Lời mời xã giao trong tiếng anh và tiếng việt một số đặc điểm ngôn ngữ học và các chiến lược lịch sự thường được sử dụng

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all those who gave me the possibility to complete this thesis First of all, I am deeply indebted to my beloved supervisor, Assoc Prof Dr Vo Đai Quang for the invaluable support, enthusiastic guidance, and encouragement he gave me throughout my research I am truly grateful to him for his advice and suggestions right from the beginning when this study was only in its formative stage Without his untiring patience in reading the manuscript and clarifying my ideas, the thesis would have never been in the current shape Secondly, I would like to give our thanks to all lectures of Postgraduate Faculty at Hanoi Open University for their valuable teaching and tremendous assistance that have enlightened my study path Thirdly, I am also indebted to the field workers who were kind enough to tolerate the painstaking task of collecting the data Then my thanks also sent to my classmates at the Master Course Class who have taken time and trouble to alert me to errors in my thesis and provided me with useful data on which this thesis is based I also wish to send my sincere thanks to the teachers and students at Hanoi University of Business and Technology, all managers and staff at Binh Minh Company and some foreigners at Hanoi Daewoo Hotel, where I visited in order to gather information for my survey questionnaires Without their help, this study could not have been successful Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to family members whose support and encouragements have greatly contributed to the completion of my study For my little experience and knowledge, I would like to receive more useful comments from lectures and others i DECLARATION I hereby declare that no part of the enclosed Master Thesis has been copied or reproduced by me from any other’s work without acknowledgement and that the thesis is originally written by me under strict guidance of my supervisor Hanoi, 12/ 2013 Supervisor Assoc Prof Dr Vo Đai Quang Candidate Trần Thị Minh Châu ii ABSTRACT The present thesis has been carried out on the background of the achievement and deficiencies in the existing studies on both English and Vietnamese ostensible invitations commonly employed in politeness strategies This thesis tries to understand the phenomenon under investigation from a more extensive perspective through analyzing the Vietnamese ostensible invitations within the Vietnamese context A detailed analysis of ostensible invitation in the English and the Vietnamese culture is presented Through a collection of examples, the properties for distinguishing ostensible invitations from genuine ones are identified Seven categories used to indicate ostensible intentions are analyzed in detail with situations The statistics got from each of the strategies are also analyzed For a speech act to be appropriately performed, certain conditions must be satisfied Yet for the ostensible invitation, these conditions are violated But, though defective, this speech act is successfully performed So it is analyzed how this speech act is successfully performed by violating the felicity conditions By using the questionnaires the author was interested in determining whether factors such as lack of resources such as learning material, under qualification in English as a subject, lack of training in the structure of English and other factors had any influence in the properties for distinguishing ostensible invitations As a kind of a speech act, the ostensible invitation has two expectable perlocutions The possible perlocutions are discussed in the study Then in the next part, the pragmatic functions are categorized into caring function, conversational function and making invitation 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 ostensible invitation More data should be collected from a broader scope The findings of this thesis have profound theoretical and practical meanings on relative topics iii ABBREVIATIONS e.g : Exempli gratia (for example) etc : et cetera CP: Cooperative Principle D: social distance E: event H: hearer HUBT: Hanoi University of Business and Technology MP: Model Person P: relative power PP: Politeness Principle R: ranking of impositions S: speaker (S1): each sentence is assigned a number in the list of invitations provided by the participants Italics type is used for terms and examples iv LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES LISTS OF TABLES Table 1.1: Forms of Ostensible Invitations in English and Vietnamese Table 2.1: Information on the research participants Table 3.1: An overview of results in equal power settings Table 3.2: An overview of results in high power settings Table 3.3: An overview of results in low power settings LISTS OF FIGURES Figure 3.1.a: F o r m s of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese participants: situation Figure 3.1.b: Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese participants: situation Figure 3.2.a: Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese participants: situation Figure 3.2.b: Forms of inviting provided the English and Vietnamese participants: situation Figure 3.3.a: Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese participants: situation Figure 3.3.b: Forms of inviting provided b y the English and Vietnamese participants: situation v TABLES OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS i ABSTRACT iii ABBREVIATIONS .iv LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES v TABLES OF CONTENTS vi PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY AIMS OF THE STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS SCOPE OF THE STUDY METHODS OF THE STUDY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY DESIGN OF THE STUDY PART II: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Review of previous works related to the theme of the thesis 1.1.1 Research on ambiguous invitations 1.1.2 Research on ostensible invitations 1.2 Review of theoretical preliminaries employable for the research 1.2.1 Communicative competence 1.2.2 Context 11 1.2.3 Pragmatics 12 1.2.4 Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness 14 1.2.5 The notion of face 15 1.2.6 John Langshaw Austin’s definition of communication 17 1.2.7 John Rogers Searle’s definition of speech act 18 1.2.8 Speech act theory 19 1.2.9 Approaches to the study of conversation 21 vi 1.2.9.1 Conversation(al) analysis 21 1.2.9.2 Conversational principles 22 1.2.9.3 The cooperative principle 23 1.2.9.4 The politeness principle 25 1.2.10 Terms and Concepts 26 1.2.11 Categories of ostensible invitation in English 28 1.2.11.1 Direct ostensible invitations in English 28 1.2.11.2 Indirect ostensible invitations in English 30 1.2.12 Categories of ostensible invitation in Vietnamese 32 1.2.12.1 Direct ostensible invitations in Vietnamese 32 1.2.12.2 Indirect Ostensible invitations in Vietnamese 33 1.3 Summary 34 vii PART I: INTRODUCTION RATIONALE OF THE STUDY As we all know, the most basic function of language is to communicate In the relationship of language and other factors such as contexts and communicative approaches, politeness factor of language is concerned Experience tells us that as a type of speech acts, ostensible invitation plays a very important role in social life How to distinguish ostensible invitation from genuine invitation in Vietnamese is also important to the addressee, because the communication should be used smoothly In Vietnam, English has now been considered as a tool of international communication, and is used as a second language Vietnamese learners would like to be professionals in various fields, especially communication However, the learners usually face a lot of difficulties in using politeness strategies in communication One of the reasons of these problems lies in the way people perceive and use ostensible invitations Ostensible invitation is a common phenomenon in Vietnam and also a communicative act used in social interaction, which has exposed itself as an interesting topic to many researchers There have been many theoretical contributions to the study of politeness and speech acts by Vietnamese linguists: (Đ H Chau 1987, 1995, N V Lap 1999b, 2000 etc.), and Nguyen Quang (1998:2) states that, “one cannot master a language without profound awareness of its cultural background and in both verbal and non-verbal communication, culture makes itself strongly felt” Lack of sociolinguistic knowledge or pragmatic competence may result in misunderstanding and breakdown in interlanguage communication as speakers from different cultural backgrounds have different assumptions about when, why and how language is to be employed (Trudgil, 1992, p22) Richards et al (1982, p92) also points out in cross-cultural communication, the participant in conversation may interpret the other’s speech acts according to his or her own cultural conventions and expectations, which result in misinterpretations and misunderstanding, or even breakdown of communication All above researchers tried to analyze, compare terms of politeness strategies and speech acts, especially ostensible invitations in English and Vietnamese However, to some extent, they completely fail to achieve their aims This is due to the discrepancy and disparity of this kind of using ostensible invitations in the two languages in terms of structure, form and meaning The matter above has not been comprehensively answered in any studies about politeness strategies before This is the reason why the author decided to make a further study on the topic “Ostensible invitations in English and Vietnamese: Major linguistic features and commonly employed politeness strategies” with a view to providing English learners with some basic knowledge of politeness strategies The author hopes it will be an interesting and helpful material for foreign language teachers and learners and for people who are interested in ostensible invitations in both English and Vietnamese The study will try to establish a cross-linguistic analysis of ostensible invitations in English and Vietnamese AIMS OF THE STUDY The major aims of the study are:
To work out the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese in terms of politeness strategies and ostensible invitations as linguistic expressions
To explore the politeness strategies commonly employed in ostensible invitations in English and Vietnamese
To provide English learners with some basic knowledge of cross-cultural pragmatic understanding of politeness strategies and effective communications RESEARCH QUESTIONS The above mentioned aims can be elaborated into the followings research questions: (1) What are the similarities and differences between the ways in which English native speakers and Vietnamese speakers make ostensible invitations with respect to linguistic features of ostensible invitations? (2)What are the major similarities and differences between the English and Vietnamese people in the employment of politeness strategies for issuing ostensible invitations? SCOPE OF THE STUDY This study is confined to (i) Ostensible invitations perform as linguistic expressions in English and Vietnamese (ii) Strategies for giving ostensible invitations in English and Vietnamese METHODS OF THE STUDY The methods of the study focus on:
Qualitative and quantitative methods: The former is used to collect data (questionnaires and observations) and then describe, interpret and analyze in order to investigate a practical issue in socio-pragmatic features of politeness strategies in ostensible invitations
Comparative method: Throughout the data analysis, the author compares the statistical results (in both English and Vietnamese) to find out the similarities and differences in the use of ostensible invitations in English and Vietnamese SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY The significance of this study can be discussed from two major perspectives: (i) Theoretically, the systematically organized information in the thesis may help learners gain an insight into ostensible invitations in English and Vietnamese from the two perspectives: linguistic features and politeness strategies As can be seen in figure 3.1.b, native speakers of English make two choices of the inviting forms for situation which the speaker and the hearer are in equal power and they are familiar with each other; likewise, Vietnamese ones select two forms to inviting in the same situation First, twenty nine Vietnamese participants (equal to 97%) choose form (using imperatives) to show their friendliness and closeness in situation Some of the typical answers are as follows: 3.2.2 The choice of inviting forms in high power settings Figure 3.2.a Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese participants: situation As can be seen from figure 3.2a, it is clearly that American participants and Vietnamese ones share in the choice of inviting forms for situation in the setting where the speaker and the hearer are equal in power and they are unfamiliar with each other That is, most of the participants invite in the form of imperatives including 29 participants of English (making up 97%), some typical answers provided as: Situation Figure 3.2.b Forms of inviting provided English and Vietnamese participants: situation 39 As can be clearly seen that Vietnamese and English participants differ in choosing inviting form for situation where the speaker has more power than the hearer and they are unfamiliar with each other English participants make three choices in this situation: six participants make invitations in form of performative sentence with A subject (20%); some of the answers are as follows: 40 3.2.3 The choice of inviting forms in low power settings Situation Figure 3.3.a Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese participants: situation As seen in figure 3.3.a that native speakers of English make two choices and Vietnamese native speakers make three choices in the situation where the speaker has less power than the hearer First, 90 % of English participants choose the form of imperatives with please added in most cases such as ( Figure 3.3.b Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese participants: situation 41 As can be seen from Figure 3.3.b English and Vietnamese participants greatly differ in choosing the inviting forms for situation where the speaker has less power than the hearer Fifteen English participants (accounting for 50%) choose the forms of performative sentences with a subject to express their respect to the teacher Some of the typical answers are as follows: 3.3 Discussion As mentioned in chapter two, there were two research questions raised during the process of data analysis 1) What are the similarities and differences between the ways in which English native speakers and Vietnamese speakers make ostensible invitations with respect to linguistic features of ostensible invitations? (2)What are the major similarities and differences between the English and Vietnamese people in the employment of politeness strategies for issuing ostensible invitations? In this part, after the results from survey questionnaires were introduced, the discussion of these two research question was about to be made: 42 3.3.1 Research question 1: What are the similarities and differences between the ways in which English native speakers and Vietnamese speakers make ostensible invitations with respect to linguistic features of ostensible invitations? The data analysis above provides some interesting information about the ways native speakers of English and Vietnamese native speakers making and choosing the suitable forms of invitations over three groups of settings: equal power settings, high power settings and low power settings, covering six situations From the data analysis, a lot of similarities and differences can be seen in the ways of making invitations between Vietnamese and English participants with respect to linguistic features of ostensible invitations 3.3.1.1 Similarities The very first similarity shared by invitations made in both languages is that the performative verbs invite and mời is used in some forms of inviting The verb invite occurs in the English data twenty one times and mời appears in Vietnamese data fifty times; however, they are are used in different forms In English data, the performative verb mainly appears in the form of performative sentence with subjects such as I would like to invite you to our party this weekend By contrast, the word mời is mostly used in the form of performative sentence without a subject such as Mời đến chung vui với lớp em! (Invite you to come and have fun with our class!) 