “We are a most
litigious people, and we prefer to believe that there is always a responsible party for every
event in life” (in Lustig & Koester, 2006). Apparently, this is a law-governed culture within
which social behaviors are mostly practiced through legal ethics. (Quang, 2006)
The differences between Vietnamese culture and American culture can also be reflected
through the collectivistic traits and individualistic traits as suggested by Ting-Toomey( 1988,

cited in Kim (2000). These two authors both suggest that cultural differences in individualism
– collectivism affect the facework behaviors that people are likely to use. The American
culture is said to be highly individualistic (Hosftede, 1980) where each individual concerns
more about message clarity and preserving one‟s own face rather than maintaining the face of
others. Since tasks are more important than relationships, and individual autonomy must be
preserved, direct, dominating, and controlling face-negotiation strategies are common, and
9
there is a low degree of sensitivity to the face-threatening capabilities of particular messages
(Ting-Toomey & Kim, 1988, cited in Lustig and Koester, 2006, p.261). Conversely, in
collectivist cultures, the mutual preservation of face is extremely important, because it is vital
that people be approved and admired by others. Vietnamese belongs to a highly-collectivistic
culture, hence indirect, obliging, and smoothing face-negotiation strategies are common.
Herein direct confrontations between people are avoided, concern for the feelings of others is
heightened, and ordinary communication messages are seen as having a great face-threatening
potential.
In conclusion, Vietnamese and American fall into two main culture groups which carry more
differences than similarities. This, accordingly, could lead to different patterns of behavior
practiced by two groups in their daily communication.
1.2. Speech act theories
1.2.1. Speech acts
Since its initiation by Austin a few decades ago, speech acts has become one of the most
compelling notions in the study of language use. After Austin, there are many other
pragmaticists who have inherited, refined and advanced his speech act theory such as Searle
(1969), Grice (1975), Leech (1983), Levinson (1983) and Yule et al. (1996).
Speech acts have been claimed by some to operate the universal pragmatic principles, and
claimed by others to vary in conceptualization and verbalization across cultures and languages
(Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969, 1975; Grice, 1975). According to Yule (1996, p.47), speech act
are, generally, the actions produced via utterances to communicate. These speech acts,
considered the basic or minimal units of linguistic communication, are performed in authentic
situations of language use (Searle 1969, p.16). Their modes of performance carry heavy social

implications (Ervin-Tripp, 1976) and seem to be ruled by universal principles of cooperation
and politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1978; Leech, 1983). Although the existence of speech acts
is universal, the frequency and contents are culture-specific. Speech acts reflect the
fundamental cultural values and social norms of a target language and demonstrate the rules of
language use in a speech community
10
The basic insights offered by the work of philosophers such as Austin (1962), Searle (1969,
1975, 1976) are that in saying something a speaker also does something. In English, speech
acts are specifically labeled as compliment, apology, request, disagreeing or promise. These
terms for speech acts are used to name the S‟s communicative intentions and the H is expected
to correctly interpret the S‟s intention via the process of inferences.
1.2.2. Three-dimension speech acts
In analyzing a speech act we study how an utterance affects the behavior of the S and the H.
According to Austin (1962) a speech act consists of three related acts, namely (i) Locutionary
act - The action performed by uttering a well-formed, meaningful sentence, (ii) Illocutionary
act - The communication force which accompanies the utterance, for example promising,
warning, conceding, denying, and so on; and (iii) Perlocutionary act - The effect of the
utterance on the H who may feel amused, persuaded, warned.
Of the three dimensions of an utterance, it is the illocutionary act that puts the communicative
force into the utterance, which makes the illocutionary act carrying the illocutionary force the
most important. Discussions on illocutionary force, however, have figured out a problem that a
same locution can potentially have different illocutionary forces, and therefore the
Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs) and felicity conditions of speech acts need to
be taken into consideration. Searle (1974, p.44), Yule (1996, p.56) argue that each type of
illocutionary acts requires certain expected or appropriate conditions called felicity conditions.
These conditions relate to the beliefs and attitudes of the S and the H and to their mutual
understanding of the use of linguistic devices for information. Searle (1979) provides four
kinds of felicity conditions namely (i) Preparatory conditions, (ii) Sincerity conditions, (iii)
Propositional content conditions, and (iv) Essential conditions (cited by Tam, 1998, p.10).
An action, in summary, created via an utterance is made of three acts or dimensions: locution,

illocution, and perlocution. The speech act theory, in fact, has focused on illocutionary acts to
such an extent that the terms speech act has predominantly come to mean illocutionary act.

