Tài liệu Apology strategies in english by young vietnamese efl learners and young americans

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN VÂN ANH APOLOGY STRATEGIES IN ENGLISH BY YOUNG VIETNAMESE EFL LEARNERS AND YOUNG AMERICANS (Chiến lược xin lỗi bằng tiếng Anh của người Việt học tiếng Anh và người Mỹ) M.A. MINOR THESIS Field: English Linguistics Code: 8220201.02 HANOI – 2021 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN VÂN ANH APOLOGY STRATEGIES IN ENGLISH BY YOUNG VIETNAMESE EFL LEARNERS AND YOUNG AMERICANS (Chiến lược xin lỗi bằng tiếng Anh của người Việt học tiếng Anh và người Mỹ) M.A. MINOR THESIS Field: English Linguistics Code: 8220201.02 Supervisor: Dr. Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa HANOI – 2021 DECLARATION I certify that the work in this dissertation has been carried out by me to the best of my knowledge. No part of this thesis was previously presented for another degree or diploma at this or any other institution. Hanoi, November 2020 Signature Nguyễn Vân Anh i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor – Dr. Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa. I am grateful to have been accepted as your student in this MA coursework program. If it had not been for your precious guidance and continuous motivation, I might not accomplish this thesis. I wholeheartedly appreciate and wish to thank all the American and Vietnamese respondents for their willingness to complete the data in the questionnaire, as long as attending the interview for the present study. I from the bottom of my heart also would like to express my thanks to my family and friends for their devoted encouragement without which I would not be able to complete this study. Hanoi, November 2020 Nguyễn Vân Anh ii ABSTRACT The present study “Apology strategies in English by young Vietnamese EFL learners and young Americans” investigates differences in the use of apology strategies between young Vietnamese EFL Learners and young American via a Discourse Completion Task questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of fifteen situations with the contribution of forty informants whose age range is from 22 to 30 years old. The exhaustive frameworks of apology strategies proposed by Holmes (1990) and Trosborg (1995) were the foundation for this study. Findings reveal little disparity is seen between the two groups, as they used very similar apology strategies in the same contexts. Among the strategies employed by the informants, giving an expression of apology was highly preferred to use along with other strategies. Furthermore, a further interview with the attendance of three Vietnamese EFL learners and three Americans was conducted to dig in interviewees‟ comments about the questionnaire. All interviewed Americans agree that to be more genuine, when giving apology, the nonnative speakers should explain for their offence. The accomplishment of the thesis is hoped to serve as a useful source of reference for researchers in related fields, Vietnamese teachers and learners of English. It is cemented by the important findings that incorporating culture into the teaching of English is inevitable. The Vietnamese EFL learners, as a result, should be provided with both linguistic and cultural input. iii LIST OF ABRREVIATIONS A Americans Ack An acknowledgement of responsibility Apo An offer of apology Bla Accepting the blame Con Concern for the hearer DCT Discourse Completion Task Des.Apo Recognizing hearer as deserving apology Ex.Apo Explicit expression of apology Exp An explanation or account For A request for forgiveness Lac.Int Expressing lack of intent Pro A promise of forbearance Reg An expression of regret Rep An offer of repair/redress Sel-Def Expressing self-deficiency Sit Situation Str. Strategy V Vietnamese EFL Learners iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ......................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................iii LIST OF ABRREVIATIONS ................................................................................. iv LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1 1.1. Rationale ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................. 3 1.3. Research questions ................................................................................................. 3 1.4. Scope of the study .................................................................................................. 3 1.5. Significant of the study.......................................................................................... 3 1.6. Organisation of the thesis ...................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 6 2.1. Speech acts ............................................................................................................. 6 2.1.1. Definition of speech acts .................................................................................... 7 2.1.2. Classification of speech acts .............................................................................. 7 2.2. Speech act of apology ............................................................................................ 9 2.2.1. Definition of apology ......................................................................................... 9 2.2.2. Apology strategies ............................................................................................ 10 2.2.3. Politeness ........................................................................................................... 13 2.3. Previous studies about of speech act of apology .............................................. 15 2.4. Summary ............................................................................................................... 17 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 18 3.1. Methods of the study ........................................................................................... 