Statement of problem and rationale
In communication using a appropriate addressing forms is the first step to a successful conversation How people address each other is not only a matter of creating intimate atmosphere but also the aspect of social and culture expression One important issue in studying communication is to learn how individuals manage to open conversations or how people may address one another in a given language English users (not native speaker) are faced with different factors that make them feel unconfident when learning and using English especially when using addressing forms
In an attempt to decrease learners‟ errors especially students‟ errors in using addressing forms, the researcher aims to find out the similarities and differences in the use of addressing forms in informal way as well as the factors that affect the choice of addressing forms in Vietnamese and English speaking cultures.
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.
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?
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
In order to achieve the aims of the study, the main method is quantitative which is mainly relies on:
Statistics, description and analysis of the collected data
Significance of the study
The study is hoped to be a useful source for both pedagogical and research purpose Specifically, equipped by the outcomes of the study, language teachers and learners may find the subject matter no longer complicated but motivating uses of AFs to express informality in English so that English learners can understand deeply addressing forms and can be confident in using addressing forms successfully.
Structure of the thesis
The thesis consists of five chapters, organized as follows:
Chapter one is written to introduce the background to the study and statement of the problems It also presents the aims, the research questions, research methodology, significance of the study and the design of the thesis
Chapter two presents a review of theoretical background that is relevant to the study It presents the definitions and discusses the relation of culture, language and communication
All key terms of addressing forms and informality as well as some common features and factors affecting the choice of addressing forms are also mentioned
Chapter Three states the methodology used in the study Therefore, research questions are revisited, the information about subjects, the data collection instruments, the data collection procedures and the data analysis
Chapter Four discusses the outcome of the data analysis
Chapter Five is the conclusion to the thesis.
LITERATURE REVIEW
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 communicate with each other because they had a common language and they live in the same time and place”
Obviously, there are many ways to define culture Culture, in short, can be comprehended as a shared learned behavior that is transmitted from one generation to another independently of biological genes, for the purpose of promoting individual and social survival, adaptation and growth and development However, one point noticeable from the definition by the above mentioned scholars is that the majority of them see the concept of “culture” from perspective of another concept, which is “communication”
“Communication” as defined by Richard (et al.1992:64) is the exchange of ideas, information, etc between two or more persons The sender(s) [speaker(s)][transmit(s)] message to the receiver(s) [listener(s)]” Communication is an effective tool for people to cooperate with each other in the process of development Samovar (2007), in his study, shows that “human communication is the process through which individuals-in relationships, group, organization, and societies-respond to and create messages and adapt to the environment and one another” (p.23) Both scholars see communication as an exchanging process which creates a common ground (as the outcomes of the process) understood by all concerned
Like the flawless transition, culture and communication intertwine with each other and it is easy to conceive that culture is communication and communication is culture In a sense, cultures are the “residue” of social communication Without communication and communication media, it would be impossible to preserve and pass along cultural characteristics from one place and time to another One can say, therefore, that culture is created, shaped, transmitted, and learned through communication The reverse is also the case; that is, communication practices are largely created, shaped, and transmitted by culture Considering the opinion of Smith (1966), he states that:
“In modern society, different people communicate in different way, as do people in different societies in the world; and the way people communicate is the way they live It is their culture Who talks with whom, How, And about what? These are 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 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
Language, culture and communication are different things that cannot be separated
Language is surely the most important tool of communication that individual have at their disposal This is because it is language that permits people to communicate The purpose of acquisition of language as proved by Chomsky is for communicative purpose That is why human communicate perfectly using Language means Other means of Communication have several weaknesses, therefore human language is the best means of reflecting culture through communication
Addressing forms
2.2.1 Addressing forms and their definitions
According to Jack C Richards, J Platt and H Platt (1999:6), addressing systems (address forms, address terms) are understood as: The word or words used to address somebody in speech or writing The way in which people address one another usually depends on their age, sex, social group, and personal relationship
Addressing forms are words and phrases used for addressing They refer to the collocutor and thus contain a strong element of deixis (Braun, 1988) They are words or linguistic expressions that speakers use to appeal directly to their addressees (Taavitsainen and Jucker, 2003) It is true that people use addressing term to address each other in almost all occasions However, it is also true that sometimes it is not necessary to use them when people involved in the face-to-face communication know each other well
