A study on making and accepting apology in english and vietnamese = nghiên cứu về lời xin lỗi và cách chấp nhận lời xin lỗi trong tiếng anh và tiếng việt

428

Vinh UNIVERSITY
FOREIGN LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT
___________________

Nguyen thi ngoc mai

A study on making and accepting
apology
in English and vietnamese
(Nghiên cứu về lời xin lỗi và cách chấp nhận lời xin
lỗi
trong tiếng anh và tiếng viÖt)

GRADUATION THESIS
field: linguistics

Vinh, May 2015
i


Vinh UNIVERSITY
FOREIGN LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT
___________________

A study on making and accepting
apology
in English and vietnamese
(Nghiên cứu về lời xin lỗi và cách chấp nhận lời xin
lỗi

trong tiếng anh và tiếng việt)

GRADUATION THESIS
field: linguistics

Supervisor: Tran Thi Ngoc Yen, Ph.D
Student
: Nguyen Thi Ngoc Mai
Class
: 52B1 - English

Vinh, May 2015

ii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
During the process of carrying out the study, I have received many invaluable
assistances from many people.
First of all, I would like to send my deepest thanks to Dean and all the lectures
of Foreign Languages Department of Vinh University who gave me a chance to study
the thesis.
Secondly, I would like to express my deepest and sincerest appreciation to my
supervisor, Ph.D. Tran Thi Ngoc Yen, for her enthusiastic guidance, excellent
suggestions as well as insightful comments on the thesis.
Also, I would like to acknowledge my dear family and my friends who always
stand by me, encourage and help me so much in this study.
Finally, I am aware that despite all the meaningful advices and assistant helps,
shortcomings and mistakes are inevitably avoidable; therefore I would be extremely
grateful to receive all your attention as well as comments to make this thesis perfect.

Nghe An, May 2015
NGUYEN THI NGOC MAI

iii


ABSTRACT
Communication is an important part of daily life. People must talk to each other
to work and satisfy their own communicating need. Apology is a popular speech act in
daily conversation. But how to make and accept apology effectively by people who are
speaking these two languages, this study is a solution. The thesis presents apology and
its forms. Data used for analysis in this study were mainly collected from many books,
literatures, stories, documents and dialogues in daily conversation to analyze more
clearly. Finally, some main similarities and differences in making and accepting
apology between English and Vietnamese have been identified, implications on
learning and teaching were made.

iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................i
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLE ......................................................................................................... viii
PART I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
1. Justification of the study .......................................................................................... 1
2. Aims of the study.....................................................................................................1

3. Scope of the study ...................................................................................................2
4. Methods of the study ............................................................................................... 2
5. The design of the study............................................................................................ 2
PART II. DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ......................................................... 3
1.1. SPEECH ACTS ....................................................................................................3
1.1.1. Definition of speech act .................................................................................3
1.1.2. Types of speech acts ......................................................................................3
1.1.3. Direct and indirect speech acts ......................................................................5
1.1.4. Felicity condition ........................................................................................... 6
1.1.5 Apology as speech acts ...................................................................................7
1.2. CONVERSATION THEORY ..............................................................................8
1.2.1. The concept of conversation ..........................................................................8
1.2.2. Conversational structure ................................................................................8
1.3. POLITENESS THEORY .....................................................................................9
1.3.1. Politeness and Face........................................................................................ 9

v


1.3.2. Strategies of Politeness ................................................................................12
1.4. APOLOGY THEORY ........................................................................................ 13
1.4.1. Definition of apology ..................................................................................13
1.4.2. Value of apology ......................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 2 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MAKING AND
ACCEPTING APOLOGIES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE .............................. 16
2.1. MAKING APOLOGY IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE ............................ 16
2.1.1. Making apology in English .........................................................................16
2.1.2. Making apology in Vietnamese ...................................................................19
2.1.3. Similarities and differences of making apology in English and Vietnamese

............................................................................................................................... 23
2.2. ACCEPTING APOLOGY IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE ...................... 26
2.2.1. Accepting apology in English .....................................................................26
2.2.2. Accepting an apology in Vietnamese .......................................................... 27
2.2.3. Similarities and differences between accepting apology in English and
Vietnamese ............................................................................................................29
CHAPTER 3 CONCLUSION .....................................................................................31
3.1. LIMITATION .....................................................................................................31
3.2. IMPLICATION ON LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING ...............31
3.3. SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER STUDIES .....................................................32
PART III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 33
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................34

vi


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
P
etc
e.g

:
:
:

Page
Et cetera
Exampli gratia

FTAs

:

Face-threatening acts

vii


LIST OF TABLE

Table 1.1: The five general functions of speech act (Yule, 1996, p55) .......................... 5
Table 2.1. Summary the similarities in form of making apology in English and
Vietnamese ...................................................................................................23
Table 2.2: Summary the differences in form of making apology in English and
Vietnamese ...................................................................................................24
Table 2.3. Summary the similarities in form of accepting apology in English and
Vietnamese ...................................................................................................29
Table 2.4. Summary the differences in form of accepting apology in English and
Vietnamese ...................................................................................................30

viii


PART I. INTRODUCTION
It is included in five parts: (1) justification of the study, (2) aims of the study,
(3) scope of the study, (4) methods of the study, (5) design of the study.
1. Justification of the study
In daily day, we always need to communicate. Communication can be done in
variety of different forms and media. However, it’s undeniable that speech act is basic
and most important form of human being. In which, the speech act of apology is often

used in communication of community in the world including Vietnamese and English.
It can be said that the appearance of apology occupies a large frequency in our
daily language. Obviously, apology is offered when we feel really faulty. Apology
here always goes with a regretful feeling and expecting to be forgiven more than an
usual action in civilization.
However, different language has different ways to form its apology. Especially,
when English and Vietnamese do not share the same language type, these differences
become more obvious.
Although in all languages the central function of apologies is to provide for an
offence and restore harmony, the way of making and accepting apologies are not the
same in every language.
Researching apology in English and Vietnamese have been carried out by
numerous researchers. However, there is no in-depth study on making and accepting
apology in English and Vietnamese, specifically is the forms of making and accepting
apology in English and Vietnamese.
That caused leaners of foreign languages many difficulties and
misunderstanding in the target language. The study about apology will contribute to
help Vietnamese learners more success in communication with English native speakers
through finding the similarities and differences in making and accepting apology
between Vietnamese and English.
For the above reasons, I decided to choose the topic “A study on making and
accepting apology in English and Vietnamese”.
2. Aims of the study
The study aims to point out the similarities and differences in the form English
and Vietnamese native speakers making and accepting apology. Besides, it is intended
to provide some implications for teaching and learning apology – making and
accepting to English majors in Vinh University.

1

3. Scope of the study
The research is towards a study on making and accepting apology in English
and Vietnamese. Within the scope of study, we mainly focus on the forms and
structures which English and Vietnamese speakers use to making and accepting
apology in order to achieve effectiveness in communication.
4. Methods of the study
Because of limited time, the author mainly collected records of apology in daily
communication, from books such as New Headway, English 8, and stories, internet,
etc. They are then analyzed to find out the similarities and differences in making and
accepting apology for the process of comparative and contrastive analysis in the thesis.
Moreover, she also uses some quotes from literature to analyze. Although this
dialogues were castigated in accordance with the writer’s intentions, it still remains
characteristic (emotional property, specific property) and the function (rational
communication, emotion) of daily life style in view of the functional style. Hence, the
dialogues in natural language and literatures which used to analyze are reliable
scientifically.
5. The design of the study
The thesis is organized into three parts as follow:
PART I: INTRODUCTION
The introduction deals with the justification, aims, scope, methods and design
of the study.
PART II. DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1. Theoretical Background
Chapter 2. The similarities and differences between making and accepting
apology in English and Vietnamese.
Chapter 3. Implications and suggestions.
PART III. CONCLUSION