11
1.2.3. Classification of speech acts
The original classification initiated by Austin including five basic categories of verdictive,
expositive, exercitive, behavitive and comissive was developed into an alternative taxonomy
of the fundamental classes of illocutionary act by Searl (1976). The taxonomy consists of five
types of general functions performed by speech act (i) Declaration - declaring, christening, (ii)
Representatives - asserting, disagreeing, (iii) Expressive - thanking, apologizing, (iv)
Directives - ordering, requesting and (v) Comissives - promising, offering.
Follow Searle, Yule (1996, p.55) summarizes the five general functions of speech acts with
their key features in a table:
Speech act type
Direction of fit
S = Speaker, X = Situation
Declarations
Words change the world
S causes X
Representatives
Make words fit the world
S believe X
Expressives
Make words fit the world
S feels X
Directives
Make the world fit words
S wants X
Comissives
Make the world fit words

S intends X
Table 1: The five general functions of speech act (Yule, 1996, p.55)
These two above classification have shown that apologizing falls into the category of
Expressive when the speaker expresses feeling and attitude about something. In speech act
theory, direct speech acts and indirect speech acts are distinguished from each other. The
theory of directness and indirectness concerns with the relationship between the linguistic
form and the communicative functions of an utterance. Indirectness is defined as “those cases
in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another” (Searle,
1975, p.60). Thus, in direct speech acts S says what he or she means, while in indirect speech
12
acts the speaker means more than he or she says (Searle, 1980, p.viii), that is S perform one
illocutionary act implicitly by way of performing another illocutionary act explicitly.
For instance, the sentence “Oops, it‟s hot here” is not simply a description of the current
weather. In this case, the direct act is evaluating the current situation, but the indirect act is
that of requesting the H to either turn on the fan or open the doors.
1.2.4. Apologizing as a speech act:
Among the potential speech act objects of sociolinguistic study, the choice of apologies is
particularly a good one in that it has already attracted considerable attention, perhaps because
of the insights it can provide into social values and relationships. Apologizing act has been
examined as means of maintaining the social order and as indicators of distance and
dominance in relationships. Apologies have also been used to reveal the role that pragmatic
competence plays in speaking a language. Frazer‟s in his paper “On apologizing” (Coulmas,
1981, p.15) defines that “Apologies mean all sorts of different things, often in quite subtle
ways. Learning how to apologize without being too humble is quite an art.”
Apologizing is universal in all societies and languages and it is easily accepted as one of the
main communicative acts, one of the most sensitive areas of politeness in human interactions.
An apology is basically a speech act which is intended to provide support for the H who was
actually or potentially malaffected by a violation X. In the decision to carry out the verbal
apology, the S is willing to humiliate him/herself to some extent and to admit to fault and
responsibility for X. Hence, the act of apologizing is face-saving act (henceforth FSA) for H

