VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN HƯƠNG LÝ THE SPEECH ACT OF APOLOGY MADE BY VIETNAMESE EFL LEARNERS: AN INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATIC STUDY (LỜI XIN LỖI CỦA NGƯỜI VIỆT NAM HỌC TIẾNG ANH: NGHIÊN CỨU DỤNG HỌC LIÊN NGÔN NGỮ) M. THESIS Field: English Linguistics Code: 60. Hà Cẩm Tâm Ha noi – 2012 1 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN HƯƠNG LÝ THE SPEECH ACT OF APOLOGY MADE BY VIETNAMESE EFL LEARNERS: AN INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATIC STUDY (LỜI XIN LỖI CỦA NGƯỜI VIỆT NAM HỌC TIẾNG ANH: NGHIÊN CỨU DỤNG HỌC LIÊN NGÔN NGỮ) M. THESIS Field: English Linguistics Code: 60.15 Ha noi – 2012 2 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Content page Declaration i Acknowledgements ii Abstract iii Table of Contents iv List of Abbreviations vii List of Tables viii List of Figures viii Part A: INTRODUCTION 1.
Identification of the problem 1 2. Aims of the study 2 3. Objectives of the study 2 4. Scope of the study 2 5.
Significance of the study 3 6. Method of the study 3 7. Organization of the study 3 Part B: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: Literature Review 4 1. Three-dimension speech acts 8 1.
Classification of speech acts 9 1. Speech act of Apology 10 1. Previous studies on apology 12 Chapter 2: Methodology 14 2. Research design 14 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.
Data collection instruments 15 2. Variables manipulated in data collection instruments 15 2. The content of the questionnaire 15 2. Open-ended Discourse Completion Task Questionnaire (DCT) 17 2.
Results of the MPQ 18 2. Coding system 20 Chapter 3: Findings and Discussion 22 3. Apologies by EFL Learners and English native speakers 22 3. In high power settings (+P) 22 3.
In equal power settings (=P) 24 3. In low power settings (-P) 26 3. In familiar settings (-D) 28 3. In unfamiliar settings (+D) 30 3.
Apologies by English native Speakers and Vietnamese native Speakers 30 3. In high power settings (+P) 30 3. In equal power settings (=P) 32 3. In low power settings (-P) 33 3.
Pragmatic transfer on Learners‘ Apologies 34 3. Pragmalinguistic Transfer 36 Part C: CONCLUSION 1. Implications for Teaching and Learning English in Vietnam 39 3. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies 40 REFERENCES 42 APPENDIXES Appendix A: MPQ Questionnaire (2 versons) I Appendix B: DCT Questionnaire (3 versons) XIII Appendix C: Figure 4 (Apology strategies by EN Speakers and VN Speakers) XIX LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com Appendix D: Figure 5 (Apology strategies by EN Speakers, EFL Learners XX and VN Speakers) Appendix E: The coding system XXI Appendix F: Samples of the coding procedure XXII LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EN: English native VN: Vietnamese native EFL: English as a foreign language L1: First language L2: Second language MPQ: Metapragmatic questionnaire DCT: Discourse Completion Task D: Social Distance P: Relative Power R: Ranking of Imposition Sit.
Strategy LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Mean ratings of social factors by English and Vietnamese informants 19 (n=29) and Vietnamese informants (n=30) Table 2 The use of Strategies with respect to +P (EN Speakers & EFL Learners) 22 Table 3 The use of Strategies with respect to =P (EN Speakers & EFL Learners) 25 Table 4 The use of Strategies with respect to -P (EN Speakers & EFL Learners) 27 Table 5 The use of Strategies with respect to +D (EN Speakers & EFL Learners) 28 Table 6 The use of Strategies with respect to –D (EN Speakers & EFL Learners) 30 Table 7 The use of Strategies with respect to +P (EN Speakers & VN Speakers) 30 Table 8 The use of Strategies with respect to =P (EN Speakers & VN Speakers) 32 Table 9 The use of Strategies with respect to -P (EN Speakers & VN Speakers) 33 Table 10 Apology strategies by EN Speakers, EFL Learners and VN Speakers across the six situations LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Apology strategies in +P settings (EN Speakers & EFL Learners) 22 Figure 2 Apology strategies in =P settings (EN Speakers & EFL Learners) 25 Figure 3 Apology strategies in =P settings (EN Speakers & EFL Learners) 27 Figure 4 Apology strategies by EN Speakers & VN Speakers in the six situations XIX Figure 5 Apology strategies by EN Speakers, EFL Learners & VN Speakers XX LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com Part I: INTRODUCTION 1. Identification of the problem To become effective communicators nowadays, it is essential for English foreign language (EFL) Learners to gain communicative competence. Communicative competence, according to Ellis, ―entails both linguistic competence and pragmatic competence‖ (Ellis, 1994:696). Linguistic competence is the ability to use the linguistic rules of a given language.