2

PART II. DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. SPEECH ACTS
1.1.1. Definition of speech act
In our daily lives, humans use speech to transmit information and feelings.
Humans cannot live without speech. However speaking is complex behavior which
requires both linguistic and pragmatic competence, it is also influenced by
sociocultural norms and constraints. There are different types of behaviors seen in
speech acts, such as requests, complaints, invitations and apologies.
Making a statement may be the paradigmatic use of language, but there are all
kinds of other things we can do with words. We can make request, ask questions, give
orders, makes promises, give thanks, offer apologies and so on. Moreover, we perform
speech acts when we want to express opinions, viewpoints, wishes and wants. We thus
intend to have some effect on the listener and wants the listener to recognize this
intention.
A speech act might contain just one word, as in “Sorry!” to perform an apology,
or several words or sentences such as: “I’m sorry I’m late”.
The following definitions will define more clearly the concept of speech acts:
According to Austin (1962): “Speech acts is a functional unit in
communication”. Yule agrees on Austin’s theory of speech act: “In attempting to
express themselves, people do not only produce utterances containing grammatical
structures and words, they perform actions via those utterances”. According to him,
actions performed via utterances are speech acts .For example: I suggest… to make a
suggestion, I apologize… to make apology or I assert…to make assertion.
According to Schmidt and Richards (1980) define speech acts are all the acts
that speakers perform through speaking, and all things that speakers do and the
interpretation and negotiation of speech acts depend on discourse of context.
In general, speech acts are acts of communication. Communication is to express

a certain attitude, and the kinds of speech act being performed corresponds to the kinds
of attitude expressed. Therefore, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies,
following in the speaker’s intention, and the attitude expressed.
1.1.2. Types of speech acts
According to Austin (1962), a speech act consists of three related acts:
locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act.
- Locutionary act: the act of saying and writing something in a language
3


- Illocutionary act: the act describes what a speaker does by uttering a sentence.
- Perlocutionary act: the effects of the utterance on the listener. It reveals the
effect the speaker want to perform over the hearer
In other words, the locutionary act is basic act of utterance and it only produces
a meaningful linguistic expression with no purpose; the literal meaning of what is said.
For example,
(1) “It’s hot in here”
Someone made this meaningful linguistic expression. However, in real life,
people do not just make the utterances with no purpose. They usually make them with
some special intentions which are involved in the illocutionary act. It is performed
through utterance as is illustrated in example (1). It can be a simple statement, and it
also can be a request to open the door, or an explanation for something or used for
some other purposes.
Sometime, it is difficult to distinguish between the illocutionary and
perlocutionary act. In fact, the speaker do not only make the meaningful utterances
with some functions, but also he/she wants to get an effect which is involved in the
perlocutionary act. After hearing the utterance of example (1), the hearer will
recognize the effect the speaker wants, for example, for the hearer to open the door,
and then he/she will either do it for the speaker or not.
Besides, Searle (1969) classified illocutionary acts or speech acts into 5

categories as following:
- Assertive: used to state some facts that maybe occur or not, it consists of:
statements, assertions, conclusions and descriptions.
(2) It was a rainy day
(3) The earth is round
- Directive: used to get somebody to do something, its performance is order,
request, command and suggest. According to Hurford et.al. (2007: 294) state that: “A
directive act is any illocutionary act which essentially involves the speaker trying to
get the hearer to behave in some required way”.
(4) Don’t touch that.
(5) Could you open the door, please?
- Commissive: used to commit to doing something in the future such as:
promises, threats, and plans.
(6) I’ll come on time tomorrow
(7) I’m going to London next week
4


- Declaration: used to change or state a given reality through utterances. In this
respect, Pratt (1977: 81) also states that declarative speech acts are: “Illocutionary acts
that bring about the state of affairs they refer to”. They are performed via these acts
such as: declaring, notice…
(8) I now pronounce you husband and wife
(9) I inform you that the fight will be canceled.
- Expressive: Pratt (1977: 81) claims that expressive speech acts have to deal
with psychological states of speakers. Hence, they are used to express feelings and
emotions such as: apology, compliment
(10) I’m so sorry!
(11) What a beautiful shirt!
Yule (1996, p55) summarizes the five general functions of speech acts with

their key features
Table 1.1: The five general functions of speech act (Yule, 1996, p55)
Speech act type

Direction of fit

S= Speaker, X= Situation

Declaration

Words change the world

S causes X

Representative

Make words fit the world

S believe X

Expressive

Make words fit the world

S feels X

Directive

Make the world fit words

S wants X

Commissive

Make the word fit words

S intends X

The apologies are included in the expressive speech acts. They are usually
involved in speakers’ and hearers’ psychological states and the face states.
1.1.3. Direct and indirect speech acts
According to Yule (1996: 54-55), “Whenever there is a direct relationship
between a structure and a function, we have a direct speech acts”. He means that the
classification of speech acts is based on “structural forms” such as declarative,
interrogative or imperative and “communicative function” such as requests, demands
and promises. For example:
(1) I apologize for forgetting it. (Direct apology)
(2) I order you to clean the table. (Direct order)
On the other hand, Searle (1975: 61) points out: “In indirect speech acts, the
speaker communicates to the hearer more than he actually says by way of relying on
their mutually shared background information, both linguistic and nonlinguistic,
together with general powers of rationality and inference on the part of the hearer”.
That means when a speech act is performed indirectly, it is performed by way of
5