and face-threatening act (henceforth FTA) for the S (Brown &Levinson, 1978). Similarly,
Kasper and Bergman (1993, in Martinez-Flor & Eso-Juan, 2010) identify apologies as a
compensatory action to an offense in the doing of which the S was causally involved and
which is costly to the H. This conceptualization is supported by Goffman‟s (1971, in Kasper,
1993) views of apologies as remedial interchanges serving to re-establish social harmony after
a real or virtual offense.
According to Leech‟s (1983, p.104) “tactmaxim”, apology is a convivial speech act whose
goal coincides with the social goal of maintaining harmony between S and H. Generally,
13
apologies are post-event acts and the realization of an apology provides benefit for the H and
is to some degree at cost to the S, sometimes even high cost to S‟s face due to the heavy
degree of violation or the seriousness of the offence (Leech, 1983)
Similar to other speech acts, apologies constitute a broad spectrum of behaviors used to satisfy
a variety of communicative purposes. According to Goffman (1971, cited in Kasper, 1993),
apologies can be divided into two types, namely (i) Ritual apologies - Those redressing virtual
offenses, which are remedial by the sole offering of an apologetic formula. This type, in
Trosborg‟s (1995) term, is strategic disarmers, and (ii) Substantive apologies - Those
redressing actual damage inflicted on the addressee, sometimes including an offer of material
compensation.
Ritualistic apologies, specifically, serve as preparatory for other FTAs typically as softeners
preparing for requests, complaints, and refusals. If an interaction is initiated in a way or under
conditions that the S knows or assumes to be undesired by his addressee, which threatens the
addressee‟s face, the S will often start with an apology.
(i) Excuse me, could I just get pass, please? (Before “Territory invasion”)
(ii) Sorry to trouble you, but isn‟t that your car parked right in front of the garage? (Before a
request)
(iii) I‟m terribly sorry but you seem to have taken my suitcase by mistake (Before a complaint)
(iv) I‟m sorry, but I‟m afraid there are no more seats left for the late show (Before a refusal)
(Trosborg, 1995, p.384)
Distinguished from ritualistic apologies by the fact that there are real offenses committed,

which cause actual damage inflicted on the addressee, substantive apologies have attracted
attentions of many authors in the field.
With respect to the linguistic realization of the speech act of apologizing, Blum-Kulka
observes that each language has a scale of conventionality of IFID realizations. She holds that
explicit IFID which is in the form of a formulaic expression contains performative verbs such
14
as (be) sorry, apologize, regret, excuse, and so on, and suggests a table presenting coding
categories for English apology IFIDs.
Table 2: English apology IFIDs (Blum-Kulka)
Performative verbs
Examples
(Be) sorry
I am sorry (that) I am so late
Excuse
Excuse me for being late again
Apologize
I apologize for coming late to the meeting
Forgive
Forgive me for coming late
Regret
I regret I can‟t help you
Pardon
Pardon me for interrupting
Likewise, Owen (1983, pp.117-122) constructs the set of rules based on the felicity conditions
of speech acts for the use of the appropriate IFID in a substantive apology.
Table 3: Felicity conditions of speech acts in a substantive apology (Owen, 1983)
Preparatory rule
(1)
The act A specified in the prepositional content is an offense against the
addressee H

Rule (2)
H would have preferred S‟s not doing A and S believes H would have
preferred S‟s not doing A to his doing A
Rule (3)
A does not benefit H and S believes A does not benefit H
Sincerity rule
S regrets (is sorry for) having done A
Essential rule
Counts as an expression of regret by S for having done A

With reference to this category, Trosborg (1995, p.381) presents a set of explicit apology
expressions under her category of direct apologies, which are categorized into three subgroups
with regards to level of formality and restrictions on occurrence. They are (i) Expression of
regret, (ii) Offer of apology, and (iii) Request for forgiveness. In an apology, IFIDs can range
from truly sincere expressions of regret on the apologizer‟s part, which would make a “strong
apology”, to a mere expression of sympathy for the apologized, which aims to placate the H
acknowledging the fact that some breach of social norms has malaffected the H.
15
Table 4: Explicit apology expressions (Trosborg, 1995)
Subformulae
IFIDs in English
Expression of regret
(Be) sorry
Regret
(Be) afraid
Offer of apology
Apologize
My apology for …
Extend my apology to you for …
Request for forgiveness

