Chapter I: Introduction
I.1. Rationale for the study
With the advent of today's global economic system, we observe an increasing degree of
communication across different cultures between people of different languages. In order to be
successful in communication, it is essential for second language learners to know not just
grammar and text organization but also pragmatic aspects of the target language (Bachman
1990)1. ‘Pragmatic competence’ can be specifically defined as “knowledge of communicative
action and how to carry it out, and the ability to use language appropriately according to
context” (Kasper 1997).
The study of the learner language has been a growing source of concern in pragmatics in
recent years. The pragmatic perspective toward the learner language led to the birth of a new
interdiscipline, interlanguage pragmatics (ILP). ILP studies are concerned with language
learners’ performance and acquisition of pragmatic competence in their second language. The
influence of language learners’ linguistic and cultural background on their performance of
linguistic action in a second language has been a focal concern in ILP. Among non-structural
factors interacting with pragmatic transfer is second language proficiency, which has been
found to constrain pragmatic transfer in requesting (Blum-Kulka, 1982).
A number of ILP studies, both cross-sectional and longitudinal, regarding the use of pragmatic
realization patterns and strategies have been conducted on a number of languages such as
English, Hebrew, Spanish, French, German, Danish, Arabic, Portuguese, Korean, etc.
Informants examined ranged from the English learners of Hebrew as TL (Blum-Kulka, 1982;
1983; Olshtain, 1983), the German learners of English (House & Kasper, 1987; House, 1988;
DeCapua, 1989), the Danish learners of English (House & Kasper, 1987; Trosborg, 1987;
Faerch & Kasper, 1989), the Japanese learners of English as TL (Takahashi & Dufon, 1989;
Beebe et al, 1990), the Hebrew (Cohen & Olshtain, 1981), the Russian (Olshtain, 1983), the
German (House, 1988), the Spanish (Scarcella, 1983), the Venezuelan (Garcia, 1989), and the
1
Japanese (Beebe et al, 1990; Takahashi & Beebe, 1993), and the Thai learners of ESL
(Bergman & Kasper, 1993). Up till now, the following speech acts have been investigated
cross-linguistically: request (Blum-Kulka, 1982; 1983; House & Kasper, 1987; Faerch &
Kasper, 1989; Takahashi & Dufon, 1989), complaint (DeCapua, 1989), and apology (Cohen &

Vietnamese to provide confirmation of pragmatic transfer and did not look at the performance
of learners at different levels.
Addressing differences between English and Vietnamese in request perception and production,
this study will deal with pragmatic transfer of requesting by Vietnamese learners of English.
With the aim of finding useful information on the development of pragmalinguistic
competence, we pay attention to language proficiency effects on Vietnamese learners’
performance of request in English. Specifically, we are going to examine whether English
language proficiency affects Vietnamese learners’ pragmatic transfer in requesting. Besides,
the influence of gender on Vietnamese learners’ pragmatic transfer in requesting is also going
to be investigated for the first time.
I.2. Aims of the study
The study aims to find out:
- the influence of contextual factors on pragmatic transfer from Vietnamese to English in
the realization of request
- the influence of English proficiency of Vietnamese learners on their pragmatic transfer
from Vietnamese to English in the realization of request
3
- the influence of Vietnamese learners’ gender on their pragmatic transfer from Vietnamese
to English in the realization of request
I.3. Scope of the study
The study is limited to the investigation of requesting and request realization in ten situations.
The survey does not cover paralinguistic and nonverbal aspects although their importance in
communication is undeniable. The informants of the survey include 21 native English
speakers and 48 Vietnamese learners of English (28 intermediate learners and 20 advanced
ones, 30 female learners and 18 male ones). All the native English speakers are working in
Vietnam.
The informants are not varied and numerous enough for the author to come to ‘fixed’
conclusions. However, the study is expected to point out the influence of contextual factors,
learners’ proficiency and gender in English on pragmatic transfer from Vietnamese to English.
4