performing something indirectly. In this case, the speaker do not mean what his/her
words mean but something else instead. We can consider following illustrate:
(3) “Can you close the window?”
That example is an indirect speech act of requesting, because it expresses a

communicative function (request) by means of another structure (question). These are
more some examples of indirect speech acts:
(4) It’s very hot in here ( indirect request to open the door)
(5) A says: Do you want to play soccer?
B replies: I feel tired (indirect answer by saying no)
1.1.4. Felicity condition
When performing activities, performer need to have some certain conditions.
These conditions are necessary to the success of speech act. For example, a judge can
sentence a criminal in court, but not on other places.
Searle (1969: 36) suggests felicity conditions into four types: propositional
content conditions, preparatory conditions, sincerity conditions, and essential
conditions. Moreover, he also claims that speaking a language is performing actions
according to specific rules. That means perlocutionary act needs appropriate
conditions to be performed successfully. On the other words, those are appropriate
circumstances for the implication of perlocutionary act recognized as true to the
intention. The four felicity conditions are:
- Propositional content condition: Propositional content often indicate the
content nature of speech acts. As Searle’s statement, the propositional content involves
that the performative utterance components should fulfill the performed act. We thus
cannot make a request by using an utterance of performing a promise. The content of
proposition may be speaker’s act such as: swear, promise, commit or listener’s act
such as: order, request. The proposition is consider as the main factor of speech acts.
For example:
(1) You came
(2) Do you come?
(3) Let’s come
(4) Oh! You came
Four sentences in the above example share the same content: You-come.
However, perlocutionary acts of these are different:
- Report

- Ask
- Request
6


- Express emotion
Four these acts are performed based on the main proposition: You come.
- Preparatory condition: Searle (1980: 322-323) declares that the preparatory
condition of performative utterance have clear purpose behind uttering them. In the
other ways, the preparatory condition is background circumstance and knowledge that
both the speaker and the hearer have to hold before performing the act. For example,
the preparatory condition for order, should include that the hearer is able to do the act.
Or when the speaker utters a promise, it should be sure that the speaker want to
perform this act and the hearer also hope that the promise is performed.
- Sincerity condition: this condition requires the speaker have sincerity in
uttering the speech acts. For example, if the speaker promises to do something, he/she
then sincerely intend to do so. Searle (1980: 323) claims that “the most important
distinction between sincere and insincere promise is that in the case of the sincere
promise the speaker intends to do the act promised, in the case of insincere promise he
does not intend to do the the act”
Besides, the sincerity condition also regulates psychological features of
participants such as: feelings, intentions, and thoughts.
- Essential condition: It requires the commitment of speakers and hearers to do
the acts which are expressed by their utterances. The essential condition of a promising
is the commitment of the speaker to perform a certain promise.
According to Yule (1996: 51), “the essential condition in performing speech
acts is a combination of what should be in the utterance content, the nature of contexts
and the speaker’s intentions to do these actions”. In the same opinion, Lyons (1977:
734) claims that “the essential condition in performing speech acts means that the
speaker is committed by the illocutionary force of his utterance to certain beliefs or

intention”
1.1.5 Apology as speech acts
An apology is a speech act used when the behavioral norm is broken. When an
action or utterances has resulted that one or more persons perceives themselves as
offended, the guilty person(s) needs to apologize. The speech act of apologizing aims
at maintaining, restoring, and enhancing interpersonal relationship. According to
Olshtain (1983) when an action or utterance result in the fact that one or more persons
perceive themselves as offended, the culpable partly(s) needs to apologize.
Apologizing is polite speech act used to restore social relations following an offence.
Leech (1983: 104) cited in Trosborg (1995: 373) defined the act of apologizing
is a convivial speech act, the goal of which coincides with the social goal of
7


maintaining harmony between speaker and hearer. Holmes (1995) asserts apology as a
speech act directed to the addressee’s face needs and intended to resolve an offence for
which speaker takes responsibility, and to restore balance between speaker and
addressee. In addition, Marquez-reiter (2000: 44) declares an apology as a
compensatory action for an offense committed by the speaker which has affected the
hearer.
1.2. CONVERSATION THEORY
1.2.1. The concept of conversation
Conversation is the fundamental activity of the language. In communication,
conversation always exists the response between the speaker and the listener, they are
not only interact each other but their speech also interact one another. A conversation
is took place at any time, somewhere, and in some situations. Context plays an
important role in creating and perceiving the speech.
Conversation is the most popular act of communication of the human being.
That is a talk between two or more people in which thoughts, feelings and ideas are
displayed, questions are asked and answered, or information is exchanged.

