MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A. THESIS

A STUDY ON ENGLISH POLITENESS STRATEGIES FOR
DECLINING INVITATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE
VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS
(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ CÁC CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ BẰNG TIẾNG ANH
KHI TỪ CHỐI LỜI MỜI VỚI CÁC LIÊN HỆ TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TRONG
TIẾNG VIỆT)

TRẦN THỊ THÙY LINH

Hanoi, 2016


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A. THESIS

A STUDY ON ENGLISH POLITENESS STRATEGIES FOR
DECLINING INVITATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE
VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS
(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ CÁC CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ BẰNG TIẾNG ANH
KHI TỪ CHỐI LỜI MỜI VỚI CÁC LIÊN HỆ TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TRONG
TIẾNG VIỆT)

TRẦN THỊ THÙY LINH


Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to my family, my friends for
the sacrifice they have devoted to the fulfillment of this academic work.

ii


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I hereby declare that this thesis “A STUDY ON ENGLISH POLITENESS
STRATEGIES FOR DECLINING INVITATIONS WITH
REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS is my own
piece of academic work and all the sources that I have used or quoted have
been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. This
research has not been previously submitted for any degree at this or any
other universities.
Ha Noi,2016

Tran Thi Thuy Linh

Approved by
Supervisor

Assos. Prof. Dr. Vo Dai Quang
Date………………………..

iii


ABSTRACT
The present thesis has been carried out on the background of the
achievement and deficiences in the existing studies on both English and

categorized into caring function, conversational function and making
declining invitations function. The present thesis is investigated from the
perspective of addresser. Further studies can take the perspective of the
addressee as a complementary part to better comprehend the invitations.

v


ABBREVIATIONS

e.g : Exempli gratia (for example)
etc : et cetera
DCT : Discourse Completion Task
D : Difference
E:

English

ELT : English Language Teaching
FTA : Face Threatening Act
FRA : Face Respecting Act
H:

hearer

HUBT: Hanoi University of Business and Technology
MPQ:

Metapragmatic Questionaires


Table 3.1 Situation investigates in DCT questionare……….…

50

Table 3.2 Summary of distribution of the informants under
study………………………………………………………….…
Table 3.3

51

The total number & frequency of NPS in declining by the

VietNamese and English informants…………………..

52

Table 3.4 NPS leading rates used in declining invitations by the
VietNamese

and

English

seen

from

the

informant’s



TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................. i
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY .............................................................ii
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1 .INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1
1.1 Rationale ..................................................................................................1
1.2 Aims of the research ................................................................................2
1.3 Objectives of the research ........................................................................2
1.4 Scope of the research ...............................................................................3
1.5 Significance of the study .........................................................................3
1.6 Organization of the Study ........................................................................3
Chapter 2 .LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 5
2.1 Review of previous studies ......................................................................5
2.1.1General studies of politeness and cross-cultural pragmatics .................9
2.1.2 Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness .................................. 10
2.1.3 John Langshaw Austins definition of communication ..................... 11
2.2 Review of theoretical background .........................................................12
2.2.1. Pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics .........................................12
2.2.2 Generalization of Speech acts ............................................................14
2.2.2.1. Definitions of speech acts ...............................................................14
2.2.2.2 Classification of speech acts ............................................................16
2.2.2.3 Direct and indirect speech acts ........................................................18
2.2.3 Theoretical background .......................................................................19
2.2.3.1 Politeness strategies .......................................................................... 19

viii


5.3 Implications of the study .......................................................................60
5.3.1 Implication for foreign language teaching and learning.....................61
5.4 Limitations of the study .........................................................................62
5.5 Suggestions for further studies ..............................................................62
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
APPENIX B

