(Luận văn thạc sĩ) a study on teacher talk in EFL classrooms at backan education college

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE
POST- GRADUATE DEPARTMENT
**************

NGUYỄN THỊ THU HÀ

PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN VIETNAMESE AND
AMERICAN ENGLISH
(FROM CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE)
(ĐẠI TỪ NHÂN XƯNG TRONG TIẾNG VIỆT VÀ TIẾNG
ANH MỸ, XÉT TỪ GÓC ĐỘ VĂN HOÁ)
M.A. Minor Thesis
Field: Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15

HÀ NỘI – 2009


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE
POST- GRADUATE DEPARTMENT
**************

NGUYỄN THỊ THU HÀ

PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN VIETNAMESE AND
AMERICAN ENGLISH
(FROM CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE)
(ĐẠI TỪ NHÂN XƯNG TRONG TIẾNG VIỆT VÀ TIẾNG
ANH MỸ, XÉT TỪ GÓC ĐỘ VĂN HOÁ)

M.A. Minor Thesis
Field:
Linguistic
Code:
60 22 15
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Văn Độ

HÀ NỘI – 2009


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY..........................................................................................i
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………..…………..........….iii
ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………...………...…........…..v
PART 1: INRODUCTION………………………………………………………..……... ......1
1. Rationale ........................................................................................................................... 1
2. Aims and Significance of the study .................................................................................. 1
3. Methods of the study ........................................................................................................ 2
4. Scope of the study ............................................................................................................. 2
5. Design of the sudy ............................................................................................................. 3
PART 2: DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................................4
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background .................................................................................... 4
1.1. Culture and language ..................................................................................................... 4
1.2. Speech acts ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.3. Linguistic politeness ....................................................................................................... 7
1.4. Overview of the Vietnamese and American English addressing system.......................... 8
1.4.1. Overview of the Vietnamese addressing system ....................................................... 8

1.4.1.1. Personal pronouns ............................................................................................ 8
1.4.1.2. Kinship terms ...................................................................................................12
1.4.1.3. Status terms .....................................................................................................13
1.4.1.4. Personal names................................................................................................13
1.4.2. Overview of the American English addressing system .............................................13
1.4.2.1. Personal pronouns ...........................................................................................13
1.4.2.2. Kinship terms ...................................................................................................15
1.4.2.3. Status terms .....................................................................................................16
1.4.2.4. Personal names................................................................................................16
Chapter 2: The study...........................................................................................................17
2.1. Methodology and procedures .........................................................................................17


iv

2.1.1. The survey questionnaire .........................................................................................17
2.1.2. The informants ........................................................................................................17
2.1.3. Data collection ........................................................................................................18
2.2. Data analysis: Findings and Discussion ........................................................................18
2.2.1. Consideration of selecting addressing terms ............................................................19
2.2.2. Frequencies of using addressing terms .....................................................................20
2.2.3. Frequencies of combining personal pronoun “I” with other addressing terms...........23
2.2.3.1. “I - title” ( Tôi – chức danh) ............................................................................24
2.2.3.2. “I – kinship term”(Tôi – từ thân tộc )...............................................................24
2.2.3.3. “I- first name” (Tôi – tên riêng).......................................................................25
2.2.3.4. “I – last name” (Tôi – tên họ) ..........................................................................25
2.2.4. Factor (factors) greatly impacting on the way people address at work......................26
2.2.5. Trends of using the dyad “I - You” at work .............................................................28
2.3. Limitations of the study .................................................................................................29
PART 3: CONCLUSION........................................................................................................32

1. Main similarities and differences in using addressing terms and personal pronouns of
the Vietnamese and American at work...............................................................................30
1.1. Similarities .....................................................................................................................30
1.2. Differences.....................................................................................................................31
2. Implications for English language teaching and translation strategies .........................33
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................36
APPENDIXES.............................................................................................................................I


v

ABBREVIATIONS
ELT

English language teaching

F.A

Frequencies of addressing

FN

Fist name

FuN

Full name

KT

Kinship terms

LN

Last name

N

Number

NAT

Neutral addressing term

T

Title

TLN

Title + Last name


1

PART 1: INTRODUCTION
1. RATIONALE
Addressing form which is an interesting language phenomenon is a significant tool
expressing interlocutors‟ attitude, ideas and power, etc. in communication. There are
numerous addressing systems in different languages and different cultures as well. One must

