VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
TRỊNH THỊ VIỆT HƢƠNG
TM TT LUN VĂN

USE OF ADDRESSING FORMS TO EXPRESS
INFORMALITY IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
(SỬ DỤNG CÁC TỪ XƢNG HÔ ĐỂ THỂ HIỆN TÍNH KHÔNG NGHI
THỨC TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT) M.A. MINOR THESIS Field: English Linguistics
Code: 602215 HANOI, 2011



TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CHAPTER: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Statement of problem and rationale 1
1.2. Aims and objectives: 1
1.3. Research questions: 1
1.4. Research methodology: 2
1.5. Significance of the study: 2
1.6. Structure of the thesis : 2
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 Culture, language and communication 4
2.2. Addressing forms 7
2.2.1. Addressing forms and their definitions 7
2.2.2. Features of addressing forms 8
2.2.3. Factors affecting the choice of addressing forms 9
2.3. The use of addressing terms to express informality in English and
Vietnamese 10
2.3.1 The concept of informality 10
2.3.2. The use of addressing forms to express informality in English 11
2.3.3. The use of addressing forms to express informality in
Vietnamese 12
v

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 14
3.1. Research questions revisited 14
3.2 Selection of participants 14
3.3. Data collection instruments 15
3.4. Data collection procedures 16
3.5. Data analysis 17

Bt: …………… Bare title
E: ………………Terms of endearment
D: ………………Demonstrative words
ELT …………… English language teaching
vii

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure1: Vietnamese respondents’ information
Figure 2: English respondents’ division
Figure 3: English respondents’ information
TABLES
Table 1: Different addressing forms that may be used to express informality in Vietnamese
Table 2: Different relations in which addressing forms can be used to express informality
in Vietnamese
Table 3: Different settings in which addressing forms can be used to express informality in
Vietnamese

1.2. Aims and objectives:
The aims of the study are:
- To investigate major similarities and differences in using addressing forms in
English and Vietnamese and the factors that affects the choice of addressing forms in the
two cultures.
- To suggest some implications for ELT about AFs between English and
Vietnamese in order to help learners of English avoid misunderstandings and
miscommunication in cross-culture communication.
1.3. Research questions
In short the paper is going to answer two research questions as follow:
1. What are the major similarities and differences in using addressing forms to
express informality in English and Vietnamese?
2. What are the factors that affect the choice of AFs in two cultures?
2

1.4. Research methodology
The study begins by providing the theoretical background with viewpoints of
various authors concerning the issue. These different viewpoints are dealt with in two
ways:
- Bringing the viewpoints and then giving discussion
- Briefly analyzing these viewpoints.
In order to achieve the aims of the study, the main method is quantitative which is mainly
relies on:
 Review of relevant literature
 Survey questionnaire
 Statistics, description and analysis of the collected data
 Personal observation
 Consultation with the supervisor
1.5. Significance of the study
The study is hoped to be a useful source for both pedagogical and research
4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Culture, language and communication
Culture, language and communication are the three concepts that are closely
related. Before being examined in the relationships with the others, each is expected to be
perceived in a thorough way.
In the first place should be the concept of culture. Social scientists have been
interested in culture and how it influences people for years. Over the years there have been
many different definitions of culture, with similarities as well as differences. Culture
influences all aspects of our lives. We use culture to explain similarities within and
differences between groups of people (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). Culture is not a static
entity, but is ever-evolving; what we commonly know as “the generation gap” is a cultural
difference as it refers to different ways of life and being for people who are raised in
different periods of time (Pipher, 1998). Richard et al, (1992, 138) give clear definition of
culture and point out some problems in culture between people of different background:
“culture is the total sets of beliefs, attitudes, customs, behavior, social habits of the
members of a particular society”
Referring to culture, Harrison and Huntington (2000) comment sophisticatedly:
“The term „culture‟, of course, has had multiple meaning in different disciplines and
different context” (p.15)
Culture is also defined in a broader sense by Triandis (1994) as follows:
“… a set of human – made objective and subjective elements that in the past
have increased the probability of survival and resulted in satisfaction for the
participants in an ecological niche, and thus become shared among those who could

questions of communication and culture… When the elements of culture differ or
change. Communication and culture are inseparable.” (p1)
Undoubtedly, the exact nature of relationship between communication and culture
is a very complex and intimate one. However everything a person experiences is perceived
6

