- 1 -
Chapter one: Introduction

1.1. Rationale of the study

In the past few decades we have witnessed a big change in language teaching and learning.
That is the appearance of ‘communicative approach’ to language teaching and learning, which
puts a strong emphasis on master of language use. That is to say, language is viewed as a
means of communication and uses of language play a central part in language teaching and
learning (Brumfit and Johnson 1979). Focus on learners’ language use also means that
communicative approach takes priority over pragmatic competence, one of the four sectors of
communicative competence (Hymes 1972 in Brumfit and Johnson 1979). Much research on
pragmatic competence on the basis of diverse speech acts and speech act sets shows that
pragmatic competence plays a decisive role in learners’ communicative competence
development because it results in appropriateness and effectiveness in interactions, the goal in
learning a second or foreign language. Second or foreign language learners (L2 learners) can
approximate native speakers only when they master rules of language use that underline the
ability to use language in contextually appropriate and effective ways. Given these facts, L2
learners in classroom setting should be pragmatically aware and pragmatically competent.
However, in the language learning setting in Vietnam learners’ pragmatic competence seems
to be given less consideration than other aspects of language teaching. This can be manifested
through the examination of some types of speech acts taught in some teaching materials in
Vietnamese junior high schools. Let’s take some examples. In grade 7 English coursebook
some speech acts such as requests, gratitude, invitations, refusals, complaints or compliments
are introduced to learners, and they are taught along with other language items. However, the
matter lies in the fact that they are paid less attention to while they must have got much focus
on. Furthermore, the teacher, when teaching these types of speech acts, only introduces the
semantic formulas of these speech acts, then asks learners to try to make utterances basing on
the formulas. For example, in teaching invitations and responses in unit 6 on pages 66 and 67,
the teacher writes on the board the formulas such as Would you like to…? and Yes, I’d love

the native language, of the target language, and of the learner language cause so much
difficulty in learners’ L2 acquisition in general and the acquisition of the pragmatic ability in
particular. Furthermore, the cultural differences of learners’ native language and the target
language are also the cause of pragmatic failure. The study of learner language or
interlanguage (ILP) can be useful in helping learners’ progress through the developmental
stages. Teachers, in particular, need to understand the domain of ILP to modify their teaching
practices to facilitate pragmatic development. In the present study learner language is
investigated through the speech act of asking for something back.

So far so many speech act sets such as requests, apologies, refusals, invitations, complaints,
compliments, greetings, gratitude, etc have been studied on both cross-cultural and
interlanguage pragmatics perspective but not the act of asking something back. Hence, the
speech act of asking for something back is chosen for this study for the reason that it has never
been investigated before though it occurs regularly in everyday conversations. Moreover, it
differs from other types of speech acts in the sense that it seems to require the speakers to use
many different communicative strategies to achieve the last goal, namely getting something
back from the addresses. Sometimes, the speech act has to be repeated many times and in each
time a new strategy may have to be used, and then the goal can be achieved successfully.

- 3 -
Saying these things is to see that an investigation on the speech act can be hopeful to discover
interesting things. What is more, it is also very useful to find how learners learn to perform the
speech act, and to what extent and in what ways learners perform the speech act in the L2
differently from native speakers of the target language. From the findings of these, teachers
then can have appropriate approaches to the teaching of language functions.

1.2. Aims of the study

The study aims to find out if Vietnamese learners and native speakers differ in realizing the
speech act of asking for something back in the situations studied and if so, why they are
2.1. Speech act theory
2.1.1. Austin and Searle’s theory of speech acts

