Lời xin lỗi của người Việt Nam học Tiếng Anh Nghiên cứu dụng học liên ngôn ngữ

Lời xin lỗi của người Việt Nam học Tiếng Anh:
Nghiên cứu dụng học liên ngôn ngữ

Nguyễn Hương Lý

Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ
Luận văn ThS ngành: Ngôn ngữ Anh; Mã số: 60 22 15
Người hướng dẫn: Dr. Hà Cẩm Tâm
Năm bảo vệ: 2012

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Giao tiếp; Liên ngôn ngữ; Người Việt Nam


Content
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. 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
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.
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
1.1. Pragmatics
1.1.1. Overview
Leech (1983) defined 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)
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).
1.1.2. Interlanguage Pragmatics
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).
1.1.3. Pragmatic Transfer
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‖. Due to the inseparable relationship between language and
culture, Kasper
(1992) identified two types of pragmatic transfer:
sociopragmatic transfer and
pragmalinguistic transfer.
1.2. Speech acts
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.
1.2.1. Three-dimension speech acts
According to Austin (1962), a speech act consists of three related acts:
- The locutionary act occurs whenever speakers produce an utterance.
- The illocutionary act is the function of the utterance that the speaker has in mind.
- The Perlocutionary act occurs when speakers want a speech act to have an effect on what
they utter.
1.2.2. Classification of speech acts
Searle (1969) set up five types of speech acts, namely, Representatives, Commisives,
Directives, Declaratives, Expressives.
1.2.3. Speech act of Apology
Marquez-Reiter (2000: 44) stated that an apology is ―compensatory action for an offense
committed by the speaker which has affected the hearer‖.
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.
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.
1.3. Previous Studies on Apology

Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY
2.1. The research questions:
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
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 (IL) 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 third group (NL) 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.
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.

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) 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. As R was kept fairly high through
situations but P and D varied systematically, there were constellations assumed to underline the
situations: +P -D; +P +D; =P –D; =P +D; -P –D & -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
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 aimed to test the validity and reliability of the 18 real – life situations 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

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?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
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.
2.3. Results of the MPQ
Table 1. Mean ratings of social factors by English informants (n=30) and Vietnamese informants
(n=30)
Constellation
Situations
P

D

R


-P; -D

EN
VN
EN
VN
EN
VN
1
1.1
1.03
2.1
2.03
2.33
2.17
6
1.03
1.03
2.43
2.37
2.87
2.53
-P; +D


3
1.7
1.67
1.73
1.77

2
1.87
9
1.77
1.63
1.57
1.63
2
2.17
14
1.07
1.83
1.03
1.13
2.63
2.37
=P; -D



8
2
2
2.67
2.63
2.73
2.57
10
2.03
1.97

2.03
2.03
1.93
1.73
12
2.03
2
2.73
2.77
2
2.03
18
2
1.97
2.83
2.77
1.93
1.57
=P; +D


7
2.03
2
1.07
1.03
1.43
1.3
13
2

2
1.03
1.1
2
2.03
16
2.03
1.97
1
1.03
2.87
2.83
+P; -D


2
2.87
2.93
2.93
3
2.37
2.23
5
2.9
2.93
2.07
2.03
2.07
1.63
17

2.53
2.6
2.87
2.83
1.93
1.6
+P; +D


4
2.7
2.7
1.07
1.13
1.63
1.37
11
2.87
2.93
1.07
1.13
2.33
1.97
15
2.73
2.77
1.07
1.1
1.83
1.57

After all the things were considered, the six reliable situations selected for the DCT were Situation 2
(Cinema), Situation 11 (Interview), Situation 8 (Camera), Situation 16 (Car), Situation 6 (Essay),
Situation 14 (Food).
2.4. Coding system
The model of apology strategies used to analyze the data of this study was the combination of
strategies conducted by Olshtain and Cohen (1983), Trosborg (1995); Holmes (1990) and could be
categorized as follows:
(1) An expression of apology
(2) An explanation or account
(3) An acknowledgement of responsibilit
(4) An offer of repair
(5) Promise for forbearance
(6) Concern for the hearer

