USE OF ADDRESSING FORMS TO EXPRESS INFORMALITY IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

1

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

USE OF ADDRESSING FORMS TO EXPRESS
INFORMALITY IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
(SỬ DỤNG CÁC TỪ XƯNG HÔ ĐỂ THỂ HIỆN TÍNH KHÔNG NGHI
THỨC TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

M.A. MINOR THESIS

HANOI, 2011
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION


2

1.1 Statement of problem and rationale
In communication using a appropriate addressing forms is the first step to a
successful conversation. How people address each other is not only a matter of creating
intimate atmosphere but also the aspect of social and culture expression. One important
issue in studying communication is to learn how individuals manage to open conversations
or how people may address one another in a given language. English users (not native
speaker) are faced with different factors that make them feel unconfident when learning
and using English especially when using addressing forms.
In an attempt to decrease learners’ errors especially students’ errors in using
addressing forms, the researcher aims to find out the similarities and differences in the use
of addressing forms in informal way as well as the factors that affect the choice of

addressing forms in Vietnamese and English speaking cultures.
1.2. Aims and objectives:
The aims of the study are:
- To investigate major similarities and differences in using addressing forms in
English and Vietnamese and the factors that affects the choice of addressing forms in the
two cultures.
- To suggest some implications for ELT about AFs between English and Vietnamese
in order to help learners of English avoid misunderstandings and miscommunication in
cross-culture communication.
1.3. Research questions
In short the paper is going to answer two research questions as follow:
1. What are the major similarities and differences in using addressing forms to
express informality in English and Vietnamese?
2. What are the factors that affect the choice of AFs in two cultures?
1.4. Research methodology


3

The study begins by providing the theoretical background with viewpoints of
various authors concerning the issue. These different viewpoints are dealt with in two
ways:
-

Bringing the viewpoints and then giving discussion

-

Briefly analyzing these viewpoints.

In order to achieve the aims of the study, the main method is quantitative which is mainly
relies on:
•

Review of relevant literature

•

Survey questionnaire

•

Statistics, description and analysis of the collected data

•

Personal observation

•

Consultation with the supervisor

1.5. Significance of the study
The study is hoped to be a useful source for both pedagogical and research
purpose. Specifically, equipped by the outcomes of the study, language teachers and
learners may find the subject matter no longer complicated but motivating uses of AFs to
express informality in English so that English learners can understand deeply addressing
forms and can be confident in using addressing forms successfully.
1.6. Structure of the thesis
The thesis consists of five chapters, organized as follows:

Chapter one is written to introduce the background to the study and statement of the
problems. It also presents the aims, the research questions, research methodology,
significance of the study and the design of the thesis.
Chapter two presents a review of theoretical background that is relevant to the study. It
presents the definitions and discusses the relation of culture, language and communication.
All key terms of addressing forms and informality as well as some common features and
factors affecting the choice of addressing forms are also mentioned


4

Chapter Three states the methodology used in the study. Therefore, research questions are
revisited, the information about subjects, the data collection instruments, the data
collection procedures and the data analysis.
Chapter Four discusses the outcome of the data analysis.
Chapter Five is the conclusion to the thesis.


5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Culture, language and communication
Culture, language and communication are the three concepts that are closely
related. Before being examined in the relationships with the others, each is expected to be
perceived in a thorough way.
In the first place should be the concept of culture. Social scientists have been
interested in culture and how it influences people for years. Over the years there have been
many different definitions of culture, with similarities as well as differences. Culture
influences all aspects of our lives. We use culture to explain similarities within and
differences between groups of people (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). Culture is not a static

entity, but is ever-evolving; what we commonly know as “the generation gap” is a cultural
difference as it refers to different ways of life and being for people who are raised in
different periods of time (Pipher, 1998). Richard et al, (1992, 138) give clear definition of
culture and point out some problems in culture between people of different background:
“culture is the total sets of beliefs, attitudes, customs, behavior, social habits of the
members of a particular society”
Referring to culture, Harrison and Huntington (2000) comment sophisticatedly:
“The term ‘culture’, of course, has had multiple meaning in different disciplines and
different context” (p.15)
Culture is also defined in a broader sense by Triandis (1994) as follows:
“… a set of human – made objective and subjective elements that in the past
have increased the probability of survival and resulted in satisfaction for the
participants in an ecological niche, and thus become shared among those who could
communicate with each other because they had a common language and they live in
the same time and place”
Obviously, there are many ways to define culture. Culture, in short, can be
comprehended as a shared learned behavior that is transmitted from one generation to