♦ Expressives: are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker feels. They denote the
speaker’s physical state or attitude (E.g: pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, )
♦ Directives: are those kinds of speech acts that the speaker uses to get someone else to do
something. (E.g: commands, requests, suggestions, )
♦ Commissives: are those kinds of speech acts that the speaker uses to commit themselves to
some future action. (E.g: promises, threats, refusals, pledges, )
I.2. Speech act of requesting
Requesting is defined as an act of requiring the other(s) to do something performed through
utterance(s) in interaction. As the speaker makes a request, s/he desires the hearer’s
expenditure of time, energy or material resource. In other words, requests impose the
speaker’s interest on the hearer. They can be regarded as a constraint on the hearer’s freedom
of action. Thus, requesting is considered one of the most sensitive illocutionary acts in
communication.
Requests are complex speech acts which involve a relationship of different elements. These
elements have been identified by Blum-Kulka (1991) as the request schema which includes
requestive goals subject to a cultural filter, linguistic encoding (strategies, perspective and
modifiers), situational parameters (distance, power, legitimization) and the social meaning of
the request according to cultural and situational factors. Whereas, Gordon and Lakoff (1971)
claims the combination of the three factors: the literal meaning of the sentence, the perceived
context, and a so-called conversational postulate, helps the hearer interpret the speaker’s
utterance intended as a request.
6
I. Politeness
II.1. Politeness
Politeness is a common word that means ‘having or showing that one has good manners and
consideration for other people’ (Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary.) It is similar to
‘civility’, ‘courtesy’, and ‘good manners.’ However, politeness also means that ‘behaving or
speaking in a way that is correct for the social situations you are in, and showing that you are
careful to consider other people’s needs and feelings’ (Longman Advanced American
Dictionary.) We have ‘commonsense’ politeness and ‘scientific’ notions of politeness.

interrupting, expressions of violent emotions, etc., and threaten his/her negative face, i.e.
orders, requests, remindings, offers, promises, etc. Moreover, certain acts can also be face
threatening to the Speaker’s positive face, such as expressing thanks, excuses, acceptance of
offers/apologies, etc., as well as his/her negative face, such as apologies, acceptance of
compliments, confessions/admissions of guilt or responsibility, etc. On the other hand,
reducing the possibility of a threat to someone’s self image is seen as a face saving act. Being
polite means trying to save another persons face. We can either contribute to the needs of our
communication partner or not. Expressing polite behavior can be done either by employing a
negative face or by using a positive face.
A person’s negative face is the need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to
be imposed on by others. The word ‘negative’ here doesn’t mean ‘bad’, it’s just the opposite
pole from ‘positive’. A person’s positive face is the need to be accepted, even liked, by others,
to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by
others. In simple terms, negative face is the need to be independent and positive face is the
need to be connected.
8
Thus, the Speaker should adopt certain strategies, in order to maintain his or her own face
undamaged and at the same time to minimize the possibility of affecting the positive or
negative face of the Hearer
It is generally accepted that various markers contribute to the politeness of an utterance and
the explanations of their existence are placed within a broad framework of cultural differences.
As aforementioned, it is undoubtful that different socio-cultural norms are reflected in all
levels of the linguistic code. Therefore, when observing politeness norms the researcher
should always take account of the relationship between the Speaker and the Hearer and the
nature of the interaction in which they are involved (Leech, 1983) A politeness strategy is
employed by the ‘weightiness.’ The weightiness is calculated by speakers from the social
variables such as power difference between speaker and hearer (P), the perceived social
distance between speaker and hearer (D), and ranking of imposition (R). R differs from culture
to culture because they are how threatening or dangerous in a specific culture. P, D and R do
not have any absolute value. Mainly a speaker values them according to the situation and