English addressing system is much simpler than Vietnamese one It is because of this that in English system, there exists a neutral dyad “I-You” which is used in communication as “prefabricated units” “Prefabricated units,” means that these units can be used in any context and with anyone It can do so because “I” and “you” do not include in themselves any information of age, gender or family relationship, etc In comparison with English terms, the use of Vietnamese terms of address in actual communication is more intricate As Luong (1990:5) points out: “Both the use and the meanings of Vietnamese person-referring forms are saliently and inextricably linked to the power, solidarity, and formality dimensions in the relations among the addressor, addressee, as 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), 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
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 suggested that there is a correlation between the social structure or ideology and address forms Brown and Yule (1989:54) argued that “in different social contexts different terms of address will be used.”As Lyons (1977) pointed out, the use of address forms by a social inferior to a social superior differs from the forms used between peers These studies have provided a good beginning for understanding how social factors affect the use of addressing forms in diverse languages and how the addressing behaviours differ between languages and cultures
Wardhaugh (2006) also notes that a variety of social factors usually governs our choices of terms Among these social factors are the particular occasion, the social status or rank of the other, sex, age, family relationships, occupational hierarchy, transactional status, such as a doctor-patient relationship or priest-penitent, race, and the degree of intimacy
Brown and Ford (1964:238) explained: sometimes we use TLN; sometimes we use FN,
LN or Diminutives, or other variables of phonetics
Using first name of someone […] does not only express the solidarity, FN can be used among the close colleagues (even they do not like each other) and FN even uses for the officials, or when expressing the disdain or admiration
Sharing the same concern about AFs, Brown and Ford (1964) stressed on the time the interlocutors know each other and the solidarity Holmes and Meyerhoff (2002, p.78) pointed out many different ways of addressing people in English depending on the level of politeness and closeness Dewi (2008) held the view that people use address terms not only to determine addressees but also to show formal and informal manners and consideration for them In other words, by employing a certain address term, the speaker wants to express his or her feeling of respect, solidarity, and intimacy to the addressees An address term may be friendly, unfriendly, or neutral; respectful, disrespectful, or comradely (Nordquist, 2009)
From the above points of view, it can be concluded that the use of addressing forms depends on the power, solidarity, and formality of dimensions in the relation between 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.
The use of addressing terms to express informality in English and
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 …
- 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 …
- Multiple names (MNs) These two address terms are divided into three groups:
- Nonreciprocal exchange of TLN and FN
According to Holmes and Meyerhoff (2002, p.78) there are many different ways of addressing people in English depending on the level of politeness and closeness For instance, Ervin-Trip (1972/1986) cites a real life example in which a white policeman, after learning a black psychologist‟s social identity, still insists on addressing him as “boy” instead of „Dr.‟ to insult him Therefore, speakers, by manipulating the addressing forms system, may position themselves and express their attitude of respect or contempt, intimacy or distance, toward the addressee as well as position the addressee
2.3.3 The use of addressing forms to express informality in Vietnamese
The addressing system in Vietnamese, as in many Oriental languages, is very complicated In Vietnamese addressing system, there is no equivalent to I-YOU that is used as a prefabricated unit in English The addressing forms I-YOU in English do not imply age, gender, social power, attitudes and feeling in it whereas in Vietnamese, the addressing terms change according to age, gender, personality, social status, family relationship, the degree of respect, familiarity, formality and intimacy between the speakers
Phan (2006), has listed a number of terms that Vietnamese address each other, a summary of which is as follows:
Personal pronouns especially second-person pronouns: bạn/các bạn; mày/chúng mày; bồ; anh; em; trò; bay/tụi bay; etc
Personal names: Hùng ơi; này Thụ; ông Phương; etc
Professional titles: ông luật sư; anh trạm; cô giáo ơi; etc
Formal titles: Ngài; Ông; ect
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.
METHODOLOGY
Research questions revisited
To clarify the use of addressing forms to express informality, the study raised specific questions below:
1 What are the major similarities and differences in using addressing terms to express informality in English and Vietnamese?
2 What are the factors that affect the choice of AFs in expressing informality in two cultures?
Selection of participants
The study was carried out with the participation of 50 respondents in total, 25 Vietnamese and 25 English native speakers respondents The informants were asked to give information about their age, and nationality (for English native speakers respondents) because these factors may affect their choice of addressing forms The information they supply is useful for the explanation of differences in the responses
By English respondents, the research aims at people from three English speaking countries, which are the US, UK and Australia The respondents were chosen randomly
When carried out the survey, the researcher faced with the fact that it is not easy to find 25 English native speakers as respondents However, thanks to the helpfulness and enthusiasm of many friends who are post- graduate students and human resources managers, this was managed.
Data collection instruments
To answer the research questions, apart from personal experience as a Vietnamese native speaker, the author decided to use questionnaire as the method of data collection
In comparison with others research instrument, collecting data my means of questionnaire is more objectively and at a relatively low cost In order to obtain information from a 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
- 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)
- 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)
- Q2: the level influence of the factors on the choice of AFs.