admit that Vietnamese addressing system is much more interesting, delicate and complicated
than that of American English. Therefore, not only do foreigners but Vietnamese also get
confused when using addressing forms to communicate with each other. Vietnamese
addressing system expresses the most clearly Vietnamese culture features that originate from
traditional sense of family and community. As American English addressing system,
Vietnamese one classifies into three main types, one of which is personal pronouns. However,
the usage of personal pronouns between the Vietnamese and American is dissimilar because of
different cultural features. In fact, the first personal pronoun “I” of American English has its
counterparts in the Vietnamese system dozens of linguistic forms of various grammatical
subclasses, which causes difficulties for both the Vietnamese and the American while using
this dyad. With the hope of helping Vietnamese learners of English in general, and
Vietnamese who work with speaking English foreigners avoid culture shock when interacting;
the author has decided to investigate the use of the first personal pronoun in Vietnamese and
American English from cultural perspective.
2. AIMS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The aims of the study are:
- To present basic characteristics of the Vietnamese and American English addressing
system
- To concentrate on how the Vietnamese and American address as well as factors
affecting on their choice of using addressing terms


2

- To investigate culture features of Vietnam and America lying in the use of the first
personal pronoun “I” at work. This is both significant and useful for Vietnamese learners of
English and foreigners who have little knowledge of Vietnamese culture.
- To find out similarities and differences in the use of the first personal pronoun “I” of
the Vietnamese and American.
Accordingly, all findings of this study, expected for being implicated in translation

strategies and making a useful contribution to the further study, help Vietnamese learners of
English avoid miscommunication and misunderstanding while working with Americans.
So, the study is aimed to solve these two research questions:
1. What are similarities and differences in the use of addressing terms in general and
the first personal pronoun “I” in particular of the Vietnamese and American?
2. What are cultural features lying in the use of first personal pronoun “I” to address?
3. METHODS OF THE STUDY
The study begins by exploring theoretical background relating to the topic. The
relationship between cultures and languages is the first hypothesis that confirms a fact that
language cannot separate from culture and via verse. Speech acts, especially the illocutionary
acts, is the second hypothesis that makes contribution to addressing terms. The third
hypothesis is politeness that is extremely important communication strategy cannot be
ignored, especially in the case of using addressing terms. Besides, interlocutor‟s parameters
like age, gender, or occupational status, etc. also impacts on the way they use addressing
terms.
With the data collected from American and Vietnamese informants, the researcher has
necessary linguistic input and reliable information of addressing and the use of personal
pronouns. Then, the researcher takes advantages of analyzing and statistic methods to analyze
collected data. On that basis, we draw out conclusion and some general comments about
similarities and differences in using addressing term and personal pronouns between the
Vietnamese and American by synthesizing method.


3

4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
A great number of studies focus on characteristics of Vietnamese addressing forms in
comparison with that of other cultures. However, investigating the first personal pronoun “I”
in Vietnamese and American English is still a new topic in Vietnam. Therefore, the study
aimed to concentrate on the impacts of socio-cultures on the way the Vietnamese and

American address, especially the usage of personal pronouns, the combination between the
first personal pronoun “I” with other addressing terms and trends of using the first personal
pronoun “I”at work place as well, which are useful for Vietnamese learners of English who
have difficulties in using addressing forms in general and the first personal pronoun while
working with Americans.
Addressing is an interesting phenomenon in cross – cultural communication.
Therefore, analysizing similarities and differences of using the first personal pronoun “I”
between the Vietnamese and American at work from cultural perspective are seriously
analyzed.
5. DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The study will consist of three main parts: Introduction, Development and Conclusion.
Part 1: Introduction consists of Rationale; Aims and significances of the study;
Methods of the study; Scope of the study and Design of the study.
Part 2: Development concludes two chapters. Chapter 1 presents Theoretical
background which will provide Culture and Languages, Speech acts, Linguistic politeness and
Overview of the Vietnamese and American English addressing system that lay the foundations
for the next chapter. In chapter 2, the findings of the study will be presented and discussed.
Part 3: Conclusion presents similarities and differences in using addressing forms in
general and the first personal pronoun in particular as well as implications for English
language teaching and translation strategies.


