THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
For the completion of this work, I have been fortunate to receive
invaluable contributions from many people.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor,
Nguyễn Thị Tường, M.A. for guiding me to do research and giving me
many advices and suggestions.
I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to my teachers in
Foreign Languages Department, my family and my friends for their
various kinds of help and encouragement.
Vinh, May 2010
Pham Thi Thuy Dung

i


ABSTRACT
Communicating is an important part of daily life. People must talk
to each other to work and satisfy their own communicating need.
Invitation is a popular speech act in daily conversation. But how to
achieve the goals of invitation politely and avoid putting hearer and
speaker in difficult position, using pre-invitation is a solution . This
research presents pre-invitation, its functions and some common forms. Many
examples were collected from many books, stories and documents to explain
more clearly. Finally, some main similarities and differences in preinvitation between English and Vietnamese are pointed out.

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pag
e

iii


ABBREVIATION
CA:

contrastive analysis

Fig.:

figure

e.g.:

for example

FTA:

face threatening act

H’s:

his or her

i.e.:

that is to say

T:

turn

iv


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Reasons for choosing the topic
In communication, participants always try to achieve something in
their turns. To achieve the goals of communication, speakers usually try to
plan their actions logically and use the communicating strategies through
speech acts. In conversation, we must use some certain kinds of speech acts
which are likely to threaten another’s face. To reduce the greatest risk,
people often use many strategies. One of these strategies is using presequences. However, in text books for pupils, pre-sequences are not often
presented. For example, a conversation is used to teach about how to make
an invitation, often just present the inviting act only.
A : Let’s go to the movie tonight.
B : I have to study for an exam.
Terasaki (1976) has pointed out, in ordinary conversation invitations
are not made in simple pairs such as invitation and denial or invitation and
acceptance. More routinely, the inviter issues a pre-invitation in order to
find out what likely result of any subsequent invitation will be.
A : What are you doing tonight? (pre-invitation)
B : Not much. (positive response to project invitation)
A : How about a movie? (invitation)
The reason of writer for doing this study is to give knowledge to the
readers about the pre-sequences, especially, pre-invitation. From this study,
the writer hopes that it can give description of what is meant by preinvitation especially in helping people for better arranging and
understanding conversations.
2. Aims of the study

This study helps the readers understanding about the meaning of preinvitation and its usage in conversation. The writer wants to describe the
1


forms and functions of pre-invitation in order to help the readers to
organize a better conversation, especially, when they want to make an
invitation, to achieve the best result as well as to avoid putting participants
in difficult position.
3. Scope of the study
This study focuses on the utterances which contain pre-sequences,
especially, pre-invitation. The writer only presents some main purposes of
using pre-invitation and its common forms with the examples in both
English and Vietnamese.
4. Methods of the study
To conduct the study, we have used the following methods:
−

Analysis

−

Statistics

−

Comparative and contrastive methods

5. Design of the study
The thesis comprises three main parts:
Part A : Introduction

This part presents the reasons for choosing the topic, aims, scope,
methods and format of the study.
Part B : Development
This is the main part of this study divided into three chapters:
Chapter I:

Theoretical background.

Chapter II:

Pre-invitation in English and Vietnamese

Chapter III:

Some similarities and differences

Part C: Conclusion
This part reviews major findings of the thesis and suggests some directions
for further study.

2


PART B: DEVERLOPMENT
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1.