3.3.1.2 Differences Beside all common features discussed above, there are various dissimilarities in making ostensible invitations in English and Vietnamese First, from results of survey questionnaires, it is apparent that direct inviting in Vietnamese employs more structures than that of English namely invitations in form of performative sentence with or without a subject, declarative sentences, and imperatives, while Vietnamese indirect invitations goes around just performative sentence with subject, and imperatives In terms of directness and indirectness, through survey statistics, Vietnamese tends to be more direct when extending invitations as a matter of fact, the 43 proportion of direct forms chosen by Vietnamese participants are quite larger than those of English ones namely in situation 1, 4, and The difference is due to indirect invitations in English can cause face-threatening to the hearer In some cases appeared in the answers of English participants, elliptical yes/no questions are used in situation such as Have a drink here? or This table?, but they not appear in Vietnamese participants' answers 3.3.2 Research question 2: What are the major similarities and differences between the English and Vietnamese people in the employment of politeness strategies for issuing ostensible invitations? In the former part, similarities and differences in the ways English native speakers and Vietnamese native speakers making invitations employed This part is about to discuss the employment of strategies for issuing ostensible invitations of three social variables to the choice of inviting forms by two groups of participants in each situation PART III: CONCLUSION Finally, part III of the thesis is about shortly to take a look at what are presented in the thesis as well as give additional information related to the study It is comprised of two small parts: (1) recapitulation, major conclusions on the objectives, implications of the study and (2) limitations of the study and suggestions for further research Recapitulation, major conclusions on the objectives and implications of the study 1.1 Recapitulation The focus of this study was on the differences and similarities in English and Vietnamese ostensible invitations The literature review of the thesis is based on the theoretical background of speech acts, politeness strategies, the existing theory on pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics, categories of ostensible 44 inviting in English and Vietnamese through previous researches as well as books on linguistics and English learning The data for analysis was provided by two groups of participants: thirty English native speakers and thirty Vietnamese native speakers The study employs two data collection instruments: survey questionnaires and personal observation, which survey questionnaire is the major one The survey questionnaires consisting six situations were delivered to thirty Vietnamese and thirty English participants The study aims to find out the similarities and differences between the ways English and Vietnamese making ostensible invitations As a result, two research questions are addressed: (1) What are the similarities and differences between the ways in which English native speakers and Vietnamese speakers make ostensible invitations with respect to linguistic features of ostensible invitations? (2)What are the major similarities and differences between the English and Vietnamese people in the employment of politesness strategies for issuing ostensible invitations? Data analysis methods in this study are statistics, comparing and contrasting The invitations provided by two groups of participants were classified according to forms of inviting existed in the ostensible invitation utterance to find how much percentage of English participants and Vietnamese participants use a particular form in each situation After the results were presented, the discussion to answer two research questions were made, and some implications of the study was introduced 1.2 Major conclusions on the objectives Basing on the data analysis of invitation speech acts provided by English and Vietnamese participants as well as the discussion of similarities and differences the ways two groups of participants making ostensible invitations and the influence of three variables to the choice of inviting 45 forms by English and Vietnamese participants, the study now comes to review the major conclusions on the objectives recorded from the study 1.2.1 Conclusion on objective one: First of all, the study work out the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese in terms of syntactic analysis employed politeness statgies Vietnamese participants employed more invitations structures than those of English participants Specifically, Vietnamese speakers used seven forms of inviting including performative sentence with a subject; performative sentence without a subject; declarative sentences; imperatives, Wh-questions; Yes/no questions; and tag questions whereas English ones got five forms including performative sentence with a subject; imperatives, Wh-questions; Yes/no questions; and tag questions Another major finding is that