4

PART 2: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THE LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. CULTURE AND LANGUAGE
Culture has multiple meanings in different disciplines and different contexts.
According to Nguyen Van Do (2004:64), culture is a system of values and non-values,
standards and non-standards existing through the ways people in a society behave to the

nature, social environment and themselves in the process of establishing and developing that
society. Another adequate definition about culture which is cited in Larry A. Samovar (2007)
is Triandis‟s. In his point of view, culture is a set of human-made objective and subjective
elements that have increased the probability of survival in the past and satisfied the
participants in a society and shared among those who can communicate with each other
because they have a common language and live in the same time and place. Hence, language,
religion, values, traditions and customs as well are hearts of culture.
Actually, language is a part of culture, without language, culture can not be protected
and developed. Not only does language allow people of a society-a culture to share
information, ideas and feeling but it is also one of significant tools for the transmission of
culture.
The relation between culture and language preciously described and presented through
the following model:
Language

Human
Culture

Society


5

1.2. SPEECH ACTS ACROSS CULTURES
We perform speech acts when we offer an apology, greeting, request, complaint,
invitation, compliment, or refusal and so on. In general, a speech act is an utterance that serves
a function in communication. To communicate is to express a certain attitude, and the type of
speech act being performed corresponds to the type of attitude being expressed. As an act of
communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies, in accordance with the
speaker's intention, the attitude being expressed. For instance, in a birthday party, the speaker

meets young lady and produces the utterance “You have a wonderful smile” or “I really like
your skirt”. These utterances are likely considered as compliments. By contrast, in a funeral,
for example, these utterances are produced, willbe ironical. Hence, the same utterance can be
interpreted as different kinds of speech act up to contexts or certain situation.
A speech act might contain just one word, as in "Sorry!" to perform an apology, or
several words or sentences: "I‟m sorry I forgot your birthday. I just let it slip my mind."
According to the social-interactionist view, a speech act is a language phenomenon
that results from acts of speaking or writing when someone (Speaker) says (or writes)
something to someone else (Hearer) at a certain time in a certain context. According to Austin
(1962), speech acts are grouped into three ways:
+ Locutionary act: The act that constructs an utterance by following grammars and
vocalizing the sentence. For example, if a person says to you, “You can‟t do that,” the
locutionary act is to construct a sentence that literally means that you cannot do that by
making relevant physical sounds.
+ Illocutionary act: The act that actually performs an act in uttering the sentence. In the
same example, the illocutionary act is to prohibit you from doing that.
+ Perlocutionary act: The act that tries to accomplish by uttering it. That is, by saying
the sentence, he stopped you from doing that.
Among locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts, Austin (1962:120)
especially focuses on the importance of illocutionary and extends his analysis by making a
distinction between illocutionary and perlocutionary acts: “illocutionary acts are conventional
acts while perlocutionary acts are not conventional”. In order to perform an illocutionary act,


6

the speaker must rely on the socially accepted convention without which the speaker cannot
inspire a social force into his or her utterance. By contrast, a perlocutionary act is an effect of
the illocutionary act. This distinction is reflected in whether a person performs an act “in”
saying or “by” saying. For instance, “In saying I would shoot him I was threatening him,” that

is considered as an illocutionary act, and “By saying I would shoot him I alarmed him” that is
in a perlocutionary act.
Speech act classification
Following Austin's speech acts theory, Yule, G (1997) identifies five categories of
speech acts based on the functions assigned to them: representatives, directives, expressives,
commissives and declaratives.
Representatives: speech acts that state what the speaker believes the case or not.
Representatives consist of assertions, claims or reports, etc. For example, “It is cold today” or
“No one makes a better cake than me''.
Directives: speech acts that make the addressee perform an action. The different kinds
are: suggestions, asking, ordering, requesting, inviting, advising, begging, etc. For example:
“Could you close the window?''.
Expressives: speech acts that express how the speaker feels about the situation. The
different kinds are: thanking, apologizing, welcoming, deploring, etc. For example: “I am
sorry that I lied to you''.
Commissives: speech acts that speakers use to commit themselves to some future
action. The different kinds are: promising, planning, vowing, betting, opposing, etc. For
example: “I'm going to Paris tomorrow''.
Declaratives: speech acts that change the state of the world in an immediate way. The
speakers have to have a special institutional role, in a specific context, in order to perform a
declaration appropriately. For examples: “You are fired, I swear, I beg you'' or “I now declare
you are husband and wife”
The act can succeed if the hearer recognizes the attitude of the speaker being
expressed, such as a belief in the case of a statement and a desire in the case of a request.
However, an utterance can also succeed as an act of communication even if the speaker does