Speech acts
To understand about speech acts, we will examine the origin of the

concept “speech acts”. The idea of speech acts has its roots in the
Philosophy of Language. J. A. Austin was the first person who wanted to
capture the fact that there is more in the function of language than
semantics. Traditionally, mapping of entities of a proposition onto referents
and defining the truth value of a proposition was the major area of interest
in language semantics. With Austin, and his follower J. R. Searle, there is a
shift towards the events or acts that occur via language, it is called “speech
acts”. These acts effect changes both in the observable world, as well as in
the mental states of dialogue participants. Austin's approach introduces
pragmatics in studying and modeling language. Consequently, the focus is
now on utterances and not propositions.
Speech acts play an important role in everyday conversation. They
became a topic of sustained investigation, at least in the English-speaking
world, in the middle of the Twentieth Century. Since that time “speech act
theory” has been influential not only within philosophy, but also in
linguistics, psychology, legal theory, artificial intelligence, literary theory
and many other scholarly disciplines. Recognition of the importance of
speech acts has illuminated the ability of language to do other things than
describe reality. In the process the boundaries among the philosophy of
language, the philosophy of action, the philosophy of mind and even ethics
have become less sharp.
According to Yule (1996: 47) “actions performed via utterances are
generally called speech acts”. The philosopher J.L. Austin considered
speech acts as “utterances (things people say) are equivalent to actions”.

3


When someone says: “I name this ship” or “I now pronounce you man and
wife”, the utterance creates a new social or psychological reality. We

perform speech acts when we offer an apology, greeting, request,
complaint, invitation, compliment, or refusal. A speech act is an utterance
that serves a function in communication. 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.".
Speech acts include real-life interactions and require not only knowledge of
the language but also appropriate use of that language within a given
culture.
1.1.1. Structure of speech act
According to Austin, there are three types of acts that can be
performed by every utterance, given the right circumstances: locutionary,
illocutionary and perlocutionary acts.
• Locutionary act is simply the speech acts that have taken place. It
is the basic act of utterance or producing a meaningful-linguistic
expression. Making an utterance, the speaker performs a locutionary act
that is an act of saying something with a determinate sense and reference.
According to Austin, locutionary act expresses the meaning of the
statement itself. For example, when saying “step back”, speaker want to tell
someone step back.
• Illocutionary acts are the real actions which are performed by the
utterance, where saying equals doing, as in betting, plighting one’s troth,
welcoming and warning. The illocutionary act is not in one-to-one
correspondence with the locution from which it is derived. There are
different locutions that express the same illocution and vice-versa. For
example, there are indirect speech acts that act with a different force than
the obviously deducible one. A typical example is the locution of the
utterance “Could you pass the salt?” uttered at a dinner table. For a speaker
4

of English in the particular situation this means “Pass the salt, please” and
no one would assume that the speaker is indeed interested in whether the
hearer would be able to pass the salt.
• Perlocutionary acts are the effects of the utterance on the listener.
Depending on the kind of per locution, different conditions have to hold in
order for it to be achieved. In other word, depending on the circumstances,
you will utter on the assumption that the hearer will recognize the effect
you intended. For example, the hearer in the salt example has to realize that
the speaker's intention is to ultimately get hold of the salt.
The most discussed act among these three dimensions is
illocutionary act, especially, illocutionary force. Indeed, the term “speech
acts” is generally interpreted narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force
of an utterance.
1.1.2. Classification of speech acts
In 1975, Searle suggested the following classification of speech acts:
•

Assertives (Representatives)

They commit the speaker to something being the case. Those
different kinds are: suggesting, putting forward, swearing, boasting, and
concluding.
No one makes a better cake than me.
It was a nice day.
•

Directives

They try to make the addressee perform an action. In other words,
speaker use these kinds of speech acts to get someone to do something. The

different kinds are: asking, ordering, requesting, inviting, advising, and
begging.
Could you close the window?
Would you like to have a cup of coffee?
•

Commisives

5


They commit the speaker to doing something in the future. The
different kinds are: promising, planning, vowing, betting, opposing.
I'm going to Paris tomorrow.
I’ll be back.
•

Expressives

They express how the speaker feels about the situation. The different
kinds are thanking, apologizing, welcoming, deploring.
I am sorry that I lied to you.
Congratulation!
•

Declarations

They change the state of the world in an immediate way. The speaker
has to have a special institutional role, in a specific context, in order to
perform a declaration appropriately.

Boss:

You are fired!

