i
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that the work presented in this research report
has been performed and interpreted solely by myself. I
confirm that this word is submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirement of the B.A. Degree and has not been
submitted elsewhere in any other form for the
fulfillment of any other degree or qualification.

Dong Thap, April 2012 Nguyen Thi Phuong Dung
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
During the process of carrying out the study, I have received a large amount of
contribution and support from many people.
First, I would like to send my heartfelt thanks to Dean and all the lectures of the

separately to identify the types of apology structure and to measure the degree of
frequency in giving apologies. The study is of a descriptive nature. Frequencies,
percentages and the means of these percentages are considered. The prime
findings of the study reveal that Vietnamese and English native speakers are
nearly similar in the choice of apology forms appropriate in admitting guilt with
an explanation and different in the degree of using apologizing words. The
Vietnamese native speakers less give apologies than native speakers of English.
It seems that the English native speakers give apologies more politely than
Vietnamese people but in Vietnamese culture instead of using apologizing word
Vietnamese people have different ways of speaking to show the politeness. iv
ABBREVIATIONS
n total number
(n=1) total number of participants is 1
p. page
Per. percentage
S situation
T.N total number


2.1.2. Politeness across cultures 10
2.1.3. “Politeness- directness- indirectness” in apologizing 11
3. Speech acts of apology 12
3.1. Definitions of apologies 13 vi
3.2. Apologizing forms in English and Vietnamese 16
3.3. Apology strategies 19
3.3.1. Strategy 1: Getting attention 19
3.3.2. Strategy 2: Rejecting a request or an invitation 21
3.3.3. Strategy 3: Admitting guilt with an explanation 22
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 24
1. Research questions 24
2. Research participants 24
3. Research procedure 25
4. Research instruments 25
4.1. Questionnaire 26
4.2. Interview 26
4.3. Books analysis 27
5. Method of data analysis 27
5.1. Statistic 27
5.2. Compare and contrast 27
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 29
1. An overview of results 29
1.1.2. Situation 2 34
1.1.3. Situation 3 35
1.1.4. Situation 4 36
1.1.6. Situation 6 37
1.2. Results of interview 39

and thinking. Brown (1994: 165) describes that “a language is a part of a
culture and a culture is a part of a language; the two are intricately
interwoven so that one cannot separate the two without losing the
significance of either language or culture”. In a word, culture and language are
inseparated, so foreign language learning is foreign culture learning. As a result,
nowadays learning a foreign language does not only learn syntactic structures or
learn new vocabulary and expressions but also incorporate some cultural
elements intertwined with language itself. As Vietnam is integrating many
countries around the world, learning English is getting more and more important
and essential. English has been used as an international language all over the
world and as a means of communication with different purposes. However, to
succeed in communication is not easy since every society has its own socio-
cultural and communicative behaviors. The difficulty is that understanding how
to communicate effectively with individuals who speak another language or who
rely on different means to reach communicative goal. It is, therefore, perhaps the
most important for people to realize that a basic understanding of cultural
diversity is the key to effective cross-cultural communications.
In daily life, people take plenty of actions to communicate with others, for
example, thanks, apologies, greetings, invitations, compliments, requests or
complaints which can be done both verbally and non-verbally. There have been
many conflicts of the world are caused as result of the lack of cross –culture
knowledge. Take speech acts of apology as an example. An apology is one of the
cultural features that people who learn English need to pay attention to. It is an 2
expressive speech act which is not only a normal utterance but also an issue of
great concern. Apologizing occurs in every culture to maintain good relations
between interlocutors. When one apologizes, one may intend not merely to
express regret but also to seek forgiveness. However, with different social level