QUESTIONAIRE

x


Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale
It is often said that to master a foreign language is difficult. Because
enormous vocabulary and profound understanding in grammar are not
enough, having certain understandings of the culture where that language is
spoken is a must. Let take English and Vietnamese as an example. There are
differences in the use of language between English and Vietnamese. To
immerse into the culture and daily life of the target language is necessary in
order to comprehend wholly that language. In other words, learning a
language means learning the culture of the country where that language is
spoken. Acquiring a second language demands more than learning new
words and another system of grammar (Levine and Adelman, 1982). The
goal of learning a language, these days, is to be able to carry out effective
communication. Communication, however, may fail to achieve as there is
lack of certain understandings of the country where that language is spoken.
There are “unwritten rules” being potentially confusing and creating

avoid making mistakes, and to some extent, it will be a contribution to the
study

of

cross-cultural

pragmatic

understanding

and

effective

communication.
1.2 Aims of the research
The thesis is aim at helping Vietnamese learners of Enghlish as a
foreign language to gain a better understanding of these strategies
commonly employed for declining invitation in English and with the
knowledge gained they will be able to use them effectively in daily
communication.
1.3 Objectives of the research
In order to achieve mentioned above aims, the following objectives are
put forward:


To point out the English politeness strategies commonly employed

for declining invitations

the study, significance of the study.
Chapter 2 is the “Literature review” which provides the readers with the
literature review of the research, attempting to present the theoretical
background including general understanding about language learning

3


process, and overview of ostensible invitations in English and Vietnamese:
major linguistic features and commonly employed politeness strategies.
Chapter 3: is the “Methodology” this chapter focuses on presenting
research questions, research participants, research procedure, data
collection, as well as methods of analysis.
Chapter 4: is the “Finding and discussion” this chapter presents the results
gained in survey questionnaires and observation and discusses the
similarities and differences in how declining invitations speech acts are
made in English and then compare them to those performed by Vietnamese
as well as the influence of three variables to the choice of declining
invitation forms of two groups of participants.
Chapter 5: is the “Conclusion” this part provides conclusions on each of
the objectives, implications for using ostensible declining invitations in
conversation and suggestions for further research.

4


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter begins with an overview of pragmatics, moves on to

three central strategies: disapproval, complaints and warning. When the
speaker is of lower status than the hearer, he/she tends to choose less
5


confrontational

strategies

(disapproval

and

complaint);

when

the

interlocutors are equals or the speaker has higher social status, they tend to
use complaint and warning strategies. This finding would seem to have a
psychological basis and therefore more general validity. People who are in
a higher position or have more power feel more confident and thus dare
to complain to or warn subordinates, whereas those of lower status do
not want to take a risk by expressing strong complaints, fearing for their
job or the relationship.
Complaining styles can differ according to gender and between
native and non-native speakers.

Geluykens and Kraft (2007) studied

speakers of English and non-native speakers who are ESL students do
so. Non-native speakers used desirable, mitigating features significantly
less frequently than native speakers and displayed a higher frequency of
6


undesirable rude and impolite features. Non- native speakers tend to lack
mitigating devices and use impolite expressions instead. It is unsurprising
that native speakers are able to use language to negotiate conflict situations
in a mitigating manner, although the level of skill varies with the
individual. Interestingly, no relationship between pragmatic skills and
proficiency level among the non-native speakers could be found in her
study. According to her, this confirms the assumption that pragmatic
competence is not automatically linked to proficiency in the grammatical
and lexical spheres. It may also be understood as an argument for the
importance of explicit pragmatic instruction.
Another type of experimental

study compared

politeness

behaviour among speakers of several different languages. In their
study on “Cross-cultural and situational
behavior”,

Blum-Kulka

variation


only one-third opted out, or in other words preferred to say nothing.
They expected that the findings would confirm the previous studies
finding that Israeli society appeared to be more direct and positive
politeness
oriented,

oriented,
and

British more indirect

American

falling

and

somewhere

negative

politeness

in between.

