A study of the use of addressing terms in english and vietnamese families

NGUYỄN THÙY LINH

VIETNAM ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
GRADUATE ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

Nguyễn Thùy Linh

ENGLISH LANGUAGE

A STUDY OF THE USE OF ADDRESSING
TERMS IN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE FAMILIES

MA THESIS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE

COURSE: 2016 – 2018

HANOI, 2018


VIETNAM ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
GRADUATE ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

Nguyễn Thùy Linh

A STUDY OF THE USE OF ADDRESSING
TERMS IN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE FAMILIES
Field
Code

: English Language
: 8220201

Supervisor: Nguyễn Thị Việt Nga, Ph.D.

HANOI, 2018


DECLARATION BY AUTHOR

I hereby declare that this thesis was of my own composition except
where proper use of quotes and references were indicated, and that this thesis
has not been submitted for the award of any other degrees.
Author’s Signature

Nguyễn Thùy Linh

Approved by
SUPERVISOR

Nguyễn Thị Việt Nga, Ph.D.
Date:…………………………….

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe innumerable thanks to people who give me support and
assistance in completing this research.

The first goes to my supervisor Nguyễn Thị Việt Nga, Ph.D, whose
considerable encouragement and valuable feedback kept me from losing
confidence when I got frustrated with my thesis. My project could not have
been completed without her great patience and sustained guidance.
I am deeply grateful to my family who always give me warmth and
support.
Thanks also to my friends who helped me a lot with my data collection.
Thanks to all.

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION BY AUTHOR..................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................... vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE THESIS ........................... viii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1
1.1 Rationale...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Aims of the study ........................................................................................ 2
1.3 Research questions ...................................................................................... 2
1.4 Scope of the study ....................................................................................... 3
1.5 Significance of the study ............................................................................. 3
1.6 Methodology ............................................................................................... 3
1.7 Structure of the study .................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................... 5
2.1 Culture, language and communication........................................................ 5
2.2 Relationship and solidarity in the family .................................................... 8

2.3 Addressing terms ....................................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Definitions of addressing terms ............................................................. 11
2.3.2 Features of addressing terms .................................................................. 12
2.3.3 Addressing terms in English .................................................................. 14
2.3.4 Addressing terms in Vietnamese............................................................ 19
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 34
3.1 Research question revisited ....................................................................... 34
3.2 Selection of participants ............................................................................ 34
3.3 Data collection instrument ........................................................................ 34
3.4 Data collection procedures ........................................................................ 35

iii


CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................ 37
4.1 Results of the study ................................................................................... 37
4.1.1 Vietnamese responses ............................................................................ 37
4.1.2 English responses ................................................................................... 42
4.2. Summary of the findings .......................................................................... 46
4.2.1 About the results collected from Vietnamese participants .................... 47
4.2.2 About the results collected from English participants ........................... 47
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 52
5.1 Recapitulation............................................................................................ 52
5.2 Concluding remarks .................................................................................. 53
5.3 Implications ............................................................................................... 54
5.4 Limitations and suggestions for further studies ........................................ 58
REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 60
APPENDIX 1. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................. I
APPENDIX 2. BẢN ĐIỀU TRA .................................................................. IV

iv


ABSTRACT
This study is carried out to investigate the area of addressing terms
between members in families in Vietnamese and English culture from major
perspectives namely the common terms and the affecting factors on the choice
of the terms. There are 200 people who are from different Vietnamese and
English families take part in this study. A questionnaire and an interview are
chosen as the data collection instruments. According to the results of the
research, in Vietnamese the addressing terms used with the highest frequency
in the mentioned relationship are “kinship term”. There are many factors
affecting the choice of addressing terms such as: “personality”, “occasion”
and “mood”. Additionally, “age gap” and “position” is also considered by the
Vietnamese while the English pay attention to the “personality”, “occasion”
and “mood”. After analyzing and synthesizing the statistics, the researcher
discussed and recommended some implications along with suggestions for
further research. Last but not least, it is much hoped to improve teaching
language – not only in the field of addressing terms but also in any language
field in general.

v


LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 : Kinship terms as address terms

23

Table 2 : Different ATs are used in the families

38

Table 3 : Frequency of different ATs used in Vietnamese families

39

Table 4 : Degree of influence of possible factors on the choice of
addressing terms used in Vietnamese families

