Part A: Introduction
1. Rationale
Pragmatics plays a very important role in the process of language teaching
and learning because it draws the teacher’s attention to the development of
the learner’s communicative competence, which is now considered the goal
of the language teaching process. In the past few years, lots of cross-
cultural and some interlanguage studies in Vietnam have been conducted.
However, to date the act of expressing gratitude by native speakers of
English and Vietnamese learners of English has not been investigated
though it is a highly recurrent act in everyday conversation and it has,
together with thanking, important social values in English. Thus, this
research is carried out to fill the gap. This thesis is also believed to make a
contribution to the teaching and learning of speech acts in general and the
act of expressing gratitude in particular.
2. Aims of the study
. To uncover the ways English speakers formulate their gratitude
expressions and the ways Vietnamese learners express gratitude in English
in the contexts under study then identifying the differences between the two
populations.
3. Objectives of the study
. To uncover Vietnamese learners of English differ from native speakers of
English in their expressions of gratitude.
4. Scope of the study
The thesis focuses on the verbal expressions of gratitude to the exclusion of
non-verbal aspect including paralinguistic features, body language etc.
5. Organization of the study
The study is divided into 3 parts:
Part A: Introduction
Part B: Development
Chapter I: Literature Review
Chapter II: Methodology

other is basing on word order, stress and intonation.
According to Searle (1979), in order for its successful performance a
speech act requires some circumstance termed felicity conditions including
(i) preparatory conditions, (ii) sincerity conditions, propositional content
conditions and (iv) essential conditions.
Expressing gratitude is an expressive act and it is closely related to
thanking. However, they are two different acts among which the latter is a
member in the performance of the former.
1.2. Theories of politeness
1.2.1 Brown &Levinson’s theory of politeness
In order to explain use of different strategies in communication, Brown &
Levinson (1987: 66) introduce the concept of face which is the “public self
image that every member [of a society] wants to claim for himself”.
According to them, “face” consists of positive face and negative face. The
former is defined as “the want of every member that his wants be desirable
to at least some others” and the latter as “the want of every “competent
member” that his actions be unimpeded by others”.
Brown & Levinson (1987: 65) believe that there are certain kinds of acts
that “intrinsically threaten face” (called face-threatening acts or FTAs)
because they by nature “run contrary to the face want of the addressee and/
or of the speaker”. FTAs can be classified into the 4 following kinds:
(i) Those acts that primarily threaten H’s negative face. E.g. orders,
requests, suggestions, advice etc.
(ii) Those acts that threaten H’s positive face want. E.g. expression of
disapprovals, criticisms etc.
(iii) Those acts that offend S’s negative face: expressing of thanks, excuses,
acceptance of offers etc.
(iv) Those acts that directly damage S’s positive face. E.g. Apologies,
acceptance of compliments etc.
They state that if a speaker fails to avoid the FTA, he will “employ certain

more polite (a) because they increase the degree of optionality, and (b)
because the more indirect an illocution is, the more diminished and
tentative its force tends to be” (Leech, 1983: 108). This means that the
degree of politeness of the speaker is closely related to that of optionality
he gives the Hearer. Brown & Levinson (1987) consider that “looking just
at the indirect speech acts which are expressed by the asserting or
questioning of their felicity conditions, we can make some generations
about their relative politeness” and that “the greater the face threat, the
greater the need to use linguistic politeness, and the more indirectness is
used”. Thomas (1995: 143) insists that the universal use of indirectness is
due to some reasons among which “the last dimension, “politeness”, is
vastly more important than the other three”. In fact, it is not completely true
to assert that indirectness communicates politeness but rather indirectness
and politeness are really interrelated, and the level of indirectenss
considered as polite enough is culturally bound, which means that the same
level of politeness can be appropriate for one culture but not for the other.
1.3. Co-operative Principle
According to Grice (1975), human beings follow a behavioral dictum in
conversing, which he calls the Co-operative Principle. The content of this
Principle is:
Make your contribution such as required, at the stage at which it occurs, by
the accepted purpose of direction of the talk exchange in which you are
engaged (Grice 1975 cited by Green, 1989: 88).
Grice goes on to make the Principle clear by his description of four
categories called maxims as follows:
QUANTIY: I. Make your contribution as informative as is required
(for the current purposes of the exchange).
II. Do not make your contribution more informative than
is required.
QUANLITY: Try to make your contribution one that is true.