Vietnamese participants are more direct than English in terms of using more direct forms of inviting (161 out of 180 invitation utterances by Vietnamese participants are in direct forms in comparison to 116 out of 180 by English ones) The reason is that direct invitations in English are face-threatening 1.2.2 Conclusion on objective two: The second major of the study is to explore the politeness strategies commonly employed in the way English and Vietnamese people make ostensible invitations is affected by three factors: social distance (or intimacy), power relations (i.e social status or age) between the speakers, and impositions (i.e threats to each other’s negative face) negotiated by interlocutors In addition, the most popular forms of inviting in Vietnamese are imperatives and performative sentence with a subject Moreover, English participants sound more polite in their invitations in comparison with Vietnamese ones tend to be imperative in order to establish friendliness In some settings like in situation (between classmates), situation (between the sales manager and a foreign customer), English and Vietnamese participants found to be nearly similar in the choice of inviting forms 46 1.2.3 Conclusion on objective three: In order to provide English learners with some basis knowledge of cross cultural pragmatic understanding of politeness strategies and effective communication It is essential for teachers to make students aware of cultural similarities and differences of making ostensible invitations in Vietnamese culture and the cultures where the target language is spoken Teacher should distinguish and highlight which forms of invitations, in other words, when and they are used in informal situations as well as formal ones Through that, students can get to know clearly the functions of this speech act in order to use it effectively in daily interactions It drives the students to be more confident when they make and keep the conversations with other people, especially those who come from English speaking countries This is important because teachers themselves are making every effort to qualify our students for using English for communication 1.3 Implications of the study As mentioned in the former part, perceiving the similarities and differences about invitation- making speech act can be discussed from two major perspectives: (1) on the one hand, the results of the study contribute to further explication of the linguistic (2) on the other hand, the study serves a good number of applied purposes Under some aspects of contrastive view into making invitations both in English and Vietnamese, the study is about to discuss some implications for Vietnamese learners of English This study also contributes to different domains of applied linguistics Aspects of language use in general, and socio-pragmatic aspects of language in specific, could be and should be employed in language teaching programs These will, no doubt, help the second language learners in communication, translation, literary criticism, and a good number of other ways The least they is to ensure that the so-called pragmatic failures will not occur Having mastered the specific function of a given utterance, a translator will find it exceptionally easy to find the most appropriate equivalents in the target language Knowledge of invitation formulas will help translators, 47 especially those involved in the translation of texts with heavy cultural and social orientations Film daubers will also benefit from studies of this kind In addition, because many research projects have focused on the written aspects of language, it is vital to carry out research with the aim of explicating the nature of spoken language Studies of this kind will undoubtedly enable us to find out the different forms and functions of spoken language Now, it was plain that studies concerning the communicative aspects of language, one of which is the investigation of ostensible invitations, had to be carried out to provide the theoretical bases upon which language teaching could be safely founded Furthermore, interpreters will also find the results of this study of great interest The results pave the way for successful choice of equivalent structures They will also provide these people with insights as to the cultural aspects of language they must be able to take care of in their career Finally, playwrights would also benefit from studies of this kind Most of them start writing a drama without the vital knowledge of the communicative aspects of language The end result will then be failure for the writer and disgust for the audience Needless to say, the only way to stand aloof from such tragic situations can be found in studies of communicative competence Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies Although similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese invitations in terms of cross-cultural perspective have been investigated so far in the thesis, it cannot cover all the aspects relating to such broad cultural and linguistic convention like inviting and its related issues As a result, further researches can further find out more about this topic Here are some suggestions: 1) Evaluation of ostensible invitations with the aim of outlining their semantic and syntactic patterns The thesis has been completed with greatest efforts However, during the making of the thesis, shortcomings and mistakes are inevitably unavoidable Therefore, sympathetic comments and suggestions