18 v 3.2. Theoretical framework ........................................................................................ 18 3.3. Participants ........................................................................................................... 19 3.4. Instruments ........................................................................................................... 20 3.4.1. Discourse completion task (DCT) .................................................................. 20 3.4.2. Interview ............................................................................................................ 24 3.5. Data collection procedure ................................................................................... 25 3.6. Summary ............................................................................................................... 26 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ................................................. 27 4.1. Main strategies and sub-strategies by young Vietnamese EFL Learners and young Americans ........................................................................................................ 27 4.1.1. Main strategies by young Vietnamese EFL Learners ................................... 27 4.1.2. Main strategies by young Americans ............................................................. 28 4.1.3. Sub-strategies by young Vietnamese EFL Learners and young Americans ....................................................................................................... 29 4.2. Sub-strategies by young Vietnamese EFL Learners and young Americans in each situation ............................................................................................................... 31 4.2.1. Sub-strategies in situation 1 (Meeting) ........................................................... 31 4.2.2. Sub-strategies in situation 2 (Salary) .............................................................. 32 4.2.3 Sub-strategies in situation 3 (Zoo) ................................................................... 32 4.2.4. Sub-strategies in situation 4 (Flashcards) ....................................................... 33 4.2.5. Sub-strategies in situation 5 (Plagiarism) ....................................................... 34 4.2.6. Sub-strategies in situation 6 (Book) ................................................................ 35 4.2.7. Sub-strategies in situation 7 (Restaurant) ....................................................... 36 4.2.8. Sub-strategies in situation 8 (Curfew) ............................................................ 37 4.2.9. Sub-strategies in situation 9 (Stepping foot) .................................................. 38 4.2.10. Sub-strategies in situation 10 (Camera) ....................................................... 38 4.2.11. Sub-strategies in situation 11 (Birthday) ...................................................... 39 vi 4.2.12. Sub-strategies in situation 12 (Vase) ............................................................ 40 4.2.13. Sub-strategies in situation 13 (Wrong size) ................................................. 41 4.2.14. Sub-strategies in situation 14 (Shopping) .................................................... 42 4.2.15. Sub-strategies in situation 15 (Lipstick) ....................................................... 43 4.3. Main apology strategies and sub-strategies distribution across situations ..... 43 4.4. Answers of the interview across four questions ................................................ 50 4.5. Summary ............................................................................................................... 51 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 53 5.1. Recapitulation ...................................................................................................... 53 5.2. Concluding remarks ............................................................................................. 54 5.3. Implications of the study ..................................................................................... 54 5.4. Limitations of the study ....................................................................................... 55 5.5. Recommendations for Further Studies .............................................................. 56 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 57 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. I APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................................... I APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND TRANSCRIPTS ............IV APPENDIX 3: RAW DATA................................................................................. XIII vii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Apology strategies categorized by Fraser (1981) ................................... 11 Table 2.2: Apology strategies categorized by Olshtain and Cohen (1983) ............ 11 Table 2.3: Apology strategies categorized by Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989) ............................................................................................................................ 12 Table 2.4: Apology strategies categorized by Holmes (1990)................................. 12 Table 2.5: Apology strategies categorized by Trosborg (1995) .............................. 13 Table 3.1: Main strategies and sub-strategies ............................................................ 18 Table 3.2: Power and Distance in some situations.................................................... 24 Table 4.1: Main strategies by young Vietnamese EFL Learners ............................ 27 Table 4.2: Main strategies by young Americans....................................................... 28 Table 4.3: Main strategies by young Vietnamese EFL Learners and young Americans ..................................................................................................................... 