7

not possess the attitude he is expressing. Therefore, speech acts are difficult to perform in a

second language because learners may not know the idiomatic expressions or cultural norms
in the second language or they may transfer their first language rules and conventions into the
second language, assuming that such rules are universal.
In short, speech acts have great affects on all kinds of communication, among of which
is addressing.
1.3. LINGUISTIC POLITENESS
Politeness is not something human beings are born with but something which is
acquired through a process of socialization. Politeness in this sense is not a natural
phenomenon which existed before mankind but one which has been socio-culturally and
historically constructed. Therefore, a considerable number of linguists pays attention to
defining “politeness” over the last decades.
According to Green (1989:145), “Politeness refers to whatever means are employed
to display consideration for one’s addressee’s feelings (or face), regardless of the social
distance between the speaker and the addressee”.
As a matter of fact, however, it is the hearer who finally decides whether the speaker‟s
utterances are polite or not. Thus, when we define the term “politeness”, the hearer cannot be
ignored to be taken into consideration. And Grundy (1995:139) defines politeness as follows,
taking not only the speaker but also the hearer into consideration:
Politeness is the term we use to describe the relationship between how something is
said and the addressee’s judgment as to how it should be said.
Brown and Levinson (1987) claim that politeness is a linguistic universal by showing
that the same politeness strategies found in speech also occur in written communication.
According to them, politeness is divided into “negative politeness” and “positive
politeness”. “Negative politeness” mainly concentrates on addressee‟s face wants, which are
concerned with the desire not to be imposed upon and is characterized by self-effacement and
formality. Using the dyad “I-first name” to call a colleague is an example of an expression of
negative politeness. By contrast, “positive politeness” is solidarity-oriented. It is
characterized by the expression of approval and appreciation of the addressee‟s personality. A

8

shift to more informal style such as using slang words is considered to be an expression of
positive politeness.
Generally, although the act is politely formed by an individual agent, that act is
intrinsically a social one because of being socially determined and geared towards the
structuring of social interaction. In order for an act to be regarded as “polite”, it has to be set
upon a standard, a standard which lies beyond the act itself which is recognized by both the
speaker and the hearer or a third who may be a part of the interaction.
1.4. OVERVIEW OF THE VIETNAMESE AND AMERICAN ENGLISH ADDRESSING
SYSTEM
1.4.1. Overview of the Vietnamese addressing system
The Vietnamese system of address is highly diversified and intricate. The debate on
what constitutes the entire domain of the system is still controversial (Hồ Thị Lân, 1990).
However, it is widely agreed that it consists of four subclasses: personal pronouns, kinship
terms, status terms, and personal names. All of them can be “alternatively used to refer to the
addressor, the addressee(s), as well as third parties in social interactions” (Lương Huy Vũ,
1990: 4).
1.4.1.1. Personal pronouns
The Vietnamese personal pronouns are also referred to as “real personal pronouns”.
These personal pronouns can be summarized as in Table 1 below, which is modified from
Diệp Quang Ban (2003).
Table 1: Vietnamese personal pronouns
Persons
P1 (addressor)

P2 (addressee)

Tôi

/

Tao

Mày, mi

Ta

/

P3 (third person Number
referent)
nó, hắn, y
Người

Singular


9

tớ

cậu

Mình

/

/

Mình

Chúng (bọn, hơi) tơi

/

Chúng (bọn, hơi) tao

Chúng

(bọn,

hơi)

ta/ chúng (bọn, hơi) ta mày, bay, chúng bay
chúng (bọn, hơi) tớ
mình, chúng (bọn, hơi)
mình

/

Chúng nó,
Chúng, họ
Plural

/
Adapted from Diệp Quang Ban (2003: 112)

The 1st person personal pronouns, ta, mình, Người and chúng ta, were not originally
included in his original table, although they are covered in his discussion.