First of all, we must mention the concept of conversation (talk). It is the
exchange, and conversation between individuals in certain social situations.
Each conversation always has the beginning and the end, they make the
boundary of a conversation can contain a variety of topics, and each topic has multiple
issues. The set of turn exchange of an issue creating a sequence.
1.2.2. Conversational structure
There are many metaphors used to describe conversation structure. For some,
conversation is like a dance, the participant must coordinate their actions rhythmically.
Another say that conversation is like traffic crossing an intersection, involving lot of
movements without any crashes.
Basically, the structure of conversation follows the pattern: I speaker- you
speaker- I speaker- you speaker.
1.2.2.1. Turn-taking
Turn is a form of social activity, which is governed by a set of rules for taking
turn, giving turn and keeping it. Because participants could not control as they wants,
these rules are proposed to make sure that one participant speak at the time, then they
give a turn next to the speaker, or next speaker take up the turn without being given.
(1) - Tim: would you like some more sugar, John?
- John: Well, I’d love to
- Tim: And you? Alex?
8


- Alex: No, I am good
1.2.2.2. Adjacency pairs
Adjacency pairs are “Pairs of utterances in talk are often mutually dependent”
(McCarthy, 2002, p119). They always consist of a first part and a second part. These
parts are produced by the different participants in a conversation. The first speaker
utters the first part, then he/she immediately expects his/her conversation partner to
utter the second part of the pair. Adjacency pairs are the fundamental structural units

in conversation, they are used in starting and finishing conversation. The most obvious
examples of adjacency pairs are thanking-response, question-answer, requestacceptance, giving-receiving, greeting-greeting, apology-acceptance…The following
example illustrates:
(2) Greeting-greeting:
- Nam: Hello!
- Tuan: Hi!
(3) Thanking-response:
- Hoa: Thank for your help
- Hương: Don’t mention it.
(4) Request-acceptance
- Mother: Let’s go bed now!
- Son: Yes, mom.
(5) Apology – Acceptance
- Mary: I’m so sorry for forgetting your birthday
- Anna: Don’t worry about it.
(6) Invitation- acceptance
- Boy: Are you free tonight? I’d like to invite you go to the cinema.
- Girl: That sounds great
(6) Question- answer
- Mom: Where is my dictionary?
- Son: It’s on the table, Mom.
1.3. POLITENESS THEORY
1.3.1. Politeness and Face
All the speech acts cannot exist without face and politeness, they usually save
face or threat face. Politeness is usually an expression of concern for the feelings of
other people both linguistic and non- linguistic ways. It is used to express respect to
the person who is talked. So politeness can be considered as an important
communicative strategy which helps to maintain good relationships and keep
9

conversations going on. Many linguists share their understanding and their concern on
the concept of politeness.
Lakoff (1989: 102) defines politeness as a “means of minimizing confrontation
in discourse – both the possibility of confrontation occurring at all, and the possibility
that a confrontation will be perceived as threating”. She lists the following maxims of
politeness:
1. Don’t impose
2. Give options
3. Make the receiver feel good
The first rule, “Don’t impose” states that we keep distance from others by not
imposing. In order to keep distance with others, we tend to use formal expressions or
use technical vocabulary to exclude personal emotions.
The second rule, “Give options” is characterized by saying things hesitantly, by
not stating one’s will clearly or by using euphemisms. It involves the status difference
of the speaker and the hearer, and the speaker yields to the power of the hearer by
leaving the option of decision to the hearer. For example;
(1) Would you mind…?
(2) Could you possibly…?
(3) May I ask you to…?
By using “Would you”, “Could you”, “May I” the imposition is lessened.
“Could you” is in for of a question to examine the hearer’s willingness to do the
action.
The third rule, “Make the receiver feel good”, on the other hand, emphasizes
equality between the speaker and the hearer. And it enhances closeness between them.
For example: We may add in praise to make the hearer feel good
(4) Could you give me a helping hand? You know much more about it than I do.
According to Yule (1997: 60), politeness is considered as “the ideal of “polite
social behavior” or etiquette within a culture” .In other words, politeness is “a number
of different general principles for being polite in social interaction within a particular