Priest:

I now pronounce you are husband and wife.

Referee:

you’re out!

1.2. Politeness
According to Yule (1996: 60) politeness is treated “as a fixed
concept, as in the idea of polite social behavior, or etiquette, within a
culture. It is also possible to specify a number of different general
principles for being polite in social interaction within a particular culture.
Some of these might include being tactful, generous, modest, sympathetic
toward others”.
Yule defined politeness “as the means employed to show awareness
of another person’s face”. We will discuss deeplier person’s face and its
definition in the following parts. It is also considered as “…what we think
is appropriate behavior in particular situations in an attempt to achieve and
maintain successful social relationships with others.” (Lakoff 1972: 910)

6


Another linguistic, Leech defined politeness as forms of behavior
that establish and maintain comity. That is the ability of participants in a

social interaction to engage in interaction in an atmosphere of relative
harmony. Leech (1983:16) stated the politeness principles which can help
the participants “minimize the expression of impolite beliefs”. In stating his
maxims Leech uses his own terms for two kinds of illocutionary acts. He
calls representatives “assertives”, and calls directives “impositives”.
Below are some characteristics of Leech’s maxims:

• Tact maxim (in impositives and commissives) states: “Minimize
the expression of beliefs which imply cost to other; maximize the
expression of beliefs which imply benefit to other”. The first part of this
maxim fits in with Brown and Levinson's negative politeness strategy of
minimizing the imposition, and the second part reflects the positive
politeness strategy of attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs.
This maxim can be divided into two sub-maxims:
a) minimize cost to other
b) maximize benefit to other.

•

Generosity maxim (in directives and commissives) states:

“Minimize the expression of benefit to self; maximize the expression of
cost to self”. Unlike the tact maxim, the maxim of generosity focuses on
the speaker, and says that others should be put first instead of the self. This
maxim can be divided into 2 sub-maxims:
a) minimize benefit to self
b) maximize cost to self.

•

Approbation maxim (in expressives and assertives) states:

“Minimize the expression of beliefs which express dispraise of other;
maximize the expression of beliefs which express approval of other.” This
maxim can be divided into two sub-maxims:
a) minimize dispraise of other
7


b) maximize praise of other

• Modesty maxim (in expressives and assertives) states: “Minimize
the expression of praise of self; maximize the expression of dispraise of
self.” This maxim can be divided into two sub maxims:
a) minimize praise of self
b) maximize dispraise of self

• Agreement maxim (in assertives) runs as follows: “Minimize the
expression of disagreement between self and other; maximize the
expression of agreement between self and other.” This maxim can be
divided into two sub-maxims:
a) minimize disagreement between self and other
b) maximize agreement between self and other

•

Sympathy maxim (in assertives) states: “minimize antipathy

between self and other; maximize sympathy between self and other”. This
includes a small group of speech acts such as congratulation,

commiseration, and expressing condolences - all of which is in accordance
with Brown and Levinson's positive politeness strategy of attending to the
hearer's interests, wants, and needs. This maxim can be divided into two
sub-maxims:
a) minimize antipathy between self and other
b) maximize sympathy between self and other
Leech does not weigh all maxims the same. He considers the Tact
and the Approbation maxim to be more important than the Generosity and
Modesty maxim, because he believes that politeness is generally more
oriented towards the other than the self. Additionally, Leech considers the
sub-maxims (a) to be more important than the sub-maxims (b).
In conversation, participants usually try to be polite by following the
politeness principle. The goal of politeness is to make all of the parties
relaxed and comfortable with one another.
8