The 1st person singular personal pronoun tao (I) and its reciprocals mày and mi (you)
in the 2nd person (tao and mày are the only Vietnamese personal pronouns that can be used
reciprocally) are used mainly among intimates, close friends of the same age to express
intimacy. Otherwise, they also imply strong disrespect and arrogance. The plural form of tao
is chúng tao, while its reciprocals can be chúng mày, bay, or chúng bay.
Of the 1st person personal pronouns, tôi (I) and its exclusive plural chúng tôi (we), are
fairly neutral terms used between people of distant relationship or in formal situations; they
are rarely used between close friends or blood kin or in informal situations. They are not
paired with any personal pronouns in the 2nd person (indicated by „/‟ in table 1), but are paired
with various kinship terms. Due to their neutral expressiveness of meaning, tôi and chúng tôi
are becoming more and more extensively used in virtually all social communication contexts
in modern Vietnamese society.
Ta („self‟) (1st person) can be used as either singularly or plural to mean „I‟ or „we‟,
respectively. In the plural use, ta functions the same as the 1 st person inclusive plural chúng ta
meaning „I/we including you‟ in English; and both are normally used in formal situations.
When used as a singular pronoun, ta is an arrogant term implying the speaker‟s superiority


10

over the addressee. It is thus not normally used in everyday conversations with this meaning.
It is, however, still used in literature, especially poetry, to express intimacy, in which case its
corresponding 2nd person pronoun is mình („self‟). The 1st person singular ta and its plural uses
are illustrated in the following examples.
+ ta singular (arrogant)
Đi ra đi, cho ta còn làm việc
Go out go, for I work
“Get off, so that I can concentrate on my work”
+ ta plural
Ta đi chứ, các cậu?

We go?, [plural marker] uncle?
“Let‟s go, shall we?”
The other 1st person singular personal pronoun is tớ (I), which is normally used among
schoolmates to express intimacy. Its common reciprocal 2 nd person terms are the kinship term
cậu („maternal younger brother‟ or „uncle‟) or đằng ấy („over there‟). The exclusive plural
form of tớ is chúng tớ.
The pronoun, mình (I), mentioned above can be used in different persons and numbers
(Diệp Quang Ban, 2003). It can be used in the 1st person singular by “females speaking to
close intimate equals of either sex” (Cooke, Joseph, 1968: 112) or as a 2 nd person singular
term addressed to spouses or close intimates of the opposite sex. According to Diệp Quang
Ban, the identity of person of mình is not inherent in the pronoun itself, but can only be
determined by the contexts in which it is used (Diệp Quang Ban, 2003: 113). The following
examples illustrate these four uses of mình. These examples are taken from Diệp Quang Ban
(2003: 113) with the English translations by the researcher.
- mình as 1st person singular
Hãy tin mình, mình khơng bao giờ để Sự phải khổ đâu
Believe self (I), self (I) never leave Su must miserable
“Believe me, Su, I‟ll never give you a hard time”
- mình as 2nd person singular


11

Mình xem bức tranh này có đẹp khơng?
Self (you) look picture this yes beautiful no?
“Do you think this picture is beautiful?”
- mình as 1st person inclusive plural
Nước mình như vậy, suốt đời khơng được mó đến khẩu súng.
Country self (we) as such, throughout life no touch gun.
„This is the way our country is, we never have a chance to possess guns”

- mình as reflexive
Tơi tự động viên mình như thế
I self assure self (I) so
“I assured myself”
The third person singular personal pronouns, hắn („he/she‟), y („he‟), and nó
(„he/she/it‟) can all be used with reference to people. When used among friends of the same
age, they express intimacy and familiarity. Otherwise they imply disrespect and are
disparaging. Nó is also used of things, animals, and objects.
In the 3rd person reference range there is also another pronoun which is greatly
different from all the others in socio-cultural meaning and pragmatic implication. This is
Người that is used exclusively to express a very high degree of respect. That is probably the
reason why it is written with an upper case first letter.
The 3rd person plural họ („they‟) is a neutral term used of a group of adults. It is more
respectful than chúng and chúng nó (also meaning „they‟ in English) which are used when
speaking of children or to imply gross addressee inferiority.
Trần Ngọc Sanh (2003) also mentions other personal pronouns such as chàng and
nàng as the 3rd person. These pronouns, however, are rarely used in modern Vietnamese,
although they may be used in literary works where their usages imply intimacy and
familiarity.
Thus, generally in the category of Vietnamese personal pronouns, there are five
common pronouns for 1st person singular reference. The corresponding plural forms for the
five singular pronouns are created by the addition of chúng to the singular forms, except for