On

the

contrary, the results show that the differences among the three groups

may takeprecedence over lengthy face-saving expressions. In this study,
observation of natural discourse shows how the seminar room may
become a place where different politeness strategies are appropriate,
perhaps to be set by the professor or discussion leader. This would create
real-life variation that conditions the ideal model of Brown and Levinson.
However, it is generally true that power and the degree of imposition affect
strategies used in interaction. Natural methods have also been applied to
studying the relationship between language use and cultural stereotypes.
Edstrom (2004) cites studies that attribute a high level of frankness and
directness to native Spanish speakers. Observing the conversations of
Venezualans, she found more direct expressions of disagreement than
indirect ones. Her findings thus confirm those of previous studies that
Venezuelans are confrontational when disagreeing. She would explain this
as the nature of the culture. This brings to mind various books written on
cross-cultural communication for people who will do business or move to
live in another country, so that they will be equipped to understand the
culture and prepare themselves in advance.
One disadvantage of the natural method is that it is often hard to collect
data on different groups (L1/L2 speakers) or across cultures, so comparison
is not systematic.
2.1.1General studies of politeness and cross-cultural pragmatics
In the studies discussed here, experimental studies involve crosscultural comparison of speech acts between native and non-native
speakers, or between speakers of different languages. Studies employing
natural methods seem to deal mainly with L1. We will see how speakers
9


with

different

disagree with Leech, who argues that both principles, i.e. CP and PP
(Politeness Principle) are basically coordinated (Leech 1995: 80). They
point out (1987: 5) that politeness must be expressed in a clear way, i.e.
openly manifested.
To substantiate this claim, they invoke Goffman’s notion of a ‘virtual
offence’ (1987: 33) which is supposed to predict that “the non10


communication of the polite attitude will be read not merely as the absence
of that attitude, but as the inverse, the holding of an aggressive attitude.”
To draw a contrastive parallel with CP, it means that one does not set out to
look for a possible interpretation of an utterance as polite, contrary to what
it communicates at face value. This contrasts with the way the mechanism
of looking for an alternative interpretation works in the case of
conversational implicatures, interpreted as cooperative contributions at a
deeper level despite superficial flouting of the CP. Brown and Levinson’s
example of ‘Shut your mouth’ demonstrates this clearly – there is hardly
any possibility to read it as an expression of polite attitude.
To get straight to the core of Brown and Levinson’s theory,
understanding their notion of face is essential.
2.1.3 John Langshaw Austins definition of communication
According to J. L. Austin (1962), communication is a series of
communicative acts or speech acts. These speech acts are used
systematically to accomplish particular communicative purposes.
Austin had prepared a series of lectures to be delivered at Oxford and
Harvard. A posthumous reworking of these notes is the seminal book
entitled How to Do Things with Words. In his book, Austin (1962:11)
explores performative utterances. Consider the following utterances:
“I do (sc. take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife)” – As uttered
in the course of the marriage ceremony.

ground between them. This ground is now considered the territory of
pragmatics, of meaning in context. Austin emphasizes his claim that only
the verbs used to describe illocutions can be used as performative verbs.
2.2 Review of theoretical background
2.2.1. Pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics

As the study is centered on the speech act of invitations in terms of
cross - cultural perspective. It is, therefore, necessary to look at some basic
information on what is called pragmatics and cross - cultural pragmatics.

12


Pragmatics, since its appearance, has excited great attention from many
leading linguists. Enormous efforts have gone into reaching a satisfactory
definition of this linguistic phenomenon.
The notion of pragmatics is clarified by Richards, Platt, & Webber (1992,
p.284) as follows:
Pragmatics includes the study of:
How the interpretation and use of utterances depend on knowledge of
the real world;
How speakers use and understand speech acts;
How the structure of sentences is influenced by the relationship
between the speaker and the hearer.
Of the above issues, the study of speech acts is considered to be of high
importance to pragmatics.
Yule (1996, p.3) defines pragmatics as follows:
Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning.
Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning.
Pragmatics is the study of how more get communicated than is said.

something. When people produce utterances, they often perform actions via
those utterances. These actions are called speech acts: such as apology,
complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, or request. A speech act is part
of a speech event. The speech act performed by producing an utterance,
consists of three related acts including locutionary act, illocutionary act and
perlocutionary act. They are listed as follows:
Locutionary act is the basic act of producing a meaningful linguistic
expression. The locutionary act is performed with some purposes or
functions in mind.
Illocutionary act is an act performed via the communicative force of an
utterance. In engaging in locutionary acts we generally also perform
illocutionary acts such as informing, advising, offer, promise, etc. In
uttering a sentence by virtue of conversational force associated with it.

14