Talking about politeness theory, we should mention Lakoff’s
politeness rules, Lakoff proposed the following “Rules of Politeness”:
1. Formality: keep aloof.
2. Deference: give options
3. Camaraderie: show sympathy
Lakoff sees the first rule as the most prominent one in formal
politeness. It creates distance between the speaker and the addressee by
many different means of achieving distance such as using formal words,
hypercorrect forms and avoidance of colloquialism. The application of the
second rule makes it look as though the option as to how to behave, or what
to do, is being left up to the addressee. Examples of Rule 2 would be
hesitancy in speech or action, as well as the use of tag questions, suggesting
that the speaker is uncertain about the truth of his assertion, and the use of

hedges. Aspects of Rule 3 are gestures of friendliness. The purpose of Rule
3 is to make the addressee feel that the speaker likes him.
1.3. Face wants
1.3.1. Definition of face
Face, as a technical term, means the public self-image of a person.
This is emotional and social sense of self that every person has and expects
everyone else to recognize.
In communication, to make the hearer comfortable and to achieve
their own goals of communication, speakers should pay much attention to
the hearer’s face. Therefore, in conversation, speakers usually try to plan
their actions in a way to redress their partners’ face wants and avoid saying
something that can threaten another’ face. In everyday social interactions,
people generally behave in the ways that their expectations concerning their
public self-image will be respected. Their expectations are called face
wants.
9


Face threatening act
If someone says something that represents a threat to another
person’s self image that is called a face threatening act. For example, if you
use a direct speech act to older, “Give me the pen !”, you are acting as if
you have more social power then you are performing a face threatening act.
Face saving act
Whenever you say something that lessens the possible threat to
another face, it is called a face saving act. Because it is generally expected
that each person will attempt to respect the face wants of others, there are
many different ways of performing face saving acts.
1.3.2. Positive and negative face
The concept “face” consists of two related aspects: negative face and

positive face.
Negative face
According to Yule (1996), a person’s negative face is the need to be
independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed by others. In
other words, negative face is reflected in the desire not to be impeded or
put upon, to have freedom to act as one chooses.
Brown and Levinson (1987) stated that negative face is “the basic
claim to territories, personal pre-serves, rights to non-distraction, i.e., to
freedom of action and freedom from imposition”
Positive face
Positive face is “the need to be accepted, event liked, by other, to be
treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants
are shared by other” (quoted in Yule, 1996).
Brown characterized positive face by the desire that to be like,
admired, valued, respected, approved of, and appreciated by others. At the
same time, she characterized negative face by the desire not to be imposed
10


upon. Positive face refers to one's self-esteem, while negative face refers to
one's freedom to act.
Positive and negative face are the two aspects of face that are the
basic wants in any social interaction, and so during any social interaction,
cooperation is needed amongst the participants to maintain each others'
faces. The rational actions people take to preserve both kinds of face, for
themselves and the people they interact with, add up to politeness. Brown
and Levinson also argued that in human communication, either spoken or
written, people tend to maintain one another’s face continuously.
1.4. Politeness strategies
The theory claims that most speech acts threaten either the hearer’s

or speaker’s face-wants, and that politeness is involved in redressing
those face-threats (Eelen 2001: 4).
The chart below shows that the speaker has a set of strategies
available to redress FTAs, which are mutually known to both speaker and
addressee.
Lesser
1. without redressive action baldly
on record
Do the FTA

2. positive politeness
with redressive action

4. off record

3. negative politeness

5. Don’t do the FTA
Greater

Figure1: Possible Strategies for realizing FTAs
(Brown and Levinson 1987:60)
The strategy, which a speaker may choose, depends on how high the
speaker considers the risk of face-threat to be (Fig. 1). The first strategy is
a straightforward, unambiguous utterance, which does not redress FTAs at
11


all. Strategies 2 and 3 result in positive politeness (expression of solidarity
and minimizing status differences) or negative politeness (expression of

restraint, paying people respect and avoiding intruding on them). Strategy 4
(off-record) means that there is more than one possible interpretation of an
utterance, i.e. there is an open way out for both the hearer and the speaker.
Strategy 5 (do not do the FTA) is chosen when the risk is considered too
great to actually do the FTA (Locher 2004:68).
There are four types of politeness strategies, described by Brown and
Levinson that sum up human "politeness" behavior: Bald On Record,
Negative Politeness, Positive Politeness, and Off-Record-indirect strategy
Bald on record
Bald on record is strategy which provides no effort to minimize
threats to the hearer’s face. These provide no effort by you to reduce the
impact of the FTAs. You will most likely shock the person to whom you are
speaking to, embarrass them, or make them feel a bit uncomfortable.
However, this type of strategy is commonly found with people who know
each other very well, and are very comfortable in their environment, such
as close friends and family. Let’s see in some specific examples below:
An Emergency:

Help!!!