culture”.
Leech (1983) defines “Politeness as a type of behavior that follows the
participants to engage in a social interaction in an atmosphere of relative harmony”. In
other ways, Leech says that the politeness principle has the role to maintain social
balance and friendly relations which enable us to assume our interlocutors are being
co-operative in the first place. Then, he introduces a number of maxims which are

10


necessary in order to explain the relationship between sense and force in human
conversation:
- Tact maxim: minimize cost to other; maximize benefit to other
- Generosity maxim: minimize benefit to self; maximize benefit to self
- Approbation maxim: minimize dispraise of other; maximize praise of other
- Modesty maxim; minimize praise of self; maximize dispraise of self
- Agreement maxim; minimize disagreement between self and other; maximize
agreement between self and other
- Sympathy maxim; minimize antipathy between self and other; maximize
sympathy between self and other
Each maxim is accompanied by a sub-maxim, which is of less importance.
They all support the idea that negative politeness is more important than positive
politeness. Not all of the maxims are equally important. For example, tact influences
what we say more powerfully than does generosity, while approbation is more
important than modesty.
According to Richard et al. (1985: 281), politeness is defined as:
a) How language express the social distance between speakers and their
different role relationships.
b) How face - work, which is, the attempt to establish, maintain and save face
during conversation, is carried out in a speech community. Languages differ in how

they express politeness.
Meanwhile, Brown and Levison (1987) state “politeness that is emotionally
invested, and that can be lost, maintained or enhanced and must be constantly attend to
in interaction”. The key notion in their politeness model is “face”. In their opinion, in
order to enter into social relationships, all people must acknowledge the face of other
people.
As a technical term, face means the public self-image of a person. It refers to
the emotional and social sense of self that people has and expects others to recognize.
Within everyday social interactions, people generally behave as if their expectations
concerning their public self-image will be respected. It also called as face wants. The
action of saying something that represents a threat to another individual’s face or selfesteem, it is described as face threatening act. Meanwhile, if a speaker says something
to lessen the possible threat or to maintain a good self-image, it is called a face saving
act. To keep the conversations going on or to keep the solidarity, people will avoid
face-threating act and try their best to use face –saving act that emphasizes other’s
positive face needs. In this study, apology regards as face saving act. Apologies
11


typically occur post-event to restore harmony when an offense has been committed,
but it is also face- saving one’s own face (Goffman, 1972:190). In this respect,
apology involves a threat to the speaker, but it is possible for the offender to save face
by justifying or explaining the reasons for his/her fault.
(5) Student: I am sorry for coming lately
For example (1), it is considered as face-saving act, the student is sorry for what
he has done, so the act is aimed to restore harmony and keep self-image.
Brown and Levison also claim that human being have two kinds of face:
“positive face” and “negative face”.
Positive face, according to (Yule, 1996), “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”. On the other hand, negative face is the need to be

independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed by others (Yule, 1996).
Brown and Levison (1987) also claim that “negative face is the basic claim to
territories personal preserves, right to non – distraction, etc. to freedom of action and
freedom from imposition. Positive face and negative face are the two aspects of face
that are the basic wants in any social interaction, and so during any social interaction,
the participants need to keep each other’s face.
In order to avoid conflict and respect people’s freedom of thought, and thus
maintain the harmonious relations with others, politeness strategies can be
implemented in conversation.
1.3.2. Strategies of Politeness
In the Politeness theory by Brown and Levison (1987), politeness is considered
as a complex system for softening face-threating acts (FTAs). In the other words,
Politeness strategies are used in order to reduce the imposition of FTAs .As a result,
Brown and Levison sum up politeness behavior in four strategies so as to minimize the
loss of face:
1. Bald on-record strategy usually do not attempt to minimize the threat to the
hearer’s face, although there are ways that bald on-record politeness can be used in
trying to minimize face-threating acts implicitly. E.g.
(6) I want some beer.
2. Positive politeness strategies seek to minimize the threat to the hearer’s
positive face .They are used to make the hearer feel good about himself, his interest or
possessions ,and are most usually used in situations where the audience knows each
other fairly well. E.g.
(7) Is it ok for me to have a beer?
12


3. Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer’s negative
face and emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer. E.g.
(8) I don’t want to bother you but, would it be possible for me to have a beer?