Chapter 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Apologies by Vietnamese EFL Learners and English native speakers
3.1.1. In high power settings (+P)
In the settings where the Speaker had greater power than the Addressee, EN Speakers differed
greatly from Learners in the use of an expression of apology and an acknowledgement of responsibility
strategy
. It appeared that Power had different influences on the two groups in the formulation of
apology. While EN speakers enjoying higher power chose to use an expression of apology in
combination with an acknowledgement of responsibility, Learners preferred an explanation or
account. This discrepancy seems to be related to the cultural differences in the perception of
obligations and rights of the party involved.

3.1.2. In equal power settings (=P)
In the settings where the Speakers had equal power as the Addressee, the results show that EN
Speakers noticeably differed from Learners in the use of an explanation, an offer of repair or concern
for the hearer strategy. These differences can result from the differences in the social norms between

the two cultures.
3.1.3. In low power settings (-P)
The results show that Learners employed more apology strategies than EN Speakers in the
settings where the Speaker had less power than the Addressee. Furthermore, what they intended to
communicate may be different due to the differences in the rate of Imposition and Power. In Sit.6
(Essay), Learners used more apologies than EN Speakers, except for the promise of forbearance
strategy.
In Sit.14 (Food), Learners and EN Speakers were significantly different in using an
expression of apology, an acknowledgement of responsibility and an offer of repair strategy.

1.1.4. In familiar settings (-D)
Results show that in the settings where the Speaker was familiar with the Addressee, Learners
used an explanation or account and concern for the hearer strategy more often than EN Speakers did
in the same situations. On the other hand, EN Speakers employed an expression of apology and
responsibility strategy more often for the familiar high and equal power situations (cinema and camera
situations) than Learners did and the frequency with which an acknowledgement of responsibility
strategy was used by the two groups for Sit.2 (Cinema) was significantly different. It seemed that in
Vietnam, people enjoying equal and higher power tended to avoid acknowledging the responsibility for
the offense they made to the lower power familiar Addressee because they are afraid of losing face.
However, in familiar low power situation (Sit.6-Essay), more Learners chose an expression of apology
and an acknowledgement of responsibility strategy for the offense than EN Speakers and the frequency
with which an expression of apology strategy was used was significantly different.
3.1.5. In unfamiliar settings (+D)
In the settings where the Speaker was unfamiliar with the Addressee, the two groups of
respondents differed in the choice of the more commonly used strategies. More EN Speakers employed
an offer of repair for the three situations than Learners. Also, in the unfamiliar high and equal power
settings, EN Speakers acknowledged responsibility more but gave explanation less than Learners and
the trend was quite the reverse in the unfamiliar low power situation. It seemed that the social power
and Imposition influenced on the use of apology strategies for the +D situations rather than the social
distance in these situations.

3.2. Apologies by English native Speakers and Vietnamese native Speakers
3.2.1. In high power settings (+P)
Findings of apology strategy use by EN Speakers and VN Speakers in high power settings
reflect a significant difference between the two groups of informants. VN Speakers used an
explanation or account far more frequently than EN Speakers did in the two situations studied.
Conversely, EN Speakers employed an acknowledgement of responsibility strategy much more often
than VN Speakers did.
3.2.2. In equal settings (=P)
The results shows that VN Speakers employed more apologies than EN Speakers in the settings
where the Speaker and the Hearer were of equal power. Particularly, the frequency with which an
explanation or account, concern for the hearer and an offer of repair strategies were used was
significantly different between the two groups.
3.2.3. In lower power settings (-P)
The result show that in –P settings, EN Speakers differed from VN Speakers in the use of some
apology strategies . In Sit.6 (Essay), the differences between the two groups were in the use of an
expression of apology and an explanation or account strategy. In Sit.14 (Food), VN Speakers and EN
Speakers differed greatly in the use of an acknowledgement of responsibility and an offer of repair
strategy.