3. Research methods
In the study, the methods used to collect relevant data are statistic, compare and
contrast apologizing forms which are extracted from books, questionnaire and
interview. First, data is mainly collected from English and Vietnamese books.
They are then analyzed to find out the similarities and differences in making
apologies in English and Vietnamese in terms of providing theoretical
background for the process of comparative and contrastive analysis in the thesis.
Next, questionnaire and interview are employed to investigate the reality of using
apologies between the English native speakers and the native speakers of
Vietnamese. They are delivered to 40 native speakers of Vietnamese and 40
English native speakers in Ho Chi Minh City.
4. Scope of the study
The study is a comparative analysis on making polite apologies in English and
Vietnamese in terms of cross-cultural perspective performed by the native
speakers of English and Vietnamese. The thesis is limited to verbal aspects of
making apologies based on eight forms and three strategies. The study also
investigates the factors influence the way of making apology such as social level,
age and relationship.
5. Significance of the study
Finding out the similarities and differences in English and Vietnamese in polite
apologies is expected to make a significant contribution to effective
communication. As a matter of fact, Vietnamese people can be more confident
when communicating or cooperating with the native speakers of English and use
apologies exactly in specific situations. Hopefully, the study will help learners
acquire how to remain relationships and keep conversations going on effectively
with foreigners.
6. Previous study 4

5
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Speech acts
Speech act theory, developed by Searle (1979) following Austin‟s work (1975),
is based on the idea that language is a form of behavior, and it is governed by
rules (p. 22). Linguistic communication is seen as conventionalized, its minimal
unit being the speech act, i.e. “an utterance that serves a function in
communication” (University of Minnesota: Center for Advance Research on
Language Acquisition‟s website). The idea that language is behavior is the key to
understand how language functions in a social context. Trosborg (1987:147)
notes “appropriate social behavior patterns, as they are perceived in Western
societies, are built on the norms which constitute polite behavior”. It is well
known that what is considered polite behavior varies among different socio-
cultural groups. Therefore, those norms which constitute polite behavior will be
different in different societies.
Speech acts can be defined as the basic unit of communication and they are part
of linguistic competence. As Schmidt and Richards (1980) state speech acts are
all the acts that speakers perform through speaking, and all the things that
speakers do and the interpretation and negotiation of speech acts depend on
discourse of context.
Speech acts have also been classified as indirect and direct speech acts.
According to Searle (1979), one speech act is brought about indirectly by
performing another one in indirect speech acts and their interpretation changes
according to the situation, the manner of speaking and to whom people speak.
Fraser (1978) claims that indirect speech acts with illocutionary force are similar
across languages but their distribution, function and frequency of occurrence may
show differences. According to Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), there are inter-
cultural, cross-cultural and individual differences in using speech acts. Second
language learners have been claimed to have disadvantages in using speech acts
to communicate with native speakers of the target language because of the

actions, while “positive face” implies that people expect their needs to be
desirable to others. For example, “Sorry, would it bother you terribly to close the
door?” Addressing negative face supposes a power imbalance between the
speaker and the hearer. The hearer assumes that he is negatively impacting the 7
speaker in some way, and tries to rectify this with an apology while if the speaker
apologizes to the hearer, the speaker will be threatening his/her own positive
face, in that the speaker is acknowledging having imposed on the hearer and
asking for his/her acceptance of this (which the hearer may reject).
Thus, those functions of language that are expressed with the help of speech acts
are intended either to prevent a threat to the speaker‟s or hearer‟s face – by being
polite when requesting something, for example – or to recover, or save face – in
the case of apologies, for example (Staab, 1983). Apologies as a face-threatening
act reflect how people generally behave as if their expectations concerning their
public self-image, or their face wants, will be respected. For example, a close
friend calls to reject an invitation to a birthday party for keeping the hearer‟s
face-wants. “I‟m terribly sorry. I can‟t come to your birthday party next week. I
have to go to Nha Trang on business.” As a result, an English saying goes “sorry
is the hardest word”. This is not because it is hard to pronounce or spell, but
because the speakers have to admit that they have done something wrong.
Sometimes, apologies are also face saving because if accepted, the apology is
supposed to alleviate the offense of the speaker.
In the light of such findings, Nwoye (1992) believes that it is necessary to sub-
classify the concept of face into “individual face” and “group face.” Individual
face refers to “the individual‟s desire to attend to his/her personal needs and to
place his/her public-self-image above those of others” (p. 313), while group face
refers to “the individual‟s desire to behave in conformity with culturally expected
norms of behavior that are institutionalized and sanctioned by society” (p. 313).