28 Table 4.4: Sub-strategies by young Vietnamese EFL Learners and young Americans ..................................................................................................................... 30 Table 4.5: Sub-strategies in situation 1 (Meeting) .................................................... 31 Table 4.6: Sub-strategies in situation 2 (Salary)........................................................ 32 Table 4.7: Sub-strategies in situation 3 (Zoo) ........................................................... 32 Table 4.8: Sub-strategies in situation 4 (Flashcards) ................................................ 33 Table 4.9: Sub-strategies in situation 5 (Plagiarism) ................................................ 34 Table 4.10: Sub-strategies in situation 6 (Book) ....................................................... 35 Table 4.11: Sub-strategies in situation 7 (Restaurant) .............................................. 36 Table 4.12: Sub-strategies in situation 8 (Curfew) ................................................... 37 Table 4.13: Sub-strategies in situation 9 (Stepping foot) ......................................... 38 Table 4.14: Sub-strategies in situation 10 (Camera) ................................................. 38 Table 4.15: Sub-strategies in situation 11 (Birthday) ............................................... 39 viii Table 4.16: Sub-strategies in situation 12 (Vase)...................................................... 40 Table 4.17: Sub-strategies in situation 13 (Wrong size)........................................... 41 Table 4.18: Sub-strategies in situation 14 (Shopping).............................................. 42 Table 4.19: Sub-strategies in situation 15 (Lipstick) ................................................ 43 Table 4.21: Strategy A: Explicit expression of apology across situations .............. 44 Table 4.22: Strategy B: Explanation or account across situations........................... 46 Table 4.23: Strategy C: Acknowledgement of responsibility across situations ..... 47 Table 4.24: Strategy D: Promise of forbearance across situations .......................... 48 Table 4.25: Strategy E: Concern for the hearer across situations ............................ 49 Table 4.20: Sub-strategies by young Vietnamese EFL Learners and young Americans in 15 situations ....................................................................................... XIII ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Rationale English is no doubt the international language which is used in almost every country in the world. Since it has become undeniable important, English learners have studied many aspects of that language to apply to a lot of fields of life including communication. The globalization and development of global economy has promoted the valuable opportunities for citizens around the world to interculturally communicate. Although many Vietnamese learners are assumed to be excellent at English grammar system, not many of them are confident that they can communicate correctly and competently when using English as a second language. The reason can be “Communication across cultures is, by definition, problematic, for cultures are systems of symbolic meanings shared by one group yet foreign to another” (Geertz, 1973; Trice & Beyer, 1993) Several years ago, the traditional methods were popular in teaching English, which allow Vietnamese learners to learn and use grammar solely when speaking or producing an utterance. The result was that even they could make grammar-acceptable sentences, their speech seemed to be quite robotic. Fortunately, recognizing the demand for communicative competence, there has been a shift in the teaching and learning methods over the past decade. Many more subjects have been added to the universities‟ curricula with the aim of assisting the learners to better understand about the culture within the language, as Hall (1959) said “Communication is culture. Culture is communication”. However, there has still been a gap between theory and practice, since Vietnamese learners still lack real experiences, which leads to the confusion when interacting with the native speakers. Although having 1 learned the culture, having known the culture, they still find it difficult to apply it in real life because they have the tendency to use the speaking rules from their native speech community when communicating with members in other speech community. They seem to speak English in Vietnamese culture and also express their thoughts basing on their own culture when interacting with foreigners. It has still been challenging to them to determine what to say, where to say, and how to say most effectively in specific situations although they may know the theories or the rules in phonology, syntax, and semantics of English. Realizing that the differences in sociolinguistic rules in society have interfered ESL learners, and have even caused the communication breakdown, there used to be some researchers who have expressed their concern about this field in different speech acts such as thanking, refusing, greeting, complimenting, or those alike. In Vietnam, some research workers also did some investigations about speech acts by using traditional contrastive method in Vietnamese and English in greeting (Nguyen Phuong Suu, 1990), requesting (Do Thi Mai Khanh, 2000; Phan Thi Van Quyen, 2001), or disagreeing (Kieu Thi Thu Huong, 2006). Apologizing, nevertheless, has been under-researched even though it is one of the most-interested topics all over the world. Previously, some research about apology conducted by Cohen, Olshtain and Rosenstein (1985), García (1989), Trosborg (1987, 1995), Bergman and Kasper (1993), Maeshiba, Yoshinaga, Kasper, & Ross (1996) or Rose (2000) showed that when doing the apology, the research subjects have been influenced by their mother tongue. Also, they use apology strategies differently in comparison to the native speakers. It is obvious that there would be variation in how the apologizing is carried out among different human societies because it is a social act. For those reasons, apologizing need to be more deeply-researched. 