For a long time, the studying object of linguistics was mainly affirmative sentences, or
sometimes called statements, assertions. This was because, semantically, these sentences
could be all tested for their truth or falsity. Other sentences such as Could you tell me what
time it is?, I promise I’ll be more careful next time, or I bet you Barcelona will win the
Champions’ League, which could not be logically concluded to be true or false, were
considered meaningless (Levinson, 1983). Only when Austin’s (1962) theory of speech acts
was launched, did the changes occur. According to Austin, these above sentences when
uttered are not used to just say things or describe states of affairs but rather actively do things
such as raising a question, promising, or betting. He called these peculiar sentences
‘performative’ in order to differentiate them from the affirmative sentences, which he called
‘constatives’. However, after making a distinction between explicit performatives and implicit
performatives, Austin claims that there is no longer the contrast between performatives and
constatives. This is because constatives are also created by an illocutionary act (see below).
For example, the utterance It is raining is realized a statement, but it can also be used with the
first person singular I and a performative verb in the present tense to become an explicit
performative. Then, we have I state that it is raining. Yule (1996) formulates this deep
structure as follows:
I (hereby) Vp you (that) U

The formula is generalized by the Performative Hypothesis, which proposes that every
sentence has a deep structure of an explicit performative. In other words, all the implicit
performatives occurring in everyday conversations are originated from the deep structure of
explicit performatives. Nevertheless, as Do (2003) points out, the Performative Hypothesis is
collapsed for two reasons: first, in many cases, an implicit performative cannot be transformed
into an explicit one because one cannot find a performative verb which can be used to describe

linguistic community. So it must be said that to master a language is not just simply to master
its syntax, phonetics, or lexicon, but to master the operational rules of the illocutionary act in
that language. That is to say, one must know how to make appropriately and effectively a
request, a promise, an invitation, a question, etc in the target language.

Among the three types of acts, the illocutionary act is the main focus of linguistic pragmatics.
And the term ‘speech act’ (Searle’s 1969 term) is exclusively used to refer to the illocutionary
act.

Although it is impossible to test whether an illocutionary act is logically true or false, it is
possible to examine whether it is appropriate or inappropriate when uttered. Searle (1969),
basing on the felicity conditions advanced by Austin (1962), proposes a set of conditions,
which an illocutionary act has to meet to be appropriate when uttered. This set includes

- 6 -
propositional content, preparatory preconditions, conditions on sincerity, and the essential
condition. Content conditions indicate the content nature of an illocutionary act. A content
condition for a promise must be about a future event and the future event will be a future act
of the speaker. Preparatory preconditions include all what relates to the necessity so that an
illocutionary act can be performed. A promise needs to be performed by an agent and there
must be a beneficial effect brought about by it. Sincerity conditions concern with the
interlocutors’ psychological state. When making a promise, the speaker must have a true
intention to perform it, and the listener truly wants it to be performed. Essential condition
relates to an obligation the speaker or listener must follow when an illocutionary act is
performed. When one makes a promise, one is, right at the moment of speaking, obliged to
keep and perform it in the future. Each of these above conditions is the necessary condition;
and the whole set of them is the sufficient condition. A specific speech act needs to meet all
these conditions to be performed appropriately.

Another issue of speech acts is to classify them. Austin (1962) tries to do that work.

LoCastro also discusses indirect strategies and states that an indirect speech act can be
realized by sentence form such as It’s cold outside, modality such as Would you mind lending
me a couple of dollars for lunch?, or by conversational implicature such as Do you have any
homework? – I’ve already finished it. He also raises another question that why people use
indirectness so often though it requires much cognitive processing and is risky to be
misunderstood. He claims that there may be six reasons. First, interlocutors may want to avoid
a direct statement because directness may seem not to be tactful and sensitive to the feelings
of the hearer. Second, when indirectness is used in the past tense, it implies that no change can
be made and so communicative goal can be achieved. Third, indirectness is a good way of
denying perceived intentions, avoiding conflict, and escaping from responsibility for an
utterance. Fourth, indirectness is closely related to politeness and used to save face. Fifth,
indirectness can be creative and playful. Finally, indirectness is used as a strategy to gain or
maintain power over others.