6

another independently of biological genes, for the purpose of promoting individual and
social survival, adaptation and growth and development. However, one point noticeable
from the definition by the above mentioned scholars is that the majority of them see the
concept of “culture” from perspective of another concept, which is “communication”.
“Communication” as defined by Richard (et al.1992:64) is the exchange of ideas,
information, etc between two or more persons. The sender(s) [speaker(s)][transmit(s)]
message to the receiver(s) [listener(s)]”. Communication is an effective tool for people to
cooperate with each other in the process of development. Samovar (2007), in his study,
shows that “human communication is the process through which individuals-in

relationships, group, organization, and societies-respond to and create messages and adapt
to the environment and one another” (p.23). Both scholars see communication as an
exchanging process which creates a common ground (as the outcomes of the process)
understood by all concerned.
Like the flawless transition, culture and communication intertwine with each other
and it is easy to conceive that culture is communication and communication is culture. In a
sense, cultures are the “residue” of social communication. Without communication and
communication media, it would be impossible to preserve and pass along cultural
characteristics from one place and time to another. One can say, therefore, that culture is
created, shaped, transmitted, and learned through communication. The reverse is also the
case; that is, communication practices are largely created, shaped, and transmitted by
culture. Considering the opinion of Smith (1966), he states that:
“In modern society, different people communicate in different way, as do people in
different societies in the world; and the way people communicate is the way they
live. It is their culture. Who talks with whom, How, And about what? These are
questions of communication and culture… When the elements of culture differ or
change. Communication and culture are inseparable.” (p1)
Undoubtedly, the exact nature of relationship between communication and culture
is a very complex and intimate one. However everything a person experiences is perceived


7

within the conceptual and grammatical perspective of that person's language. People can
never understand the impact this has on their thinking until they learn a completely
different language.
It is undeniable that the relationship between communication and culture is
intertwined and the relationship between language and culture, according to Samovar and
many previous scholars is interwoven relationship.
Commenting on the relationship between language and culture Nida (1998:29)

holds the view that language and culture are two language items symbolic systems.
Everything we say in language has meanings, designative or sociative, denotative or
connotative. Every

language form we use has meanings,

are not in the same sense because
extensive than language.’ People

carries meanings

that

it is associated with culture and culture is more
of different cultures can refer to different things

while using the same language forms.
It is commonly accepted that language is a part of culture, and that culture plays a
very important role in it. Some social scientists consider that language without culture
would not be possible. Language simultaneously reflects culture, and is influenced and
shaped by it. In the broadest sense, language is also the symbolic representation of a
people, since it comprises their historical and

cultural backgrounds, as well as their

approach to life and their ways of living and thinking. Brown
the two as follows: ‘A language

is a part of a culture and a culture is a part of a

language; the two are intricately interwoven
without

(1994: 165) describes

so that one cannot separate

the two

losing the significance of either language or culture.’ In a word, culture

and language

are inseparable, language is a key component of culture. It is the primary

medium for transmitting much of culture. Without language, culture would not be possible.
Language, culture and communication are different things that cannot be separated.
Language is surely the most important tool of communication that individual have at their
disposal. This is because it is language that permits people to communicate. The purpose of
acquisition of language as proved by Chomsky is for communicative purpose. That is why


8

human communicate perfectly using Language means. Other means of Communication
have several weaknesses, therefore human language is the best means of reflecting culture
through communication
2.2. Addressing forms
2.2.1. Addressing forms and their definitions
According to Jack C. Richards, J. Platt and H. Platt (1999:6), addressing systems

(address forms, address terms) are understood as: The word or words used to address
somebody in speech or writing. The way in which people address one another usually
depends on their age, sex, social group, and personal relationship.
Addressing forms are words and phrases used for addressing. They refer to the
collocutor and thus contain a strong element of deixis (Braun, 1988). They are words or
linguistic expressions that speakers use to appeal directly to their addressees (Taavitsainen
and Jucker, 2003). It is true that people use addressing term to address each other in almost
all occasions. However, it is also true that sometimes it is not necessary to use them when
people involved in the face-to-face communication know each other well.
English addressing system is much simpler than Vietnamese one. It is because of
this that in English system, there exists a neutral dyad “I-You” which is used in
communication as “prefabricated units”. “Prefabricated units,” means that these units can
be used in any context and with anyone. It can do so because “I” and “you” do not include
in themselves any information of age, gender or family relationship, etc. In comparison
with English terms, the use of Vietnamese terms of address in actual communication is
more intricate. As Luong (1990:5) points out:

“Both the use and the meanings of

Vietnamese person-referring forms are saliently and inextricably linked to the power,
solidarity, and formality dimensions in the relations among the addressor, addressee, as
well as the referred parties.”. The appropriate choice of Vietnamese addressing forms to
utilize involve and consideration a wide range of sociolinguistic factors, such as age, sex,
social status, relationship( blood, intimate or distant), attitudes ( respectful or arrogant),


9

feelings of the speakers and addressee as well as the formality of the communication
context. English addressing forms do not include in themselves any information of

sociolinguistic factors or the formality of the communication.
2.2.2. Features of addressing forms
Addressing forms is one of the most obvious linguistic mean that mark and
establishes the type of relationship between interactants. Addressing forms are likely to be
different in communities because different languages have different linguistic resources to
express what is culturally permissible and meaningful. Moreover, speakers use address
terms to negotiate or transform a cultural system (Fitch 1991, Morford 1997) and
issues such as sexuality, age, ethnicity and religion can also be inferred and realized
from address terms (Afful 2006a).
Though many investigations have been conducted to study addressing terms in
different languages, the result of these studies verify the main points that addressing terms
is a markers of social relations, attitude, feeling or the implifiers of attitude toward
genders, age, relationship, etc.
2.2.3. Factors affecting the choice of addressing forms
Addressing terms have been studied since the1960s with a focus on the effects of
the interpersonal relationship and the social structure or ideology on the use of address
forms; the addressing variations between different languages and cultures, and the crosscultural features of politeness that appear in address forms in both spoken language and
written discourse (e.g. Bates &Benigni, 1975; Braun, 1988; Brown, 1965; Brown &
Gilman, 1989; Brown & Ford, 1961; Ervin-Tripp, 1972; Friedrich, 1966; Kess & Juricic,
1978; Kroger & Wood, 1992; Lambert & Tucker, 1976; Martiny, 1960. Brown and Gilman
1960) postulated that power and solidarity are two key factors determining the nonreciprocal and reciprocal

use of the addressing forms (T/V usage) respectively and

suggested that there is a correlation between the social structure or ideology and address
forms. Brown and Yule (1989:54) argued that “in different social contexts different terms
of address will be

used.”As Lyons (1977) pointed out, the use of address forms by a

10

social inferior to a social superior differs from the forms used between peers. These studies
have provided a good beginning for understanding how social factors affect the use of
addressing forms in diverse languages and how the addressing behaviours differ between
languages and cultures.
Wardhaugh (2006) also notes that a variety of social factors usually governs our
choices of terms. Among these social factors are the particular occasion, the social status or
rank of the other, sex, age, family relationships, occupational hierarchy, transactional
status, such as a doctor-patient relationship or priest-penitent, race, and the degree of
intimacy.
Brown and Ford (1964:238) explained: sometimes we use TLN; sometimes we use FN,
LN or Diminutives, or other variables of phonetics.
Wardhaugh (1986:262) concluded that:
Using first name of someone […] does not only express the solidarity, FN can be used
among the close colleagues (even they do not like each other) and FN even uses for the
officials, or when expressing the disdain or admiration.
Sharing the same concern about AFs, Brown and Ford (1964) stressed on the time
the interlocutors know each other and the solidarity. Holmes and Meyerhoff (2002, p.78)
pointed out many different ways of addressing people in English depending on the level of
politeness and closeness. Dewi (2008) held the view that people use address terms not
only to determine addressees but also to show formal and informal manners and
consideration for them. In other words, by employing a certain address term, the speaker
wants to express his or her feeling of respect, solidarity, and intimacy to the addressees. An
address term may be friendly, unfriendly, or neutral; respectful, disrespectful, or comradely
(Nordquist, 2009).
From the above points of view, it can be concluded that the use of addressing forms
depends on the power, solidarity, and formality of dimensions in the relation between