Task oriented:

Give me that!

Request:

Put your coat away.

Alerting:

Turn your headlights on!

Positive politeness
According to Brown and Levinson (1987:101), “positive politeness
is redress directed to the addressee’s positive face, his perennial desire that
his wants (or the actions/acquisitions/values resulting from them) should be
thought of as desirable. Redress consists in partially satisfying that desire
by communicating that one’s own wants (or some of them) are in some
respects similar to the addressee’s wants”. This strategy leads the speaker to
12


appeal to a common goal, and even friendship, via expression as the below
examples:
a. How about letting me use your pen?
b. Hey, buddy, I’d appreciate it if you would let me use your pen.
Positive politeness is usually used among groups of friends or where
people in the given social situation know each other fairly well. It usually
tries to minimize the distance between them by expressing friendliness and
solid interest in the hearer's need to be respected (minimize the FTA).
• Attend to the hearer: “You must be hungry, it's a long time since
breakfast. How about some lunch?”
• Avoid disagreement: A: “What is she, small?” B: “Yes, yes, she's
small, smallish, um, not really small but
certainly not very big.”
• Assume agreement: “So when are you coming to see us?”
• Hedge opinion: “You really should sort of try harder.”
Negative politeness
According to Brown and Levinson (1987:70), negative politeness is
“oriented mainly toward partially redressing H’s negative face, his basic

want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination. Negative
politeness, thus, is essentially avoidance-based, and realization of
politeness negative strategies consist in assurances that the speaker
recognizes and respects the addressee’s negative face wants and will not (or
will minimally) interfere with the addressee’s freedom of action”
• Be indirect: “I'm looking for a comb.”
• Forgiveness: “You must forgive me but....”
• Minimize imposition: “I just want to ask you if I could use your
computer?”
• Pluralize the person responsible: “We forgot to tell you that you

13


needed to by your plane ticket by yesterday.”
Off record (indirect)
You are removing yourself from any imposition whatever.
•

Give hints: “It’s cold in here."

•

Be vague: “Perhaps someone should have been more
responsible.”

•

Be sarcastic, or joking: “Yeah, he's a real rocket scientist!”

1.5. Pre-sequence
A sequence is a unit of conversation that consists of two or more
adjacent and functionally related turns. In other words, sequences are turns
of talk from the beginning to the end of action (Schegloff, 1995).
Pre-sequence is a sequence which includes a turn recognizable as
potential initiation of another specific type of turn. Pre-sequence means
certain utterances came before the other utterances which is in the
beginning of a conversation or certain utterances belong to the opening
sequence of a conversation. Pre-sequence occupy a position of the speaker
and the hearer in order to differentiate between the formal and informal
conversation. It means that the speaker and the hearer can arrange their
conversation by themselves into formal and informal through the presequence utterances by them.
Let’s examine pre-sequence result in the following structures:
−

Turn 1 : an initiation (“question”) checking whether some
precondition obtains for the action to be performed in turn 3

−

Turn 2 : a response (“answer”) indicating that/whether precondition
obtains, often with question or request to proceed to turn 3

−

Turn 3: the prefigured action, conditional on the ‘go ahead’ in Turn
2. or: turn 3′ if discouraged, intended action withheld (+optional
explanation of turn 1 in terms of what would have been done)
14