are highly appreciated 48 REFERENCES In English 1.Austin, J.L (1962) How to Do Things with Words Oxford: Oxford University Press 2.Bach, K & Harnish, R 1979 Linguistic Communication and Speech acts Cambridge: Mass.: MIT Press Brown, P, & Levinson, S (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in LanguageUsage Cambridge University Press Chomsky, N 1968 Language and Mind New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Cobuild, C (2001) English grammar (T.Y Nguyen, Trans.) Ho Chi Minh City: Ho Chi Minh City Publishing House Duong Hai Dang (n.d) Direct Invitations in English and Vietnamese Ho Chi Minh City: Ho Chi Minh City University of Education Press Grice, H P 1975 "Logic And Conversation." in Speech Acts eds P Cole, and J Morgan, vol of Syntax And Semantics New York: Academic Press Hornby (2003) Oxford Advanced Leaner’s Dictionary Oxford University Press Invitation (n.d) Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.Retrieved April, 15, 2012, from http://dictionarycambridge.org/results.asp?Searchword =invitation & x = 23 & y =14 Hymes, D 1967 "Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Setting." Journal of Social Issues 23(2): 8-28 10 Isaacs, E A., and H H Clark 1990 "Ostensible Invitations." Language in Society 19(4): 493-509 11 J C., Platt J., Webber H (1992) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics Oxford: Longman 49 12 Lakeoff 1973 The logic of politeness; or, minding your P's and Q's 1973: 199 13 Larkin, D., and O’Malley, M H (1973) Declarative sentences and the rule-of-conversation hypothesis, in Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp 306-19 14 Leech, G 1983 Principles of Pragmatics London: Longman 15 Lyons, J 1981 Language, Meaning, And Context London: Fontana 16 Le Thi Mai Hong (2008) Politeness strategies in requests and invitations: A comparative study between English and Vietnamese, Pragmatics essay Dalarna: Högskolan Dalarna University Press 17 Levine, D.R ,& Adelman, M.B.(1982) Beyond Language- Intercultural Communication for English as a Second Language New Jersey: Prentice Hall 18 Luu Quy Khuong (2007) An investigation into spoken direct invitations in English and Vietnamese Retrieved April,11, 2012 from http://www.khsdh.udn vn/zipfiles/so23/23khuong_luu - 20quy _ loi _moi_truc_tiep.doc Makinginvitation in Vietnamese.(nd) Retrieved April, 25, 2012 from http://vietnamese learning.com/2156/making-invitation-in-vietnamese 19 Nguyen, Quang (1998) Intercultural Communication CFL, Vietnam National University- Hanoi 20 Nguyen Thi Kim Quy (2004) A Cross-Cultural Study on Inviting and Responding to Invitations in Vietnamese and English Ha Noi City: Ha Noi University Press 21 Richards, J., Platt, J & Platt, H (1992) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics London: Longman 22 Rivers, Wilga M (1981), Teaching Foreign Language Skills, 2nd ed., Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press 23 Rudoff Carnap 1942 Introduction to semantics Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 24 Sampson 1982 Language and linguistics Oxford University Press: 1982 50 25 Searle, J R 1975 "Indirect Speech Acts." in Speech Acts, eds P Cole and J Morgan, Vol of Syntax and Semantics New York: Academic Press 26 Thomas, J 1983 "Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure." Applied Linguistics 4(2): 91-109 27 Van Dijk, T A 1977 Text And Context: Explorations in the Semantics And Pragmatics of Discourse London: Longman 28 Tillitt, naturally B., & Bruder, Speaking N.B (1999) USA: Cambridge University Press 29 Tran Yen Bao Tran (2009) Direct Invitations and Indirect Acceptance Structures In English and Vietnamese Retrieved April, 20, 2012 from: http://khoaanh.net/_upload/CA2009/Direct_invitation-indirect_acceptance%20T ran%20Yen%20Bao%20Tran%204A.pdf 30 Wolfson, N 1989 Perspectives: Sociolinguistics And TESOL New York: Newbury House Publishers 31 Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press 32 Nguyen Van Trong thesis (2012)" making invitation in English and Vietnamese" In Vietnamese 33 Cao Xuân Hạo (1991) Tiếng Việt sơ khảo ngữ pháp chức Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Xã Hội 34 Đỗ Hữu Châu 1987 Ngữ Pháp Chức Năng Dưới Dưới Ánh Sáng Của Dụng Học Hiện Nay Ngôn ngữ số & 35 Khải Hưng (1988) Nửa Chừng Xuân Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Văn Học 36 Khải Hưng (1994) Tuyển tập truyện ngắn Hải Phòng: Nhà Xuất Bản Hải Phòng 37 Le Huy Lam (2000) Đàm thoại tiếng Anh tình Ca Mau City: Ca Mau Publisher 38 Nam Cao (nd) Lão Hạc Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Giáo Dục 51 39 Nguyễn Văn Lập (1999b) PhépLịch Trong Tương Tác Ngơn Ngữ Tạp chí Phát Triển KHCN, ĐHQG TP HCM Tập 2- số 6&7 40 Nguyễn Văn Lập (2005) Nghi thức lời nói tiếng Việt sở lý thuyết hành vi ngôn ngữ (so sánh với tiếng Anh) Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh: Đại Học Khoa Học Xã Hội Nhân Văn Đại Học Quốc Gia Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh 41 Nguyễn Quang (2004) Một Số Vấn Đề Giao Tiếp Nội Văn Hóa Giao Văn Hóa NXB Đại Học Quốc Gia Hà Nội 42 Nguyễn Quang(2002) Giao tiếp giao tiếp Văn hóa NXB ĐH Quốc gia HN 43 Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (2007) Dụng học Việt ngữ Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Đại Học Quốc Gia Hà Nội 44 Thạch Lam (2000) Dưới bóng hồng lan Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Giáo Dục Viện Ngôn ngữ (1994) Từ ñiển tiếng Việt Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Giáo Dục 52