11

addresser and addressee, so changes in the character’s feelings and attitudes toward each
other or in their relationships are conveyed through changes in addressing forms.
2.3. The use of addressing terms to express informality in English and Vietnamese
2.3.1 The concept of informality
Different countries and cultures around the world have different conventions for
addressing people in a variety of situations. Studies on address terms focus on informality
and support the view that “speakers of a language share a set of “rule of address”-which
may not be consciously known or rigidly adhered to, but which may be inferred as
appropriate in specific situation” (Susan Ervin Tripp- 1969).
Addressing forms themselves are of two kinds: formal and informal. David Murray
Schneider (1980:102) defined the term “informality” in a very simple way, that is “the
informal terms informally used”. Larry Rios (2004:42) states that “When talking to a close
friend or family member you would be probably more intimate and informal”.
Actually, it is easy to realize that “informality” posters a warm or friendly
atmosphere and it is used in unofficial or casual context.
2.3.2. The use of addressing forms to express informality in English
In English, addressing system is not really simple. With I-YOU, we can
communicate without knowing about the age, gender, social status of the interlocutor, the
relationships between the hearer and the speaker, attitudes or feelings … Besides, there
exists many other address terms as follows:
-

Title alone (T): E.g. Professor, Dr., Mr., Miss. …

+ Social title: E.g.: Mr., Mrs., Madam …
+ Career title: E.g.: Professor, Doctor …
-

Title with last name (TLN): E.g. Mr. Clinton …

-

Last name alone (LN): E.g. Michael Nixon, Mary King …

-

First name (FN): E.g. Michael Nixon, Mary King …


12

-

Multiple names (MNs)

These two address terms are divided into three groups:
-

Mutual exchange of FN

-

Mutual exchange of TLN

-

Nonreciprocal exchange of TLN and FN

According to Holmes and Meyerhoff (2002, p.78) there are many different ways of
addressing people in English depending on the level of politeness and closeness. For
instance, Ervin-Trip (1972/1986) cites a real life example in which a white policeman, after
learning a black psychologist’s social identity, still insists on addressing him as “boy”
instead of ‘Dr.’ to insult him. Therefore, speakers, by manipulating the addressing forms
system, may position themselves and express their attitude of respect or contempt,
intimacy or distance, toward the addressee as well as position the addressee.
2.3.3 The use of addressing forms to express informality in Vietnamese.
The addressing system in Vietnamese, as in many Oriental languages, is very
complicated. In Vietnamese addressing system, there is no equivalent to I-YOU that is used
as a prefabricated unit in English. The addressing forms I-YOU in English do not imply
age, gender, social power, attitudes and feeling in it whereas in Vietnamese, the addressing
terms change according to age, gender, personality, social status, family relationship, the
degree of respect, familiarity, formality and intimacy between the speakers.
Phan (2006), has listed a number of terms that Vietnamese address each other, a
summary of which is as follows:
Personal pronouns especially second-person pronouns: bạn/các bạn; mày/chúng mày; bồ;
anh; em; trò; bay/tụi bay; etc.
Personal names: Hùng ơi; này Thụ; ông Phương; etc.
Professional titles: ông luật sư; anh trạm; cô giáo ơi; etc.
Formal titles: Ngài; Ông; ect.


13

Kinship terms: mẹ (má, u, bầm, mợ, bu, mạ, mệ…); bố (ba, cha, tía, thầy, cậu…); thím,
mợ, cô, dì, chú, cậu, bác, ông (nội, ngoại, cố, trẻ); bà (nội, ngoại, cố, trẻ, dì); con, cháu;
ect.
Terms of endearment: cưng; nhỏ; anh yêu; etc.

Insults: thằng gù; con câm; etc.
Other terms: cháo gà (“cháo gà! Lại đây!”);đồng nát (“đồng nát ơi!”); etc.
In Vietnamese, addressing forms vary with personal pronouns, kinship terms, status
terms, and proper nouns (Luong, 1990; Cooke, 1968; Nguyen,1999; Cu, 2001). For the
first person singular reference, there are five common

pronouns (i.e.toi, tao, ta,to,minh),

and five pronouns for plural forms with the addition of “chung” to the singular form
(i.e.chung toi, chung tao, chung to,chung minh). The third person reference includes four
commonly used pronouns in the singular form and three in the plural form. According to
Ngo (2006: 4), “the use of Vietnamese personal pronouns pragmatically implies either
intimacy/familiarity, among close friends of the same age, or a lack of deference and high
degree of arrogance towards the addressee and/or third‐party pronominal referent of
superior age”.
In conclusion, this section has briefly reviewed the background and the related
issues of addressing terms: Some basic points of language, culture and communication
relationship as well as English and Vietnamese addressing forms in expressing informality
has been touched upon.