−

Turn 4 : a follow-up response to action in Turn 3

Distribution rule: one party A addresses T1 and T3 to another party B, and
B addresses T2 and T4 to A.
There are many types of pre-sequences, we can examine some
common types of pre-sequences as below:
- Pre-invitation (e.g. Are you free tonight?)
- Pre-announcement (e.g. You won’t believe this.)
- Pre-arrangement (e.g. Would you like to make an appointment later on?)
- Pre-request (e.g. Do you have coffee to go?)
- Pre-closing (e.g. Okay.)
1.5.1. Functions of pre-sequences
Actually, the function of pre-sequence is showing how speakers have
taken on the ideas that the talk is sequential, one thing after another, and
how they are careful in the order in which they present possibilities.
Besides, pre-sequences became delivering tool of a message to give
information about the main point conversation in order to be more specific.
Then, pre-sequence also has the important role in arranging and managing
the conversation. Moreover, pre-sequences can be used for inquiring about
status of the speaker or the hearer, status of situation and others.
Other function of pre-sequence is that it is used by participants in
conversation to draw hearer’s attention to or prepare the ground for the
kind of turn that are going to take next.
1.5.2. Types of pre-sequences
The pre-sequences are divided into many types namely: pre-request,
pre-invitation, pre-announcement, pre-arrangement, and pre-closing
(Levinson 1983:345)

∗ Pre-announcement
A pre-announcement is a pre-sequence for an announcement of
news. It is “generally for delivering an newsworthiness of potential
15


announcement, for validating newsworthiness in order to check someone
attention that comes before the main announcement” (Levinson 1983:349)
Child:

Mom, guest what happened?

Mother: (silence)
Child:

Mom, you know what?

Mother: Not right now, Jacy, I’m busy.
∗ Pre-arrangement
A pre-arrangement is a pre-sequence in which an attempt is made to
arrange for later contact, as by means of a question-answer sequence
determining the availability of one of the participants.
A: Erm, what are you doing today?
B: Er, well, I’m supervising at quarter past.
A: Er, yuh, why don't, er, would you like to come by after that?
B: I can't, I'm afraid, no.
∗ Pre-request
A pre-request is a pre-sequence that prefigures a request, possibly by
ascertaining the ability of the respondent to satisfy the coming request.
A: Are you busy?

B: Not really.
A: Check over this memo.
B: Okay.
∗ Pre-closing
A pre-closing is a pre-sequence that signals the end of a conversation
is near. It provides opportunity for the discussion of any additional
remaining topic before the participants proceed with the closing sequence.
Let’s study the following dialogue:
A: Okay?
B: Okay.
A: Bye.
16


B: Bye
∗ Pre-invitation :
A pre-invitation is a pre-sequence that is likely to be understood by
the respondent as a signal of a coming invitation. The coming invitation
may be a question-answer sequence concerning the availability of the
participant to be invited.
Him: What are you doing this Friday?
Her: Hmm, nothing so far.
Him: Come over for dinner.
Her: Oh, I’d like that.
This type of pre-sequence will be discussed more detail in the next
chapter.
1.6. A brief overview of Contrastive Analysis
Contrastive analysis (CA) is the systematic study of a pair or more of
languages with a view to identifying their structural differences and
similarities.

Contrastive Analysis is the method of analyzing the structure of any
two languages with a view to estimate the differential aspects of their
systems, irrespective or their generic affinity or level of development.
Contrastive analysis of two languages becomes useful when it is adequately
describing the sound structure and grammatical structure of two languages,
with comparative statements, giving due emphasis to the compatible items
in the two systems.
A systematic comparative study analyzing component wise the
differences and similarities among languages was clearly recognized
toward the end of 19th century and the beginning of 20th century. The term
‘Contrastive linguistics’ was suggested by Whorf (1941) and was defined
as “a sub discipline of linguistics concerned with the comparison of two or

17


more languages or subsystems of languages in order to determine both the
differences and similarities between them” (Fisiak 1981:1).
Contrastive Analysis is not only very important for teaching and
learning second language but it can also make useful contributions to
machine translating and linguistics typology. Contrastive Analysis is the
useful method for linguistic study.