12

mình and ta, which can also be used in plural reference. Mình is also used as a 2nd person
singular pronoun, 1st person inclusive plural, and reflexive in all persons. Not all 1 st person
personal pronouns have corresponding personal pronouns in the 2 nd person reference system.
Except for tao which can be used reciprocally with 2nd person pronoun (mày or mi), the others

are commonly paired with kinship terms, status terms, or even personal names. The 3rd person
reference includes four commonly used pronouns in the singular forms and three in plural.
Except for tôi/chúng tôi and Người, the use of Vietnamese personal pronouns pragmatically
implies both intimacy and familiarity among close, intimate 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. According to Luong Huy Vũ (1990:129), if Vietnamese
personal pronouns are used among family members, they “presuppose and imply not only the
negation of solidarity but also the lack of deference towards the referent and the breakdown in
the formality of the interactional situation”. The third person pronoun Người stands apart from
the others in its socio-cultural meaning and pragmatic implications. The use of it is normally
associated with people of very high rank, including deities, who deserve extraordinary respect.
1.4.1.2. Kinship terms
Kinship terms constitute a much more important part of the Vietnamese system of
address and reference than pronouns. According to Cooke (1968), “kinship terms are nouns,
most of which have a primary meaning denoting blood kin”. They appear so frequently and
are so varied and diversified that not only do they impose difficulty for foreign learners of
Vietnamese, but sometimes it is also hard for Vietnamese people to use them properly and
appropriately. Luong Huy Vũ (1990: 37) observes that “Vietnamese kinship terms are used
not only for third-party reference, but pervasively also in address and self-reference”.
According to Nguyen Quang (2002:159), there are 34 kinship terms in the Northern dialect of
Viet Nam like cố -chít, mẹ-con, anh-em, etc.
1.4.1.3. Status terms
Apart from personal pronouns and kinship terms, Vietnamese also makes use of status
terms. According to Cooke (1968), status terms comprise occupational titles such as bác sĩ
(„doctor‟), thầy giáo („teacher‟ (male)), or luật sư („lawyer‟)...., etc. Status terms are chiefly


13

used pronominally in the 2 nd person. They also commonly behave as nouns of reference in the

3rd person.
1.4.1.4. Personal names
The use of personal names is also pervasive in the Vietnamese system of address and
reference. Vietnamese people address and refer to one another by the given names that occur
in the last position in their full names. The given names are used either alone or with a kinship
or status term. The usage of plain personal names without a kinship or status term implies
intimacy, familiarity, but lacks of respect. Thus, they are mainly employed by people of
somewhat the same age or by superiors to inferiors. Personal names that are used by inferiors
to superiors are normally accompanied by a kinship or status term showing the degree of
respect that the addressee is supposed to deserve.
To conclude, Vietnamese addressing system is an open one, which makes foreign
interlocutors confused when using addressing terms while communicating, especially in social
communication because many factors, for example, age, gender, power, social status,
occupation, context of interaction, relationship or attitude of addressee, etc. have to highly be
taken into consideration.
1.4.2. Overview of the American English addressing system
The American English system of address and reference also includes four subclasses:
personal pronouns, kinship terms, status terms, and personal names. Of these, only personal
pronouns are pervasively used for personal reference. The other three are mostly used for
addressing as free forms.
1.4.2.1. Personal pronouns
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), there are three types of reference in English:
personal reference, demonstrative reference, and comparative reference. In Celce-Murcia and
Larson Freeman‟s words “the personal pronouns in their various permutations constitute the
personal reference system in English” (Celce-Murcia & Larson Freeman, 1999: 297).
Different forms of subjective, objective, possessive, and reflexive personal pronouns can be
seen clearly in Table 2, adapted from Quirk (1972)


14

Table 2: English personal, reflexive, possessive pronouns
PERSONAL PRONOUNS
Subjective case
1st person

Determiner

Nominal

function

function

I

Me

myself

my

mine

Plural

we

Us

ourselves

our

ours

your

yours

yourself

You

Plural
Singular

3rd person

case

PRONOUNS

POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS

Singular
Singular

2nd person

Objective

REFLEXIVE

yourselves

masculine

He

Him

himself

Feminine

she

Her

herself

her

itself

its

themselves

their

Neutral
Plural

It
they

them

his
hers

theirs

Adapted from Quirk (1972: 209)
It can be seen from Table 2 that American English personal pronouns distinguish
subjective, objective, and possessive cases. In 2 nd person reference there is no distinction in
number. Both singularity and plurality are expressed by the same form you. In the American
English system you is the only bound form of address and incorporated into the sentence. It
should also be noted that, American English does not have contrasting inclusive and exclusive
forms. The 1st person plural pronoun we contains both inclusive and exclusive meanings and
can often be ambiguous. These examples taken from Celce-Murcia & Larson Freeman (1999 :
304), illustrate the inclusive and exclusive meanings of we.
- Inclusive use of we
We should (all) go to the movies next Saturday.
- Exclusive use of we
Are we late?
(Addressed to person who has been waiting)
American English also marks gender difference in the 3rd person singular pronoun,