2 1.2. Aims and Objectives The overall aim is to identify the differences and similarities in apology strategies between young Vietnamese EFL learners and young Americans in order to enhance pragmatic learning and teaching in the English language classroom. To obtain the final aim, two objectives were set. The first objective in the present study examines how young Americans apologize in certain situations. Similarly, apology strategies by Vietnamese EFL learners are also carefully investigated. The other objective attempts to determine how apology strategies by these two groups differ. 1.3. Research questions The study attempts to answer the following questions: 1. In certain contexts, what are the apology strategies used by young Vietnamese EFL learners and young Americans? 2. What are the differences and similarities between young Vietnamese EFL learners and young Americans in the way they use apology strategies? 1.4. Scope of the study In this study, pragmatics and the speech act of theory are the two main applied theoretical frameworks. Due to the time limit, every matter of the interlanguage can impossible to be discussed, which means the study will only focus on the language use in apology strategies of young Vietnamese EFL learners and young Americans in 15 situations. Moreover, the DCT will mainly concentrate on verbal communication in the use of the speech act of apology by the speakers/wrongdoers. Therefore, it is beyond the scope of this study that whether or not the hearers accept the apology. 1.5. Significant of the study Some previous research about speech acts of thanking, promising, arguing, or convincing have been undertaken, which presented the results that 3 there are differences in strategies between native and non-native speakers. In addition, speech acts conducted in different cultures also have shown dissimilar results. Apology is considered a sensitive part but very popular in daily life; however, it has been under researched in Vietnam. Therefore, an investigation into apology strategies in English with two groups of participants – young Vietnamese EFL learners and young Americans will bridge the gap in the literature because other speech acts have been investigated fully except this. With the hope of contributing to studies in speech acts, the finding in this research will be a reference material for not only teachers but also learners or textbook writers. In addition, with the finding in this study, English language learners may be able to improve their communicative competence and avoid the communication breakdown more effectively. 1.6. Organisation of the thesis The study is divided into four chapters as follows: Chapter 1 is the introduction of the research including six sub-parts: Rationale, Aims and Objectives, Research questions, Scope of the study, Significant of the study, and Design of the study. In Chapter 2, the review of literature is clearly demonstrated. In details, relevant theories of the study about speech act theory, and some recent research on apology strategies are reviewed. Chapter 3 presents the method and procedures of the study. In this chapter, the stages of the research progress including selection of methods, theoretical framework, subjects, data collection instruments, and data collection procedure are described. After that, the data analysis and discusses are presented in Chapter 4. 4 In Chapter 4, the results are objectively and clearly discussed, compared, and interpreted before leading to the conclusions. Chapter 5 is the conclusion of the research including 5 sub-parts: Recapitulation, Concluding remarks, Implications of the study, Limitations, and Recommendations for Further Studies. A summary of the development of the study and a brief re-statement of the findings are demonstrated in the Recapitulation and Concluding remarks. Then, two pedagogical implications are discussed. In the Limitation sub-part, some so-called shortcomings and their suggested practical solutions are be mentioned. A statement of unanswered questions that requires further research beyond the limits of the study is shown in Recommendations for Further Studies. 5 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, the theoretical background of the research will be presented into three main parts. The first section will discuss the theory of speech act and its categories. Some notions about speech acts of apology and the way they are classified by different researchers will be discussed in section 2, together with the relation between the act of apology and the concept of politeness. The final part in this chapter will be about some previous studies about of speech act of apology. 2.1. Speech acts In his first theory, Leech (1983) categorized pragmatics into two types. The first type is pragmalinguistic, which is major in studying pragmatic strategies, routines, and a variety of linguistic forms to convey communicative actions. The second one has a tendency to be about social perceptions underlying participants‟ interpretation and performance of communicative action, whose name is sociopragmatics. In other aspect, Cohen (1996) put pragmatics into two distinct levels of abilities required for pragmatic competence – sociocultural ability and sociolinguistic ability. The former ability enables language users to choose speech act appropriate for the given contexts; and with the later one, they can choose the actual language forms for realizing the speech act. Speech acts are one of the most vital branches in pragmatics, which seem to have aroused a wide interest, and to have been deeply dug and studied for a quite long time. Speech acts have often been a powerful tool in various fields such as psychology, literature, anthropology, or philosophy. In linguistics, speech