18


CHAPTER II: PRE-SEQUENCE IN INVITATION OR PREINVITATION IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
2.1. Pre-invitation
As introduced above, one type-specific pre-sequence is the preinvitation. This often placed near the opening of a conversation but could
be placed sequentially before the closing. “Are you doing anything? What

are you doing this weekend?” are typical pre-invitation (Scheloff, 1995).
Terasaki (1976) has point out, in ordinary conversation invitations are not
made in simple pairs such as invitation and denial or invitation and
acceptance.
A: Let’s go to the movie tonight.
B: I have to study for an exam.
More routinely, the inviter give a pre-invitation in order to find out
what likely result of any subsequent invitation will be.
A: What are you doing tonight. (pre-invitation 1)
B: I have to study for an exam. (negative response)
A: How about Wednesday?
Or

(pre-invitation 2)

A: What are you doing tonight? (pre-invitation)
B: Not much.

(positive response to project invitation)

A: How about a movie? (invitation)
B: Okay.

(acceptance)

2.1.1. Definition of pre-invitation
A pre-invitation is a pre-sequence that is likely to be understood by
the respondent as a signal of a coming invitation. The coming invitation
may be a question-answer sequence concerning the availability of the
participant to be invited (cited by Levinson, 1983). In others word, pre-

19


invitation is a way to get ideas about how participant will respond to an
invitation.
A: Hi, John.
B: Say, what’re you doing?
A: Well we’re going out. Why?
B: Oh, I was just gonna say come over here this evening.
Pre-invitation is commonly used in making invitation treated as
transparent by the hearer so the responses clearly attuned to the fact that an
invitation (or related act) (Levinson 1983:346).
In Viet Nam, Nguyen Thien Giap (2000) defined pre-invitation as the
words used to visualize the ability of the action. And below is his example
of pre-invitation:
A: Tối nay anh có làm gì khơng?
B: Khơng. Thế thì sao?
A: Đến tơi chơi cờ đi.
There are many ways to make an invitation but how to avoid the risk
of this action. Using pre-invitation is a safety solution to avoid the risk and
makes both speaker and hearer more comfortable in conversation.
2.1.2. Positions of pre-invitation
2.1.2.1. Before invitation
Pre-invitation often precedes invitation in everyday conversation.
Therefore, we often see it before invitation than after invitation.
• Pre-sequence and invitation are in the same turn.
−

pre-invitation, invitation

−

response
Em đi có một mình à? Ta vào kia uống cà phê đi.
In this situation, some functions of pre-invitation seem to be lost

because there is no place left after the pre-invitation for a reply. Pre-

20


invitation should be responded to in order for the participant to be able to
decide whether or not to go ahead and make the invitation.
- You must be hungry, it's a long time since breakfast. How about
some lunch?
- Sounds like a good idea.
• Pre-sequence and invitation are in the separate turns:
−

pre-invitation

or

pre-invitation

−

go-ahead

stop

−

invitation

(invitation is not made)

−

response
A: What are you doing tonight? (pre-invitation)
B: Not much.

(go- ahead)

A: How about a movie?

(invitation)

B: Okay.

(response)

In this situation, pre-invitation helps the participant to be able to
decide whether or not to go ahead and make invitation. After the preinvitation, the hearers will give a sign to show how they might respond to
projected invitation. If the hearer gives the “go-ahead” sign, speaker will
decide to make invitation. In contrast, if the hearer gives a “stop” response,
speaker will not make invitation.
−

Tơi có hai vé xem phim tối nay. (pre-invitation)

−

Ngày mai tôi thi.

(stop)

(2’) there are more than one pre-sequence
−

pre-invitation 1

−

negative response

−

pre-invitation 2

−

go-ahead

−

invitation

−

response
21