2.1.3. The speech act of asking for something back

Like all the other speech acts, asking for something back occurs in all languages. But not all
languages perform the act in the same way. The speech act of asking for something back is
basically a speech act which is intended to provide some support for the speaker and some cost
for the hearer. Hence, it is a face-threatening act to the hearer as it contradicts his/her
expectations. Asking for something back occurs when the speaker actually or potentially
wants the hearer to give him/her back something that the hearer borrowed from him/her, and
believes that the hearer is to be responsible for giving the thing back. As a face-threatening
act, it requires a high level of pragmatic competence and a sensitive pragmatic task. The
speaker, thus, must be tactful and sensitive to produce language that is socially and culturally
appropriate. He/she has to behave so well that he/she both achieves his/her intended goal and
maintains the interpersonal relations. - 8 -

Brown and Levinson built their theory of politeness on the basis of the concept ‘face’.
According to them, “face is the public self-image that every member wants to claim for
himself” (1987: 61). This definition is explained more by Yule (1996: 60) as “face means the
public self-image of a person. It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that everyone
has and expects everyone else to recognize.” - 9 -
Face includes two types: negative face and positive face. Negative face is the wish and need to
be independent and free to do things and not to be interfered and imposed by others. Positive
face is the wish and need to be shared, respected, appreciated, accepted, liked, and treated as a
member of the same group. These two types of face are two mutual sides, but not separate.
That is to say, a violation of negative face can lead to the loss of positive face and vice-versa.

On the basis of the concept ‘face’, Yule (1996: 60) claims that “Politeness, in an interaction,
can then be defined as the means employed to show awareness of another person’s face”.
Politeness also consists of negative politeness and positive one. Negative politeness avoids
using face-threatening acts (FTAs) (Brown and Levinson’s (1987) term) or at least
compensates, mitigates the illocutionary force of FTAs. Positive politeness, by contrast,
flatters the hearer’s face and increases the speaker’s face as well.

Brown and Levinson claim that the majority of speech acts are potentially possible to threaten
interlocutors’ face. And so to lessen FTAs, interactants need to make a calculation of the
degree of face-threat that is to be compensated for by appropriate politeness strategies. These
strategies should be based on three factors: power, distance, and imposition, and they can be
described in the following diagram. Baldly, without redress


conditions, conversational implicatures, and inferences). From the above viewpoint, the
present study adopts Yule’s (1996) definition of pragmatics, which says “Pragmatics is the
study of speaker meaning the study of contextual meaning the study of how more gets
communicated than is said the study of the expression of relative distance” (1996: 3).

2.3.1. Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP)

Interlanguage pragmatics is defined as “The study of nonnative speakers’ use and acquisition
of linguistic action patterns in a second language” (Kasper and Blum-Kulka, 1993: 3). The
term ‘interlanguage’ is used here to refer to the developing system of learners which is neither
that of their first language (L1) nor that of the second language (L2). Kasper and Blum-Kulka
(1993) specify five research areas of ILP: pragmatic comprehension, which concentrates on
the factors leading to less successful comprehension of pragmatic meaning; production of
linguistic action, which tries to identify the obstacles to learners’ contextually appropriate
production of pragmatic meaning; development of pragmatic competence, which examines the
development of L2 learners’ pragmatic ability; pragmatic transfer, which investigates whether
or where L1 transfer occurs and looks for the sources and factors resulting in the occurrence
of L1 transfer; and communicative effect, which puts an emphasis on the effectiveness of
learners’ language use. The present study will focus on the second area.