acts are applicable in problems in syntax, semantics, second language learning, and so on. 6 2.1.1. Definition of speech acts Because speech acts are a branch in pragmatics, there are also as numerous definitions as pragmatics, based on different researchers‟ approaches. Austin (1962), considered speech acts are acts performed by utterances like giving orders or making promises. These speech acts, considered the basic or minimal units of linguistic communication, are performed in authentic situations of language use. Nunan (1999), when talking about speech acts, suggested that when people communicate with others by issuing utterances, they not only make prepositional statements about objects, contents, and situations, but also fulfill social functions, such as greeting, inviting, refusing, apologizing, complaining, through the use of a string of fabricated words, namely speech acts. 2.1.2. Classification of speech acts Owing to different approaches, each researcher had their own ways of categorized types of speech acts. Austin (1962), in his early work, claimed that a speech act consists of three related acts, namely (a) locutionary act, (b) illocutionary act, and (c) perlocutionary act. The first act – (a) locutionary act, is the basic act of utterance of producing a meaningful expression; or in simpler explanations, it is the act of saying, or the speaker‟s utterance, or the literal meaning of the utterance. For example, the context is a date between speaker A and hearer B. Speaker A came late and said: “The traffic was terrible.”. By arranging the structure of the words, speaker A created a meaningful utterance with an affirmative form of the sentence. By making a locutionary act, the speaker does have some purposes that are expressed in (b) illocutionary act. Illocutionary act is an utterance with some kinds of function in mind, like a statement, an explanation, an offer, or other communicative purposes (promising, apologizing, threatening, 7 predicting, ordering, requesting, and so on). If locutionary act is the act of saying, then illocutionary act is the inside act of utterance. In the example above, the underlying meaning of his utterance might be an apology or an explanation, or both. However, the interpretation of the utterance by the hearer might not be different from what the speaker wish, which leads to (c) perlocutionary act. This kind of act, which is the last part of the speech act, according to Austin (1962), is the influence of the utterance on the hearer, depending on specific circumstances. With the example above, the reaction of hearer B to speaker A‟s utterance might be forgiveness or accusation. Searle (1969), unlike Austin (1962), divided speech acts into five types: (1) Representatives, (2) Commisives, (3) Directives, (4) Declaratives and (5) Expressives, which tend to be the purposes of the utterance. When speaker uses (1) representatives, they have the tendency to state what they believe to be the case or not such as asserting or describing. For instance, when saying “She made a cake yesterday”, the speaker wants to inform the hearer of the information. In type (2) commisives, the speaker commits himself/herself to some future actions. For example, with the utterance “I will pick you up tomorrow”, the speaker is promising. The next type is (3) directives, which is used when the speaker tries to make some effort to have the hearer do something. “How about going out tonight?”, for example, means the speaker is using a suggestion. With type (4) declaratives, I personally tend to feel that it is normally used when the speaker has more power than the hearer, or when the speaker wants to declare something for themselves. For example, the officiant in the wedding tells the groom and bride: “I now pronounce you husband and wife”. The last type according to Searle (1969) is expressives. It is used when the speaker expresses his attitudes and feelings about something, like in the utterance “How beautiful the weather is!”, he is praising the mildness of the weather. 8 Cohen (1996), relatively similar to Searle (1969), categorized 14 speech acts and grouped into five major categories: (1) Representatives (including assertions, claims, and reports); (2) Directives (including suggestions, requests, and commands; (3) Expressives (With the acts of apology, complaint, and thanks; (4) Commisives (Including promises, threats or offers). The last major category is (5) Declaratives which involve decrees and declarations. While the names of these groups may vary in other classifications given by different scholars, the names of the speech acts from Cohen‟s taxonomy seem to have been more widely accepted. Allan (1998) had two ways of classifying speech acts that are probably likely to be the combination of Searle‟s (1969) and Leech‟s (1983) theories. The first way was called “a lexical classification” which distinguishes among speech acts according to the illocutionary verbs the speakers expresses. The second way is based on the act the speaker expresses, such as requesting, apologizing, promising, and so on. However, this kind of classification, personally, is a bit too wide and unfocused. 2.2. Speech act of apology According to Cohen‟s (1993) taxonomy, along with speech act of complaint and thanks, speech act of apology is grouped in expressives, which is used when the speaker desires to show his attitudes and feelings about something. In almost all contexts where L2 is used, there may be a link between culture and pragmatic competence in a second/foreign language. In this case, the need of giving the apology from the speakers may vary from cultures to cultures. Nevertheless, the deep finding about how different cultures affect speakers in perceiving the need of apologizing will not be discussed in this study. 2.2.1. Definition of apology The term “apology” may vary due to the differences in various scholars‟ approaches and cultures. It is also defined according to the functions 9