4. Off-record strategies uses indirect language and removes the speaker from
the potential to be imposing. E.g.
(9) It’s so hot, it makes me really thirst
1.4. APOLOGY THEORY
1.4.1. Definition of apology
Apology is an expressive illocutionary act. It is used commonly in human
interaction. There are numerous definitions of apology provided by many researchers.
According to Garcia (1989: 44) Apology is defined as “An explanation offered
to a person effected by one’s action that no offense was intended, couple with the
expression of regret for any that may have been given; or, a frank acknowledgement of
the offense with expression of regret for it, by way of reparation”. The typical
expression of an apology is done by the words, “I am sorry”. However, the word “I am
sorry” can have many possible interpretations for a listener as well as a speaker. The
difference of meaning results in three elements in an apology (i) admitting one’s fault,
(ii) expressing regret for the injurious action, and (iii) expressing sympathy for the
other’s injury(Cohen ,1999)
Apologies are also defined as “primarily and essentially social acts, carrying
effective meaning” (Homes, 1990). An apology is a fundamental speech act which is a
part of human communication that is a typical phenomenon in every culture; they are
very good indicators of distance and dominance in relationships, hence reflecting
cultural norm. Brown and Levinson (1987:66) regard apologies as “politeness
strategies” in that they convey respect, deference, and distance rather than friendliness
and involvement. In performing an apology, the speaker acknowledges the addressee’s
face - want not to be offended. They add that an apology is for some behavior or
failure to carry out some behavior that has proved costly to the hearer. To apology is to
act politely, both in vernacular sense and in more technical sense of paying attention to
the addressee’s face needs (Brown and Levison, 1987).
According to Leech (1983: 104), apology is a convivial speech act whose goal
coincides with the social goal of maintaining harmony between the speaker and the
hearer’s. Both theory of Brown and Levison and Leech are convenient and acceptable,

because each one describes this process and captured this phenomenon from both sides
individually and society.

13


Olshtain and Cohen (1983: 20) claim that, “an apology is called for when social
norms have been violated, whether the offence is real or potential”.
Owen (1983) states that “apologies are remedial moves that follow what he
called a priming move on the part of the person who expects the apology, which is a
move that triggers the apology”. Owen limits very much this concept. He restricts the
use of the term apology to only those utterances that actually contain the explicit
phrases “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” and variety of these. His definition would apply
only to explicit apologies.
According to Trosborg (1995), apologies are expressive illocutionary acts
which can be differentiated from complaints, which are also expressive acts, by being
convivial in nature. Trosborg differentiated between apologies and complaints in this
definition. However, because apologies are not the only convivial acts, she narrowed
the definition of apologies by claiming that apologies have a remedial function, and
this function is the one that differentiates them from thanking, congratulating, and
other convivial acts.
Finally, (Fraser, 1981) defines that apologies is speech acts that when
somebody is offended due to the fact that personal expectations are not fulfilled
Usually, this speech act requires the presence of two participants, namely the person
who is apologizing and the person who expects apology, be it real or potential.
According to the author, “apology” is a speech act. It has different meanings
depending on the circumstance and the purpose of communication. The speech act
“sorry” is performed when the apologizer feel regret and recognition their mistakes
and he/she expects to be forgiven. “Apology” can also be the hedge before implying or
bothering someone or the act of refusing something.

(1) I’m sorry for losing your cat.
(2) Excuse me, can you show me the way go to the market?
(3) Or a conversation between A and B:
- A: Can you help me, please?
- B: Sorry, I am busy now
In pragmatic, apology is a speech act that orients to the addressee’s face-want
and intends to correct the speaker’s offence, and it thus will reconstruct the balance
between the offender and the offended. In the other words, apology is act of
acknowledging fault.
(4) I’m so sorry. I’m late
(5) I apologize for cheating you

14


Apologies in communication express the politeness of individuals, hence
apology is an important factor in social interaction. It not only dominates but also
affects the efficiency of communication.
(6) Alex: I apologize that I behaved you badly
Mary: Never mind
In this case, the way Alex apologize Mary will ease the listener’s feeling.
Therefore, it also resets the relationship between them.
Apology is a social perceptional action in communication to assess the
politeness of participants. It is considered to be impolite without apologizing in case
we do something wrong which created a distance in the relationship in social system.
Hence, apology associated with social norms and it tends to be more norm politeness
than strategy politeness.
1.4.2. Value of apology
By apologizing and taking responsibility for our actions, we reduce guilty
feelings.