Data collection procedures
The data collection was collected in two stages described as below:
As stated above, there were two questionnaires, which were English and Vietnamese versions Then the two questionnaires were piloted with a group of six respondents, three Vietnamese and three English native speakers With the suggestion for wording and expression, the questions were then edited so any ambiguities, obscurities and confusions could be limited Based on that, the second version was designed before actually used
Questionnaire 1 was distributed to Vietnamese by the researcher herself Before completing the questionnaire, any unclear points were explained right away An e-version of the questionnaire was sent to English native speakers respondents by email (with the help of people who are post- graduate students and human resources managers) These respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire and sent back to the researcher via internet
Stage 3: designing and delivering questionnaires 2
Based on the data collected from questionnaire 1, questionnaire 2 was develop and then distributed to two groups of respondents in the same manner
In this stage the researcher encoded the respondents‟ questionnaires then listed the study points: first point (1st P): possible AFs, 2nd P: categories of relations (based on the 1st P), 3rd P: categories of settings (based on the 1st P)
4 th P: list of AFs and frequency that respondents used (base on the 1 st P in the first questionnaire)
5 th P: the factors affecting the choice of AFs
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.
Data analysis
4.1 Results from the questionnaires 4.1.1 Vietnamese responses
As indicated in figure 1, 60% of Vietnamese respondents were men and 40% were female
Question 1:AFs that may be used to express informality
Table 1: Different addressing forms that may be used to express informality in Vietnamese
Terms of endearment (E) 18 72 5 Demonstrative words (D) 2 8 7
RESULTS AND DISCUSTIONS
Discussion of the findings
The previous section has presented in detail the data collected by means of two questionnaires This section will present discussion of those data
The use of AFs to express informality in Vietnamese:
Results show that a greater percentage of the participants prefer the use of
“pronoun”; this is followed closely by “bare kinship term”, and “first name terms” This, however, varies depending on such factors as „manner of communication‟, „age‟ and
„gender‟ and „setting‟ that the participants involved For instance, table 1 and table 2 show that there is a tendency on the part of participants to address one another with P– a term for informal occasions or setting, hence the greater percentage for the use of such form
Further analysis of the data suggests that those that would use AFs at home or public settings are those who often or very often use P with the others
Regarding the frequency of AFs use, the majority of Vietnamese choose very often and often as their frequency of expressing informality More importantly, the choice of
AFs to express informality is clearly affected by such factors as „manner of communication‟, „age‟, „gender‟ “length of time people have known the other” and
„setting‟ Three other factors seem to have little influence on the choice of AFs, namely
“finance power”, “education”, and “social status”
The use of AFs to express informality in English:
Among AFs that are often used to express informality in English, „pronouns‟ are the most popularly used AFs in English; next come „standard short form of name‟, „terms of endearment‟ „Bare title‟, „slang‟, „nick name‟ are less favoured
Data collected from the English native speakers respondents show that the settings where AFs expressing informality are more commonly used in English are “public settings” and “home” “Work place”, “library” are less likely to be suitable settings for informality “Age” is the settings that do not affect much on the choice of AFs of English native speakers respondents However, female English native speakers have tendency on using more AFs to express informality than male
Concerning factors that affect the choice of AFs in English, it is noted that the most common factors that affect the choice of AFs are “length of time you have known him/her”, “manner of communication” and “settings”
4.3 Major similarities and differences in the use of AFs to express informality in Vietnamese and English speaking cultures
As mentioned earlier in Chapter 2, the Vietnamese addressing system is quite different from that in English This section will reflect the similarities and differences in the use of AFs to express informality in Vietnamese and English
In terms of the number of AFs used to express informality
Data collected from the two groups of respondents shows that the Vietnamese AFs, in comparison with those in English, are quite different First and foremost is the personal pronoun In Vietnamese, there is a diversity of second-person pronouns expressing different levels of informality (52% of informants very often use, 48% often use) For instance Vietnamese can use “mày/ chúng (bọn) mày; con/thằng này/kia” to show either intimacy like “Mưa rồi, mày ạ!” or contempt like “con kia, mang nó vào đây” On the contrary, in English, there is only one second-person pronoun “you”, and it can be used in every communicative circumstances Analysis of the data suggests that the use of „bare kinship terms‟ in Vietnamese (32% of informants very often use, 68% often use), to some extent, is more common than in English (8% of informants very often use, 20% often use)
For example, in Vietnamese language, a stranger person can be addressed by Bk such as
“Cô/chị/bà/bác/dì ơi, cho cháu/em/con 3 lạng nạc vai” hay “Cháu/em thay dầu xe hộ cô/bác/chị/anh với”, but it is not the same in English
In both English and Vietnamese languages “first name terms” are used to address people In Vietnamese, “first name terms” do not only signal familiarity but also some kind of respect Vietnamese never use names to address superior persons, such as parents or older people, when in English speaking cultures people often call their family members by names such as “John, Kate”