14

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Coming up next is the detailed description of research design which is the use of
survey questionnaire to be more specific. How the series of questions was built, how
participants were chosen as well as different stages to obtain a sufficient collection of
reliable and valid data for the study will be investigated thoroughly.
3.1. Research questions revisited
To clarify the use of addressing forms to express informality, the study raised

specific questions below:
1. What are the major similarities and differences in using addressing terms to
express informality in English and Vietnamese?
2. What are the factors that affect the choice of AFs in expressing informality
in two cultures?
3.2 Selection of participants
The study was carried out with the participation of 50 respondents in total, 25
Vietnamese and 25 English native speakers respondents. The informants were asked to
give information about their age, and nationality (for English native speakers respondents).
because these factors may affect their choice of addressing forms. The information they
supply is useful for the explanation of differences in the responses.
By English respondents, the research aims at people from three English speaking
countries, which are the US, UK and Australia. The respondents were chosen randomly.
When carried out the survey, the researcher faced with the fact that it is not easy to
find 25 English native speakers as respondents. However, thanks to the helpfulness and
enthusiasm of many friends who are post- graduate students and human resources
managers, this was managed.
3.3. Data collection instrument
To answer the research questions, apart from personal experience as a Vietnamese
native speaker, the author decided to use questionnaire as the method of data collection.


15

In comparison with others research instrument, collecting data my means of questionnaire
is more objectively and at a relatively low cost. In order to obtain information from a
large number of participants in a short time, questionnaire is a quick and efficient
instrument.
The questionnaire served as a main data collection took for the study. They are
written in both English and Vietnamese. Two questionnaires were designed and delivered.

The questionnaires were designed with tables and ready parameters so that informants can
find it easier to tick or number. Besides, there are open questions to seek opinions on:
-

Possible addressing forms that express informality in two cultures.

-

Possible factors that affect the choice of AFs in two cultures.

-

The frequency of addressing forms use.

The questionnaires were made up of two parts: the respondents’ background information
and the questions.
The respondent’s background information: with two items for the Vietnamese
version and three items for the English version (one more item of nationality) the main
purpose of this part is to limit the research scope. For example, the information given by
the respondents with their responses would help the researcher to see if the gender has any
impacts on the choice of AFs or not.
The questionnaires:
In the first questionnaire:
-

Q1: to seek information on possible AFs that the respondent use to express
informality.

-

Q2: to provide respondents types of relations in which AFs are used

-

Q3: to provide respondent the categories of settings that respondents use the
AFs (based on the Q1)

In the second questionnaire:
-

Q1: provides the respondents with a list of AFs with which AFs are used and
categories of frequency that they used. (based on results of the Questionnaire 1)


16

-

Q2: the level influence of the factors on the choice of AFs.

3.4. Data collection procedures
The data collection was collected in two stages described as below:
Stage 1: designing questionnaires.
As stated above, there were two questionnaires, which were English and
Vietnamese versions. Then the two questionnaires were piloted with a group of six
respondents, three Vietnamese and three English native speakers. With the suggestion for
wording and expression, the questions were then edited so any ambiguities, obscurities and
confusions could be limited. Based on that, the second version was designed before
actually used.
Stage 2: delivering questionnaires 1

Questionnaire 1 was distributed to Vietnamese by the researcher herself. Before
completing the questionnaire, any unclear points were explained right away. An e-version
of the questionnaire was sent to English native speakers respondents by email (with the
help of people who are post- graduate students and human resources managers). These
respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire and sent back to the researcher via
internet.
Stage 3: designing and delivering questionnaires 2
Based on the data collected from questionnaire 1, questionnaire 2 was develop and
then distributed to two groups of respondents in the same manner.
3.5. Data analysis
In this stage the researcher encoded the respondents’ questionnaires then listed the
study points: first point (1st P): possible AFs, 2nd P: categories of relations (based on the
1st P), 3rd P: categories of settings (based on the 1st P)
4th P: list of AFs and frequency that respondents used. (base on the 1 st P in the first
questionnaire)
5th P: the factors affecting the choice of AFs


17

The Data collected were tabulated and calculated. The results then were analyzed to
find out the similarities and differences in using AFs to express informality between
cultures.