40

Table 5 : Different ATs are used in the families

43

Table 6 : Frequency of different ATs used in English families

44

Table 7 : Degree of influence of possible factors on the choice of
addressing terms used in English families
Table 8 : Major differences between Vietnamese and English with
regards to popular addressing terms and categories

45

50

Table 9 : Major differences between Vietnamese and English with
regards to influential factors on the choice ATs between
members in the families

vi

51


LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1

: Vietnamese participants’ background information

37

Figure 2

: English participants’ division

42

Figure 3

: English participants’ information

42

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE THESIS

ATs

: addressing terms

FN

: first name

LN

: last name

T

: title

TLN

: title with last name

viii


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale

One of the earliest sociolinguistic studies of speech behavior among
speakers of English concerns the way people in the English speaking
countries address one another. Forms of address are important for effective
and successful communication and have long been considered a very salient
indicator of status of relationships. One can use different forms of address to
show his respects or fondness towards other people, or to insult or depreciate
them. How to address people appropriately needs the taking of several factors
into consideration, such as the social status or rank of the other, sex, age,
family relationship, occupational hierarchy transactional status, race or degree
of intimacy. There do exist general rules of address forms in English, but
because address forms are social phenomenon, it varies on different occasions
and the rules do not always take effect, just as Philipsen and Huspek said:
“Personal address is a sociolinguistic subject par excellence. In every
language and society, every time one person speaks to another, there is
created a host of options centering around whether and how persons will be
addressed, named,…to those who interpret them, are systematic not random.
Such systematicity in language behavior, whether of use or interpretation, is
universal, although what elements comprise the personal address system and
what rules govern its deployment, vary across context. And such variation in
structure is, according to the extant empirical literature, correlated with social
ends and social contexts of language use. From this view, personal address is
a systematic, variable, and social phenomenon, and these feature of it make it
a sociolinguistic variable, and social phenomenon, and these features of it

1


make it a sociolinguistic variable of fundamental importance.” (Philipsen and
Huspek 1985:94).
Mastering a new language does not only the ability to master its system

of linguistics forms but also the ability to use them appropriately. This is
because languages differ from one another not only in their system of
phonology, syntax and lexicon but also in rules of speaking. Addressing is, to
various extents, formulaic, culture – specific and routinized in different
languages, including Vietnamese and English. The selection of appropriate
addressing terms largely depends on age, gender, position, qualification,
power, the context of interaction and other social factors. Addressing is also a
product of culture and history.
In Vietnam, especially in the Vietnam family, all of the members in the
family are usually aware of the fact that a suitable address terms can establish
and maintain a good relationship. With all the above necessity, I find this
topic so inspiring that I decide to carry out a study on the use of addressing
terms by the members in the family. It is hoped that the research would
contribute to raise the awareness of cultural and language differences in the
use of addressing terms in English – Vietnamese.
1.2 Aims of the study
To investigate major similarities and differences in using addressing
terms in English and Vietnamese and the factors which affect the choice of
addressing terms between members in Vietnamese – English families.
1.3 Research questions
The research questions are:

2


Question 1: What are the possible addressing terms that members in families
call each other in English and Vietnamese?
Question 2: What are the possible factors that affect the choice of ATs
between members in the families in the two cultures?
Question 3: What are the similarities and differences between English and

Vietnamese in ATs used in the families?
1.4 Scope of the study
The study focuses on the addressing terms used by members in English
and Vietnamese families. The address terms will be analyzed in some specific
situations in their families to discover how members address each other in
English and Vietnamese. In the study, the author also studies nuclear family
in the rural areas.
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 addressing terms in English so that
English learners can understand deeply addressing terms and can be confident
in using addressing terms successfully.
1.6 Methodology
This is a qualitative and quantitative study, therefore I use the
following steps to conduct the research.

3


-Studying relevant publications about background theories on
addressing terms in English and Vietnamese (mostly from the Internet, books
and magazines).
- Conducting survey questionnaires. The survey was carried out among
200 people from Vietnamese and English families randomly.
1.7 Structure of the study
Chapter 1, the introduction, includes the rationale, the aims of the
study, research questions, scope of the study, significance of the study,
methodology and the structure of the study.