2.3.2. Pragmatic competence

The present study adopts Ellis’s (1994) point of view that “Pragmatic competence consists of
the knowledge that speaker-hearers use in order to engage in communication, including how
speech acts are successfully performed” (1994: 719). Pragmatic knowledge here should be

- 11 -
distinguished with linguistic knowledge. Whereas the former is the speaker’s ability to use
language to achieve their communicative goals, the latter is the mental representation of
linguistic rules for correct language behaviours (Hymes 1972, cited in LoCastro 2003). Ellis

Following the above definition of transfer, Kasper’s (1992, cited in Bou Franch 1998)
definition of pragmatic transfer is adopted in the present study: - 12 -
Pragmatic transfer in interlanguage pragmatics shall refer to the influence
exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other
than L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic
information.
(Kasper 1992: 207)

As Bou Franch (1998) claims, Kasper’s definition is acceptable for three reasons: it is
process-oriented; it allows the study of transfer in learning and in communication; and it is
comprehensive. However, the study of transfer is not only to identify what is transferred but
also to determine under what circumstances transfer takes place. The conditions that promote
or inhibit transfer are called transferability constraints. Ellis (1994) reviews six ones that are
investigated to see what is transferred and what is not, and when transfer takes place and when
it does not. They are language level, sociolinguistic factors, markedness, prototypicality,
language distance, psychotypology, and developmental factors. Among these constraints,
sociolinguistic factors have been put more emphasis by ILP researchers. So the present study
takes into account sociolinguistic factors, which consist of the context-external factors (e.g.,
interlocutors’ familiarity, relative status), and context-internal factors (e.g., degree of
imposition). This is because, as Kasper (1992, cited in Bou Franch 1998) states, learners often
perform speech acts in respect of sociolinguistic norms of their native language though they
have been talked to be sensitive to sociolinguistic factors.

When pragmatic transfer is concerned with, it is also very important to talk about types of
pragmatic transfer. Kasper (1992, cited in Takahashi 1996) specifies two types:
pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfer. This distinction is based on Leech’s (1983)
discussion of general pragmatics and on Thomas’s (1983) study of cross-cultural pragmatic

- 14 -
Chapter three: Methodology

3.1. Research questions

Basing on the aims set in chapter one, the present study will address three research questions
as below:
1. How do Vietnamese learners of English and English native speakers realize the
speech act of asking for something back in the contexts studied?
2. Do Vietnamese learners of English differ from English native speakers when they
perform the speech act in the contexts studied? If so, how?
3. Why are Vietnamese learners' performances different from native speakers'
performances?

3.2. Data collection method

Section 3.1 gives the advocacy of the discourse completion task (DCT) as the data collection
method for the present study. Section 3.2 discusses the design of the discourse completion
questionnaire.

3.2.1. The advocacy of the discourse completion task

have a strong influence to the choice of the linguistic forms in interaction, and of external
contexts such as age, sex, or level of proficiency. Second, a DCT also provides information
about the kinds of semantic formulas that learners use to realize different illocutionary acts.
This seems to be suitable for the study whose aim is to find out learners’ realization strategies
and specific features of a particular speech act. Third, a DCT can be an effective means of
collecting a large amount of data quickly and easily. This is also appropriate to the study in
which the time to carry out is calculated by months.

3.2.2. Data collection instruments

In the present study there are two questionnaires designed to serve the collection of necessary
data: a multiple-choice questionnaire and a discourse completion task. The MPQ is designed to
find out how often ESs and VSs ask for 6 things back in 6 different situations. The subjects are
asked to rate each situation on the basis of their own life experience on a 5-point scale, ranging
from never to always. In addition, there are also some empty slots in the end of the MCQ
where the subjects can write down other situations in which they often ask for something back.
Because there are two groups of subjects participating in this task, there will be two versions of
the MPQ: the English version used for ESs and the translated-into-Vietnamese version used
for VSs. In both versions, the situations in which the highest levels of frequency, namely
usually and always, are rated with the largest percentage are used to design the DCT. A sample
item of the MPQ can be given as follows:
Multiple-choice questionnaire
How often do the following situations happen in your daily life?