within the conceptual and grammatical perspective of that person's language. People can
never understand the impact this has on their thinking until they learn a completely
different language.
It is undeniable that the relationship between communication and culture is
intertwined and the relationship between language and culture, according to Samovar and
many previous scholars is interwoven relationship.
Commenting on the relationship between language and culture Nida (1998:29)
holds the view that language and culture are two language items symbolic systems.
Everything we say in language has meanings, designative or sociative, denotative or
connotative. Every language form we use has meanings, carries meanings that
are not in the same sense because it is associated with culture and culture is more
extensive than language.‟ People of different cultures can refer to different things
while using the same language forms.
It is commonly accepted that language is a part of culture, and that culture plays a
very important role in it. Some social scientists consider that language without culture
would not be possible. Language simultaneously reflects culture, and is influenced and
shaped by it. In the broadest sense, language is also the symbolic representation of a
people, since it comprises their historical and cultural backgrounds, as well as their
approach to life and their ways of living and thinking. Brown (1994: 165) describes
the two as follows: „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 inseparable, language is a key component of culture. It is the primary
medium for transmitting much of culture. Without language, culture would not be possible.

well as the referred parties.”. The appropriate choice of Vietnamese addressing forms to
utilize involve and consideration a wide range of sociolinguistic factors, such as age, sex,
social status, relationship( blood, intimate or distant), attitudes ( respectful or arrogant),
8

feelings of the speakers and addressee as well as the formality of the communication
context. English addressing forms do not include in themselves any information of
sociolinguistic factors or the formality of the communication.
2.2.2. Features of addressing forms
Addressing forms is one of the most obvious linguistic mean that mark and
establishes the type of relationship between interactants. Addressing forms are likely to be
different in communities because different languages have different linguistic resources to
express what is culturally permissible and meaningful. Moreover, speakers use address
terms to negotiate or transform a cultural system (Fitch 1991, Morford 1997) and
issues such as sexuality, age, ethnicity and religion can also be inferred and realized
from address terms (Afful 2006a).
Though many investigations have been conducted to study addressing terms in
different languages, the result of these studies verify the main points that addressing terms
is a markers of social relations, attitude, feeling or the implifiers of attitude toward
genders, age, relationship, etc.
2.2.3. Factors affecting the choice of addressing forms
Addressing terms have been studied since the1960s with a focus on the effects of
the interpersonal relationship and the social structure or ideology on the use of address
forms; the addressing variations between different languages and cultures, and the cross-
cultural features of politeness that appear in address forms in both spoken language and
written discourse (e.g. Bates &Benigni, 1975; Braun, 1988; Brown, 1965; Brown &
Gilman, 1989; Brown & Ford, 1961; Ervin-Tripp, 1972; Friedrich, 1966; Kess & Juricic,
1978; Kroger & Wood, 1992; Lambert & Tucker, 1976; Martiny, 1960. Brown and Gilman
1960) postulated that power and solidarity are two key factors determining the non-
reciprocal and reciprocal use of the addressing forms (T/V usage) respectively and

depends on the power, solidarity, and formality of dimensions in the relation between
10

addresser and addressee, so changes in the character‟s feelings and attitudes toward each
other or in their relationships are conveyed through changes in addressing forms.
2.3. The use of addressing terms to express informality in English and Vietnamese
2.3.1 The concept of informality
Different countries and cultures around the world have different conventions for
addressing people in a variety of situations. Studies on address terms focus on informality
and support the view that “speakers of a language share a set of “rule of address”-which
may not be consciously known or rigidly adhered to, but which may be inferred as
appropriate in specific situation” (Susan Ervin Tripp- 1969).
Addressing forms themselves are of two kinds: formal and informal. David Murray
Schneider (1980:102) defined the term “informality” in a very simple way, that is “the
informal terms informally used”. Larry Rios (2004:42) states that “When talking to a close
friend or family member you would be probably more intimate and informal”.
Actually, it is easy to realize that “informality” posters a warm or friendly
atmosphere and it is used in unofficial or casual context.
2.3.2. The use of addressing forms to express informality in English
In English, addressing system is not really simple. With I-YOU, we can
communicate without knowing about the age, gender, social status of the interlocutor, the
relationships between the hearer and the speaker, attitudes or feelings … Besides, there
exists many other address terms as follows:
- Title alone (T): E.g. Professor, Dr., Mr., Miss. …
+ Social title: E.g.: Mr., Mrs., Madam …
+ Career title: E.g.: Professor, Doctor …
- Title with last name (TLN): E.g. Mr. Clinton …
- Last name alone (LN): E.g. Michael Nixon, Mary King …
- First name (FN): E.g. Michael Nixon, Mary King …
11