having he for males and she for females. With regard to meanings and implications associated
with usage, (Celce-Murcia & Larson Freeman, 1999: 304) point out “English has no way to be
either formal or intimate linguistically” through the use of personal pronouns. They are


15

adequate for use in all normal communication contexts although some archaic usages persist
in restricted contexts, for example „Your Majesty‟ when addressing a reigning sovereign or
„Your Honour‟ when addressing a judge. The self- and addressee-reference pronouns, for
instance, remain the same regardless of who is speaking to whom. Besides, the age, attitude,
feeling, and relationship of the participants as well as the formality of contexts are not taken
into consideration.
1.4.2.2. Kinship terms
The basic modern American English kinship terms with common usages within family
circles and in possible extended contexts. Actually, English kinship terms are very restrictedly
used in the 1st person, mostly associated with baby talk; i.e., speaking to small children. The
kinship terms more likely to be used in this way are grandfather, grandmother and
mother/mum(my), father/dad(dy).
American English kinship terms are more pervasively used in the 2nd and the 3rd
person. In 2nd person use, they normally function as free forms of address such as nonintegrated parts of the sentence, particularly their informal various; e.g., Grandma, Granny,
Nanna, Grandpa, Granddad, Mum, Dad, etc, and normally with a capital letter.
American English kinship terms are not normally used in extended social contexts
between non-related people. Only a few terms are used in this extended meaning. Aunt and
Uncle, for example, can sometimes be used by children to address their parent‟s friends.
Brown (2004) refers to this fictive use of Aunt and Uncle as “honorary Aunts and Uncles” (online resource). Brother and Sister can also be extended to a non-related person if the speaker
considers that person as his/her brother or sister; e.g., among some political or ethnic groups.
1.4.2.3. Status terms
American English status terms include occupational terms (such as doctor or
professor) and honorific titles (Mr/Mrs). Like kinship terms, status terms are used either as

free forms of address or 3rd person reference in restricted (normally formal) contexts. The


16

occupational terms and titles are sometimes combined, such as „Mr President‟. A capital letter
is always used.
1.4.2.4. Personal names
According to Crystal (1997), in Anglo-Saxon cultures, “one of the most significant
ways of signaling social intimacy and distance is through the use of a person‟s name in direct
address”.
Brown and Ford (1961) point out a person can be addressed by his/her first name, last
name, a title + last name, or multiple names (the use of a variety of names). The choice of
which one to use depends on various factors such as level of intimacy, age, and professional
status. Multiple names are employed in very informal contexts between highly intimate
friends. The use of first names is also an indication of intimacy. However, this use has now
become very widespread even when there is a considerable social gap between interlocutors.
Titles with last names are normally used in formal contexts or at the beginning of an
acquaintanceship to show respect.


17

CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY
2.1. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES
2.1.1. The survey questionnaire
As mentioned in Introduction part, there are delivered questionnaires (written in
Vietnamese and English, most of them have the equivalent values) consisting of five questions
which discuss factors governing the way people address in general and the practice of using
the first personal pronoun “I” at work within the two communities in the light of culture.

It should be noted that the survey questionnaire is designed with the purpose of dealing
the research questions highlighted in Introduction part. As a result, all of questions in the
survey questionnaire are aimed to find out some similarities and differences in using the first
personal pronoun “I” at work and great impacts of different socio - cultural factors on the way
people address in both countries Vietnam and America.
The informants are asked to tick the appreciate choice. At the end of the forth and sixth
questions, there is also a blank space in which the respondents are free to give their own
opinion.
Also, the researcher designs the survey questionnaire with some clear tables and ready
parameters for the informants to tick the answer easily.
2.1.2. The informants
The Vietnamese informants are forty in number: 20 females and 20 males. The age of
them varies from 20 to 55 at the time of the survey. Their jobs mostly are officials in the
university, doctors, businessman and mathematician. All of them spend time working in the
city. Especially, Vietnamese informants were all born and brought up in Vietnam so they are
not perfectly affected by other cultures, which helps the researcher has reliable results for the
study collected from their answers.
Most of the American informants who are scientists, officers and teachers are working
at University of Minnesota. Their ages varies from 25 to 60 at the time of the survey. 40% of