values that are culturally bound (Sifianou, 1989). This is the main source of criticism for
Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness, which has shown to be inadequate especially as
far as face is concerned, since its exact content is culturally specific.
Different languages have different ways of marking politeness. People from some cultures
tend to favour directness, while people from other cultures favour less directness. Even so,
directness may also vary in relation to social context. The relationship between directness and
politeness as examined by Blum&Kulka (1987:133 ff.) illustrates that while these notions may
be related, they are not one and the same. This field of research suggests that politeness may
be better defined as doing what is appropriate in a given cultural context.
The relationship between directness and indirectness and politeness is examined first in a
general way, and subsequently using examples from cross-cultural research on speech acts and
politeness. Perhaps the most common comparison involves Americans and Europeans versus
Japanese and other Asian cultures. In Asian cultures, the importance of remaining in “good
face” assumes a particularly high value (Ho, 1975). Holtgraves and Yang’s (1990) comparison
of Korean and American speakers showed Koreans significantly more likely to use very polite
forms. A study by Kim and Wilson (1994) arrived at similar findings relative to Korean-U.S.
differences. Coulmas (1979) found apologies to be far more common in Japanese culture, to
the extent that they are often used in occasions when Americans would say “thank you.”
Comparing Hebrew, English, and Chinese expressions of apology, Olshtain and Cohen (1983)
found Chinese more polite than English, and English speakers more polite than Hebrew.
“While Hebrew speakers may appear somewhat rude to native English speakers when
expressing regret, Chinese speakers may appear overly polite, even obsequious” (p. 30). In
negotiating contexts with Japanese, Deutsch (1983) and Rowland (1985) noted that Americans
are known for their rudeness and brusqueness.
II.3. Politeness-Directness-Indirectness in requests
11
While the overall distribution along the scale of indirectness follows similar patterns in all
languages, the specific proportions in the choices between the more direct and less direct
strategies were found to be culture-specific. Choice of politeness strategies is influenced by
both situational and cultural factors which interact with each other.

the fact that the hear do X.)
I really wish you’d clean up the kitchen.
I really wish you’d stop bothering me.
Conventionally indirect strategies
6. Suggestory formulae (The sentence contains a suggestion to X.)
How about cleaning up?
Why don’t you get lost?
So, why don’t you come and clean up the mess you made last night?
7. Query preparatory (The utterance contains reference to preparatory conditions, such as
ability or willingness, the possibility of the act being performed, as conventionalized in any
specific language.)
13
Could you clean up the kitchen, please?
Would you mind moving your car, please?
Non-conventionally indirect strategies (hints)
8. Strong hints (The utterances contains partial reference to object or to elements needed for
the implementation of the act, directly pragmatically implying the act)
You have left the kitchen in a right mess.
9. Mild hints (Utterances that make no reference to the request proper or any of its elements
but are interpretable through the context as requests, indirectly pragmatically implying the act)
I’m a nun (in response to a persistent hassler).
These subcategories of conventional indirectness vary across languages in conventions of
form. In Australian English, the most frequently employed strategies were found to be
“can/could you ~,” “will/would you ~,” and “would you mind ~.” In Hebrew, “can you ~,”
“possibility (ef_ar + infinitive),” and willingness/readiness (muxan + infinitive) seem to be
most commonly used. See below for distribution of substrategies of conventional indirectness
in four languages. However, the substrategies are probably used in varying proportions in
different situations. Most strategies are limited by language and situation except for ability
Questions that are found to be used by speakers in all languages and all situations.
III. Pragmatic transfer

In order to investigate whether or where transfer occurs, ILP researchers usually compare the
following three data sources by adopting the design originally developed by Selinker (1966,
1969) : (1) the L1 baseline data from native speakers of the learners’ native language (NL);
(2) the IL data from the learners; and (3) the target language baseline data from native
speakers of the learners’ target language (TL) (see Kasper, 1992). Similarity in tems of
response frequencies in NL, IL, and TL leads us to claim positive transfer; and similar
response frequencies in NL and IL with different response frequencies between NL and TL
and between IL and TL evidences the fact of negative transfer. In this study, the product-
oriented research following the above design will be called the studies on “pragmatic
transfer”. They ought to be distinguished from the studies on “pragmatic transferability,”
which shed light on the conditions for pragmatic transfer to occur.
III.2. Studies on Sociopragmatic Transfer
By focusing on the speech act of correction performed by Japanese learners of ESL, Takahashi
and Beebe (1993) evidenced the case of negative transfer at the sociopragmatic level. The data
elicited from the 12-item discourse completion test (DCT) revealed the following: the
Japanese ESL learners transferred Japanese style-shifting patterns into English by selecting
different strategies according to the speaker’s higher or lower status vis-8-vis the hearer. The
same tendency was also identified in Japanese ESL learners’ performance of refusals in the
order, frequency, and content of semantic formulas (Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990).
Takahashi and Beebe attributed the distinctive style-shifting patterns observed between the
Japanese and the American groups to the differential conceptualization of linguistic politeness
between these two groups: Japanese consider it polite to emphasize the status difference when
there actually exist such differences, whereas, from the American perspective, being polite is
conveyed by denying that status differences do exist. Takahashi and Beebe (1993) also found
the two cases of L1 influence attributable to the different “politeness orientation” (Brown &
Levinson, 19 8 7 )’ between Japanese and Americans. According to Takahashi and Beebe, the
Americans favored the use of positive remarks, such as “That was a great account,” before
saying “but” in correcting the lower status interlocutor’s statement. Both the Japanese L1
16
speakers and Japanese ESL learners, however, showed their reluctance to use such positive