Excuse me
Please, forgive me
Pardon me
1.3. Politeness
1.3.1 Politeness theories
To maintain the other„s face is to recognize and respect the claims made by members of
society in interaction. The act of communicating such an acknowledgment is politeness.
Lakoff holds that “Politeness is a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate
interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human
interchange.” John J. Gurnperz (cited in Brown & Levinson, 1987, p.xiii) in other words
considers politeness the basic to the production of social order and a precondition of human
cooperation. Blum-Kulka (1987, p.131) whereas defines politeness as the interactional balance
achieved between two needs: The need for pragmatic clarity and the need to avoid
coerciveness.
Politeness can be manifested through general social behavior as well as linguistic means. This
assumption, however, emphasizes once again on the fact that politeness cannot and should not
be assessed out of context, since from a pragmatic point of view, all utterances in conversation
are interpreted firstly contextually and only secondly literally (Coulmas, 1981).
The issues of politeness are so crucial and thrilling that much effort has been made by
pragmaticists to establish universal research framework for investigating its key problems.
Basically there are two conspicuously different approaches: normative and strategic.
16
Considering politeness a manifestation of etiquette and the socially defined norms, this
approach is called the social norm view (Fraser, 1990), the first order approach (Watts et al.,
1992) and the traditional view (Werkhofer, 1992). However, the normative perspective is soon
rejected because of the fact that a viable theory of politeness can‟t rest upon solely a set of
rules based on social, normative behavior. What we view as polite or impolite in normal
interactions is subject to immediate and unique contextually-negotiated factors. Its limitation
of explanatory power as regards interpersonal verbal behavior is dues to its being culture or
group specific

As opposed to the normative perspective is strategic one including the Conversational maxim
view (Grice, 1971; Lakoff, 1973), Cooperative principle (Leech, 1983) and the Face-saving
view (Brown & Levinson, 1978). Grice‟s (1971) maxim consists of four maxims (1) The
maxim of quality (2) The maxim of quantity (3) The maxim of relevance, and (4) The maxim
of manner. This view is claimed to govern most human conversational interactions and
rational participants abide by the maxims in so far as they are able in the process of the
reasonable and efficient conveying of messages (Huong, 2006, p.54). However, this basis of
the volitional approach toward key problems in politeness is also criticized to fail to give a
reason why people are frequently indirect in expressing what they mean, so that they use
conversional implication.
Leech (1983) added and enriched Grice‟s Cooperative Principle, proposed Politeness Principle
which makes up for the lack of Cooperative Principle and increases the expression of
politeness. He sees cultural rules at work in expression of politeness and attempts to categorize
in more details some the underlying intent behind these forms by articulating a set of rules or
Politeness Maxims at work in polite dialogue including (1) Tact maxim: Minimize cost and
maximize benefit to other, (2) Generosity maxim: Minimize benefit and maximize cost to self
(3) Approbation maxim: Minimize dispraise and maximize praise of other (4) Modesty
maxim: Minimize praise and maximize dispraise of self (5) Agreement maxim: Minimize
disagreement and maximize agreement between self and other and (6) Sympathy maxim:
Minimize antipathy and maximize sympathy between self and other. Nonetheless, Lakoff‟s
rules and Leech‟s maxims have been criticized to be central limitedly to Western notions of
17
politeness, which emphasizes non-imposition and freedom of actions. As suggested by Huong
(2006, p.57), they are difficult to be considered universal rules of politeness. In nonwestern
cultures including Vietnamese culture where community and group solidarity is highly
appreciated, impersonalization is not always perceived as a polite strategy. Leech‟s maxims
allow us to make specific cross cultural comparison and to explain cross cultural differences in
understanding politeness and the use of politeness strategies, they fail to account for
contextual factors like roles of participants, their gender and the setting of talk. The model
seems to be best applied to only Anglo American cultures where social distance is valued.

Among the variety of politeness concepts that have been proposed in the pragmatic literature,
the 'face-saving view' of politeness, proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987), has been the
most influential and abundant of politeness to date. These scholars have suggested a
conceptual framework based on the notion of 'face', which comes from Goffman‟s (1967)
concept of “face” to explain the use of politeness phenomena. Face Theory contains three
basic notions: face, face threatening acts (FTA) and politeness strategies. Face refers to the
“public self-image that every member of a society wants to claim for himself” (Brown &
Levinson, 1987, p.66). A person‟s negative face is the need to be independent, to have
freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others. A person‟s positive face is the need to
be accepted, even liked, by others, to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know
that his or her wants are shared by others. In simple terms, negative face is the need to be
independent and positive face is the need to be connected. Thus, the S should adopt certain
strategies, in order to maintain his or her own face undamaged and at the same time to
minimize the possibility of affecting the positive or negative face of the H (Brown &
Levinson, 1987, p.66). Notwithstanding extraordinary influential work, Brown & Levinson‟s
model of politeness still get criticism from other researchers who study languages in non-
western societies. These researchers claim that Brown and Levinson‟s so-called universalistic
concepts of face focusing on interactant‟s desires (wants) to be unimpeded (negative) or to be
approved of (positive) are entirely based on the feature of individualism-appreciated of
Anglocentric cultures. These notions do not reflect the concept of politeness in Eastern
societies like Japanese, Chinese, and Vietnamese where people take interest in preserving
18
collective spirit, obligation rather than in protecting privateness (Matsumoto, 1995; Yule,
1996, cited by Huong, 2006). Huong (2006) in formulating a model of politeness in
Vietnamese, states that in interaction, the Vietnamese primarily give prominence to linguistic
behavior in accordance with social norms to show the respect to the interactants by virtue of
their status, age. It is considered as the first manifestation of one‟s good educational
background (mainly one‟s morality and personality)
1.3.2. Politeness in apologizing
Communicative and social behaviors have been suggested to be governed by politeness. The