Apology has the power to humble the arrogance. When we develop the courage
to admit we are wrong, we develop a deep sense of self-respect. Apologizing help us
establish relationship to ours friends and love ones. Knowing we have wronged
someone may cause us to distance ourselves from another, but when we have
apologized we feel freer. Apologizing usually cause us to feel modest, it can also act
as a deterring, reminding us to not repeat the act.

15


CHAPTER 2. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MAKING
AND ACCEPTING APOLOGIES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
Apology can be in the forms of direct and indirect utterances. This study aims
to investigate the similarities and differences in terms of syntactic features of spoken
apology in English and Vietnamese, in the effort of increasing the effectiveness of
teaching and learning apology utterance in English and Vietnamese and the ability to
use language for Vietnamese leaners of English.
The analytic framework of this study has been collected from a number of
English and Vietnamese researches as well as textbooks, literatures which include
different forms of making and accepting. In this study, different linguistic forms of
making and accepting apology are specified and found out.
Cohen and Olshtain (1983) has introduced apology in English and Vietnamese
in kinds of directness and indirectness. In her dissertation, Nguyen Thi Lanh (2013)
has introduced forms of Vietnamese apologizing including apology in with
performative verb (xin lỗi) and apologies without performative verb.
These researches and textbooks mentioned above is important in term of
providing the analytic framework for discussing categories of making and accepting
apologies in English and Vietnamese.
2.1. MAKING APOLOGY IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
2.1.1. Making apology in English

Cohen and Olshtain (1983) states that direct apology is used with performative
verbs such as: “(be) sorry, apologize, excuse, regret, pardon, and forgive” in English
and “xin lỗi, tha thứ, tha lỗi, lượng thứ” in Vietnamese.
2.1.1.1 Direct apology
a) Direct apology in forms of performative sentences with verb: (be) sorry,
apologize.
Firstly, let’s take a look at the definitions of the term "performative sentence".
Austin (1962) made a great contribution in terms of discovering and developing
performative sentence. Austin (1962) stated that a performative sentence occurs when:
(1) A sentence is uttered and an action thereby is performed.
(2) The grammatical structure of the sentence makes it look as though the
sentence states that it performed that action.
As Cao Xuan Hao (1991), a performative sentence is considered as a
declarative sentence. It expresses the actions that contain in the utterance by directly
uttering. Such kind of sentence using a verb named performative verb namely "to
16


apologize" in English. The patterns of performative sentences usually take the
following types:
Form 1: Performative sentences with subject:
(1) I’m sorry. I can’t come tonight
(New Headway, p13)
Form 2: Performative sentences without subject:
(2) Sorry, Sir/madam we do not have in our property that you request for.
However, we can buy the item for you and charge the item to your account
(Recording at the hotel)
(3) Sorry, Mr. /Mrs. Smith
Form 3: Invisible subject and object:
(4) Sorry, I’m late

(New Headway, p.13)
(5) Sorry, I’ve been broken your chair
(New Headway, p.68)
(6) Sorry, I’m late. I have to go to the bank, and there was a queue
(New Headway, p.67)
In many situations, English people make an explanation after saying apology.
It’s necessary to give explanation after saying “sorry”. This is because in English not
giving a reason why something happened displays you cannot be bothered to explain.
Sometime, they only use performative verb:
(7) Oh, Sorry!
When people use this form to make apology. It means the fault is minor level.
And this kind of apology is used in informal communication.
According to Huynh Thi Nhi, people use this form in close relationship such as:
between friends or persons have equal status.
Form 4: Performative sentences with adverbs namely: very, so, terribly, deeply,
really, extremely… By using these words when making apology, the victim feel
understood and valued as a partner in the relationship.
(8) I’m very sorry, madam, but it’s been delayed
(English 8, p. 77)
(9) I’m terribly sorry, James
(New Headway, p.26)
b) Direct apology in form of performative sentences with verbs: pardon, excuse,
forgive, regret
17