3.3. Pragmatic transfer on Learners’ Apologies
Results of this study show some differences in the frequency of apology strategy use by EN
Speakers, EFL Learners and VN Speakers. These
diferences may be due to EFL Learners’ negative
transfer from Vietnamese apology patterns to English.
The following discusses the influences of
pragmatic transfer on
EFL learners’ interlanguage apologies in two perspectives—negative
sociopragmatic transfer and negative pragmalinguistic transfer as follows.
3.3.1. Sociopragmatic Transfer
Negative sociopragmatic transfer refers to Learners’ interpretation and performance of

linguistic forms that are influenced by their assessment of subjectively equivalent contexts but are
different from English norms. Results of this study show that there seemed to be some negative
sociopragmatic transfer found in interlanguage apologies made by EFL Learners, which may lead to
the miscommunication.
First, in higher power settings, the percentage of EFL Learners using the strategy ―an
acknowledgement of responsibility‖ was significantly lower than that of EN Speakers. The
similar results were found between EN Speakers and VN Speakers. This discrepancy seems to
be related to the cultural differences in the perception of obligations and rights of the party
involved. Obviously, the seriousness rated by Learners was lower than that by EN Speakers for
these two situations. Moreover, in Vietnamese context, as mentioned in previous section a person
in higher power, especially in case of a manager who held much power in the workplace, tended
to avoid giving an explicit apology or acknowledging the responsibility for the offence they
committed because they were afraid of losing the face. As an alternative, they gave an
explanation or account with the hope to receive the sympathy and forgiveness from the
Addressee. This can be associated with the lack of English pragmatic knowledge and/or the
negative transfer of L1 socio-pragmatic to L2. Learners’ lack of pragmatic knowledge in this
case may lead to the absence of the perlocutionary act; thus, miscommunication may occur.
With regard to situation 16, when the Speaker ran the car into the back of another car and got it
badly dented, VN Speakers and EFL Learners differed noticeably from EN Speakers in the use of an
explanation and concern for the hearer. In Vietnamese context, people often prefer giving explanations
for this case in order to lower the seriousness of the offense and get the sympathy from the Addressee.
In contrast, few EN speakers tended to spend time explaining why the accident happened because in
Australia such kind of responsibility would be taken care of by the insurance company. Moreover,
Learners showed concern for the hearer for this situation significantly more than EN Speakers because
Vietnamese people, in some cases, consider concern for the hearer as more important than an offer of
repair. Obviously, Learners in this situation transferred from their socio-pragmatic to the target
language.
Moreover, the socio-pragmatic transfer was manifested in Sit.14 (Food), where Learners
overused an acknowledgement of responsibility strategy which was not socially appropriate in
Australian pragmatics. In this context, Australians tried to evade admitting responsibility because they

might lose their job if they did so. Instead, they offered compensation for what happened. However, not
many Learners did so. This is the evidence for Learners’ lack of pragmatic knowledge when giving the
apologies to this type of offense.
In addition, in relation to social distance, more Learners showed concern for the hearer
for the familiar settings than EN Speakers. This seems to be the result of negative transfer from
Vietnamese socio-pragmatic because not only EFL Learners but also VN Speakers were found
to use this strategy more than EN Speakers.
In Vietnamese context, the Speaker needs to show
concern for the familiar Addressee in order to maintain the long-lasting relationship.
3.3.2. Pragmalinguistic Transfer