norms of politeness are said to be culturally specific, in other words, languages differ in how
they express politeness. On the basis of cultural viewpoint, Yule (1996) states: “It is possible
to treat politeness as a fixed concept, as in the idea of “polite social behavior”, or etiquette,
within a culture. (p.60)
The major patterns or strategies that make up the apology speech act are available to speakers
across languages, yet preference for any one of them or for a combination of them will depend
on the specific situation within the given language and culture group.
An important factor conditioning the decision to an appropriate response is the effect of status
or relative dominance between interlocutors. Generally, role relationships, along with their
attendants‟ sets of obligations, differ across societies. Woflson et al. (1989) find that:
[… Relationships between status unequals such as students and teachers, between status equals such as
co-workers or classmates, between people as socially distant as total strangers or as familiar as family
members, are all based upon a largely uncodified set of obligations. Whether the obligation is to act or
refrain from acting, or merely to carry out an act in an appropriate way, membership in a culture implies
knowledge of what may be expected within a particular social relationship…]
When observing politeness norms, the researchers should always take account of the
relationship between the S and the H and the nature of interaction in which they are involved
(Leech, 1983). A politeness strategy is employed by the “weightiness”. The weightiness is
calculated by Ss from the social distance between S and H (D), and ranking of imposition (R).
R differs from culture to culture because they are how threatening and dangerous in a specific
19
culture. P, D, and R do not have any absolute value. Mainly a speaker values them according
to the situation and culture subjectively. Thus weightiness is calculated as follows: Wx = D (S,
H) + P (S, H) + Rx
Competent facework, which lessens the potential for specific actions to be regarded as face-
threatening, encompasses a wide variety of communication behaviors. These behaviors may
include apologies, excessive politeness, the narration of justification or excuses, displays of
deference and submission, the use of intermediaries or other avoidance strategies
1.4. Situations which elicit apologies in American culture and Vietnamese culture
Apologizing is one of the most sensitive areas of daily communication in terms of politeness.

It plays a crucial role in keeping people happy. As a norm of politeness and social habit,
people would definitely get annoyed when apologizing is not given at the appropriate time or
place as it is predicted and expected. Situations which elicit apologies in one language could
easily fail to do so in another. Just as different cultures divide the color spectrum into non-
corresponding or overlapping terms, so the repertoire of speech acts for each culture is
differently organized. The study “Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures”
by Woflson, Marmor and Jones (1989, pp.175-195) examined the actual conditions which
elicited apologies in everyday interactions in American English. The investigation revealed
that apologies were made as recognition of a speaker‟s own failure to meet an implicit or
explicit obligation to another. These failures, intentional or not, ranged from the breaking of a
piece of property to the breaking of a social contract.
The study shows that many of the important obligations presented in the CCSARP
questionnaire did indeed operate in American society. They are (1) The obligation to keep a
social or work-related commitment or agreement (2) The obligation to respect the property of
others (3) The obligation not to cause damage or discomfort to others. In addition, there were a
number of others more subtle and difficult to describe including (4) The obligation not to
make others responsible for one‟s welfare (5) The obligation not to appear to expect another
person to be available at all time (6) The obligation not only to remember people we‟ve met,
but not to confuse strangers with acquaintances (7) More subtle obligation develop between
20
peers to protect one another from sanctions from those in authority over them. Americans
typically apologize for wrongdoing of only themselves and a few others such as spouse, young
children, and pets (Sugimoto, 1998). Two other studies on apologies in Vietnamese languages
done by Kieu Thi Hong Van (2000) and Dang Thanh Phuong (2000) also examined the actual
conditions which elicited apologies in everyday interactions in Vietnamese culture. In their
studies, such situations which were rated as highly offending to mention are (1) A students
plagiarized from a published book and is found out by the professor (2) A shop worker hasn‟t
finished repairing an antique watch for a familiar customer (3) A department head borrowed a
portable computer from a coworker and accidentally erased some important information (4) A
waiter in an expensive restaurant spilled food on a customer‟s clothes (5) A taxi driver in a