(3) However apparently grammaticalized linguistic structure may be,
utterances are radically under-determined. So a single syntactic
relation may represent a wide range of logical and semantic relations.
Even the determination of sense requires an inferential process.
(4) Once the propositional content of an utterance has been elaborated,
the utterance may be regarded as a premise, which, taken together
with non-linguistic premises available to the hearer as contextual
resources, enable him to deduce the relevant understanding.
(5) The most accessible interpretation is the most relevant. There is a
trade-off between relevance and processing process. “An assumption
is relevant to an individual to the extent the positive cognitive effects
achieved when it is optionally processed are large”.
(6) Context is not treated as given common ground but as a set of more
or less accessible items of information which are stored in short term
and encyclopedic memories and manifest in the physical
environment.
Chapter II: Methodology
4
2.1. Research questions
(i) How do native speakers of English express gratitude in the situations
studied?
(ii) How do Vietnamese learners of English differ from native speakers of
English in expressing gratitude in the contexts studied?
2.2. Research method
2.2.1. Data collection method
There have been several methods used in research of speech acts and
pragmatics. However, each method has their own advantages and
disadvantages. In this study, in order to collect sufficient data within the
time and resource constraint available, the advantages of DCT seem to
outweigh its disadvantages. Therefore, it has been chosen as the means to

you would say in normal situation?
Situation 11: You have worked as a private secretary for a long time. Today
our boss asks you to phone a new employee to discuss a new deal. However
you forgot his/ her phone number. So the boss must give you the number.
You say: ……………………………………………………………………
2.2.3. Selection of subjects
The subjects are one group of 45 native speakers of English and one group
of 45 Vietnamese learners of English. The first group consists of subjects
coming from the USA, the U.K or Australia. The English subjects are be
living and working in offices in Hanoi or they are tourists. They all live in
urban areas. Their age ranges from 18 to 40. The second group are
Vietnamese learners of English of Haiphong University, Haiphong Private
University, Hanoi National University and Hanoi Open University. To
ensure compatibility, these students all live in urban area as well and they
are students majoring in English. Their age ranges from 20 to 22. In both
groups, the number of males and females are evenly distributed.
2.2.4. Procedures
5
Firstly, the MPQ was conducted with the English subjects, who were asked
to rate the variables in each situation. Then, data from the subjects were
collected and synthesized. The results were then used to determine the
assessment of the variables underlying the situations. These results were
used as baseline for the choice of the most valid situations, which were
used for the DCT. DCT was then used for elicitation of gratitude
expressions.
2.3. Analytical framework
The analytical framework of this study is based on the coding system of
Eisenstein & Bodman (1993) which is modified and supplemented in
accordance with the data of the study. In many cases, we have to create our
own terminology to code utterances available in our data. Therefore, the