EFL learners’ negative pragmalinguistic transfer refers to the use of particular linguistic
form-functions in their interlanguage which are influenced by their perception and production of form-
function mappings in Vietnamese but are different from English native speaker norms. Results show
that, when compared with negative sociopragmatic transfer, there is less negative pragmalinguistic
transfer observed in EFL learners’ interlanguage apologies. However, it can lead to the
misunderstandings or unfriendliness when communicating with EN Speakers. The following are some
examples of negative pragmalinguistic transfer found in EFL learners’ responses.
In Situation 8 (Camera), EN Speakers tended to offer repair by saying that ―I will buy you a
new one‖ (EN6, Sit.8) or ―I’ll take it to be fixed‖ (EN11, Sit.8), or ―I’ll get it repaired” (EN19, Sit.8).
However, EFL learners were found to offer repair by using expressions which were directly translated
from Vietnamese to English such as ―I’ll compensate you a new one‖ (L16, Sit.8) or ―I’ll repair it for
you‖ (L11, Sit.8).
Similarly, in situation 16 (car), most EN Speakers said that ――I’ll give you my insurance
details‖ (EN5, Sit.16) or ―My car insurance will cover the cost of repairs‖ (EN18, Sit.16), but Learners
often said ―Let me repair the car for you‖ (L18, Sit.16) or ―How much do you want for this damage?‖
(L21, Sit.16). Obviously, Learners in this situation failed to behave linguistically appropriately
compared with EN Speakers. Hence, the perlocutionary act would certainly be absent.
In Sit.11 (Interview), EN Speakers often used a very formal semantic structure such as ―Would
you like to have the job interview now?‖ (EN14, Sit.11) or ―Is it convenient to have our discussion or

would you like to reschedule it?‖ (EN19, Sit.11), while Learners normally employed a very informal
formula such as ―Let’s start our interview‖ (L12, Sit.11) or ―Can we start now?‖ (L13, Sit.11), which
was the direct transfer from L1 to L2.
All the things considered, with respect to the apology strategy use, EFL Learners and EN
Speakers were in fact quite different, and in some cases Learners were shown to either transfer L1
pragmatics to L2, or lack the pragmatic knowledge of the target language, or use inappropriate apology
semantic formulae in their interlanguage apologies.















Part III: CONCLUSION
The last chapter of this thesis provides a brief summary of the major findings of comparing the
speech act production of apology made by native speakers of Vietnamese and English and
Vietnamese EFL learners. Besides, it is followed by some pedagogical implications and some
suggestions for further studies.
1. Major findings
Results from a comprehensive analysis of apologies made by EN Speakers, Vietnamese EFL-
Learners, and VN Speakers in a variety of contexts revealed distinctions in apology strategy use

among the three groups. Some of the distinctions may be due to negative transfer from Vietnamese
patterns, such as VN Speakers and EFL Learners giving an explanation or account for Sit.16 (Car)
or showing concern for the hearer for Sit.8 (Camera) significantly more than EN Speakers, while
others may be a result of EFL learners’ lack of pragmatic knowledge, such as EFL Learners’ failing to
acknowledge responsibility for Sit.2 (Cinema) & Sit.11 (Interview) or to offer repair/
compensation for
Sit.16 (Car) noticeably less than EN groups. This results show similarity to Cohen & Olshtain’
finding (1981) when they compared apologies made by English native Speakers, Hebrew native
Speakers and Hebrew Learners of English that Learners were less likely to accept responsibility
for an offense or to make offers of repair than EN Speakers. Moreover, as to apology strategy
selection in relation to contextual factors, findings of previous studies on cross-linguistic
apology
have shown that apology strategy selection according to contextual factors may vary across cultures
(e.g., Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984a; Olshtain, 1989; Trosborg, 1987,
1995); Similarly, results of this study showed that EN Speakers, VN Speakers, and EFL Learners
were
dissimilar in apology strategy selection according to contextual factors including
severity of
offense, social status, and social distance. While VN Speakers and EFL Learners enjoying higher
power tried to evade giving an expression of apology and acknowledging responsibility for the offense,
EN Speakers did so. Besides, some deviations were found in EFL Learners’ interlanguage apologies
due to the direct transference from L1 to L2. For instance, when providing an offer of repair for the
car situation, VN Speakers often used ―Tôi sẽ đền cho anh.‖ or ―Anh muốn tôi đền bao nhiêu?‖.
Similarly, EFL learners frequently said ―I will compensate. How much do you want for this damage.”