Kinship terms: mẹ (má, u, bầm, mợ, bu, mạ, mệ…); bố (ba, cha, tía, thầy, cậu…); thím,
mợ, cô, dì, chú, cậu, bác, ông (nội, ngoại, cố, trẻ); bà (nội, ngoại, cố, trẻ, dì); con, cháu;
ect.
Terms of endearment: cưng; nhỏ; anh yêu; etc.
Insults: thằng gù; con câm; etc.
Other terms: cháo gà (“cháo gà! Lại đây!”);đồng nát (“đồng nát ơi!”); etc.
In Vietnamese, addressing forms vary with personal pronouns, kinship terms, status
terms, and proper nouns (Luong, 1990; Cooke, 1968; Nguyen,1999; Cu, 2001). For the
first person singular reference, there are five common pronouns (i.e.toi, tao, ta,to,minh),
and five pronouns for plural forms with the addition of “chung” to the singular form
(i.e.chung toi, chung tao, chung to,chung minh). The third person reference includes four
commonly used pronouns in the singular form and three in the plural form. According to
Ngo (2006: 4), “the use of Vietnamese personal pronouns pragmatically implies either
intimacy/familiarity, among close friends of the same age, or a lack of deference and high
degree of arrogance towards the addressee and/or third‐party pronominal referent of
superior age”.
In conclusion, this section has briefly reviewed the background and the related
issues of addressing terms: Some basic points of language, culture and communication
relationship as well as English and Vietnamese addressing forms in expressing informality
has been touched upon.

13

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

large number of participants in a short time, questionnaire is a quick and efficient
instrument.
The questionnaire served as a main data collection took for the study. They are
written in both English and Vietnamese. Two questionnaires were designed and delivered.
The questionnaires were designed with tables and ready parameters so that informants can
find it easier to tick or number. Besides, there are open questions to seek opinions on:
- Possible addressing forms that express informality in two cultures.
- Possible factors that affect the choice of AFs in two cultures.
- The frequency of addressing forms use.
The questionnaires were made up of two parts: the respondents‟ background information
and the questions.
The respondent’s background information: with two items for the Vietnamese
version and three items for the English version (one more item of nationality) the main
purpose of this part is to limit the research scope. For example, the information given by
the respondents with their responses would help the researcher to see if the gender has any
impacts on the choice of AFs or not.
The questionnaires:
In the first questionnaire:
- Q1: to seek information on possible AFs that the respondent use to express
informality.
- Q2: to provide respondents types of relations in which AFs are used
- Q3: to provide respondent the categories of settings that respondents use the
AFs (based on the Q1)
In the second questionnaire:
- Q1: provides the respondents with a list of AFs with which AFs are used and
categories of frequency that they used. (based on results of the Questionnaire 1)
15

- Q2: the level influence of the factors on the choice of AFs.
3.4. Data collection procedures

P: the factors affecting the choice of AFs
16

The Data collected were tabulated and calculated. The results then were analyzed to
find out the similarities and differences in using AFs to express informality between
cultures.

1
Bare kinship term (Bk)
22 88
2
First name terms (F)
22 88
2
Nick name (T)
19 76
4
Terms of endearment (E)
18 72
5
Demonstrative words (D)
2 8
7
18

It is clearly seen in table 2 that when Vietnamese participants were asked to give
possible AFs to express informality, 100% participants use P to express informality. 60%
participants use nickname. 88% would address people with bare kinship term. 76% use
nick name. First name term is also used by 88%. 76% said that they would employ terms
of endearment, two out of twenty five participants give “đằng này”“đấy” “đằng ấy”,
“ấy” as demonstrative words to express informality.
Question 2: In which relations can those addressing forms be used.
Categories of relations
Responses
N
0
%

9
Table 2: Different relations in which addressing forms can be used to express informality
in Vietnamese
Table 2 demonstrates the findings on relations in which addressing forms can be
used to express informality. The table presents that 88% participants use these terms with
friends to express informality. 76% of the subjects use these terms with siblings. 72% use
these terms with colleagues. 64% use these terms in wife and husband relation. The figures
in the table indicate that out of the 10 relations in which AFs are used, 12 (48 %) of
respondents choose the relations of staff worker and boss, 11(44 %) choose the relation of
neighbor - neighbor and boss and staff worker while 4 (16%) tick the relation of children
19

- parents. None of the participants would use AFs in teacher – student relation and only 2
(8%) of respondents use AFs in other relations to express informality (relation with
boyfriend‟s parents).
Question 3: In which of the settings below can addressing forms be used to express
informality
Categories of settings
Responses
N
0
%
Rank
home
25 100
1
public setting (bus-stop, pub,
supermarket )
22 88
2