don t know how I would have managed without your help’ (E2, sit12).
5. Promising to repay
Utterances are coded as promising to repay is based on Eisenstein &
Bodman (1993). E.g. I promise you I will pay it back as soon as possible
(E4, sit 6).
6. Expressing desire/willingness to reciprocate
Following Eisenstein & Bodman (1993) and making some modifications,
we will code the following utterances and the like as expressing
desire/willingness to reciprocate. E.g. If there s anything I can ever, ever’
do for you, just let me know (E4, sit 6).
7. Offering reward/return
6
Offering reward/return is our own term coined to code quite a few
utterances basing on their illocutions. E.g. Now take the rest of the day off
to look after your child (E13, sit 2).
8. Expressing pleasure
Utterances coded as expressing pleasure is based on Eisenstein & Bodman
(1993). E.g. “I m very happy with the result’ ” (E22, sit 12).
Chapter III: Data analysis
3.1. Choice of gratitude expressions in higher power setting + P (sit 1, sit 2)
3.1.1. Choice of gratitude expressions in sit 1 (Lecturer)
ES and VL show different choices of the sub-acts in expressions of
gratitude in sit 1. The most remarkable difference is the variety of sub-acts
chosen by ES as opposed to the restriction of sub-acts used by VL. Another
notable difference is in the use of expressing appreciation. Moreover,
difference between the two groups is also found in complimenting. In
general, ES expresses gratitude in the formulae of
Thanking + Expressing appreciation + Complimenting
Thanking + Expressing appreciation
Thanking + Complimenting

Thanking + Expressing indebtedness
And VL tend to use acts in the formulae of:
Thanking + Promising to repay + Complimenting
7
Thanking + Promising to repay + Expressing indebtedness
Thanking + Promising to repay
The formulae indicate that ES tend to use more sub-acts than VL in their
expressions of gratitude. This indicates the influence of cultural value on
the choice of linguistic forms.
3.2.2. Choice of gratitude expressions in sit 9 (Books)
ES and VL use thanking at almost the same frequency but they differ in the
choice of other sub-acts like complimenting, offering reciprocity and
expressing appreciation. Differences between ES and VL may be ascribed
to cultural factors rather than linguistic factors. ES tend to express gratitude
in the following formulae:
Thanking + Complimenting + Offering reciprocity
Thanking + Complimenting.
And VL tend to express gratitude using the following formulae:
Thanking + Complimenting
Thanking
3.2. Choice of gratitude expressions in lower power setting
3.2.1. Choice of gratitude expressions in sit 11 (Phone number)
The most notable point in expressing gratitude by ES and VL is the
difference in the use of thanking and expressing appreciation. Expressions
of gratitude by ES appear in the formula of Thanking or Thanking +
Expressing appreciation. And the act for expressing gratitude by VL can
be formularized in the formula of Thanking.
3.3.2. Choice of gratitude expressions in sit 12 (thesis)
In general, ES tend to choose more sub-acts than VL in their expressions of
gratitude and these sub-acts are also used at higher frequency by ES than

Thanking + Expressing appreciation
Thanking + Complimenting
Thanking
2
Thanking + Complimenting + Expressing
appreciation
Thanking + Complementing + Offering
return
Thanking + Expressing appreciation +
Expressing indebtedness
Thanking + Complimenting +
Expressing appreciation
Thanking + Complimenting
Thanking + Expressing appreciation
6
Thanking + Expressing indebtedness +
Promising to repay + Complimenting
Thanking + Expressing indebtedness +
Expressing appreciation
Thanking + Promising to repay +
Expressing desire to reciprocate
Thanking + Expressing indebtedness
Thanking + Promising to repay +
Complimenting
Thanking + Promising to repay +
Expressing indebtedness
Thanking + Promising to repay
9
Thanking + Complimenting
Thanking + Complimenting + Offering

across situations, VL either do not use these acts or use them at very low
frequency. In contrast, VL choose expressing indebtedness more frequently
than ES due to their perceptions of the role-relationship between
interlocutors.
2. Implications for teaching and learning English in Vietnam
9
This study once again emphasizes the need to pay more attention to the
teaching and learning of pragmatics in Vietnam in general and the teaching
and learning of language functions in particular. The findings of this study
suggests that in expressing gratitude the rule is that speakers use a number
of sub-acts to show his depth of gratitude. Vietnamese teachers must keep
mind that the number of sub-acts used in expressions of gratitude in one
situation is in proportion with the degree of gratitude in that situation and
that the use of some sub-acts is situationally specific. Therefore, teachers
need to analyze the content of each situation to help the student realize
what act they should use at higher frequency in each situation. Teachers
also should show learners different values in the target culture so that
learners can make better choice of sub-acts in expressing gratitude.
Since expressing gratitude is performed by sets of acts, teachers should be
also aware that each member act should be performed correctly and
appropriately. Thus, basing on learner’s English level, teachers may teach
these sub-acts each in turn before teaching them expressing gratitude or
teachers can teach some acts, especially those occurring at high frequency,
at the same time and then move to expressing gratitude.
Some sub-acts like complimenting, expressing indebtedness, expressing
appreciation and expressing willingness to reciprocate cause problems for
Vietnamese learners and they occur frequently across situations. Hence,
Vietnamese teachers should pay much more attention to these sub-acts.
3. Suggestions for further research
Firstly, more researches may be conducted on expressing gratitude by