Beside using pronouns more frequently, Vietnamese people also use “nick name” to express their informality However, in Vietnamese language, “nick name” is used alone or in combination with a personal pronoun For example, if you want to meet someone you can ask by saying: “Dương vịt ơi, mày có thấy con Hoa đâu không” English addressing systems, like Vietnamese one, use nickname as a short or cute name used by friends or relatives to show intimacy
One noticeable point between Vietnamese and English native speakers respondents is that English native speakers respondents use “standard short form of name” but it is not in Vietnamese English native speakers respondents have tendency to use “standard short form of name” (with 80% of participants may use) such as “Chris” for “Christian” or “Jill” for “Jillian”
One more noticeable phenomenon is that in both Vietnamese and English languages used „terms of endearment‟(72% of Vietnamese informants use and 64% of English languages use) are extensive used To express fondness and influence, both English and Vietnamese often employ terms of endearment like „honey‟, „dear‟, „sweetie‟,
„love‟, „darling‟, „baby‟, „cutie‟, „cưng‟, „anh yêu‟, „(đằng) ấy‟, „cậu‟, „bồ‟, „bạn‟,
Reasons for the differences between English and Vietnamese addressing forms may be the fact that Vietnamese culture is centered on the family Therefore, AFs used in communication are very complicated and often indicate the family relationship
However AFs in English to express informality are larger
Tables 4 and table 10 show the most commonly used AFs in Vietnamese and English
Pronouns are the most commonly used AFs in both languages To be more specific, in English, pronouns, first name terms and standard short form of name are more favored than other AFs and nick name; slang; bare title; bare kinship term can take part in communicative events in some way However, Vietnamese tend to use bare kinship term, pronouns, first name more often than other AFs
In terms of factors influencing the choice of AFs
The factors that speakers of both languages think to affect their choice of AFs are
„manner of communication‟ and „length of time people have known the others‟ (100% of informants in both two groups) Age is considered the most important factor in using AFs in Vietnamese culture (100% of Vietnamese informants) and Vietnamese always base on age to choose the suitable AFs but in English speaking cultures, „age‟ does not influence the choice of AFs very much (only 48% of informants) Besides, when factors and settings change, both English native speakers respondents and Vietnamese respondents tend to change AFs in communicating with the partner Last but not least is the influence of gender on the choice of AFs in both languages Vietnamese has influence on „gender‟ (64% of respondents) but English native speakers has less influence on „gender‟ than Vietnamese (32% of respondents)
4.4 Implications for English language teaching
It is undeniable that there are many pedagogical implications based on the findings of this study for English language teaching (ELT) in Vietnam The current ELT method being applied is the learner centered method However, along with this new method is the old nonnative environment In order to help students develop communicative competence in this intercultural world, teachers are required to provide students with necessary knowledge and skills of not only languages but also social communications, including the use of address terms As mentioned above, English and Vietnamese share some similarities as well as differences in the use of address terms to express informality So as to help students understand and be able to use the address terms to express informality correctly, the lessons on AFs should present the different AFs with their pragmatic meaning and usages Besides, to help students understand the differences in AFs use between the two languages, teachers should facilitate students to access as many authentic materials as possible such as films, story books and newspapers In addition, social cultured factors must be noticed in teaching AFs Furthermore, teaching English should be combined with teaching culture Thus students could apprehend and have an open and approachable view about the other languages and cultures.
Major similarities and differences between Vietnamese and
5.1 Major findings of the study revisited
The paper is an attempt to examine the use of AFs in expressing informality in Vietnamese and English languages from two perspectives, namely: the most commonly used AFs and the factors affecting the choice of AFs to express informality Discussion of the results and the summary indicate certain similarities and differences in the use of AFs in expressing informality The findings show that in Vietnamese the AFs that are most commonly used are „pronouns‟, „bare kinship term‟, and „first name terms‟ Like Vietnamese, English native speakers tend to use pronoun, especially the dyad of neutral “I – You” However English native speakers make sense of emphasis on „standard short form of name‟, „first name terms‟ and „pronouns‟
The selection of AFs to be used is made by both Vietnamese and English native speakers on the basic of three determinants: „length of time you have known him/her‟,
„manner of communication‟ (formal, informal…) and „setting‟ Additionally „age‟,
„gender‟ and settings are also considered by the Vietnamese while English native speakers only pay attention to the „gender‟
Another finding of this study is the relations appear to be a common feature of AFs use between Vietnamese and English native speakers In Vietnamese, AFs are often used in friend-friends relation, between siblings and colleagues whereas in English speaking cultures AFs are often used in parent-children relation, wife-husband relation, children- parents and between siblings Furthermore, this study has unveiled some factors that have influence on the choice of AFs of English native speakers but not of Vietnamese That is student – teacher and parents – children relations
Results show that the three factors: length of time you have known the interlocutor, manner of communication (formal, informal…) and setting (at home, at work) often affect