- 16 - never sometimes often usually always
10
5. Pen 7.1 0 28.6 40 14.3 24.7 28.6 25.3 21.4

10
6. Car 9.1 10 9.2 0 0 0 10.3 40 71.4

50

Table 1: The frequency of 6 situations by ESs and VSs

Looking at the table we can see that 3 situations (1. Book, 3. Laptop, 6. Car) are rated with
largest percentage by both ESs and VSs. So these situations are used to design the DCT.
However, these three situations are rebuilt in order to reflect the variables of social factors of
the contexts studied such as social power and social distance. The first situation involves one
staff in a multinational company lending his/her boss his/her car, and now he/she asks for it
back. The second one concerns with a person lending his/her important book to his/her close
classmate and then asks for it back. The last one relates to two brothers in a family; the
younger borrows the older’s laptop and says to give it back in two days, but three days goes by
and he hasn’t returned it. The older asks for it back. As an example, the first situation is
illustrated as follows:
DCT
Could you please read the following situation carefully then write your response in the space
provided? You can say as much or little as you wish.
Situation 1
You are one of the staff in a multinational company. Your boss borrowed your car a few days
ago and hasn’t returned it. You ask for it back by saying:
Similar to the MPQ, there are also two versions of the DCT: English version used for ESs and

beginners, and all the analysis and discussion would be based on this level of proficiency.

3.4. Analytical framework

There are three social factors: social power, social distance, and imposition that relate to the
data analysis procedure. But only the first two are focused on in the present study, since the
last one is hard to be examined via the DCT instrument. Hence, imposition is only referred to
when possible.

As mentioned in section 2.1.3, the speech act of asking for something back is similar to the
speech act of requesting in some respect. Hence, this study adopts the coding system for
requests utilized by Blum-Kulka et at (1989) and Ha (1998), but some changes can be made
when necessary. A speech act of asking for something back consists of a head act, which
conveys the illocutionary force, and with or without additional elements, which can include

- 18 -
alerters, internal or external modifiers. Here is an example Excuse me sir. May I have my car
back please? In this example excuse me sir functions as alerters; May I have my car back? is
the head act; and please is an internal modifier. The following section discusses different
categories of the coding system. But one thing which should be noted here is that all the
examples used in this section are extracted from my own collected data.

3.4.1. Alerters
An alerter is used to attract the hearer’s attention. There are three types of alerters:
Title or role: Sir, Boss, Mr Smith, etc.
First name: Jim, Kien, etc.
Attention getter: Hey, excuse me, hi, etc.

3.4.2. Realization strategies of the speech act of asking for something back
The head act of asking for something back can be realized by the means of the levels of

Can I have my book back?
As can be seen from the examples, query preparatory strategy in this study is not always used
in the form of questions, but in the form of statements, too.

3.4.2.3. Non-conventionally indirect strategies
Non-conventionally indirect strategies are realized when the link between prepositional
content, linguistic form and illocutionary force is open ended (Do 2003). There are two non-
conventionally indirect strategies used in this study. They are strong hints and mild hints.
Strong hints are used when the speaker does not express the speech act of asking for
something explicitly or directly, but refers to the name of the object he/she has lent in his/her
utterance while mild hints are used when the speaker makes an utterance that excludes the
name of the object he/she has lent. Here are some examples:
Strong hints: Sir, is my car OK?
Have you finished the book?
Mild hints: I know a good restaurant in the suburb. Let’s come there, shan’t we?
Are you getting on well with your study?

3.4.3. Internal modifiers

Internal modifiers occur in the scope of the head act, but they can be optional. The use of them
can affect the illocutionary force made in the head act. They can mitigate or intensify the
illocutionary force. When the first case happens, they are called downgraders. When the
second occurs, they are called upgraders. In this study downgraders are divided into syntactic
downgraders, which mitigate the illocutionary force by means of syntactic choices, and lexical
downgraders, which soften the illocutionary force by means of lexical choices. Syntactic
downgraders include past tense with present time reference, conditional clause, which is used
to distance the speaker’s asking for something back from reality, embedded clause, which is
used to express tentativeness, and modals, which is also used to convey tentativeness. Here are
some examples of them.