Dictionary. London: HarperCollins Publishers.
8. Clyne, MC. (1994). Inter-cultural communication at work: Cultural
values in discourse. Cambridge: CUP.
9. Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J. M. (1986). “I very appreciate:
Expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers of English.
Applied Linguistics, 7 (2), 167- 185.
10. Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J. M. (1993). Expressing gratitude in
American English. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds),
Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: OUP.
11. Finch, G. (2000). Linguistic terms and concepts. Houndmills,
Basingstone, Hamsphire RG 216 XS and London: MACMILLAN
PRESS LTD.
12. Fraser, B. (1990). Perspective of politeness, Journal of Pragmatics, 14,
219-236.
13. Green, G.M. (1989). Pragmatics and Natural Language
Understanding. Hillsdale, New Jersey, Hove and London: University
of Illinois.
14. Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics. Second Edition. Great Britian:
Arnol. 11.
15. Hatims, B. & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. New
York: Longman.
16. Hoang, N. H. (1998). A Cross-cultural study on thanking and
responding to thanks in English and Vietnamese. M.A. Thesis, VNU-
CFL.
17. Hornby, A.S. (2000). Oxford Advanced Learner s Dictionary.’ Oxford:
OUP.
18. Http://carla.acad.umn.edu//SpeechActs/ Apologies.html.
19. Http://carla.acad.umn.edu//SpeechActs/ Compliments.html.
20. Http://carla.acad.umn.edu//SpeechActs/ Thankings.html.
21. Http://www.reference.com/browse/wikiGratitude.

Limited.
35. Rintell, E.M, & Michell, C.J. (1989). Studying requests and Apologies:
An Inquiry into Method. In So Blum-Kulka,J. House & G. Kasper
(Eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests
and Apologies (pp. 148 –272). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
36. Rosado, M. Z. The thing we do with words: Illogot Speech Acts and
Speech act theory in philosophy. Language and Society II: 203- 37.
37. Rubins, J. (1983). The use of thank you .“ “ ”” Paper presented at the
socio-linguistics Colloquium, TESOL Convention, Toronto, Canada.
38. Rundell, M. (2002). English Dictionary. Oxford: Macmillan
Education.
39. Searle, J.L (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: CUP.
40. Searle, J.L (1990a) Epilogue to the taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In
D. Carbaugh (Ed), Cultural communication and intercultural contact.
Hillade, New Jersey, Hove and London: Lawrence Erbaum Associates
Publishers.
41. Searle, J.L (1990b). A classification of speech acts. In D. Carbaugh
(Ed), Cultural communication and intercultural contact. Hillade, New
Jersey, Hove and London: Lawrence Earlbaun Associates Publishers.
42. Suu, N.P. (1990). A cross-cultural study of greeting and address terms
in English and Vietnamese. M.A. Thesis. Canberra University,
Australia.
43. Spencer–Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance.
Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 1-24.
44. Tam. H. C, (1998). Requests by native speakers of English and
Vietnamese learners A cross-communication study in–
pragmalinguistics, La Trobe University, Australia.
45. Thomas, J. (1993). Cross-cutural Pragmatic failure, Applied
Linguistics. USA, England: Longman.