Chapter 2, the literature review, is the most important part in the study.
It has theoretical background of culture, language and communication which
is designed to serve as the basic foundation of data analysis. Chapter 3 is
methodology to study. Chapter 4 discusses the addressing terms used by
Vietnamese and English family members.
Chapter 5, the recapitulation, concluding remarks, implications,
limitations and suggestions for further study. In this part, some concise
summaries on the use of addressing are drawn. Simultaneously, the chapter
also put forward some implications for the addressing in communication in
English and Vietnamese. A statement of unsolved problems and suggestions
for further research beyond the limits of the paper is also included in this
chapter.

4


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Culture, language and communication
Culture, language and communication are the three concepts which
are closely related. Before being examined in the relationships with the
others, each is expected to be perceived in a thorough way.
At first, we consider the concept of culture. Social scientists have
been interested in culture and how it influences people for many 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). According to Roohul – Amini (1989),
“Culture has multifarious meaning. Culture meant farming” (p.15). It is used
everywhere as rural culture, urban culture. Today, in every field, in

humanities, every research requires a general view of culture. It is used in
archaeology, linguistics, history, psychology, sociology and etc. It is even
said that man is an animal with culture. That is to say, the factor which
differentiates the human being’s behavior from the behavior of animal is
culture (Mesbahe Yazdi, 2005).
There are about two or three hundred and even more definitions for
culture. With respect to the definition of culture, Edward Sapir (1956) says
that culture is a system of behaviors and models that depend on
unconsciousness. Rocher (1972/ 2004) an anthropologist, believes that
culture is a connection of ideas and feelings accepted by the majority of
people in a society (p.142). Undeniably, culture is learned and shared within

5


social groups and is conveyed by nongenetic ways (The American Heritage,
Science Dictionary 2005). Taylor (1974), an anthropologist, says in his
Primitive Culture that culture in a complex definition includes belief, art,
skills, moralities, laws, traditions and behavior that an individual, as a
member of a society, gets from his own society. Goodenough (1996) claims
that culture is a systematic association of people that have a certain way of
life. Therefore, culture is the only distinction between human and animals.
Of course, animals live in association but it is a special kind. There are,
indeed, a lot of sharing characteristics between human beings and animals
such as associative life, responsibility toward children and so on. But culture
is for men, only T.S.Eliot (1961) considers culture as a capital and means for
developing all cultures and knowledge in order to terminate all human
sharing problems.
Obviously, there are many ways to define culture. Culture, in short,
can be understood as a shared learned behavior that is transmitted from one

generation to another independently of biological genes, for the purpose of
promoting individual and social survival, adaptation and growth and
development.
Secondly, communication can be defined as the process of
transmitting information and common understanding from one person to
another (Keyton, 2011). The word communication is derived from the Latin
word, communis, which means common. The definition underscores the fact
that unless a common understanding results from the exchange of
information, there is not communication. “Communication” which is defined
by Richard, is the exchange of ideas, information between two or more
persons. Communication is an effective tool for people to cooperate with
6


each other in the process of development. Communication is described as an
act of interchanging ideas, information or message from one person or place
to another, via words or signs which are understood to both the parties.
Communication is vital for the organization because it is a principle means
by which organizational members work with each other. Communication is a
pervasive process, it is a two way activity, which consists of seven major
elements, for example, sender, encoding, message, channel, receiver,
decoding and feedback.
Thirdly, language is described as a tool which helps in the
transmission of feelings and thoughts, from one person to another. It is the
mean of expression of what a person feels or thinks, through arbitrarily
produced symbols or sounds, such as words (spoken or written), signs,
sounds, gesture, posture, and so on that convey a certain meaning.
Language is sole medium of communication between two persons, through
which they can share their views, ideas, opinions and emotions with one
another. It is aimed at making sense of complex and abstract thought and

that also without any confusion.
Language plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining what we
call culture, including conventions, habits and interpretive practice of
individuals and communities. Through language we create and share with
others identities, categories, attitudes, values and belief structures. Language
is not only a rule – governed system with its own internal rule and logic, but
a system of tools for the constitution of social life and culture.
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

7


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 way of living and thinking. Brown (1994) describes 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 so that one cannot separate, the
two without losing the significance of either language or culture (p. 165). 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 human
communicate

perfectly

using

language

means.