18

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.
4.1. Results from the questionnaires
4.1.1. Vietnamese responses

As indicated in figure 1, 60% of Vietnamese respondents were men and 40% were
female.
Question 1:AFs that may be used to express informality.
AFs categories
Pronouns (P)
Bare kinship term (Bk)
First name terms (F)
Nick name (T)
Terms of endearment (E)
Demonstrative words (D)

responses
N0
%
25
100
22
88
22
88
19
76
18
72
2
8

Rank
1

2
2
4
5
7

Table 1: Different addressing forms that may be used to express informality in Vietnamese


19

It is clearly seen in table 2 that when Vietnamese participants were asked to give
possible AFs to express informality, 100% participants use P to express informality. 60%
participants use nickname. 88% would address people with bare kinship term. 76% use
nick name. First name term is also used by 88%. 76% said that they would employ terms
of endearment, two out of twenty five participants give “đằng này”“đấy” “đằng ấy”,
“ấy” as demonstrative words to express informality.
Question 2: In which relations can those addressing forms be used.
Categories of relations
friend ↔friend
between siblings
colleagues
wife ↔ husband
staff worker → boss
neighbor ↔ neighbor
boss → staff worker
children → parents
teacher → student
others

Responses
N0
22
19
18
16
12
11
11
4

%
88
76
72
64
48
44
44
16
0

2

8

Rank
1
2
3

4
5
6
6
8
10
9

Table 2: Different relations in which addressing forms can be used to express informality
in Vietnamese
Table 2 demonstrates the findings on relations in which addressing forms can be
used to express informality. The table presents that 88% participants use these terms with
friends to express informality. 76% of the subjects use these terms with siblings. 72% use
these terms with colleagues. 64% use these terms in wife and husband relation. The figures
in the table indicate that out of the 10 relations in which AFs are used, 12 (48 %) of
respondents choose the relations of staff worker and boss, 11(44 %) choose the relation of
neighbor - neighbor and boss and staff worker while 4 (16%) tick the relation of children
- parents. None of the participants would use AFs in teacher – student relation and only 2
(8%) of respondents use AFs in other relations to express informality (relation with
boyfriend’s parents).


20

Question 3: In which of the settings below can addressing forms be used to express
informality
Categories of settings

Responses
N0 %

25 100

home

Rank
1

public setting (bus-stop, pub,
supermarket...)
school/ university

22

88

2

17

68

3

work place

14

64

4

library

4

16

5

others (please specify)

3

12

6

None

0

7

Table 3: Different settings in which addressing forms can be used to express informality in
Vietnamese
As shown in table 3, all the respondents agreed that home is the setting where terms
expressing informality are often used. The results show that 88% of the subjects use AFs at
public settings. 68% use informal addressing forms at school or university while 56% use
AFs to express informality at work place. 16% use AFs to express informality at library
and 12% use these terms in other settings (family party).

Question 4 : How often are these AFs used?


21

AFs categories
very often
Responses
N0 %
Pronouns (P)
Bare kinship term (Bk)
First name terms (F)
Nick name (T)
Terms of endearment
(Te)
None

13
8
11
4
3

52
32
44
16
12
0

Frequency
often
sometimes
Respons Responses
0
es
%
0
N %
12 48
0
17 68
0
12 48
2
8
7 28
5
20
10 40
7
28
0

4

rarely
Respons
es

N0 %
0
0
0
8 32
3 12

16

never
Respons
e
N0 %
0
0
0

0

2

8

21

84

Table 4: The frequency with which addressing forms are used to express
informality in Vietnamese
The statistics in table 4 show the frequency with which AFs are used to express

informality: 52% of the participants use P very often while 48% of informants often use P.
The table indicates that 100% of the subjects very often or often employ Bk: 32%
very often and 68% often use Bk.
The results of the table show that 44% of the subjects very often use F, while 48%
of the subjects often use these terms. Only 8% sometimes use F. None of the subjects never
or rarely use F. Terms of endearment were very often used by only 12%.
Question 5: What factors can possibly affect the choice of addressing forms.
Categories of factors
Age
Length of time you have known him/her
Gender
Manner of communication (formal, informal…)
Occupation
Setting (at home, at work…)
Social status
Finance power
Others (please specify)
None