parking lot backs up into another car (6) A staff manager has kept an applicant waiting half an
hour for a job interview (7) A person has just taken another person‟s raincoat by mistake in the
cloakroom (8) A person has lots a rather expensive book lent from another one (9) A person
has come 15 minutes late for an important appointment.
Overall, it can be found that offending situations calling for an apology in the previous studies
in Vietnamese culture are quite similar to those in the US. However, most of those situations
focused on the mistakes directly caused by one of the two interlocutors. The case when none
of the conversation participants made the mistakes was not yet investigated. This study, hence,
will attempt to include such a situation to see how the two groups of informants reacted,
especially to discover more about whether the differences in the nature of situation could lead
to different patterns of verbal apologizing behaviors.
1.5. Apologizing strategies
In analyzing the various strategies used in apologizing, Fraser (1981, in Wolfson, 1989, p.88)
found that “in cases where social norms were broken, people often followed their formulaic
apologies with some account which sought to provide an explanation or excuse for why the
infraction happened in the first place”. Where the apology was for an act which resulted in
injury or some sort of serious inconvenience, people tended to offer some form of redress
instead of simply accounting for their action.
21
A common reaction to the need to apologize is a search for self-justification by explaining the
source of the offence caused by external factors over which the speaker has no control.
Depending on the situation, such an explanation can act as an apology. Explanations vary by
specificity and relevance: being late can be explained by reference to the specific event that
caused it “The bus was late”, or by a general statement which is implicitly brought forth as
relevant to the situation “Traffic is always so heavy in the morning” (Blum-Kulka, House &
Kasper, 1989)
According to Olshtain and Cohen (1983), the five strategies which make up the speech act set
of apology (Olshtain& Cohen, 1983) consist of two which are general and three which are
situation specific. The two general strategies are: (1) Expression of apology - The IFID which
contains the formulaic, routinized forms of apology, the explicit, performative verbs which

express an apology with the intensifiers within, and (2) Acknowledgment of responsibility -
The expression of S‟s responsibility which relates to the S‟s willingness to admit to fault, or in
Goffman‟s terms, as cited by Owen (1983, p.94), contains substrategies which relate to “pleas
for excusable lack of foresight, pleas for reduced competence and admission of carelessness”.
Either one of them, or both in conjunctions with one another, are likely to occur in almost any
kind of apology situation, with some degree of probability. In the Expression of apology, the S
uses a word, expression, or sentence containing a verb such as "sorry," "excuse," "forgive," or
"apologize." This expression of an apology can be intensified whenever the apologizer feels
the need to do so. Such intensification is usually accomplished by adding intensifiers such as
"really" or "very", for example, "I'm really sorry." In addition to the aforementioned strategies,
studies on apologies have also shown that the use of multiple strategies and using adverbials
within the IFID when apologizing was popular in order to intensify the apology (Blum-Kulka
& Olshtain, 1985; Cohen, Olshtain & Rosentstein, 1986; Olshtain & Cohen, 1987; Volmer &
Olshtain, 1989, in Blum-Kulka et al., 1989)
When studying a relatively severe offence that the S accidentally bumps into a friend who is
holding a cup of hot coffee, which makes the coffee spill over the friend and scald his/ her arm
and soak his/ her clothing, Cohen, Olshtain and Rosentstein (1986, p.67) pointed out that there
actually is a difference in American English between "very" and "really," with "really"