To sum up this section on speech acts, speech act theory is a widely disputed
field and issues such as what speech acts are and how they are classified seem to
be culture specific, and not as universal as some of the studies presented above
have described. Evidence on speech act perception and realization from different
cultures have demonstrated that more research needs to be done in order to
provide a theory that has an integrated approach to speech acts. Thus, besides
carefully defining the term used in the research and creating an appropriate
taxonomy, social, cultural, and pragmatic influences on the meaning, perception,
and production of speech acts need to be considered. 9
2.1. Politeness
2.1.1. Definition of politeness
Politeness is such an interesting phenomenon that many linguistic experts have
done research so far. The concept of politeness have expressed by many authors
such as Yule (1996), Lakoff (1983), Leech (1983), Richard, J.C.et al (1990) and
Brown and Levinson (1987).
Yule (1996:60) states, “Politeness, in an interaction, can then be defined as the
means employ to show awareness of another person‟s face.” Leech (1983:80)
notes that politeness means to minimize the effect of impolite statement or
expression (negative politeness) and maximize the effects of polite illocutions
(positive politeness). According to Richard, J.C.et al.(1990), politeness is defined
as “a) how languages express the social distance between speakers and their
different role relationships, b) how face work, that is, the attempt to establish,
maintain, and save face during conversations is carried out in a speech
community.”
Politeness, as shown in Coulmas (1981: 84, 235), is a dimension of linguistic
choice and social behaviour, which includes such notions as courtesy, formality,
rapport, deference, respect and distance. People monitor their speech by

approaching politeness contrastively makes it necessary to establish categories
which can be compared across groups.
While post-modern theorists shift the focus towards the investigation of how
people disagree on what constitutes politeness, cross-cultural research aims to
establish how they agree on what is polite and how they do so differently in
different cultures. Not only is the mutual knowledge necessary to infer an
implicature (Grice, 1975) culture-specific but cultural values also determine
whether it may be more appropriate to flout conversational maxims or to abide
by the rules of the cooperative principle in a particular situation.
There are different kinds of politeness across cultures as well, which ground in
different views of what constitutes “polite social behavior” interaction. Lakoff
(cited in Yule, 1996: 107) gives one example, for a white it was a bane to visiting
Easterners, who was confounded by the Californian‟s appearance of good
fellowship and deep caring, the immediate first naming, touching, looking deep
into the eyes, and asking truly caring questions; “Are you really happy with your 11
life?” To the properly brought up Easterner, such behaviour was permissible
only after years of earning it and my not then. Easterners fell into one of several
schools of thought about the character of Californian: either that they had the
simplicity children and should be patronized, or that they were rough frontier
sorts, probably raised by wolves or that they were truly wonderful people who
could get to know he/she as well after two seconds as would take most of them a
life time.
It is worth noting that within a culture, individual speakers may also vary
somewhat in employing conversational devices to execute politeness strategies.
For example “some people believe that interrupting relevant remarks shows
interest in what the other person is talking about other people feel that it shows
utter disregard for the interrupted speakers (Green, 1989: 146).

An expression of the speaker‟s responsibility for the offence.
Ex: I’ve lost your book.
An offer of repair.
Ex: Can I replace it?
A promise of forbearance:
Ex: That’ll never happen again.
3. Speech acts of apology
Apologies as an expressive speech act may be used before a real situation to
show a feeling and lead to a good relationship between the speaker and the
hearer. In all social groups, the act of apologizing is called for when social norms
have been violated, whether the offence is real or potential (Olshtain & Cohen,
1983:20). When an action or utterance has resulted in the fact that one or more
people perceive themselves as offended, the culpable person(s) needs to
apologize. The act of apologizing requires an action or an utterance which is
intended to “set things right” (Olshtain, 1983:235). Marquez-Reiter (2000: 44)
states an apology is a “compensatory action for an offense committed by the
speaker which has affected the hearer. According to Bataineh (2006:1903)
apologies fall under expressive speech acts in which speakers attempt to indicate 13
their state or attitude. They add that in order for an apology to have an effect, it
should reflect true feelings. One cannot effectively apologize to another and truly
reach him/her unless one portrays honest feelings of sorrow and regret for
whatever one has done” (Fahmi, R. & Fahmi, Rula, 2006: 1903). As Searle
(1979) states a person who apologizes for doing A expresses regret at having
done A, so the apology act can take place only if the speaker believes that some
act A has been performed prior to the time of speaking and that this act A
resulted in an infraction which affected another person who is now deserving an
apology (Olshtain, ibid., 235). Apology speech acts have been investigated