Other

means

of

communication have several weaknesses thus human language is the best
means of reflecting culture through communication.
2.2 Relationship and solidarity in the family
“As are families, so is society” – in the American author William
Thayer’s word (quoted in Samovar (2007, p.40)).
In Vietnamese there is a saying literally translated as: family is the
basic unit of the society, which nurtures a man’s soul from the cradle to the
grave. The African say that “a person who has children never dies”. The

8


American parents often teach their children “the apple does not fall far from
the tree”, which implies that a man, no matter where he does, no matter what
he does, would never live separately from his family. That is to say how

important the family is to a life. In his book titled, “Communication between
cultures”, Samovar (2007) has noted that family is “one of the oldest and
most fundamental institutions of all human, which is a universal experience
– found in every culture” (p.40). In other words, family is at the heart of a
society’s survival.
At a deep – seated level, family can be perceived as “a group of
intimates, who generate a sense of home and group identity, complete with
strong ties of loyalty and emotion and an experience of a history and future”
(Noller and Fitzpatrick, 1993). It is in the family that a man starts his life,
initially exposed to love and hate; give and take and is protected after a
chain of failure and success of an individual in the society. Here never is he
alone.
Family is the manifestation of the society where all social norms and
cultural values are transmitted to each member of the family through
communication and language since childhood. When the children grow up to
virtual citizens and a new family is established, those cultural values
continue to be transmitted to next generations. That process keeps on and on
inexhaustibly, demonstrating the very first and most significant function of
the family, which is to transmit important cultural values.
Another

function

of

family

is

to

enhance

communication

proficiencies. Not only does family introduce to the babies the language of
their culture but it also teaches the babies initial communicating skills,

9


which are gradually built up and improve through observation, imitation and
practices (with other members of the family). “From the family, we first
learn how to create, maintain and end relationships, how to express
ourselves, how to argue and display affection…” (Gamble, T.K. and
Gamble, M.W., 2005, p.422).
All things considered, the two basic functions of family have
described the relationship between family and culture as well as family and
communication, in which family plays the roles of a connector helping to
preserve cultural values and better communicative competence over
generations, from then, cultural identities are step by step framed and
constructed family.
There are, in general, two types of family existing in different
cultures: nuclear family of a single parent or parents together with one or
more than one child and extended family with normally grandparents and
relatives. The former is more popular in Occidental countries where child –
rearing and individualism are centered; the latter is maintained in Oriental
cultures as the continuity of deep – rooted tradition where hierarchy and
collectivism take the priorities.
Nevertheless, whatever type a family is, it still spins around a chief

relationship – the relationship between wife and husband, children and
parents. Undoubtedly, it determines the solidity of the family’s structure,
guaranteeing the close links between other relationships in the family.

10


2.3 Addressing terms
2.3.1 Definitions of addressing terms
According to Jack C. Richards, J. Platt and H. Platt (1999) addressing
systems (addressing forms, addressing terms) are understood as, “The word
or words used to address to somebody in speech or writing. The way in
which people address one another usually depends on their age, sex, social
group and personal relationship” (p.6)

kinship terms to call the above

generation, use the first name to call the below generation. In Vietnam,
people use almost the kinship terms to address in family.
According to Khang, N.V (2008), ‘addressing terms are words used to
call self and others, which used to address call the hearer or speaker in the
communication. In comparison with English terms, the use of Vietnamese
terms of address in actual communication is more intricate’.
Luong (1990) states that 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. Actually, the appropriate choice of
Vietnamese addressing forms involves a consideration of wide range of
sociolinguistic factors such as age, sex, social status, relationship (blood,
intimate or distant), attitudes (respectful or arrogant), feelings of the speakers

and addressee. English addressing forms, unlike Vietnamese ones, content
“prefabricated units”, such as I, WE and YOU in communication. It means
that these units can be used in any context and with everyone.
If in English “YOU” is used as second person pronoun in singular and
plural, for example, Sir, Mr. Michael, Daisy, etc. In Vietnam second person

11


pronouns are used “bạn, anh, chị…” in singular, but in plural we have to add
numerals before them, for instance, các bạn, các anh, các chị… In some
languages, such as Chinese dialects and Japanese, words expressing
relationship, for example, father, mother, aunt are used as address forms to
show respect.
The factors that determine addressing forms vary from culture to
another. Brown and Gilman (1960) show that the determining factors that
may be most common to many cultures are speaker – hearer power
differences, interactional situations and how people are introduced to each
other. The address forms of a language are arranged into a complex address
system which its own rules that need to be acquired if a person wants to
communicate appropriately.
2.3.2 Features of addressing terms
According to Murphy (1988), ATs reflect a relationship’s nature and
status, also the degree of affection. They are, moreover, a kind of projection
that helps to reflect the feelings of the speaker towards one another and to
project the speakers’ perception or belief on their relationship onto their
partner. These words or phrases used for the purpose of identification and
expression of ideas (Manjulashi, 2004) turn out to be an indicator for power,
difference, solidarity, social relationship, affective distance, degree of
intimacy and communicative distance. This role of an indicator of ATs has

been elaborated in detail in some inter-language studies of Poynton (1989),
Brown and Ford (1964), Nguyen Quang (2002), Wardhaudh (1986), among
others with the five sub – roles of ATs in general:

12


The markers of social relation and family relation within a
particular society.
The markers of attitude and feeling
The occupants of statuses
An attempts to manipulate social relations
The implifiers of attitude towards genders, age, relationship and
so on.
Being classic sociolinguistics in the area of ATs across cultures, Brown
and Gilman (1960) has concluded that the choice and the use of ATs are
determined by two aspects: power semantic (formality and distance) and
solidarity semantic (familiarization and intimacy). Since then, a good number
of studies on the same field but in a broader scope and depth have been
offered namely the study of Brown and Ford (1964), stressing on the intimacy
and status, Hymes (1974) with social distance, Price (1971) accessing to the
subject matter from level of formality and so on. The outcomes of these
papers have indicated a variety of factors affecting the choice of different
ATs, which is synthesized and presented comprehensively by Wardhaugh
(1986). Wardhaugh points out that this variety of social factors include the
particular occasions, social status or rank, gender, age, family relationship,
occupational hierarchy (employer – employee relationship for instance), race,
degree of intimacy and settings (at home or in public). Consequently, the
same person may be addressed in various ways regarding the specific context
that person is put into. A literature teacher named Nguyễn Thị Mai is

expected to be addressed as “cô” (teacher Mai) by her student’s parents,
“Mai” by hear colleagues and if in the communicating environment there

13


exists another person with the same name, the teacher should be called by
nicknames like Mai A or Mai văn (Mai literature), Similarly, in English,
Doctor John Smith would be addressed as “Doctor” by his patients, “John” by
his friends, “honey” by his wife, “sir” by a policeman who fines him for
dangerous driving.
2.3.3 Addressing terms in English
Brown and Ford (1961) remark that in English proper names constitute
a nearly universal language of relationship; the semantic dimensions involved
serve to relate to one another or all of the members of the society.
People address one another reveals their relationship, attitude and
feelings towards each other. English addressing terms shows a strong
tendency of socialization. To express solidarity semantic or intimacy the
English speakers often call the hearer with first name, call each other with
title and last name in formal situation.
In English people do not use any addressing terms at all when they are
in doubt how to address another, for example, Good morning or good
afternoon… However, in other languages when we avoid using in order that
which is impolite, for instance, in France you cannot say Bonjour, Au revoir,
Merci or Pardon without attaching an ATs.
Firth (1972) said that addressing forms do not only vary across culture
but also according to specific type of social situation: individual or group
confrontation; formality or informality of the occasion; prior acquaintance or
not of the party; conventional emotional quality ascribed to the occasion; face
– to - face or distant communication.

14


According to Evans – Pritchard (cited in Hymes, 1964) remarks that the
ways a speaker addresses people around him, ‘symbolize his social position in
the relation to the people around him, so that, by the use of one or other of
them, the status of the speaker to the person addressed is readily recognized’.
Under the influence of individualism, English people think highly of
personal ability and achievement more than relationship. They seldom use
kinship terms to refer to non – family members because it may be considered
quite rude. For example, addressing an older woman “grandma” might cause
offense, because in English culture, “old” means aged and useless. On the
contrary, they usually use general social addressing forms to refer to those
non – family members.
With I – YOU we can communicate without knowing the age, gender,
social status of the hearer, the relationships between the hearer and speaker,
attitude and feelings that speakers need to show through addressing forms.
Besides, people also avoid using personal pronouns, title, names, addressing
forms, kinship terms, kinship terms with first name… They use these
addressing forms to show the different emotion and attitude.
Basically, the following terms are used as popular addressing terms in
English:
1. Title alone (T): Mr.; Mrs.; Ms.; Dr.; Professor; Madam …
Social title: Mr.; Mrs.; Madam…
Career title: Professor; Doctor;
In social communication, it is inevitable to use social addressing forms to
show politeness or respect. Therefore, it is very important to understand
different meanings that social addressing forms have. Social addressing forms

15