Pragmatic competence, on the other hand, is ―the ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context‖ (Thomas, 1983:94). Likewise, Bialystok (1993) claimed that pragmatic competence is the ability to make use of different language functions, the ability to understand the speakers‘ underlying intention; and the ability to modify the speech according to contexts. Recently, increasing attention has been paid to pragmatic competence due to the fact that foreign language learners who have good knowledge of grammar and a wide range of vocabulary but lack sociolinguistic awareness may encounter communicating problems with native speakers because of their incompetence to use sociolinguistic rules properly or interpret those words correctly. Moreover, in accordance with Thomas (1983), native speakers often forgive the phonological, syntactic and lexical errors made by L2 speakers but usually interpret pragmatic errors negatively as rudeness, impoliteness or unfriendliness.
Thus foreign language speakers need to have more than pure linguistic competence in order to be able to communicate effectively in a language and know how a language is used by members of a speech community to accomplish their purposes (Hymes:1972). In other words, it can be justifiably suggested that foreign language speakers need to use the target language in both linguistically and socially appropriate ways. Over the past few decades, language teaching in the world has witnessed a shift from the focus on the development of learners‘ linguistic competence to the development of learners‘ communicative competence. Many empirical studies on learners‘ pragmatic competence on the basis of diverse speech acts have been conducted in variety of cultures and languages to gather information on what appropriate use of linguistic forms in different sociocultural contexts actually comprises (e., Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Blum-Kulka, 1991; Ellis, 1992; Trosborg, 1987, 1995; Yu, 1999a, 1999b, 2005; Shardakova, 2005; Bataineh, 2006, 2008).
Those studies have contributed greatly to a better LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com understanding of the use of linguistic forms in different languages and cultures and further to avoiding cross-cultural miscommunication. On response to this trend, some Vietnamese researchers investigated similarities and differences in the realization of speech acts such as requesting, inviting, disagreeing, greeting, giving and receiving compliments, apologizing, promising made by speakers of English and Vietnamese. Among these speech acts, apology is considered a highly- recurrent and routinized act. Kasper (1996) stated that in any speech community, participants need to engage in remedial verbal action upon committing an offense, that is to apologize.
However, this kind of speech act is still under-researched in Vietnam. Van (2000), Phuong (2000) and Trang (2010) are some of Vietnamese researchers working on this topic up to now. However, their studies mainly compared and contrasted the realization of apology between two groups of language, English and Vietnamese. Native Vietnamese speakers‘ speech act behavior which can influence Learners‘ performance of the target language was understudied.
Thus, gaps are still there to fill in pragmatics, especially in the interlanguage speech act of apology. In this study the aim is to compare the speech act of apologies among EN speakers, English EFL learners and VN speakers. Aims of the study This study aims at identifying Vietnamese EFL learners‘ deviations linguistically in the production of apology in relation to English native speakers in the contexts studied. In particular, the study attempts to find out how much Vietnamese learners of English can approximate native speakers in the apology strategy use as well as responding to contextual factors involved in the contexts.
Objectives of the study The study will uncover the deviations in using apology strategies by Vietnamese EFL learners in some contexts studied. Particularly, it uncovers: 1) differences in the use of apology strategies by EN Speakers and Vietnamese EFL Learners. 2) differences in the use of apology strategies by EN Speakers and VN Speakers. Scope of the study Due to limited time, it is impossible to cover all interlanguage pragmatic matters.
This study just focus on the language used by Vietnamese learners of English in formulating in the speech act of apology in relation to the three social parameters (P, D and R) in the LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com contexts studied. In other words, the survey concentrates on verbal communication. Moreover, the survey mainly considers the acceptance of apologies and ignores all the cases where apologies are refused. As a result, the theoretical frameworks applied to this study are pragmatics and the speech act theory.
Significance of the study This study will be an attempt to fill in a gap in the area of interlanguage pragmatics where learners‘ production of linguistic acts has not taken into consideration enough. Thus, the study will be a reference material for not only English language learners to improve their knowledge on the interlanguage pragmatics but also their communicative competence. Method of the study Quantitative is mainly used in this study. In other words, all the conclusions and considerations are based on the analysis of the empirical studies and statistics processed Chi-square test.
In addition, such methods as descriptive, analytic, comparative and contrastive are also utilized to describe and analyze, to compare and contrast the database so as to bring out differences in using apology strategy by English and Vietnamese speakers. Organization of the study This study is divided into three parts as follows: Part A is the introduction of the study including the identification of the problem, the aims, the objectives, the scope of the study, the significance, the research method as well as the organization of the study. Part B contains 3 chapters. Chapter 1 reviews the theoretical issues relevant to the study including pragmatics, speech act theory and some previous studies on interlanguage apologies.
Chapter 2 discusses issues of methodology and outlines the study design, data collection instruments, reliability and validity test of the data collection instruments, procedure of data collection, selection of subjects and analytical framework. Chapter 3 presents the data analysis and discusses the findings on the choice of apology strategies used by EN speakers, EFL learners and VN speakers in relation to the variables of Power (P), Social Distance (D) and Ranking of Imposition (R) in the contexts under studied. Some pragmatic transfer on interlanguage apology is also mentioned in this chapter. Part C provides an overview of major findings and interpretations, implications, limitations and suggestions for further research.
LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com Part B: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter provides overview of the theoretical background of the research. It is divided into three main sections.1 discusses the key notions of pragmatics Section 1.2 discusses the speech act theory and its categories. This is followed by section 1.3 in which some previous studies on interlanguage apology are discussed. Overview Since Morris‘s original definition, there have been numerous attempts to explain pragmatics.