describes this process and captured this phenomenon from both sides:
'individually' (the first one), and 'society' (the second one).
Bergman and Kasper (1993) define an apology as a “compensatory action to an
offense in the doing of which the speaker was casually involved and which is
costly to the hearer” (p. 82). The cost can be in terms of losing face or even a
severe misunderstanding. It is clear that different cultures have different degrees
in perceiving how costly such an offense is, and therefore how necessary an
apology is. An action, in Bergman and Kasper‟s terminology, that is considered
very serious in one culture, may not require an apology at all in another culture.
Also, the severity of such a face threatening act seems to be in a direct
relationship with the type of apology chosen to defend face. Brown and Levinson
(1987) claim that all speakers choose the same strategy under the same
conditions, and tried to demonstrate this by looking at three different languages,
namely English, Tzeltal (a Mayan language), and South Indian Tamil. However,
this theory has been challenged by several researchers who claim that different
individual factors are involved in both considering an act as face threatening, and
the strategy used in apologizing (Trosborg, 1987). According to Trosborg these
factors are determined by one‟s social and cultural patterns, and by the
behavioral norms of one‟s culture. This leads to the assumption that not only do
speakers of different languages perceive the necessity of an apology differently,
but also use different ways of apologizing.
A definition that limits very much the concept of an apology is the one given by
Owen (1983). According to him, 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. While such an approach makes sense,
the problem with Owen‟s definition is that he restricts the use of the term
apology to only those utterances that actually contain the explicit phrases “I‟m 15


16
3.2. Apologizing forms in English and Vietnamese
Making an apology in English often contains apologizing words such as
“apologize”, “excuse”, “pardon”, and “forgive”. Sometimes, it can be associated
with some pronouns followed preposition “for” to make the structures like
“excuse me for…”, “Pardon me for…”, “Forgive me for…”, “I must apologize
for…”,… Choosing an apologizing verbal depends on the serious degree of the
faults. According to Huynh Cam Thao Trang (2009), there are seven apology
structures that have the same meaning and that are used similarly in English and
Vietnamese.
Structures
English
Vietnamese
1. Apologizing word
Sorry,
Pardon,
Excuse me!
Forgive
Xin lỗi.
Tha lỗi.
Tha thứ.
Lượng thứ.
Thứ lỗi.
2. Apologizing word +
Addressing form
Sorry, sir/madam.
Sorry, Mr./Mrs. Thomas
Xin lỗi, ngài, quý bà.
Xin lỗi, ông/ bà Thomas.

giúp gì cho ngài ạ?
(I can help what for you.)
5. Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence/clause:
5.1. Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence/ clause of
explanation.
5.2. Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence/ clause of
promising.
5.3. Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence/ clause of
explanation + promise.
5.4. Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence/clause of offer
for help.
5.5. Apologizing
word/sentence +
sentence/clause of
compensation
Sorry if I’ve disturbed
you.

Sorry. I’m late.


I beg your pardon.
I am terribly sorry to
leave you waiting such a
long time.
We apologize for…
Xin tạ lỗi.
Thành thật xin lỗi vì tôi
để anh đợi lâu như vậy.
Table 3.2: Similarities between apology structures in English and Vietnamese
According to Table 3.2, seven apology structures are listed from the least formal
to the most formal way. These ways are considered to be very polite. Depending
on particular contexts as well as the identity of the hearers, speakers choose what
is suitable to them. In some cases, apologies are used not for apology purposes.
These are situations in which there is no need for listeners to forgive. This is
shown in the following examples.
(1) Excuse me, is this the way to the sport center? (Liz and Alastair, 2007).
(2) Excuse me, could you tell me where KImbell Hall is? (McGraw Hill, 2007)
(3)Excuse me, can you tell me how to go to the post office? (John and
Liz, 1993)
(4) Excuse me, would I like to ask you a couple questions? (Yule G., 1996,)