comparison with the British English speakers’ preference for the use of other-oriented apology
strategies (e.g., showing concern for the hearer).
Scarcella (1983) also reported the case of transfer of L1 communicative style by
Spanishspeaking English learners. Specifically, she investigated the “discourse accent,” which
was defined as the use of conversational features in L2 in the same way in which they are used
in L1. Scarcella obtained 15 dyads of spontaneous conversation data which consisted of
Spanish/ Spanish (L1) , English/English (L1) , and English (L11 /English (IL) dyads. Despite
the Spanish learners’ high proficiency in English, L1 transfer was evident in the following
manner: more frequent verbal exchanged backchannel cues and more frequent pause fillers
were observed in Spanish L1 and English IL, as compared to native English speakers. Some
other studies yielded the findings that the degree of appropriateness in realizing a given L1
speech act influenced the realization of the same act in L2. Olshtain (1983) was among them.
Olshtain examined the extent and type of transfer in the speech act of apology performed by
English- and Russian-speaking learners of Hebrew as L2. The data were elicited by asking the
subjects to respond in Hebrew to the verbal cue issued by the investigator for eight situations.
By comparing the average frequency of all apology semantic formulas in Ll, except “offer of
repair,” Olshtain found the following: the highest degree of apology overall was in English,
somewhat lower in Russian, and the lowest in Hebrew. A similar trend was observed in the
Hebrew IL of Russian-speaking learners, somewhat less strongly in the Hebrew IL of English-
speaking learners, thereby displaying the negative transfer from L1 sociopragrnatic knowledge
(see below for the analysis based on the learners’ language-specificity perception). Similar
findings were obtained for the Hebrew speakers learning English as L2 (Cohen & Olshtain,
1981). Namely, the nonnative use of apology semantic formulas was overall considerably less
18
than that of the native English speakers and more closely reflected the use of the formulas by
the native Hebrew speakers.
In Robinson (1992) as well, findings similar to Olshtain7s were reported, but for the speech
act of refusal attempted by Japanese learners of English. Robinson investigated the underlying
process of making IL refusals in the performance on a DCT. She analyzed the data obtained
from the learners’ concurrent verbal reports and the retrospective interviews with them.

use more indirect preparatory questions. The data were also analyzed along the dimension of
internal and external modifications. Negative pragmalinguistic transfer was observed in fewer
syntactic downgraders for both learner groups. Transfer was also operative differentially
between these two learner groups: the “Blum-Kulka (1982) pointed out that the English
learners of Hebrew overall followed their L1 preference for more indirectness. Blum-Kulka
interpreted this as evidence for transfer of social noms. In this sense, then, the obtained
tendency here can be considered as a case of “sociopragmatic transfer” (see also Kasper,
1992).
III.4. Studies on Transferability
The condition of transfer occurrence was technically referred to as transferability (Kasper,
1992). Takahashi (1995:11) observed three dimensions of transferability in SLA research,
namely the study on the developmental sequence of transferability, linguistic markedness, and
non-surface form transfer. And these three dimensions, Takahashi further indicates, are
usually approached in interlanguage pragmatics research from the perspective of
psycholinguistics (Olshtain, 1983; Olshtain and Cohen, 1983; 1989; House and Kasper 1987;
Kasper, 1981; Bodman and Eisenstein, 1988; Robinson, 1992; cited in Takahashi, 1995,
pp.46-49).
Takahashi (1992:69-124; 1993:50-83) made an explicit investigation on transferability of five
indirectness strategies realized by the “conventions of usage” of Japanese indirect requests
20
when Japanese learners of English realized English indirect requests in four situations.
Takahashi used informants representing two proficiency groups: beginning-intermediate level
students, considered as low ESL group, and advanced students, high ESL group. They were
presented with an acceptability judgment task for five indirect request expressions in
respectively Japanese and English for each situation. The transferability rate was computed for
each strategy for each situation by subtracting the acceptability rate of the English indirect
request from the acceptability rate of the corresponding Japanese indirect request. The
obtained transferability rate was considered as the “psycholinguistic markedness” of each
strategy, which determined its language-specificity or neutrality. This study manifested that
contextual factors play a major role in determining transferability at the pragmatic level. The