2. Implications for Teaching and Learning English in Vietnam
The findings of this study showed that the different pragmatic rules between the two languages
may pose difficulties for Vietnamese EFL Learners. Therefore, pedagogical implications are discussed
to raise the awareness of Learners’ sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic rules to perform the speech act
of apology in English and to assist teachers in enhancing pragmatic teaching in the language classroom

and developing teaching materials.
3. Limitations of the study
Firstly, this study has mainly focused on the deviations of the verbal apology strategies by
EFL Learners, VN Speakers and EN Speakers; some other factors such as non-linguistic factors
(facial expression, gestures, eye contact, etc.), paralinguistic factors (intonation, pause, speed of speech,
etc.) has not put into consideration although they are believed to be crucial in interpreting and
conveying the intended meaning.
In addition, it is also noteworthy that this study focuses specifically on the production of the
apology speech act by EN Speakers, Vietnamese EFL Learners, VN Speakers without investigating
their responses to apologies. However, as Olshtain (1989) claimed that the understanding of cross-
cultural differences cannot be limited to production features only, without investigating the
perlocutionary aspect of the speech act from the hearer’s point of view, further work should include the
analysis of the responses to apologies to gain a better understanding and present a fuller picture of the
speech act of apology.
Finally, data collected through the DCT has not fully reflected the naturally spoken language.
Therefore, in order to determine how native Speakers and EFL Learners function in natural face-to-face
interactions, the replication of study in an oral mode, a role-play for example, should be conducted, and
either the data gathered from DCT or from role-plays should be compared with the data gathered
through the observation of natural language events to arrive at a more accurate analysis of the
apologizing behavior of native speakers and EFL learners

References
1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
2. Bataineh, R. F. & Bataineh, R. F. (2006). Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL university
students, Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1901-1927.
3. Bataineh, Ruba, and Rula Bataineh. 2008. A cross-cultural comparison of apologies by native
speakers of American English and Jordanian Arabic, Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 792-821.
4. Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative
apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics, 82-107. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

5. Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic
competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics, 43-57. Oxford
University Press, New York, Oxford.
6. Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of
the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied linguistics, 3,
29-59.
7. Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Phillipson, E.
Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/Second Language
Pedagogy Research, 255-272. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
8. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984a). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of
speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.
9. Bodman, J., & Eisenstein, M. (1988). May God increase your bounty: The expression of
gratitude in English by native and nonnative speakers. Cross Currents, 15(1), 1-21.
10. Bou Franch, P. (1998). On pragmatic transfer. Studies in English Language and Linguistics, 0,
5-20.
11. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Byon, Andrew Sangpil (2005). Apologizing in Korean: Cross-Cultural Analysis in classroom
settings. Korean Studies, 29, 137-166. Published by University of Hawai’i Press.
13. Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech acts. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, 51-84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence:
The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134
15. Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. New York: Basil Blackwell.
16.
Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language
learners' requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 1-23.
17. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
18. García, C. (1989). Disagreeing and requesting by Americans and Venezuelans. Linguistics and