Unlike internal modifiers, external modifiers are outside the scope of the head act. They can
occur before or after it. External modifiers include mitigators, which mitigate the illocutionary
force of asking for something back, and aggravators, which aggravate the illocutionary force
of asking for something back. Mitigators are also divided into preparator, which is used to
make a preparation for asking for something back, grounder, which is reasons or explanations
for asking for something back, disarmers, which says that asking for the thing back is not

- 21 -
wanted but forced by circumstance, and promiser, which conveys a future promise by the
speaker. Here are some examples:
Preparator: You borrowed my car a few days ago but now I need it.
Grounder: Hey, we’re learning English tomorrow morning. Remember to bring my book,
please.
Disarmer: I’m sorry, but I really need my car back.
Promiser: If you haven’t finished it yet, I could let you borrow it again when I am done.

Aggravators are divided into demander, which is used to increase the imposition of the
illocutionary force by means of a need, and warner, which is also used to increase the
imposition of the illocutionary force but by means of warning or threatening. Here are some
examples, too:
Demander: Hey, give me my book. I need it.
Warner: Return it now or I’ll never lend you again.


refuses to complete situation 1. Therefore, the calculation in this situation is done with 31
VLs.

4.1.1. Strategies

The use of strategies by VLs through 3 situations is described in the following table.

Imperatives

Demand
statements

H’s ability

H’s
willingness

S’s
permission

Strong
hints
Mild
hints

F %

F %

F %

4/32 12.6

3/32 9.4

3.Laptop

19/32 59.4

0/32 0

0/32 0

0/32 0

1/32 3.1

11/32 34.4

1/32 3.1Table 2: Strategies by VLs across 3 situations - 23 -
As can be seen from table 2, VLs’ use of strategies changes according to different situations.
In situation 1, where the speaker has less power over the addressee, they rely heavily on
conventionally indirect strategies and strong hints to make up the speech act of asking for
something back. By contrast, in the two last situations, in which the speaker has equal or more
power over the addressee, VLs show their great preference to imperatives. That is to say, they

F %

F %

F %

1. Syntactic downgradersPast tense 8/37 21.6

3/26 11.5

0/15 0
Conditional clause 0/37 0 1/26 3.8 0/15 0
Embedded clause 2/37 5.4 0/26 0 0/15 0
Modals 17/37 46 10/26 38.5

1/15 6.7

2. Lexical downgraders
Politeness markers 7/37 18.9

4/26 15.4

6/15 40

Downtoners 0/37 0 0/26 0 0/15 0
Understaters 1/37 2.7 0/26 0 0/15 0
Consultative device 2/37 5.4 0/26 0 0/15 0


4.1.2.2. External modifiers

The table below shows the use of external modifiers by VLs

1. Car 2. Book 3. Laptop
F % F % F %
1. Mitigators
Preparators 7/17 41.2

10/19 52.6

12/20 60

Grounders 4/17 23.5

0/19 0 2/20 10

Disarmers 1/17 5.9

2/19 10.5

0/20 0
Promisers 0/17 0 0/19 0 0/20 0
2. Aggravators
Demanders 5/17 29.4

7/19 36.9

3/20 15

50
60
70
80
90
%
Titles First names Attention
getters
Si. 1
Si. 2
Si. 3

Figure 2: Alerters across 3 situations by VLs

Looking at figure 2, we can see that only attention getters are made use of in 3 situations by
VLs. But their use of this alerter is different in different situations. Whereas they are
employed most in situations 2 and 3 (83.3% and 89.9, correspondingly), only 13.3 of them of
the total is used in situation 1. Similarly, first names are used in situations 2 and 3 though few
(16.7% and 11.1, respectively), but not in situation 1. On the contrary, titles are used so much
(86.7%) in situation 1 but is ignored in situations 2 and 3. In other words, VLs prefer to use
titles in situation 1 and attention getters in situations 2 and 3, and limit to use first names in 3
situations.