of ESL were similar to the Japanese control group with an NL-based pattern of bimodal
distribution of indirectness. Advanced students, on the other hand, were found not to transfer
the Japanese hinting strategies and thus posed more directness strategies in their IL requests.
Robinson (1992) made similar conclusion about her informants’ realization of refusals. She
reported that her lower and higher proficient Japanese ESL learners were both aware of the
differences in appropriate American and Japanese situations of the speech act. However, the
lower proficient students were more influenced by their NL refusal style, whereas the more
proficient learners knew how to apply the rules of English in doing the discourse completion
test (DCT) items on refusals. Another more recent challenge for Takahashi & Beebe (1987;
1993) came from Takahashi (1996) who reported that the distribution of negative pragmatic
transfers was conditioned by the imposition and form of request. As for the role of TL
pragmatic proficiency in negative pragmatic transfer, it was found that a learner with advanced
pragmatic knowledge about TL would not be likely to commit more transfers (Takahashi,
1992; 1993).
22
III.6. Gender and TL Pragmatic Transfer
Together with age, personality and proficiency of the speaker (Ellis, 1994; Odlin, 1989;
Takahashi, 1996), gender is a factor that leads to variation in the patterns and likelihood of
transfer.
Holmes (1995) looked at gender differences in apologies and found both similarities
and differences between males and females. The most obvious differences that this
study found were the following three points: (1) Women used significantly more apologies
than men did; (2) Women used most apologies for the hearers of equal power, while men
apologized to women of different status; (3) Women used most apologies for female friends
whereas men used most for socially distant women (pp.379-380). Differences resulting from
gender in the realization of speech acts in a lot of cross-cultural studies show that gender may
effects on pragmatic transfer.
Hisae Kuribara Shea (2003) found that gender had much less influence than social distance
and relative status on the frequency of strategies of complaining by Japanese speakers of
English living in America (JEAs), Japanese speakers of Japanese living in Japan (JJJs), and

24
least one player’s communicative goal, but do not predescribe conversational outcomes nor
how such outcomes are reached, the ensuing interaction is real in the context of the play. Open
role plays provide a rich data source, representing oral production, full operation of the turn
taking mechanism, impromtu planning decisions contingent on interlocutor input, and hence,
negotiation of global and local goals. They allow us to observe how speech act performance is
sequentially organized, what kinds of interlocutor responses are elicited by specific strategic
choices and how such responses determine the speaker’s next move. The advantage of open
role plays over authentic conversation is its replicability and control of contextual variables.
However, it is not certain that language produced by informants in role plays is real because
they may think they are in an experiment and modify their language consciously or
unconsciously. Also, the cost of recording and transcription needs to be taken into
consideration .
Multiple choice method gives informants a series of questions with answers. Informants are
asked to choose the answer they think most appropriate. This saves time and energy for both
experimenters and informants. Informants can quickly answer questions and experimenters
can quickly get information from a large population as well as code data. The disadvantage is
that possibilities of response are restricted to choices given in the Questionnaire. What is
more, the authenticity of information depends on the researcher’s preparation of questions and
answers.
Multiple choice method with such advantages and disadvantages has been chosen to
investigate Vietnamese learners of English and native speakers’ assessment of contextual
factors in this study. The limit of the number of the choices, which are points in rating scales,
is not a drawback in this case.

The Written Completion Task provides two options: open-ended elicitation and the Discourse
Completion Task (DCT). Situations are described in writing and space is provided for
25