Education, 1, 299-322.
19. Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19(2), 155-199.
20. House, J. (1988). Oh excuse me please: Apologizing in a foreign language. In B. Kettemann, P.
Bierbaumer, A. Fill, & A. Karpf (Eds.), Englisch als Zweitsprasche, 303-327. Tuebingen:
Narr.
21. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In
W. Lörscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on Language in Performance, 250-288.
Tuebingen: Narr.
22.
Hymes, D. (1972) On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics, 269-293. Harmondswortth: Penguin.
23. Ilknur Istifci. (2009). The use of Apologies by EFL Learners, English Language Teaching, 2, 3.
24. Kasper, G (1996). Introduction: Interlanguage Pragmatics in SLA, Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18(2), 145-148.
25. Kasper, G (1998) 6 June 1998.
26. Kasper, G. & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Michigan:
Blackwell.
27. Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203-231.
28. Kim, D, K. (2001). A Descriptive Analysis of Korean and English Apologies with Implications
for Interlanguage Pragmatics. PhD Dissertation, University of Florida.
29. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
30. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Maeshiba, N./Yoshinaga, N./Kasper, G./Ross, S. (1996), Transfer and proficiency in
interlanguage apologizing. In: Gass, S.M./Neu, J. (eds.) Speech Acts Across Cultures:
Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Berlin, etc.: Mouton de Gruyter: 155-
187
32. Marquez-Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay: a contrastive study of
requests and apologies, Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
33. Morris, C. (1938) 'Foundations of the Theory of Signs', in Carnap, R. Et al (eds.) International
Encyclopedia of Unified Science, 2:1, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

34. Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
35. Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across languages. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G.
Kasper(Eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, 155-173, Norwood, MA:
Newbury House.
36. Olshtain, E., & Blum Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions to
native speech act behavior. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second
Language Acquisition, 303-325. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
37. Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, 18-35. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
38. Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1989). Speech act behavior across languages. In H. Dechert &
M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in Language Production, 53-68. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
39. Phuong, D.T. (2000), A cross-cultural study of apologizing and responding to apologies in
Vietnamese and English. Unpublished MA Thesis, CFL, VNU, Hanoi.
40. Richards, J. C, Platt, J. & Platt, H. (1985). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching &
Applied Linguistics, Longman Singapore Publishers Pte Ltd, Singapore.
41. Robinson, M. (1992). Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In G.
Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as a native and foreign language Technical Report No. 3
(pp. 27-82). Honolulu, Hawaii: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University
of Hawaii at Manoa.
42. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
43. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209-
231.
44. Shardakova, Maria (2005) Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2 learners of
Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics 2: 423-451.
45. Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18,
189-223.
46. Takahashi, T. & Beebe, L. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction, In
G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics, 138-158. Oxford University
Press.

47. Tam, H. C. (1998) Requests by Australian Native Speakers of English and Vietnamese
Learners of English, M.A. thesis, La Trobe University, Australia.
48. Tam, H.C. (2005). Requests by Vietnamese Learners of English. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis,
CFL, VNU, Hanoi.
49. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.
50. Trang, N.T (2010), Apologizing strategies by American Speakers of English and Vietnamese
Speakers of English. Unpublished MA Thesis, CFL, VNU, Hanoi.
51. Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives / nonnatives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11,
147-167.
52. Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin,
New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
53. Van De Bogart, W. (2006). Teaching Conversational English to Thai Students: An Alternative
Approach Using Role Play for ESL Students [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 14 April 2009,
from www.earthportals.com/portal_Messenger/conversationesl.html.
54. Van, K.T.H (2000), Apologies in Vietnamese and English. Unpublished MA Thesis, CFL,
VNU, Hanoi.
55. Yang, T K. (2000). Analysis of Vocabulary in Korean and Japanese Middle School English
Textbooks: A Study of Apology Speech Acts in English Textbooks. Paper presented at the 4th
Conference of Pan-Pacific association of applied Linguistics, Tokyo, Japan.
56. Yu, M. (1999b). Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the
acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics, 9, 281 312.
57. Yu, M. (1999a). Cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics: Developing communicative
competence in a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University,
Cambridge.
58.
Yu, M. (2003). On universality of face: Evidence from Chinese compliment response
behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1679-1710.
59. Yu, M. (2005). Sociolinguistic competence in the complimenting act of native Chinese and
American English speakers: A mirror of cultural value. Language and Speech, 48, 91-119.
60. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

61. Zegarac, V. & Pennington, C. (2000), Pragmatic transfer in intercultural communication, In H.
S. Oatey (Ed.), Interculturally Speaking, 165-190, London: Continuum.