Responses
N0
25
25
25
25

%
100
100
100

100
0

24
13
7
4

96
52
28
16
0

Rank
1
1
1
1
9
5
6
7
9
10


22

Table 5: Different factors that can affect the choice of addressing forms in expressing

informality in Vietnamese
Table 5 shows that 100% of respondents choose “age”, “length of time you have
known him/her”, “gender”, and “manner of communication (formal, informal…)” to be
the most dominant factors affecting the choice of AFs among the 10 given ones. Besides, in
using AFs to express informality, “setting” with 94% of the participants is also a factor that
has certain impact on the choice of AFs. The figures in table 5 also indicate that three other
factors that have impact on the choice of AFs are “social status”, “finance power” and
“others” (purpose of the conversation). 52% chose “social status” as a factor that
determined the choice of AFs.
Question 6: To what extent do these factors affect the choice of addressing forms?
Categories of factors

Frequency
Much
Responses
N0 %
22
88

Age
Length of time you have known
him/her
Manner of communication
Setting
(at home, at work…)
Gender
Social status
Finance power
Education

Not much
Responses
N0 %
0

16

64

5

25
20

100
80

2

8

3

4
15
21
14

16
60

84
56

5
5
2
6

16
5
2
5

64
20
8
20

20

Little
Responses
N0 %
2 12
4

16

0

0
12
20
20
8
24

Table 6: The level influence of the factors on the choice of AFs
As can be seen in the table, answering the question “To what extent do these factors
affect the choice of addressing forms”, ‘age’ 88% chose ‘much’, 12% chose item ‘little’.
64% answered that the choice of AFs is affected much by the length of time while 20% do
not affect much and 16% affects little.100% answered that the choice of AFs is affected by
manner of communication (formal, informal…). 80% of informants answered that the


23

choice of AFs is affected much by ‘setting’, 8% does not affect much and 12% affects
little. 64% of informants answered that the choice of AFs is affected much by gender, 16%
does not affect much and 20% affects little. 20% of participants said that ‘social status’
does not affect much the choice of AFs, 60% does not affect much and only 20% of the
subjects said that ‘social status’ affects little. Only 8% of participants show that the choice
of AFs is affected much by ‘finance power’ while 84% does not affect much by it and only
4% affects little. 20% of participants answered that ‘education’ does not affect much, 56%
does not affect much while only 24% affect little the choice of AFs.

4.1.2. English responses
Respondents’ background information:

24

The two figures show the number of English native speakers participants of the study
as well as their feature in terms of gender. English native speaker participants come from
three countries (UK, USA and Australia). There was only a small difference in gender.
Thus it can be assumed that these respondents can represent the culture patterns of the
English speaking countries.
Figure 2 indicates that of 25 English native speakers, female comprises a smaller
proportion (40%) than male.
Question 1: AFs that may be used to express informality


25

Following is the summary of English native speakers’ answers to this question:
AFs categories

Responses
Rank
N0 %
Pronouns
13
52
1
Bare kinship term
12
48
5
First name terms
15

60
4
Bare title
7
28
6
Standard short form of name
20
80
2
Nick name
7
28
6
Slang
3
12
8
Terms of endearment
16
64
3
Table 7: Different addressing forms that may be used to express informality in English
It is clearly seen in table 7 that the most popular addressing forms that English
native speakers participants use to express informality (which was agreed by all
respondents) is “pronoun”. The “standard short form of name” is chose by 80%. Closely
followed is “terms of endearment” (64%) The “first name terms” is also an addressing
form that is usually used. Among different addressing terms suggested by participants, both
“bare title” and “nick name” are less commonly used with 28% for each. One interesting
thing revealed by these figures is that women seem to use more addressing forms to

express informality than men.
Question 2: In which of the relations below can those addressing forms be used.
Categories of relations
parents → children
children → parents
between siblings
wife ↔ husband
friend ↔friend
neighbor ↔ neighbor
colleagues
Boss → staff worker
staff worker → boss
teacher → student
student → teacher
others

Responses
N0
%
22
88
21
84
20
80
22
88
12
48
8

32
2
8
0
0
1
4
0
2
8

Rank
1
3
4
1
5
6
7
10
10
9
10
7