18

informants are female, 60% are female. Although the United States of America is considered
as a multi-cultural nation, which may have effects on informants, they are all Native American
citizens. Therefore, as the Vietnamese informants, they are not impacted much by other
cultural cognition. This means that the information collected from the American informants
are really reliable.
2.1.3. Data collection
All the data are collected and analyzed from cultural perspective. To get information

from American, the researcher send the survey questionnaire in English by email to a
Vietnamese friend who is living and working in America for 8 years is extremely enthusiastic
and kind enough to deliver the questionnaire to his American friends. After
To Vietnamese informants, the procedure of collecting data is a little bit easier because
the researcher can face to face interview the informants; ask more open questions relating to
the subjects as well as explain the survey questionnaire preciously in case there is some
ambiguous information in the questionnaire.
2.2. DATA ANALYSIS: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Concerning to analyzing the research data, the collected information is organized in the
form of tables or charts. In addition, to have total and specific look of the practice of using
personal pronouns and some factors impacting on the way we address at work, the researcher
mostly analyses questions by questions in the questionnaire. Then, the similarities and
differences in using addressing terms and personal pronouns of the Vietnamese and Americans
at work are drawn out. Finally, the findings of the study are used as implications for English
language teaching and translation strategies.
In this part, all the questions in the questionnaire are shown and analyzed preciously.
The analysis is done carefully basing on the data collected from the above mentioned
informants both from Vietnam and America. The results which the researcher received from
survey questionnaire are reliable.


19

2.2.1. Consideration of selecting addressing terms

occupational status
5%
context of
interaction
10%

gender
15%

attitude of
addressee
0%

age
70%

Consideration of selecting addressing terms
age

gender

context of interaction

occupational status

attitude of addressee

In order to find out the most decisive factor when addressing, the researcher has made
out the question: “Which factor do you pay attention the most when addressing your
colleagues?” The result collected is extremely surprising. All of the Vietnamese informants
being asked, 70% agrees that age is the first factor they take into consideration when
addressing colleagues, 20% chooses gender, the rest 10% pays attention to the context of
interaction and none of them chooses occupational status and attitude of addressee.
The culture of Vietnam that is the agricultural civilization based on the wet rice
culture, which requires community society to be developed so that its members can support
each other. In the other words, society is considered as an extended family household

functioning as a single, well – integrated unit hierarchically structured in which elders are
highly respected. Besides, in the communication environment, age is the mode to address each
other. Therefore, it is understandable that most Vietnamese informants indicate that the factor
“age” plays the most important role in the way they address colleagues. Meanwhile, the
American informants mostly consider context of interaction to be the first attentive factor
(80%). For them, identifying context of interaction could help them choose the right address
terms to achieve communication purposes. There are 15% and 5% of the informants saying
that they take care of the factor “occupation status” and “relationship” respectively. None of


20

the informants pay attention to the factors “age”, “gender” and “attitude of address”. These
are illustrated in the following chart:

Consideration of selecting addressing terms

15%

5% 0%

context of interaction
occupational status
relationship

80%

age,gender,attitude of
addressee

Both the Vietnamese and American have similar and different choices of the mostly
considered factor when addressing, which is affected by cultural perspective. Vietnamese
informants think of the need to considerate “age” when addressing so that they can avoid
offending and losing addressee‟s “face”. By contrast, the American informants do not mind
much about “age” factor because individualism is highly considered in their culture. In
communication, everyone seems to have the same power so that individual characteristic can
be expressed the most clearly. However, there is a common between the two groups when
none of them chooses attitude of addresses. This is convinced that interlocutors‟ feelings or
attitude do not pay an important role in deciding the means of addressing in both cultures.
2.2.2. Frequencies of using addressing terms
There are differences in frequencies of using addressing terms to call colleagues at
various ranges of age and working position.
“How often do you use these addressing terms when communicating to colleagues?”
Table 3: Frequencies of using addressing terms when communicating to colleagues in
Vietnam